---

Road Traffic Regulations (Consultation)

Mr. Liddell-Grainger accordingly presented a Bill to create full statutory public consultation procedures wheresoever road traffic management schemes are proposed by local authorities: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 November, and to be printed [Bill 174].

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that I recall that rulings have been made from the Chair that votes should follow voices and that, particularly in the case of ten-minute Bills such as the one that we have just considered, it was not the done thing—I put it no more strongly—for people to seek to make a cheap speech opposing a Bill without following it by dividing the House. I do not

5 Nov 2003 : Column 803

necessarily want you to make an instant ruling, but it would help the House to know whether that ruling is indeed still in force, or whether I can now speak against every ten-minute Bill and then not bother to divide the House.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has a good reputation for dividing the House. I remember him doing so at 2 o'clock in the morning when I was a Deputy Speaker, and I was very grateful to him for doing so. We are all on a learning curve from time to time, and I say to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) that the next time he opposes a Bill, if he gently says no, it will allow me to express an opinion that the Ayes have it. He does not need to divide the House, but a voice should be heard when I invite the House to divide.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Put it down to his inexperience.

Mr. Speaker: We all have to learn—even the hon. Gentleman.

5 Nov 2003 : Column 804

Opposition Day

[6th Allotted Day] [2nd Part]

Decommissioning (Northern Ireland)

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the main business. I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

12.48 pm

Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford): I beg to move,

That this House expresses its profound disquiet at the accounts given by the Prime Minister and by General de Chastelain on the issue of whether information on the latest IRA act of decommissioning, additional to that made public, was given by General de Chastelain to the UK and Irish Governments; believes that the credibility of both the Prime Minister and of General de Chastelain are of vital importance in the successful conclusion of the Northern Ireland peace process; and therefore considers it imperative that this matter should be clarified urgently and unambiguously.

Let me start by dealing with the issue of bipartisanship. Over the past two weeks, every time we have raised the issue of the Prime Minister's assurance about the latest IRA act of decommissioning and the conflict between his own statements and those of General de Chastelain, or every time the Government have thought or feared that we were about to do so, a number of Labour Back Benchers, apparently entirely spontaneously, have started to talk about bipartisanship in terms such as "Wouldn't it be a good thing for Northern Ireland if the Opposition could only be bipartisan?"

We have been a responsible Opposition on Northern Ireland, and we shall remain so. We support the Government entirely on their objectives and the Belfast agreement. We have always supported them on tactics when they have done what we thought were the right things. But one thing that the Government and even the Whips and spin doctors in No. 10 surely cannot expect us to do in any circumstances is to be party to a cover-up and acquiesce in a deception of the public. That would be a veritable perversion of bipartisanship. It would be the political class ganging up against the public whom we are all elected to serve. It would be to betray the most fundamental purpose of having a Parliament—to ensure honest and transparent government.

Kevin Brennan (Cardiff, West): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: No, I will not. I am not going to give way to Labour Members at all, for the simple reason that only the Prime Minister can throw light on the questions that I am going to ask. The Prime Minister should be here in person instead of relying on proxies, whether ministerial or from the Back Benches, to try to defend him. Since he alone is in a position to answer these questions, I shall wait until he appears: if he has the courage to do so, I shall certainly give way to him.

The problem that brings us to this debate is simply stated. On 22 October, the Prime Minister, speaking at

5 Nov 2003 : Column 805

Prime Minister's questions about the previous day's act of decommissioning by the IRA, said of General de Chastelain:

"He gives certain information—not the full information, but certain information—to us, as the two Governments. Although we are not at liberty to disclose that information without his permission, we are working hard to try to find a way in which we can do so, because I believe, on the basis of what we know, that people would be satisfied if they knew the full details."—[Official Report, 22 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 634.]

There are two salient points about that answer that the House should note. First, there is the factual, or purportedly factual, statement that General de Chastelain gives, and on this occasion gave, certain information to the two Governments that he did not disclose and that the two Governments are not at liberty to disclose to the public. That is a matter of fact, and on it there was a very clear statement of fact by the Prime Minister. Secondly, there is the assurance, explicitly based on that information, to the effect that, if people knew the details that the Prime Minister knows, they would be satisfied. That is not a factual statement: it is an assurance based on a judgment. But, of course, if no additional information was available to the Prime Minister, that judgment could not in good faith have been made, and the assurance would be worthless, irresponsible and, worst of all, dishonest.

I am afraid that the kernel of the issue that we all have to confront, whether we like it or not, is this: General de Chastelain has said, unambiguously and in every conversation that he has had on the subject over the past two weeks, that he does not give supplementary information to the two Governments and that he did not do so on this occasion. In other words, he has directly contradicted the factual statement made by the Prime Minister in the House on 22 October. He has repeated that at every possible opportunity, including in two extensive conversations with me.

Let me read from a transcript of one such conversation that took place in a meeting in which I was not involved. Several people were present on both sides of the table. There is a formal record of that meeting, which was between General de Chastelain and members of the Democratic Unionist party. "PR" is Peter Robinson, the hon. Member for Belfast, East; "GDC" is General de Chastelain; and "DP" is Dr. Paisley, the hon. Member for North Antrim. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall place a copy of that record in the Library after I have spoken. I quote:

"PR—Did you go beyond the descriptive terms in report or conference when talking to the PMs?


GDC—I gave them no more detail than I have told you.


DP—The governments have no more information on the last reports?


GDC—Unless they are reading something else into the reports.


PR—The 2 governments see certain things. They didn't see it from you?


GDC—They have no more information than what was made public."

In view of the importance of this matter, I shall repeat that last quotation from General de Chastelain:

"They have no more information than what was made public."

The House will be able to compare those words with the Prime Minister's words of the day before and the Wednesday after—21 and 29 October—which I have

5 Nov 2003 : Column 806

already quoted. Let me quote and contrast what the Prime Minister said last Wednesday—29 October—at Prime Minister's questions. He said:

"certain information was given to us by General de Chastelain and I had very much hoped that it would have been possible to provide the full information to everybody."—[Official Report, 29 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 300.]

One could not have a more stark contrast or a more thoroughly documented conflict of words than that.

Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk): My hon. Friend was at Prime Minister's questions today when the Prime Minister said that he had extra duties in this House later today. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of those duties should have been to come here and listen to him? The Prime Minister is the only person who can respond, so surely he should be here now?

Mr. Davies: I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend. A great many people throughout the country will think exactly the same and draw their own conclusions from the fact that the Prime Minister did not want to face up to the points that he knew that I was going to put to him.

Kevin Brennan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although it is the hon. Gentleman's decision whom he gives way to, is it in order for him to accuse Labour Back Benchers of making orchestrated interventions on him, then to give way to a Member on his side of the House having said that he did not intend to give way at all?

---