Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman and Leader of the House Jack Straw on: Police Inquiry, Forthcoming Business, Foreign Affairs debate/Iraq, Police, Party funding/Sir Hayden Phillips and Freedom of Information
Police Inquiry
Asked if she was aware that the police were talking to the Prime Minister when she left Downing Street for this morning’s briefing, the Prime Minister’s Spokesman replied that Tom Kelly the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesperson (PMOS) had said all along that he would tell the Lobby if the Prime Minister had been interviewed by the police. The point at which the PMOS knew the interview had taken place was about 20 minutes before he briefed the Lobby to that effect in the Lower Gallery at 1.30pm that afternoon.
Put to her that the Lobby had been misled earlier and that the Prime Minister had chosen not to tell the PMOS so that when the question was asked this morning, he could answer ‘no change’, the PMS pointed out that the interview started after 11am that morning and again added that the PMOS had stated all along that he would inform the Lobby if the Prime Minister had been interviewed, which he did. Put to her repeatedly that the Prime Minister had deliberately misled them, the PMS repeated that she disagreed with that position and that the PMOS had said all along that he would inform them if the Prime Minister had been interviewed, which is exactly what he did that afternoon at 1.30pm.
Asked if she could confirm when the Prime Minister knew he would be interviewed, as he must have been notified days beforehand, the PMS asked that people did not jump to conclusions and reiterated that she would give no detail of the process. Asked if this date was chosen with mutual agreement, the PMS repeated that she would give no detail about the process. Asked to confirm that the PMOS did not know about the interview until 1.10pm, the PMS said that as soon as they were able to let the Lobby know that the Prime Minister had been interviewed, and the status of the interview, they were informed.
Put to her that the Prime Minister was taken through a list of individuals by the police that went beyond the peerages, the PMS replied that she was not present during the interview and in any case would absolutely not comment on any further element of the interview.
Put to her that the Prime Minister had prior notice of when he was to be interviewed, since he knew that he was not going to be interviewed under caution and therefore would not need a lawyer, the PMS said she would not go into any detail with regard to timings.
Forthcoming Business
The Leader said that, on Monday, December 18, the House would debate the second reading of the Digital Switchover (Disclosure of Information) Bill (Tessa Jowell and Shaun Woodward speaking for the Government). On Tuesday, December 19, MPs would discuss the motion for the Christmas Recess Adjournment (Nigel Griffiths). Business for the week after the recess would be: Monday, January 8 - second reading of the Statistics and Registration Service Bill (John Healey); Tuesday, January 9 - remaining stages of the Welfare Reform Bill (Jim Murphy); Wednesday, January 10 - Opposition Day (2nd Allotted Day): a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced; Thursday, January 11 - a debate on Social Exclusion on a motion for the Adjournment of the House (Hilary Armstrong and Pat McFadden); Friday, January 12 - the House would not sit. Provisional business for the following week: Monday, January 15 - second reading of the Planning-Gain Supplement (Preparations) Bill (HMT Minister).
Mr Straw also confirmed, as he had announced earlier, that there would be a debate on foreign affairs, focusing on Iraq and the Middle-East, by the end of January. The precise date had to be fixed, but it was a very clear commitment, he added.
Foreign Affairs debate/Iraq
Asked if there would be a substantive motion, the Leader said that it would be on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, which was the usual - but not exclusive - basis for foreign policy debates. Mr Straw said that, as he had explained to the House, the debate would be on foreign policy, focusing - but not exclusively - on Iraq, since there could be other developments before than. Questioned whether there should not be a vote on the impact of the Iraq Study Group report, Mr Straw said that it was an important study. However, the ISG had not been established by President Bush but by two NGOs - foreign policy trusts. It was in no sense a Congressional inquiry or an inquiry by the US executive.
The Leader said that, secondly, his own view was that a great deal of both the analysis and proposals for the future contained in the ISG report fitted in very well with the approach which the UK Government had been pursuing. Thirdly, it was an agenda for discussion. The ISG was not suggesting there should be a yes or no vote on it. It was a very important agenda on which there was a certain amount of controversy also within the Iraqi government. He was asked if he accepted that there were differences between London and Washington on whether a settlement of the Israel-Palestine issue was central to reducing the conflict in Iraq. Mr Straw acknowledged that the issue of centrality was the position of the UK Government, but he could not comment about the US position. Views varied around the US Administration and it was also a more difficult issue for it to handle, he added.
Police
The Leader, in response to a question, said he had nothing to add to the earlier comments of the PMOS and the PMS. In response to further questions, he thanked journalists for their ingenious line of questioning but said he would resist their invitations. He said he personally had learned about the police visit later in the day, but the purpose of Cabinet meetings was not to discuss ministerial diaries.
Party funding/Sir Hayden Phillips
The Leader said that Sir Hayden was continuing his deliberations, which were now on the penultimate if not the last lap. Sir Hayden had produced two indications - not proposals - of some of the key issues involved. Mr Straw said that, relating to caps on donations, the issue had been around for a long time. They were used in the US, where there were no caps on spending. However, in some other countries such as Canada, there were caps on both donations and spending. The Leader noted that the parties were now involved in debate with Sir Hayden about the appropriate balance. The crucial thing - as he (Mr Straw) had said publicly - was that all parties worked towards ending the "arms race" on spending. The Leader said it had been thought that this goal had been achieved with the Neill Committee, which formed part of previous legislation, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
All the parties had agreed, but it had turned out that there were loopholes, which was one of the reasons for Sir Hayden’s inquiry. Mr Straw said that, when he was Home Secretary, he had sought to implement the report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which at that staged had been chaired by Patrick Neill QC. He had published a White Paper in 1998 and also a draft Bill, which was the subject of great all-party discussion. Everyone had worked hard on the legislation. However, regulation of political parties, as with any institution, was complicated. The aim to ensure more comprehensive limits on spending at a national level for the first time had turned out not to have been fully met. That was one of the reasons why the "arms race" between the parties on spending, which the public wished to be dealt with, had continued.
The Leader pointed out that changes had been made in the Electoral Administration Act, which became law earlier this year. That had dealt with one loophole in respect of the disclosure of loans.
Pressed further about reported "indications" of Sir Hayden, the Leader said that what he was seeking to do was to test the extent to which a decent consensus was achievable between the parties on the issue of party funding. He was doing so by a combination of questions and "positions", directed at the parties. The Leader pointed out that Labour had set out its position in a submission to Sir Hayden. Mr Straw then commented further in response to questions about a party meeting on these issues earlier this week, which he had attended.
Freedom of Information
He was asked if it would have been better for Lord Falconer to have organised a consultation about how the Act was working rather than to publish a draft proposal to extend the £600 limit for dealing with requests for consultation. Mr Straw said he had listened to a news item about the BBC on the issue earlier today with a wry smile. He said the BBC was a public authority and it had been rather less forthcoming on requests to it than Government departments had been on requests to them under FOI.
The Leader said that the BBC, as a public authority under the Act, exercised its rights under FOI to refuse information. On the merits of the case, the Government had made a concession when the legislation had been about to come into force at the beginning of 2005. There was provision for fees to be charged for applications. He pointed out that, if an individual wanted to find out information about oneself, a fee would have to be paid. If someone wanted to find out information about another person, no fee was payable. The Government had said at the time that the operation of the Act would be given a fair wind, but would then have to examine whether it was doing so effectively. The Leader said the truth was that the FOI Act was producing a sea change in attitudes to openness. He added that the changes being proposed by the Lord Chancellor, which were now open to consultation, were very minor. Mr Straw said that there had to be a balance between dealing with enquiries, particularly of a multiple nature, and getting on with the delivery of services. Such enquiries could be very time-consuming.
delicious
digg
facebook
