Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman and the Leader of the House on: Peter Clarke, World Bank, Prince Harry, Forthcoming Business, Private Member’s Bill, Freedom of Information Act, Leaks and Local Elections.
Peter Clarke
Asked if a leak was a criminal offence shouldn’t an investigation be instigated, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that if people had evidence they should give it to the police. Put to the PMOS that Peter Clarke thought there was evidence, the PMOS said that Peter Clarke had said, on the record that he did not know who the leak had come from.
World Bank
Asked if there was any change in the Government’s position regarding the World Bank, the PMOS said it was a matter for the World Bank and therefore he would not comment. Put to the PMOS that there were representatives from the UK, the PMOS said it was still a matter for the World Bank.
Asked if the Secretary of State for International Development would be likely to speak on this, the PMSO said that was a matter for the Secretary of State. Asked if No10 would be commenting the PMOS said that No10 had nothing to say on the matter.
Prince Harry
Asked if there was any comment on the furore surrounding Prince Harry, the PMOS said it was a matter for the armed forces.
Forthcoming Business
Leader of the Commons, Jack Straw MP, announced that business for next week would be: Monday, April 30 - consideration in committee of the Finance Bill (Stephen Timms, John Healey and Ed Balls, for the Government); Tuesday, May 1 - conclusion in committee of the Finance Bill (Stephen Timms, John Healey and Ed Balls); Wednesday, May 2 - motion to approve a European document relating to the Protection of Critical Infrastructure (Tony McNulty), followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Welfare Reform Bill (Jim Murphy and Anne McGuire), followed by a debate on Sri Lanka on a motion for the adjournment of the House (Kim Howells); Thursday, May 3 - a debate on “Policing in London” on a motion for the adjournment of the House (Tony McNulty); Friday, May 4 - not sitting.
Provisional Business for the following week: Monday, May 7 - not sitting; Tuesday, May 8 - Opposition Day (10th Allotted Day: a debate on a Liberal Democrat motion, subject to be announced; Wednesday, May 9 - remaining stages of the UK Borders Bill; Thursday, May 10 - consideration of Lords amendments to the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill, followed by consideration of a Resolution on Rating (Empty Properties); Friday, May 11 - not sitting.
The Leader explained that the forthcoming debate on Sri Lanka was in response to requests. Generally, his aim was to make better use of time in the House. Where it was clear that, even if the business was not timetabled, it was going to end before the scheduled time, a debate on a requested topic could then be scheduled. He pointed out that there would be a forthcoming debate on Darfur, although the precise date had not been fixed. In response to a further questioner, who asked why the business in the House had been suspended for a period yesterday, the Leader rejected any suggestion that it was a sign of “paralysis” in Government. He pointed out that similar suspensions of sittings had happened in the past.
Private Members Bill / Freedom of Information Act
The Leader, asked if he had a view of the Bill before MPs again tomorrow, said that the Government’s approach - to treat it as a House matter - was entirely appropriate. He recalled that, when the original White Paper had been published on Freedom of Information, there was an exemption for Parliament, as was the case in many other jurisdictions for special reasons connected with parliamentary privilege and such matters - not because of a desire to keep information covered up.
Leaks
In response to a question, Mr Straw repeated his view, expressed during Business Questions earlier, that there should be a police investigation rather than an internal Whitehall inquiry if there was any evidence for the allegations. The Leader said that prime facie evidence, not just assertion, was required. If there was such evidence, it should be put to the police because interfering in a criminal investigation was serious. He said that distinguished the present issue from other cases being quoted at length of leak inquiries, where the matter was a breach of internal security.
Asked why the Prime Minister had ruled out an inquiry, the Leader referred to what he had told the House, which seemed to have been very straightforward. Put to him that the Prime Minister shared his view, Mr Straw said it was the other way round!
To a suggestion that, strictly speaking, those who were the subject of other types of leak inquiries had committed a criminal offence, he said it would vary, depending on the facts. He pointed out that sometimes they had been the subject of criminal investigation - on other occasions they had been investigated by Cabinet Office personnel or from elsewhere.
He recounted that, at the time previously when he had been a special adviser, he had been among a number of people subjected to such a police inquiry, adding that he had not been guilty! It was suggested to him that, since the police had indicated there was a prime facie case of a crime being committed in the leak of the counter-terrorism investigation, it was merely necessary for the police to initiate an inquiry before evidence was provided. Mr Straw said that, according to DAC Peter Clarke, there plainly was a leak. As to whether or not an inquiry could make progress, that would require some prime facie evidence. The Leader again said that anyone could approach the police if they had any evidence which would allow an inquiry to proceed; he had no evidence personally and the Prime Minister had indicated that he was not aware of any.
Asked when he had been the subject of the police investigation, the Leader said it had been in the spring of 1976. It had related to the leak of a limited circulation confidential annexe to Cabinet minutes. He stressed that he had been among a large number of people who had been interviewed.
Prince Harry
Asked if he had any views about whether he should serve in Iraq, the Leader said that was a matter entirely for the Army - not for Ministers.
Local Elections
In response to questions, Mr Straw made further comments of a party political nature on the forthcoming elections.
¼/p>
delicious
digg
facebook
