Press briefing from the Leader of the House, Jack Straw, on: Forthcoming Business, Private Members Bill/FOI Act, Helen Liddell/Iraq, Avian Flu/Compensation, Portcullis House Flagpole, Devolution
Forthcoming Business
The Leader announced that business for next week would be: Monday, April 23 - second reading of the Finance Bill (Dawn Primarolo and Ed Balls, for the Government); Tuesday, April 24 - Opposition Day (9th Allotted Day): debate entitled “Modernising Medical Careers” (Patricia Hewitt), followed by a debate entitled “The Future of Local Government” (Ruth Kelly and Phil Woolas), with both debates arising on an Opposition motion; Wednesday, April 25 - a motion relating to the Crossrail Bill (Tom Harris); followed by - the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed Private Business for consideration; Thursday, April 26 - a debate on “Defence in the UK” on a motion for the adjournment of the House (Adam Ingram and Derek Twigg); Friday, April 27 - Private Members Bill.
Provisional Business for the following week: Monday, April 30 - consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill; Tuesday, May 1 - conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill; Wednesday, May 2 - a motion to approve a European document relating to the Protection of Critical Infrastructure, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Welfare Reform Bill, then a debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House (subject to be announced); Thursday, May 3 - a debate on “Policing in London” on a motion for the Adjournment of the House; Friday, May 4Â - House not sitting.
Private Members Bill/Freedom of Information Act
The Leader, asked if he supported the intention of the Bill before MPs for debate tomorrow to exempt both Houses from the Act, said that the Government did not have a formal position on the measure. He pointed out that the issue had been the subject of considerable debate when the original White Paper had been published in 1997. It had proposed that Parliament should be exempted. Pressed on why the Government had not sought to block the Bill at an earlier stage, Mr Straw repeated that it was a matter for Parliament. Asked for his personal view, he again stated that it was for Parliament. He said he would not be present for any vote on the Bill. He then went on to explain the procedural issues for debating a Private Members Bill.
Helen Liddell/Iraq
Mr Straw was asked if Iraq was part of the war on terror. Responding, he recalled the motion passed by the House on March 18, 2003 - and the case which both he and the Prime Minister had made - in respect of the threat, as UN Resolution 1441 had stated, to international peace and security posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the long-range missile systems and the Iraq’s failure to comply with UN resolutions. He said that what had happened subsequently was that the population in Iraq had been subjected to terrible terrorist attacks, as witnessed by yesterday’s tragic events. Asked for his view of the Prime Minister’s comment that Iraq was now in the front line of terror, he said he agreed with the explanation given by the PMOS at an earlier briefing today.
To a suggestion that the action in Iraq had now resulted in terrorism, the Leader acknowledged that that there was terrorism in the country. He said that it was worth bearing in mind that such terrorism in Iraq principally was instigated by extremist Sunni groups, many with links to Al-Qaeda. However, he completely rejected any suggestion that the UK was responsible for Al-Qaeda, whether it was operating in Iraq or anywhere else. He said no-one could answer the counter-factual “what if” there had not been action taken in respect of Iraq, except that he was absolutely certain that a world-wide terrorist threat, killing thousands of people, would still have existed in respect of Al-Qaeda, just as it had been before the military action. He recalled that 9/11 had occurred 18 months before it.
Asked to comment specifically on the remarks of Helen Liddell, Mr Straw said he was aware that they had caused some interest in Australia. However, he did not think they were exceptionable. It was for politicians in Australia to make their own judgements. The Leader was asked why the phrase “war on terror” was no longer acceptable. Responding, he said that different individuals chose different language. He personally did not recall ever using the direct phrase; he had used other language to describe the same phenomenon. He had not discussed the specific use of words with anyone, including the Prime Minister. Mr Straw said that, to him, the PMOS had made a statement of fact earlier.
Pressed on the use of the language, the Leader repeated his view that, while others had used the phrase “war on terror”, he had not. Asked for his reason, he said that he happened to believe that his choice of words was appropriate language, which was his choice. In response to a further question, the Leader recalled that, in the preamble to Resolution 1441, there was reference to terrorism, although the main argument was about Iraq’s failure to comply with the Security Council’s resolutions.
The Leader was asked for his analysis of the situation in Iraq in the light of the latest developments. Mr Straw said that he cared deeply about all the communities of Iraq and had friends there. Looking back historically, he said that the majority Shia population had been dominated by a Sunni minority, whose ruling group had become more and more extreme and ruthless. That had created the seeds of instability in Iraq, but he thought it was highly complacent to assume that, if there had not been military action, the country would be in a benign state. It was not the case before. Saddam’s regime had not been stable. Asked about the scale of the killings in Iraq at present, he said he was not in a position to make a detailed comment. He noted what both the Prime Minister of Iraq and the US military commander had said. Tragically, a group of nihilist extremists in Iraq were intent on slaughter, but he thought that, in the end, it would be controlled.
Avian flu/compensation
Asked to explain his earlier comments about compensation to be paid to turkey producer Bernard Matthews, Mr Straw said that the system gave people rights under the law on a fair basis. The reason why compensation generally was paid in respect of the slaughter of animals was because farmers would otherwise lose their livelihood and also because farmers would have no excuse against reporting diseases which could lead to an epidemic. If the questioner was asking whether he personally was uncomfortable with the specific compensation, Mr Straw repeated the comments he had made in the House earlier.
Asked to explain why that was the case, he said he was merely expressing what he felt. Pressed on the issue, the Leader said that he was not willing to go into further detail, but he did not think that he was alone in feeling uncomfortable about it. He said that, without making direct reference to Bernard Matthews, there was a balance to be struck between ensuring that a farmer reported evidence of animal disease immediately and, on the other hand, if farmers were negligent in some way for the fact of the disease, that appropriate action was taken.
Portcullis House flagpole
The Leader expanded on his earlier comments about action he had taken to ensure that the Union flag could be flown above the building. He personally inspected the location of the pole yesterday after being told that it was dangerous to do so. Mr Straw explained why that was the case and it could result in a person placing the flag on the pole being decapitated by the access hatch. Some modest safety measures were now being taken to resolve the problem. Asked if he saw that as his legacy, he replied, amid laughter, that he did not. He said that Portcullis House, like all buildings which had been over-budget and over-time, was magnificent. The flying of the specific flag was not a matter for him.
Devolution
The Leader described the progress towards the formation of an Executive in Northern Ireland on May 8 as astonishing. He made further comments in response to questions of a party political nature in respect of forthcoming elections in Britain.
Â
delicious
digg
facebook
