Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: PM’s visit to Manchester, Iraq inquiry, audience with the Queen, forthcoming business, House of Lords reform, Private Member’s Bill, Iraq/Future Inquiry
PM’s visit to Manchester
The Prime Minister’s Spokesman (PMS) said that the Prime Minister was visiting Moss Side, Manchester, where he was meeting community groups involved in tackling gun crime at street level, including discussions with former gang leaders. The event was organised by a group called Street Pastors, and they would further discuss the need for community engagement on this issue.
Iraq inquiry
Asked if the Leader of the House had let the cat out of the bag by suggesting that there would be an inquiry into the Iraq war, the PMS said the Prime Minister had already said he was sure that there would be a time where people would want to look into these issues, but now was not that time, whilst our troops were deployed on the ground.
Audience with the Queen
Asked by Gallery News if the PMS had an answer to their earlier question about whether it was an audience “with The Queen” or “of The Queen”, the PMS replied that after initial research we thought it was audience with The Queen. When journalists disagreed, the PMS said as always we would go back and look again!
Leader of the Commons, Jack Straw, Press Briefing
Forthcoming Business
The Leader said that, on Monday, February 26, the Business would be Opposition Day (7th Allotted Day) - debates arising on Opposition motions on “State of the Royal Navy” followed by “Integrity of the Electoral System”. These would be followed by a motion to approve a Money Resolution on the Sustainable Communities Bill (Phil Woolas leading for the Government). On Tuesday, February 27 - Remaining stages of the Greater London Authority Bill (Yvette Cooper and Jim Fitzpatrick). The House would debate remaining stages of the Offender Management Bill (Gerry Sutcliffe) on Wednesday, February 28. There would be a debate on Welsh affairs on a motion for the Adjournment on Thursday, March 1, marking St David’s Day. On Friday, March 2, the House would deal with Private Members Bills.
The provisional Business for the following week was: Monday, March 5 - second reading of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [Lords]; Tuesday, March 6 - first day of the debate on House of Lords Reform (Jack Straw); Wednesday, March 7 - conclusion of the debate on House of Lords Reform; Thursday, March 8 - a debate entitled “Women, Justice and Gender Equality in the UK” on a motion for the Adjournment; Friday, March 9 - Private Members Bills.
House of Lords Reform
The Leader said that the votes would take place at the end of the debate on March 7. He had announced in the House earlier that he would table the various motions, in draft, on the Order Paper and would be available tomorrow. He had made it clear that he would look at any amendments to them to see if there could be some form of accommodation in the search for a consensus. At present, there would be nine motions - ranging from whether there should be a bicameral House, and then - for a reformed House - whether it should be 100pc appointed, 20pc, 40pc, 50pc, 60pc, 80pc to 100pc elected. There would be a separate motion, irrespective of the view taken of a reformed House, on whether the remaining hereditaries, who had seats in the Lords, should have their places removed.
Asked if the votes would be taken in the order he had just set out, Mr Straw said he was open to persuasion. The Leader made it clear that all the decisions within Cabinet, in respect of the recent White Paper on House of Lords reform, were taken around a “hard table” and were the subject of Cabinet committee and Cabinet papers. There was agreement on the proposed alternative voting system, which he had announced would not now proceed. The Leader said he had not anticipated the scale of the concern about the AV system.
While he was open to persuasion, his view was that, in the current circumstances, the simplest was the best, and everyone could see there was a logic to starting at one end of the spectrum and working through to the other. He was not in favour of the kind of gamesmanship that had happened when the issue was last debate and voted on.
In response to a question, Mr Straw said that the Lords had a role as a revising chamber and, so long as the current division of powers remained (to which all parties were committed), which meant that the House could not veto legislation and had no role in tax and spending, it would be slightly above a party battle in many cases. But there was no way it could be wholly detached from politics. Every decision was a political decision, and the non-party political peers made decisions which were political - which was as it should be in a democracy.
