Examination of Witness (Questions 1-19)
RT HON
JACK STRAW
MP
24 JULY 2007
Chairman: Our Minister has very kindly
arrived just before 7.15, we are anticipating votes at 7.30 at
which point I will adjourn the Committee in the hope that members
vote in what I believe will be a second vote as quickly as possible
and come back, so that we can resume as soon as we are quorate.
To fit that pattern I have suggested doing some questions about
the constitutional reform agenda in this 15 minutes slot that
we have now, but first of all I would like to congratulate our
member Keith Vaz who, I am advised, is to become the Chairman
of the Home Affairs Committee, which is excellent news and we
most warmly congratulate him.
Keith Vaz: Thank you.
Chairman: Do we have any relevant interests
that we want to declare. We are moving on to some justice matters.
Keith Vaz: My wife holds a part-time
judicial appointment.
Q1 Chairman: That is about all. In
that case let us begin by dealing with the constitutional reform
agenda. The Green Paper was published by the Ministry of Justice
but is it all the Ministry of Justice, the Green Paper, or have
lots of people got fingers in this pie?
Mr Straw: Am I allowed to add
to those congratulations to Mr Vaz. The Ministry of Justice is
our lead departmentally; the Prime Minister is leading for the
Government on this as you will have noted from his statement on
July 3. I chair a Cabinet committee which is now called the CN,
which is on constitutional affairs, and that will be co-ordinating
the overall approach. Of course, Chairman, depending on the subject,
different members of the Cabinet will have a different interest,
self-evidently on the issue of the future of the role of the Attorney-General,
on which you produced an interesting report at the end of last
week. The Attorney and the Solicitor have a key interest in that
and my job is to try and ensure that collective Cabinet government
operates so that we have an agreed position on that.
Q2 Chairman: Is the Bill going to
be a draft bill?
Mr Straw: Almost certainly. There
is always an issue about the speed at which people want to hear
consensus. I ask not to be held to this exact timetable, but what
we are looking at is producing a draft bill around the turn of
the year. My own sense about this is that there is a broad consensus
that the royal prerogative needs to be abolished in almost every
particular and replaced by an effective parliamentary system,
in some cases by statute and in other cases it can be done by
resolution, but the principle that the power of government comes
from Parliament and not from a long-dead monarch who claims a
divine right to rule is one we need firmly to establish some time
in 2008, and I would suggest that is about three or four centuries
late. My own sense about this is that there is a very broad consensus
for this big policy shift; however, in order that we maintain
that consensus colleagues in Parliament, the public and interest
groups will want to see some of the key detail on this. It will
probably lead to a swifter passage for the Bill when it is in
final form if we can have a degree of pre-legislative scrutiny,
but I have not formed final views about this and if the Committee
has a view about it I would be very pleased to hear from them.
Q3 Chairman: Are you hopeful that
the mistakes that were made in the last two sets of constitutional
changes in terms of the process—that is, decisions announced
very quickly without consultation—can be avoided?
Mr Straw: Yes. This is not a machinery
of government change, which was part of the difficulties there;
this is an absolutely key constitutional change. As I and the
Prime Minister have both said, the constitution does not belong
to any one party and it is really important that we move so far
as possible by consensus. It does not mean that there will not
be some arguments; there is an issue still to be resolved on which
actually there are different opinions amongst all the parties
in respect of war powers, whether you go down the route recommended
by the Constitutional Committee in the Lords, which is for a resolution-based
approach to war powers, or whether you go down the approach recommended
by the Public Administration Select Committee in the Commons,
which is that you have a statutory-based approach, but one which
obviously allows the same degree of flexibility and security to
the Armed Forces as the resolution approach. These matters have
got to be resolved.
Q4 Mr Tyrie: Do you think powers
of select committees and the authority of select committees should
be enhanced, or do you think they are about right?
Mr Straw: I have yet to come to
a final view on that and so has the Government. We are looking
at ways in which select committees in practice can have more influence;
for example, a role over appointments. Although it will not be,
to begin with, in quite the same category as the hearings in the
Senate in the United States which is a very different system,
it is an expansion of the role of select committees and, since
their inception in 1979/80, select committees' role has considerably
grown. I have a constant debate with myself about whether the
reporting of Parliament overall has gone up or gone down, because
I wrote a report about this in 1993 showing it had gone done,
to much lament that all the heavy newspapers had abandoned the
formal reporting of Parliament. I am struck when I listen to the
radio in the morning and then read the newspapers that select
committees are more and more receiving coverage, and quite properly
so, because they are more effective. There are issues about whether
they should be able to call for papers, persons and records and
it is a hard issue this. As I think you know, Mr Tyrie, the rule
is that the select committee cannot do that but ultimately it
could get a resolution from the House, and famously on one occasion
the Serjeant at Arms was sent to collect Mr Arthur Scargill when
he was being a bit difficult. We are open to argument on that;
I am not trying to evade the issue but it is not directly my responsibility.
