Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Spokesman and Leader of the House Jack Straw on: Police Inquiry, Forthcoming Business, Oral Statements/Prior Notice, Trident Debate/Vote, Party Funding Review/Statement, House of Lords Reform/Peers Vote and Zimbabwe Debate
Police Inquiry
Asked whether John Yates had written to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister’s Spokesperson (PMS) said she was not aware of any such letter. Asked the usual police question, the PMS said no. Asked whether there was any response to the continuing investigation, as the Prime Minister had said he hoped the investigation would wrap up as soon as possible, the PMS said we had always been clear that timing of the investigation was solely a matter for the police. Asked whether there was a change to the timing of when the Prime Minister left office, as he had always said he did not want to leave office until this matter had been resolved, the PMS said again the timing was a matter for the police, and she would not get drawn into saying anything further on the matter.
Forthcoming Business
The Leader said that, on Monday, March 19, the debate would be: second reading of the Consumer, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [Lords] (Ian McCartney and Jim Fitzpatrick for the Government), followed by a motion to approve a Ways and Means Resolution on the UK Borders Bill. On Tuesday, March 20: a debate on the Bicentenary of the Abolition of the Slave Trade on a motion for the Adjournment of the House (John Prescott and Meg Munn). Wednesday, March 21 - Chancellor of the Exchequer: Budget Statement; Thursday, March 22 - Continuation of the Budget debate David Miliband and John Healey); Friday, March 23 -Private Members Bills.
Provisional business for the following week would be:
Monday, March 26 - continuation of the Budget debate (Alan Johnson and Ed Balls); Tuesday, March 27 - conclusion of the Budget debate (Alistair Darling and Stephen Timms); Wednesday, March 28 - motion to approve a Statutory Instrument on Casinos, followed by motions relating to House of Commons business; Thursday, March 29 - motion on the Easter Recess Adjournment. The House will rise at the end of Business on March 29 and return on Monday, April 16.
Oral Statements/Prior Notice
Mr Straw said that, in a written Ministerial Statement earlier, he had announced that the Commons Order Paper in future would contain notice of oral statements being made. Where a Minister had indicated an intention to make an oral statement, the practice would be that this would appear as "future business" of the House and on the specific day’s Order Paper. There was one caveat - some statements might have to be withdrawn at very short notice after they had been listed. The new process was intended to be helpful to the House and the media.
Trident Debate/Vote
Asked for his reaction to the outcome of the debate yesterday, he referred to the views he had expressed earlier during Business Questions in relation to attitudes within his party. It was not just a defence and security issue but, in many people’s eyes, one of conscience and morality. He referred to his experiences on an Aldermaston march when he was a teenager. Mr Straw said that some people were straightforwardly unilateralist. But he did not share the view of those who, while not taking the unilateralist stance, said it was appropriate to give up the successor to Trident.
Party Funding Review/Statement
The Leader was asked what he thought the chances were of cross-party agreement and the position of the trade unions in relation to funding. Mr Straw said that, if the parties entered into the proposed discussions in a constructive spirit, where no party should have a veto over the outcome of the talks and each party took into account the circumstances of the others, then he believed an agreement could be reached. He then referred to comments he had made in the course of exchanges on his earlier oral statement on the report by Sir Hayden Phillips. Specifically, he commented on the Opposition’s views previously on trade union funding, including the historical background. The Leader said that the Government would sit down with other parties and Sir Hayden to discuss all aspects of the report.
In response to further questions, he accepted that the issue of trade union funding was a consequential issue which needed to be resolved, but it was not the main issue. The fundamental problem was the scale of the spending "arms race" which, as Sir Hayden had reported, had led to a large increase before the last election. The second problem, in terms of public perception, was large-scale individual donations which were opaque. Thirdly, there was the use of completely opaque third party organisations.
Mr Straw referred further to the issue of trade union donations to the Labour Party, and said that he was ready to discuss this with other parties. But it had to be in the context that any change to party funding - as stated by the report of the Constitutional Affairs Committee - "must not stray into prescriptive devices to require political parties to organise internally in ways that violate their democratic relationships with other institutions". Sir Hayden had endorsed that. It would require goodwill in the negotiations and a willingness to reach agreement.
Again pressed to say what the chances were of a deal, the Leader said he could not. Talks had not yet begun, but he would do his best. Asked to response to the view in the report that there should be no "cherry-picking" of its conclusions, Mr Straw said that Sir Hayden had taken the view that nothing should be agreed until everything was agreed in forthcoming talks. No-one was seeking to impose a partial deal, and the final outcome would be more elaborate than what was contained in what was a very brief report, he added. The Leader said that the parties had agreed that the "arms race" on spending could not continue.
The Leader said that, if the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, had been fully effective - as he had hoped and everybody had anticipated - in terms of catching loopholes, they would not be in the present position. He pointed out that all parties were agreed that there should be changes to the Electoral Commission in any event. It was put to the Leader that the use of the term "arms race" was an exaggeration. He said he had not seen that suggestion, but he did not think it was valid. By 2005, the total spending had risen from £65m in the year before to £90m. Mr Straw also pointed out that the distinction between national and local spending had become more blurred.
House of Lords Reform/Peers Vote
The Leader was asked if he was tempted to abandon any hope of compromise between both Houses after last night’s votes, and whether the Parliament Act could be used to force the will of the Commons to prevail. Mr Straw said it was "one step at a time", in the words of the hymn. The Government would take account of the votes in the House of Lords, pointing out that the total in support of an elected element was more than he had thought they would be. He had indicated a desire to reconvene cross-party talks. The Leader said that the Parliament Act existed and, if the Commons had the will, it operated automatically, but they were not at that position yet.
Zimbabwe Debate
Asked if he saw a case for Foreign Office Ministers swiftly altering their diaries to enable a Commons debate on the situation, Mr Straw said he agreed that there should be a debate. Both Margaret Beckett and Ian McCartney wanted it, but it was difficult to change engagements already in Ministers’ diaries. The Leader said it was essential now that the regional partners of Zimbabwe, particularly South Africa, recognised the gravity of the situation and acted accordingly. Asked what they should do, he said that they should take steps to further isolate and put pressure on the Mugabe regime. It was now beyond the fraternal feelings of former freedom fighters.
He noted that South African had to cope with a very large number of refuges from Zimbabwe and economic disruption on its northern border.
delicious
digg
facebook
