Speeches recovered from the Conservative party’s online archive More…

David Davies: Government security plans undermine individual rights

Speech to the National Assembly for Wales.

"The Secretary of State tries to defend a package of measures that will do more to subjugate the rights of individuals than any Government has done since the end of the second world war. He says that it is necessary for our own safety and that only under the Labour Party can we be safe. Just how much confidence can we have in his assessment of threats to our safety?

This is a man who argued for war in Iraq based on a threat to our safety from weapons of mass destruction—and no weapons have yet been found despite a categorical statement from Peter Hain in February last year that they existed.

He then told us that the war was undertaken for humanitarian reasons. Where were the humanitarian actions in Burma, North Korea or the Congo, where 3.3 million people have died over the last few years? He sends the army into Iraq, and allows the cricket team to go in Zimbabwe and, unlike some people, the white and black Zimbabweans being oppressed by Mugabe will not be able to dig up the cricket pitch in protest.

The war on terror, which his Government is fighting, has been a failure on its own terms. Leanne Wood was almost right—561 Muslims have been rounded up by armed police, backed up by live television crews who seemed to know about it in advance.

As far as I am aware, 14 have been charged, but none have been found guilty. Perhaps the Minister will tell us if this was a case of Government incompetence—an inability to find sufficient evidence against terrorists—or were these innocent men victims of a Government propaganda stunt? Perhaps you would like to tell us that before you hand out the compulsory ID cards.

On the subject of propaganda, perhaps you could also tell us whether your Government authorised the security services to talk to the Daily Mail about an apparently thwarted attack on Canary Wharf, a story about which was published on the morning of the Queen's Speech.

Was that a coincidence, or were the security services asked to leak information to a tabloid newspaper? Will the culprits responsible for that be hounded in the same way as David Kelly was?

No rational person could possibly have any confidence in the assertions made by this Minister and his Government. These are the people who voted against or abstained on the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1996 when they were in opposition.

Having had a little taste of power, they will do anything to maintain their grip on it. He gave us a wonderful little soundbite earlier about a Government which was 'not on your back, but on your side' or something to that effect. However, is it not the case that this is a Government which has stabbed liberty in the back, which has put morality to one side and which has lied, and lies at the bottom of the league when it comes to honesty?"

"Mae'r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol yn ceisio amddiffyn pecyn o fesurau a fydd yn gwneud mwy i drechu hawliau unigolion nag y gwnaeth unrhyw Lywodraeth ers diwedd yr ail ryfel byd. Dywed ei fod yn angenrheidiol er mwyn ein diogelwch ni ein hunain ac mai dim ond o dan y Blaid Lafur y gallwn fod yn ddiogel.

Faint o hyder y gallwn ei gael yn ei asesiad o fygythiadau i'n diogelwch? Mae hwn yn ddyn a fu'n dadlau dros ryfel yn Irac ar y sail bod arfau dinistr yn bodoli a fyddai'n fygythiad i'n diogelwch—ac ni chanfuwyd unrhyw arfau eto er gwaethaf datganiad pendant gan Peter Hain ym mis Chwefror y llynedd eu bod yn bodoli.

Yna dywedodd wrthym i'r rhyfel fynd rhagddo am resymau dyngarol. Ble oedd y gweithrediadau dyngarol yn Burma, Gogledd Korea neu'r Congo, lle y mae 3.3 miliwn o bobl wedi marw dros yr ychydig flynyddoedd diwethaf? Mae'n anfon ei fyddin i Irac ac yn caniatáu i'r tîm criced fynd i Simbabwe ac, yn wahanol i rai pobl, ni fydd y Simbabweaid gwyn a du sy'n cael eu gormesu gan Mugabe yn gallu gwrthdystio drwy balu'r cae criced.

Mae'r rhyfel yn erbyn terfysgaeth, y mae ei Lywodraeth ef yn ei ymladd, wedi bod yn fethiant ynddo'i hun. Yr oedd Leanne Wood bron yn iawn—cafodd 561 o Fwslemiaid eu harestio gan heddlu arfog, gyda chriwiau teledu byw yno ar y pryd a oedd yn gwybod am hyn ymlaen llaw yn ôl pob tebyg. Hyd y gwn i, cafodd 14 eu cyhuddo, ond ni chafwyd un yn euog.

Efallai y gall y Gweinidog ddweud wrthym ai enghraifft o anghymwyster y Llywodraeth oedd hyn—anallu i ddod o hyd i ddigon o dystiolaeth yn erbyn terfysgwyr—neu a oedd y dynion diniwed hyn yn ddioddefwyr propaganda'r Llywodraeth? Efallai yr hoffech ddweud hynny wrthym cyn ichi gyflwyno'r cardiau adnabod gorfodol.

O ran propaganda, efallai y gallech ddweud wrthym hefyd a wnaeth eich Llywodraeth awdurdodi'r gwasanaethau diogelwch i sôn wrth y Daily Mail am ymosodiad ar Canary Wharf a gafodd ei atal yn ôl pob tebyg, y cyhoeddwyd stori yn ei gylch ar fore Araith y Frenhines.

Ai cyd-ddigwyddiad oedd hynny, neu a ofynnwyd i'r gwasanaethau diogelwch ryddhau gwybodaeth i bapur newydd tabloid? A gaiff y rhai sy'n gyfrifol am hynny eu herlid yn yr un ffordd ag y cafodd David Kelly ei erlid?

Ni fyddai wedi bod yn bosibl i unrhyw berson synhwyrol fod ag unrhyw ffydd yn yr honiadau a wnaed gan y Gweinidog a'i Lywodraeth. Dyma'r bobl a bleidleisiodd yn erbyn Deddf Atal Terfysgaeth 1997 neu a ataliodd eu pleidlais pan oeddent yn yr wrthblaid.

Ar ôl cael ychydig o flas ar bwer, gwnânt unrhyw beth i gadw eu gafael arno. Rhoddodd ddatganiad bachog bach gwych inni'n gynharach am Lywodraeth 'sy'n gefn i chi yn hytrach nag yn faich arnoch', neu rywbeth i'r perwyl hwnnw.

Fodd bynnag, onid yw'n wir mai Llywodraeth yw hon sydd wedi bradychu egwyddorion rhyddid, sydd wedi rhoi moesoldeb o'r neilltu ac sydd wedi dweud celwydd, ac sydd ar waelod y gynghrair pan ddaw yn fater o onestrwydd?"

Keyboard shortcuts

j previous speech k next speech