Replying to a further question, the Leader said that one of the effects of the reform that the Government introduced in 1999 had been to make the Lords much more assertive and active. Numbers of peers attending had risen significantly, and the number of occasions when the Government in the Lords had been very, very significant. That was the House, in a sense, doing its job, he added.
Asked if the motion on the hereditaries would propose immediate removal, he said it would not. The Leader said that there was an issue, not specified in the motion, about what should be done about the existing so-called “elected” - the 92 peers. There was a debate about how they could be “converted”. Basically, there were two choices - simply to end the current system of by-elections among the electoral college after the death of one of their number and effectively convert them into life peers; the alternative was to say that they would all lose their seats as hereditaries, but then there would be negotiations with other parties about putting their equivalent in place.
Mr Straw said that there would be a procedural motion before the House with the effect that the normal Standing Order, preventing inconsistent motions being put in succession, is suspended for the forthcoming debate. All nine motions - or whatever the final figure - would be put to the Commons. Therefore, it would be technically possible for that which happened on the previous occasion to occur again - either to vote against all options or to vote for all of them. That was his motive for seeking to use the AV system. The Leader explained that, even if all the options were approved, the one with the greatest percentage of an elected element would be decisive. The AV system was, as he had said, “a perfectly formed aeroplane, but it was just denied fuel”. He pointed out that, whatever the outcome, there would have to be a Bill, when it would be very clearly a “yes, no” decision. He said he favoured the free vote, and the Government would have to take stock afterwards.
He had explained earlier today that he believed that the centre-of-gravity of opinion in the Commons had shifted significantly since the previous occasion. All parties were signed up to a hybrid House. The Leader said he just hoped there would be a clear enough consensus about the way forward. He rejected the suggestion that he would merely engaging in a tactical approach to defer reform until after the next election. He insisted that he would not have put so much effort into it if that were the case. What he had said was that he would take stock after the votes. If there was a very clear decision by the House, then it would point the way forward. What he could not do - because it was a free vote and all three parties were split - was to make a hard prediction about the outcome. If, as he hoped, there was a significant majority in favour of the policies shared by all three parties, then the prospects of getting some legislation were very different from a position where there might be contradictory votes or in the same “train wreck” territory of the previous occasion.
Prviate Member’s Bill
The Leader was asked if the Government would look favourably on a Bill, due on March 2, on temporary and agency workers. Mr Straw said that the Government was looking at the issue.
Iraq/Future Inquiry
The Leader, responding to a question about his earlier comments at a Press Gallery lunch, said he had heard the Prime Minister use words to the effect of what he said on other occasions. He had also pointed out at the lunch that he had recalled the occasion of the previous Franks Inquiry into the Falklands War, which had been a very short war. At that time, there were also no standing mechanisms for holding the Government to account. In relation to Iraq, aside from the Hutton Inquiry into the David Kelly tragedy, the Foreign Affairs Committee had conducted an inquiry, another had been held by the Intelligence and Security Committee and then there had been the Butler Inquiry.
Asked to explain the Government’s position on the issue of the timing, the Leader said it would be “at the appropriate moment”. It was not while UK forces were active in Iraq. Mr Straw said that a large part of the task that had been fulfilled by the Franks Inquiry had already been fulfilled in respect of Iraq. But, he repeated, it was not the moment now for a further inquiry, which he had made clear in his remarks.
Responding to a further question about holding the Government to account, Mr Straw pointed out that there had been a general election in 2005. As Foreign Secretary, representing a constituency like the one he did, he had experienced every minute of the campaign that he was being held to account. He would not accept the suggestion that the Government had not been held to account.
Mr Straw added that, while there were some terrible events in Iraq as the Prime Minister had said, other positive developments were taking place there and across the wider Middle East.
Put to the Leader that his comments differed from the words used by the Prime Minister, he said he did not believe that there was any clear difference. Challenged again, he said he did not believe that there was.
delicious
digg
facebook