Q5 Mr Tyrie: I am trying to get a
reaction, you are chairing the key committee.
Mr Straw: I am chairing the key
committee, it would come to me if there were a recommendation
from, say, the Liaison Committee or the Procedure Committee or
the Modernisation Committee. I am open to arguments on this.
Q6 Mr Tyrie: Are you interested in
any of the proposals which Robin Cook came forward with on this
and, in addition, would you be interested in—
Mr Straw: The ones in the Clarke
Committee.
Q7 Mr Tyrie: I was thinking of the
proposals he made for the election of members of the select committees.
In particular, would you be interested in seeing chairmen of select
committees elected by secret ballot of the whole House; do you
think that would be of benefit to Parliament?
Mr Straw: I am interested in whether
we could expand the powers of select committees and my record
to the House in other capacities has been about increasing the
power of Parliament in respect of the executive. So we are open
to argument on that and I just offer you my view about electing
select committee chairpersons. Unless you had separate electoral
divisions for the parties—which you would have to—the
result of a ballot—
Q8 Mr Tyrie: That is well understood,
that the usual channels will sort out the political colour by
which each post would be filled and then after that there would
be a secret ballot for those slots.
Mr Straw: For all members?
Q9 Mr Tyrie: Yes.
Mr Straw: The downsides are more
likely to outweigh the upsides.
Q10 Mr Tyrie: Could you just outline
what the downsides are?
Mr Straw: Let me try and be clear
because with great respect to Ken Clarke's paper and also to dear
Robin's, it was not terribly clear. Are you proposing that as
it were members of the 1922 Committee should elect the Conservative-nominated
chairperson?
Q11 Mr Tyrie: No. You have not read
it.
Mr Straw: All Members of Parliament.
Q12 Mr Tyrie: I know you are new
to your job, but you have not read it. That is very clear.
Mr Straw: This post would be for
a Liberal and that would be sorted out with the Whips, but then
all members of Parliament could decide whether it is Beith or
somebody else; is that correct?
Q13 Mr Tyrie: Correct.
Mr Straw: From amongst the Liberal
Party.
Q14 Mr Tyrie: Correct, and the Liberal
members are at liberty to put themselves forward.
Mr Straw: Yes.
Chairman: There is an obvious snag, of
course, which is the governing party can choose which Opposition
members it would like.
Q15 Mr Tyrie: But would they in a
secret ballot?
Mr Straw: Even if it was a secret
ballot. The moment you let the governing party, which by definition
has a majority, loose on electing Opposition spokespeople, particularly
if it were a secret ballot, the most extraordinary results could
take place.
Q16 Mr Tyrie: You are confident you
can control your party in a secret ballot, are you?
Mr Straw: Yes. Not that I can
control them, but I am quite confident about what Labour MPs would
do if they were in a majority and also Conservative members and
Liberal Democrat members were they in the majority.
Q17 Mr Tyrie: I think you should
speak for the Labour Party there.
Mr Straw: I speak from experience
about how I saw the Conservatives behave and all governments tend
to this way; it would be a natural consequence of there being
a majority. I do not think it would be in Parliament's interest,
still less in backbenchers' interest. What is important is that
each party operates a more democratic process in choosing select
committee members and chairs than used to be the case. I can only
speak here for the Labour Party but so far as the Labour Party
is concerned the system is these days pretty satisfactory, though
it could be improved. What happens is that the Parliamentary committee—on
which there is a majority of backbenchers, note, and on which
I sat as Leader of the House—a Parliamentary committee of
the Labour Party invites nominations, nominations are forthcoming,
people can self-nominate. There is then a discussion in the Parliamentary
committee, and it is actually normally led by the backbench members,
we think X rather than Y, and a recommendation is made by the
Parliamentary committee to the Parliamentary party, on which every
single member of the Parliamentary party can vote. In practice
it is done by a broad consensus, but there will be nothing to
stop there being a vote in the Parliamentary party if there were
a division about it and we would probably then have a ballot.
I think it is a better approach.
Q18 Mr Tyrie: Do you think that it
is in the interests of Parliament that the government of the day
should retain virtually exclusive control of the order paper?
Mr Straw: That is an interesting
question. What you are proposing is that there should be a business
committee; that was also in Ken Clarke's proposal and it is one
that was given in evidence to the Modernisation Committee which
I chaired. By saying it is an interesting proposal, I am not trying
to damn it with faint praise, let me say.
Q19 Mr Tyrie: You said you were open
to suggestions earlier and I am throwing a few suggestions towards
you. The first couple have been batted away and I am trying a
third one now,
Mr Straw: Can I just say about
the business committee that it is an interesting proposal; it
may be that over time Parliament arrives at a business committee.
There is generally resistance in the Whips Office on all three
sides to much change, but I would like to see more access to the
order paper by backbenchers and opposition parties—the main
Opposition Party has a lot of access, others have less; that was
part of the purpose of the Modernisation Committee report.
| 
