| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Kevin Brennan : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the intervention of his hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) sums the matter up perfectly: he and his colleagues and Conservative Front Benchers are simply playing with words? The debate is all about semantics rather than about the real politics and the real issues that matter in Northern Ireland.
Lembit Öpik: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman and I have never questioned his genuine interest in Northern Ireland, but on this occasion he has made an error. I have been the Liberal Democrats' Northern Ireland spokesman since 1997, and one thing that I certainly have learned is that sometimes words are absolutely crucial to the meanings, which then impact on actions taken in the Province.
Lembit Öpik: I would counsel the hon. Gentleman to ponder this question. If it turns out that there is an unresolved difference between what the Prime Minister seems to have said and what General de Chastelain seems to have said, does it not necessarily create instability at the heart of the decommissioning process and cause problems for those politicians in Northern Ireland who have sought to bring their sceptical colleagues along with them? On this occasion, the hon. Gentleman may be sincere in his intentions, but he could not be more wrong. It is not about semantics, but about facts.
Kevin Brennan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. If it is not about semantics
and it is not simply a matter of playing with words and making a judgment about the Prime Minister's words, does the hon. Gentleman agree with Conservative Front Benchers' calling into question the integrity of the Prime Minister?
Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman is trying to play word games with me. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, will know that Mr. Speaker called the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford to order on several occasions because he felt that he was implying that the Prime Minister had lied. I do not want to get into a debate about whether the Prime Minister lied. However, I certainly feel misled—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I think that I had better make it clear that I do not believe that any hon. Member is going to use that expression.
Lembit Öpik: I fully respect that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am bound to tell the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) that I am not accusing the Prime Minister of lying. It is a side debate and we could perhaps discuss it in a pub on another occasion. I want to stick to the focus of the debate. I hope that it is in order to say that I feel misled. I feel that there is an unresolved confusion between the statements of the Prime Minister and those of General de Chastelain.
Kevin Brennan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) to say that he feels misled by the remarks that the Prime Minister made to the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I believe that the hon. Member is just about within the bounds of order—I put it no more strongly than that.
Lembit Öpik: I am happy to be hauled up if I go beyond those bounds. Attitudinally, I have always regarded the Prime Minister's intentions with regard to the Northern Ireland peace process as honourable, and I want to emphasise that this is not an effort at character assassination of the Prime Minister—absolutely not: it is an effort to get to the heart of the Northern Ireland peace process.
Lembit Öpik: I shall give way in a moment, but let me finish this point, so that we can move on from talking in detail about the Prime Minister. I do feel misled, and if I feel misled others who are involved in the peace process much more closely than I am will also feel it. The practical consequence of the problem could be observed in what the Ulster Unionist party did. My suspicion is that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was put in a virtually impossible position. It sounded to me as though the Prime Minister was implying that he had information that made him confident, but that he was not able to share it with anyone else.
The substantial question for the Minister is whether she can clarify the confusion once and for all—[Interruption.] She says from a sedentary position that
she has already clarified it, but I am not satisfied that she has. The Liberal Democrats are not putting up any candidates in Northern Ireland and I do not particularly enjoy supporting Conservative Members on their motion, but my commitment to do the right thing causes me to press the Minister to explain once and for all exactly why the Prime Minister used the word "information" when, later in the week, Downing street said that it was only an informed guess.
Angela Watkinson (Upminster): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the exact meaning of words is important in these matters, and that words such as "substantial" and "considerable", when used in statements about the decommissioning of arms, are extremely unhelpful because they are subjective and open to wide interpretation? That led to considerable misunderstanding and unease about what had happened. How can we ever be sure that decommissioning has been complete unless the exact wording is used?
Lembit Öpik: Funnily enough, having criticised the Minister, I am now going to come to the Government's defence. In my judgment, the problem is not the vagueness of the wording on decommissioning. I acknowledge that I differ from the Conservative party on that matter. My view is that if we demanded more specific statistics, the IRA would probably not participate at all.
Mr. Bill Tynan (Hamilton, South) rose—
Lembit Öpik: I shall give way one more time, but then I shall attempt to finish my speech.
Mr. Tynan: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who, as he said, has spoken on Northern Ireland matters since 1997. He has gained a tremendous reputation for fairness in those matters, but does he not accept that it is a major mistake to be involved in discussions on the basis of the Prime Minister making one statement and General de Chastelain making another? How can the problems be resolved when both individuals are saying what they are saying at the present time?
Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman correctly highlights the danger of discussing weapons on the basis of a single source. We have seen the consequences of that problem in debates on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and we can now see it in respect of Northern Ireland. However, there is one difference, which has already been established and which brings me back to my starting-point. General de Chastelain's integrity is not in question here. The Minister went to great lengths to reassure us that the general is telling the truth, and I believe that he is. If that side of the problem has been tidied up—unless the Minister wants to change her statement, I believe that it has—it leaves an unanswered question about the behaviour of Downing street and the Prime Minister.
Various options are open to the Prime Minister to clear the whole thing up. We may have to recognise that General de Chastelain was not the only source from
whom the Prime Minister could have acquired more information. Perhaps he got it directly from Sinn Fein, perhaps from Gerry Adams, perhaps from the IRA. He may even have heard it in a pub. Perhaps he was walking through the beautiful fields of County Tyrone, saw some people digging a hole and went over to see what was going on. Perhaps he had an anonymous tip-off, possibly from the security services, or he saw satellite photographs. Perhaps he had a vision. Clearly, he acquired the information in some way.It would be helpful if the Prime Minister even said, "I did have more information. I cannot tell you from where I got it and I accept that I am asking you to trust me because I am the Prime Minister." That would be better than the present situation, in which we have had no clarification. My appeal to the Minister is to pass on to the Prime Minister a respectful request that he tidies up whether he meant to use the word "information" or not.
Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East): The Prime Minister has already made it clear that he did not get the information in a vision or from the intelligence services. He specifically said in his statement that he got it after his conversation with General de Chastelain. That, therefore, puts all the pressure on him.
Lembit Öpik: That is, sadly, the case, but I am willing to allow the Prime Minister the chance to display human fallibility. After all, he is not a saint, but he is a very decent guy. Even decent people make mistakes, so he could clarify the point without great cost to himself. He might suffer a little embarrassment, but he is big enough to survive that. We have rehearsed the issue enough now. If he meant to say "information", from where did he get it? If he cannot tell us the source, let him at least say so. If he meant General de Chastelain, let him confirm it: if he did not, he needs to explain to all of us that General de Chastelain had nothing to do with the extra information that he claimed to have.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |