Examination of Witness (Questions 120-140)
RT HON JACK STRAW MP
9 OCTOBER 2008
Q120 Mr Tyrie: What assumption do
you question?
Mr Straw: That there is some constitutional
principle which means one cannot hold an early election.
Q121 Mr Tyrie: But you cannot thus
have an early election. It requires some justification which goes
beyond mere partisan interest.
Mr Straw: That is certainly the
case, but I am slightly surprised you put the question to me.
It may not be true of you, Mr Tyrie, but it is certainly true
of your party that it had been calling for an election. I would
not quite lie in the mouth of your party if, having got the election,
it challenged the constitutional basis of it. What I thought you
were about to ask was whether any consideration had been given
to whether an election would practically be possible. The answer
to that is yes. The Association of Electoral Administrators made
some public comments on that. The question of the constitutional
propriety of the election did not arise. To go back to 1974, maybe
our recollections are different. In February 1974 I was a candidate
for the well-known socialist stronghold of Tonbridge and Malling.
There was plenty of tense debate about whether it was right or
wrong to bother the British electorate with that election, but
I do not remember anyone saying that it was improper for Edward
Heath to call the election.
Q122 Mr Tyrie: Perhaps it will help
if I read out something more recent. I refer to the Labour manifesto
of 1992 which refers to the period 1991-92: "The general
election was called only after months of on again off again dithering
which weakened our democracy. No government with a majority should
be allowed to put the interests of party above country. Although
an early election will sometimes be necessary we will introduce
as a general rule a fixed parliamentary term".
Mr Straw: I remember the debates
at the time.
Mr Tyrie: There appeared to be some debate
in the Labour Party on this in 1991-92 which is rather more recent
than 1974.
Q123 Chairman: Was it not echoed
in the Prime Minister's own statement that constitutional issues
should now be considered?
Mr Straw: That was the point I
intended to make. We can be forgiven for updating our thinking
since 1992. That election was famously unsuccessful for us and
sadly the whole manifesto was rejected as I remember.
Q124 Mr Tyrie: I am not really worried
about the partisan advantage here or about who won or who lost
which election. Since you are the man with ministerial capacity
who is most responsible for safeguarding our constitution I am
just asking whether you were consulted on the constitutional implications
of this extremely important decision. You have given us the unequivocal
answer that you were not consulted. Is that correct?
Mr Straw: I have given you an
unequivocal answer to that. In my view the question does not arise,
but I should like to say to the Chairman that our thinking has
moved forward since then. What the Prime Minister proposed in
his statement on 3 July was that where there was a proposition
for dissolution by a prime minister whenever it took place it
should be subject to approval by the House of Commons.
Chairman: He would win because he would
have a majority. If there was a dissolution because he did not
have a majority the problem would not arise; if he chose to have
one his party's majority means he would win.
Q125 Mr Tyrie: You appeared to be
suggesting a moment ago that there would be bound to be constitutional
implications; now you suggest that your party should come forward
with a proposal for a constitutional change.
Mr Straw: That is to trivialise
the nature of the change. Previously, prime ministers have only
ever had to explain why they are doing things formally to Her
Majesty the Queen. What is proposed here is that prime ministers
will have to explain why they are calling an election to the House
of Commons. I think that would make a difference.
Q126 Mr Tyrie: Can you tell us a
little more about progress on the constitutional issue more broadly?
Mr Straw: Where do you want me
to start?
Q127 Mr Tyrie: Why not start where
you want to start—perhaps with the Constitutional Reform
Bill that is to be published?
Mr Straw: There is a Bill currently
in draft. That Bill is likely to have a number of components which
include the reform of the Civil Service and the issue of ratification
of treaties and war-making powers. The latter two are subject
to consultation documents that are currently in draft and under
very active examination.
Q128 Mr Tyrie: Is there a publication
date for that?
Mr Straw: There are publication
dates and I shall see whether my private secretary can provide
them.
Q129 Mr Tyrie: Perhaps you could
give a rough indication.
Mr Straw: We hope to publish those
papers on those two matters before Christmas. As to one of them,
I have already asked that more work be done on it. In respect
of the British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, a great deal
of work has been done on that with a view to publication of a
paper—I cannot give a precise time for that, but work is
in hand—and preparing papers for wider consultation in respect
of the statement of values. Meanwhile, as you will be aware because
some of the proposed changes involve amendments to the procedure
of the House they are being taken forward by Harriet Harman with
either the Modernisation of the House of Commons Committee or
the Procedure Committee or both.
Q130 Mr Tyrie: Do you agree with
Harriet Harman's view articulated during the deputy leadership
contest that the Government should renegotiate the Chicago Convention
in order "to be absolutely certain that we do not have a
situation where we are complicit in torture", because planes
which land in our country and take off again transport people
to places where they may be tortured?
Mr Straw: I am not convinced that
that is necessary. You and I in a different context discussed
the issue of extraordinary rendition. I know that you have been
very concerned about it. You also know that I am as certain as
I can be that there was absolutely no involvement by the United
Kingdom authorities in anything approaching extraordinary rendition
post-2001.
Q131 Mr Tyrie: I did not intend to
raise this but the Select Committee has been shown the government
to be complicit in one case.
Mr Straw: I do not accept that.
Q132 Mr Tyrie: The Government has
not repudiated that in its response.
Mr Straw: I do not accept that
is so. Are you talking of the ISC rather than the Select Committee?
Q133 Mr Tyrie: Yes.
Mr Straw: I am aware of the case
that you are talking about. I do not accept that we were complicit.
If that is the case you are talking about I imposed conditions
for the co-operation by the British security agencies with the
Americans. The conditions including those relating to the treatment
of the individuals were not met and so the operation did not go
ahead. I think that the ISC in the final version of its report
suggested that the conditions I imposed were not strong enough,
to which I would say they were sufficient to ensure that the operation
did not go ahead unless they were met. The operation did not go
ahead in any event.
Q134 Mr Tyrie: Did you read an earlier
version of that report?
Mr Straw: Yes, of course.
Q135 Mr Tyrie: What did it say?
Mr Straw: I cannot remember now.
I believe that was what the final version said.
Q136 Chairman: On the constitutional
issues, is party funding on the back burner or is the heat to
be turned up?
Mr Straw: It is not on the back
burner. There was to be a meeting tomorrow of the party funding
working party chaired by Hayden Phillips. When it was scheduled
there was a big ticket Opposition Day on the EU draft treaty.
With the leave of the Opposition and the Prime Minister it was
deferred, but it has been rescheduled; it has not been put on
the back burner.
Q137 Mr Tyrie: As I recall, it was
deferred given the speculation about a possible election.
Mr Straw: No.
Q138 Mr Tyrie: I have an email to
that effect since I am also a member of that working party. It
was one of the casualties of the speculation.
Mr Straw: Perhaps I may put on
record that there was to be a meeting in September which the Conservative
Party moved on the basis that it was not ready. We had six weeks'
notice of that. There has never been any explanation as to why
it was moved from September. I had no knowledge of it being moved
until yesterday when it appeared that the debate on the EU treaty
would be held tomorrow. There would not have been any parliamentarians
present and that was why it was moved.
Q139 Chairman: Therefore, we can
expect some progress on some of the issues raised by this Committee
in its earlier report?
Mr Straw: I hope so.
Q140 Chairman: And some recognition
that it is a package of issues rather than a series of discrete
items from which a selection can be made?
Mr Straw: We have always accepted
that there is a package of issues. Whether and to what extent
there is a consensus on each one remains to be seen.
Chairman: Thank you very much.
| 
