| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Kevin Brennan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has just implied that the Prime Minister's statements to the House were entirely bogus. Is that in order?
Mr. Speaker: I do not wish to prevent the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford from speaking openly in the House, but if he wished to say the things that he was saying just now about the Prime Minister, he really should have put a motion of no confidence before the House. He has, however, put this motion before the House, and he is now going beyond the terms of the motion. I say to the hon. Gentleman again—I am giving him good advice—that he must be very careful about what he says from now on.
Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you guide me, in accordance with precedent and advice that right hon. and hon. Members have received? I am among those who have received such advice. Can you confirm that it remains the case that, whereas to accuse someone of lying is unparliamentary, the suggestion that a right hon. or hon. Member might inadvertently have given credence to an untruth is entirely parliamentary?
Mr. Speaker: There is nothing inadvertent about what the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford is saying before me. That is different, and I must tell him that it might come to the stage where I have to stop him.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Mr. Speaker, I shall continue to endeavour to avoid any unparliamentary language. I am familiar with the difficulty in which you find yourself, and I recall another famous precedent—that of Winston Churchill, who was once allowed to use the words "terminological inexactitude".
Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. I have almost reached the end of my remarks.
Does it not go to the heart of our democracy that the British people can always trust the office of the Prime Minister? That is surely a legitimate question for me to ask today, and a question that the public who send us here hope that we continually ask ourselves. The Prime Minister himself needs to clear this matter up. He needs to come before the House without delay to make a personal statement and to answer questions on it, so that we can lay this matter to rest, one way or the other, once and for all.
1.9 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
- "notes the importance of confidentiality to effective decommissioning of weapons in Northern Ireland; expresses its gratitude for the professionalism of General de Chastelain and the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning; welcomes the further positive developments in the peace process set out by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in his statement to the House on 22nd October, including the calling of elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly on 26th November; calls on all parties in the House to engage constructively in furthering the peace process in Northern Ireland; and looks forward to further progress after the elections towards the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland on a stable and inclusive basis."
Mrs. Lawrence: In the light of Opposition comments, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the amendment congratulates General de Chastelain on the professional way in which he is handling the issue in Northern Ireland?
Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend is right. We can all read the amendment.
We are always happy to discuss Northern Ireland issues in this place, but I have serious doubts about the appropriateness of the debate at this point and about what motivated the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) to table the motion. You will recall last week's urgent question, Mr. Speaker, during which you had cause—
Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the Minister give way?
Jane Kennedy: Let me make my point first. Then I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
On that occasion, Mr. Speaker, you had cause gently to chastise the hon. Gentleman for making a speech when he should have been asking a question. I recall the occasion vividly, as I replied to the question.
It is a little like "Groundhog Day". I suppose I can take some comfort from the fact that although the hon. Gentleman has had two opportunities to make the speech we have just heard, it is unlikely—if the newspaper reports are correct—that he will have an opportunity to make the same points again from his current position. Let me add, however, that personally I wish him well in the forthcoming reshuffle.
Members will have their own views on the wisdom—
Mr. Davies: Will the Minister give way?
Jane Kennedy: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a few moments, I will give way to him shortly.
As I was saying, Members will have their own views on the wisdom of initiating such a debate in the middle of an election campaign in Northern Ireland. This is a time when the parties and voters in Northern Ireland should be discussing issues among themselves, and it is a time when many Northern Ireland Members would like to be out campaigning. As we are to have a debate, however, I think it right in principle for us here to show restraint during this period, and to avoid becoming part of the election campaign.
It may interest the House to know that this morning the Conservative party launched its own Northern Ireland election campaign. Let me quote from its party political broadcast.
- "I'm asking you to cast your vote on the 26th November for the Conservative Party. We are the only one of the three national parties in the United Kingdom to take part in elections here".
At this point I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Davies: I understand the difficulty in which the Minister finds herself. Hers is the unfortunate role of having to obfuscate and find complete irrelevancies.
The Minister speculated aloud about my motives in raising this issue last week and again this week. Let me put her mind at rest: it has nothing whatever to do with my position in the Conservative party. I would do exactly the same from the Back Benches. I would think it the duty of any Member to raise the issue here if he or she were aware of the facts of which I have become aware as a result of my conversations with General de Chastelain, and of the other evidence I have given the House. That seems to me a fundamental duty. I would be failing in that duty if I suppressed the facts, and did not allow the House to focus on these vital questions.
Jane Kennedy: I suppose we note the hon. Gentleman's comments; but I believe that the great majority of Members hope for a positive and constructive outcome from the election campaign which will lead to the formation of an inclusive Executive in
Northern Ireland. Indeed, I think that in principle that is the hon. Gentleman's position, but I must question—not for the first time—the maturity of his judgment in relation to what he seeks to achieve today.
Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire): Will the Minister give way?
Jane Kennedy: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will make some progress.
Jane Kennedy: As I have said, I want to make some progress.
The campaign unfolding in Northern Ireland is, in fact, focusing on the future, and I believe that in most respects it is predominantly constructive. From all or at least most quarters, we are hearing imaginative and hopeful comments.
A cheap point was made about the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He is not here today, which is why I have the privilege of speaking. He is visiting Canada and the United States to communicate the real progress made in Northern Ireland—including the progress made during the last few weeks—and to thank the Governments and people of those countries for their positive contributions to the Northern Ireland peace process. In Canada, my right hon. Friend has seen the Prime Minister and other Ministers. High on the list of points he has made to everyone he has met there is the vital contribution of General de Chastelain, and indeed that of other Canadians who have been involved in the process.
Since the general's name has been dragged into the debate and his credibility questioned in such a regrettable way by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, let me make it clear that we regard both him and his colleague Mr. Andrew Sens as men of vast experience and expertise.
Lembit Öpik: Whatever the Minister may feel about the Conservative party's motives on this occasion, I must tell her that the Liberal Democrats share some of its concerns. This is not about the credibility or integrity of General de Chastelain. We need to clarify a point that confused not just politicians but many members of the public, who were given the impression that there was information in the Prime Minister's remit that had not been shared with them.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |