Results 1-20 of 41 for terrorism speaker:Patrick Cormack

Parliamentary Standards Bill (29 Jun 2009) has video

Patrick Cormack: I am exceptionally grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for what he said about the Committee's report. This is not emergency legislation such as that relating to terrorism. Without necessarily going down the route of pre-legislative scrutiny, we could quite easily complete the stages of the Bill in October when we come back. Then every Member would have the chance to read the report.

Bill Presented: International Affairs (20 Jul 2006)

Patrick Cormack: ..., I entirely endorse what has been said on both sides of the House about the actions of the Syrian and Iranian Governments, which are utterly indefensible. No one in the House can begin to condone terrorism. On the other hand, at the moment, Israel needs friends who are, above all, candid. It needs people who will say, "Of course we believe absolutely in your right to exist. Of course we...

Northern Ireland Bill (26 Apr 2006)

Patrick Cormack: ...we are encouraged by the good bits, of neglecting the others. There is a clear indication in that report that leading figures on the undemocratic republican side, while they might have renounced terrorism and engaged in a massive act of decommissioning—the latter I accept, and the former I hope that I can accept—are still benefiting from the ill-gotten gains of some pretty...

Orders of the Day — Terrorism Bill: Clause 1 — Encouragement of Terrorism (15 Feb 2006)

Patrick Cormack: As always, my hon. Friend is making his case with great precision and lucidity. Have not the Government recently spent a lot of time in this House trying to distinguish between the sort of terrorism from which we have recently suffered and terrorism in Northern Ireland? A Government who have spent so much time trying to pretend that there are enormous differences between the two are now...

Opposition Parties (Financial Assistance) (8 Feb 2006)

Patrick Cormack: ...You and your colleagues have five seats in the Westminster Parliament. You are entitled to a seat on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. You tell us you are embracing democracy and renouncing terrorism. You tell us that you wish to be treated on all fours with other politicians. Well, then, why don't you take your seats, argue your case, sit on the Committee, and behave like those hon....

Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill (23 Nov 2005)

Patrick Cormack: ...a valuable part in the Select Committee; yet at Weston Park, the Prime Minister pointed out that their words and their influence did not count for as much as that of people who have not eschewed terrorism, because they had relied not on the power of the bullet but on the power of the ballot. That is disgraceful—utterly disgraceful. I do not know whether those people are personally...

Orders of the Day — Terrorism Bill (10 Nov 2005)

Patrick Cormack: .... Gentleman did so because they genuinely had real concerns. It was not, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) so eloquently put it, because they were soft on terrorism. All decent Members of Parliament—I believe that most of us are—are fundamentally opposed to terrorism. We all want to see our Government, and it is our Government—I...

Orders of the Day — Terrorism Bill (10 Nov 2005)

Patrick Cormack: ...to debate the Bill. It might even have been better, within the allotted time scale, to have spent more time on Report and less on Third Reading. We should have been able to debate the definition of terrorism, but we did not. There were other matters that we should have been able to debate properly—including stop and search, on which a new clause had been tabled—but did not....

Orders of the Day — Terrorism Bill (10 Nov 2005)

Patrick Cormack: ...adequate time on the Floor of the House to debate those issues? It is crucial that that should be the case. Let me end where I began. There is a real need for the House to be united in fighting terrorism. That real need, in my view, involves a recognition, in contradiction of a fundamental principle of English law, in a sense, that it is better that one person be detained wrongly than that...

Orders of the Day — Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill — Order for Second Reading read. (31 Oct 2005)

Patrick Cormack: ...and of the democratic process, and they all play a part in it. Those other people do not. Let us be hard-headed about this. There has indeed been a certain renunciation of the more blatant acts of terrorism and murder. Why? One reason is that 9/11 made terrorism utterly unacceptable in the United States of America. From the moment that those planes flew into the twin towers, IRA-Sinn...

Orders of the Day — Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill — Order for Second Reading read. (31 Oct 2005)

Patrick Cormack: Is not the way in which people have behaved towards the McCartney family another aspect of terrorism in the literal sense?

Support For Members Who Have Chosen Not To Take Their Seats (10 Mar 2005)

Sir Patrick Cormack: ...from playing a constructive part, those four Members have been proved time and again to have not only a tainted past, but a tainted present. They have been involved with acts of criminality and acts of terrorism. Although we talk at present of the difference between the suicide terrorist and the IRA terrorist—there is a difference—we should not forget that those who died in...

Support For Members Who Have Chosen Not To Take Their Seats (10 Mar 2005)

Sir Patrick Cormack: ...given an extra minute because of the intervention. I wish simply to stress the point that it is bizarre and ludicrous that we should, on one afternoon, move from the motion to the Prevention of Terrorism Act and treat so differently those whom we have just cause to suspect of terrorist activities.

Orders of the Day — Prevention of Terrorism Bill: Clause 1 — Power to make control orders (28 Feb 2005)

Sir Patrick Cormack: ...day of debate on Wednesday, we could at least have discussed in some detail most of the major aspects of the Bill. It is tragic—I use the word deliberately—that the Prevention of Terrorism Bill has become the prevention of parliamentary debate Bill. I know that people in the country are deeply worried about terrorism; of course they are. I saw, as I am sure almost everyone...

Point of Order (23 Feb 2005)

Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I mentioned to Mr. Speaker that I would raise this point before the debate on the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, because he has overall responsibility for security in the House. Over the past year we have had to introduce new security measures. Some of them, like the screen in front of the Public Gallery, are immediately apparent to visitors, while...

Northern Ireland (22 Feb 2005)

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the Secretary of State realise how absurd it is that tomorrow, when this House debates the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness could be entertaining friends within the precincts, spending the profits of their recent ill-gotten gains and discussing the bloody murders that they have committed in the past? Cannot he express an opinion on that?

Iraq (20 Jul 2004)

Sir Patrick Cormack: ...the House of Commons in general is anti-Muslim, but it is in the interests of all who believe in freedom and democracy and a peaceful world that what is happening in Iraq should succeed and that terrorism should be defeated." As we rise for the summer recess, I hope that we can exorcise the partisan spirit that has been present, perfectly understandably, for much of the debate. I hope that...

Oral Answers to Questions — Home Department: Stop and Search (12 Jul 2004)

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the Minister agree that there would be a public outcry if some terrorist had not been stopped and searched and had subsequently committed an act of terrorism?

Sky Marshals (6 Jan 2004)

Sir Patrick Cormack: I commend the general substance of the Secretary of State's remarks, but why cannot he declare war on jargon as well as on terrorism? Why must the people involved be called sky marshals? Why cannot we use the English language properly and call them armed guards or security guards?