Iraq inquiry

On Sunday 21 June Andrew Marr interviewed Jack Straw MP, Justice Secretary

Please note 'The Andrew Marr Show' must be credited if any part of this transcript is used.

Jack Straw MP, Justice Secretary: No problem with giving Iraq evidence in public.

ANDREW MARR:

Jack Straw MP

Jack Straw is one of the government's most experienced hands - the only cabinet minister to have served as long as Gordon Brown has.

As Justice Secretary, he's had a key role in drawing up plans for constitutional reform and extending freedom of information, which the government is promising in response to the MPs' expenses scandal.

And he joins us now from Oxfordshire. Good morning, Mr Straw.

JACK STRAW:

Good morning.

ANDREW MARR:

Can I ask about your response - same question I put to Nick Clegg really.

When you saw all that black ink, all that redacted material on MPs' expenses, how did you feel about that?

JACK STRAW:

Well it gave a terrible impression. And the irony is your Nick Robinson was saying on the radio two or three days ago, was that had the Commons done the sensible thing and ensured that this kind of material came out two years ago - as it could and should have done - then that would have been regarded as at least some move towards openness.

But in the context in which the Sunday Telegraph got hold of the full un-redacted records and what most of us had no idea about that exposed some of the most egregious abuses, then plainly it just adds to the difficulty and the undermining of parliament's reputation.

And so I agree entirely with Nick Clegg that we've got to change, and one of the key changes we have to make is that tomorrow when we come to elect a Speaker. And again I think Nick was absolutely right to say that we've got to put partisan interests aside and elect a Speaker who is best placed to lead the House of Commons to a restored position of authority and trust with the British public.

And I may just say Andrew, if I may, that alongside the election of a Speaker, Harriet Harman and I will be publishing legislation to establish a Parliamentary Standards Authority that we have been negotiating very carefully with all the other political parties in the Commons to establish an independent statutory authority not just to administer the allowances system but to set the allowances and take this right out of the hands of the House of Commons, of Members of Parliament and of the Fees Office.

ANDREW MARR:

And looking at the runners and riders for Speaker, do you see somebody of the qualities that you've just described?

JACK STRAW:

I think there are, but you'll excuse me - this is a secret ballot. I want to listen to what the candidates themselves have to say …

ANDREW MARR:

Okay.

JACK STRAW:

… when have the hustings tomorrow and make my decision in the light of that.

ANDREW MARR:

Now you say in the Sunday Times this morning that you've changed your mind about the House of Lords and that you do want to see an elected second chamber.

Do you think, given that, that it would be wrong to keep sticking people into the House of Lords between now and that reform? You know as well as I do there's a long list of people hoping that they're going to go into the House of Lords. Perhaps it's time to say no, we're going to stop doing that too?

JACK STRAW:

Well as long as you've got that system, you have to add to it. And Gordon Brown has been actually very, very limited in the numbers of people, other than ministers, he's proposed for appointments. So the lists have gone down, not up.

I mean I changed my mind two or three years ago when I was asked by Tony Blair, when I became Leader of the House, to look at this issue. And the more I … I mean I'd been frankly I'd say rather complacent about it, and the more I looked at it, the more I came to the view that although the House of Lords has done good work - and actually its role has been strengthened and transformed since the changes we introduced in 1999 - the fact is that you cannot sustain an argument in favour of a wholly appointed chamber in this century.

And that's why I've chaired two successive rounds of all party talks on this and we produced a very good blue print for either an 80% or a 100% elected chamber last July. Thankfully, as with reform to the House of Commons and the way we ought to see the House of Commons taking more control over its own business and taken away from the government, there is now a head of steam behind this kind of reform that wasn't there this time last year.

ANDREW MARR:

Well it's been going on for a hundred years - talk about the reform of the House of Lords. Do you think we're actually going to see legislation before the next election?

JACK STRAW:

Well I doubt we'd see legislation passed, but what we've got to is this. All three political parties by their 2005 manifestos were committed effectively to introducing a substantially or wholly elected second chamber. We've got an agreed blue print with the other two parties, which is great because this kind of change has to happen by a broad consensus between the parties. So I certainly want to see draft legislation and all three parties committed to ensuring that that legislation, if we can't get it through before the election, is introduced and fully in place shortly after the election.

ANDREW MARR:

Can I ask about the Iraq Inquiry?

JACK STRAW:

Yes.

ANDREW MARR:

Do you think it should be held in private or in public?

JACK STRAW:

Well I think what's clear now is that - and I think this probably will emerge from, as I understand it, indications from the Chair of the Inquiry, Sir John Chilcot - is it will be mixed. May I just make the point that …

ANDREW MARR:

Well …

JACK STRAW:

Allow me just to make this point.

The reason why we decided to set up as it's called a Franks type inquiry, which was the one into the Falklands War in 1982, was because that was what precisely the Conservatives had been calling for time after time after time and they dismissed other inquiries that had been held.

Now Franks was held in private exclusively and it was for that reason, no other, that Gordon Brown decided to do that. There is a balance here …

ANDREW MARR:

(over) It was a mistake, wasn't it? It was a mistake, wasn't it …

JACK STRAW:

No, no, it wasn't.

ANDREW MARR:

… because people will want to hear for instance the former Prime Minister Tony Blair describing in public and being questioned in public about issues such as those in the newspapers today about his discussions with George Bush before the war. Those things are absolutely crucial, and if those conversations happen in private this will not be the proper kind of cleansing that the public would want.

JACK STRAW:

Well, look, I understand that argument. It wasn't a mistake. It was done in good faith. Let us hope that we can achieve a situation where there is a mix of public and private.

And I personally, since I was Foreign Secretary at the time, have no difficulty about giving most of the evidence I've got to give in public, but I just want to make this point. What you don't want, because this will not serve the public interest, is an inquiry that drifts into the situation say the Saville Inquiry on Bloody Sunday in Northern Ireland has got to where it's entirely in public but it is over-lawyered. That's been going on for ten years. It's cost £200 million …

ANDREW MARR:

Sure.

JACK STRAW:

… in lawyers' fees, if you please, and there's no prospect of it producing a report in the near future. So that's one of the reasons why in our very litigious society, you do need a balance. And although I …

ANDREW MARR:

I'm sorry …

JACK STRAW:

… I fully understand …

ANDREW MARR:

Sorry. Just with respect, we're not talking about those kind of incidents here. We're talking about by and large politicians and diplomats who don't need great legal assistance, who can assist the inquiry directly themselves. If you're prepared to give evidence in public, shouldn't Tony Blair be prepared to give evidence in public too?

JACK STRAW:

Well I'm sure he is. And you know in fairness to Tony, he's given the equivalent of evidence in public scores and scores of times because a large part of the background to the Iraq War was public right from the start, including the famous United Nations Resolution 1441 and what led up to the decisions on the war. And, as I say, I'm completely comfortable about giving most of my evidence in public and I'm sure he is. There has to be some evidence which for very good reasons would have to be given in private. But I also just wanted to say that the people who are on this inquiry are not patsies. Even if information is given in private, they will come to their judgements about whether or not the process of coming to war was a proper one and what the judgements were …

ANDREW MARR:

Right.

JACK STRAW:

… and they will make that public.

ANDREW MARR:

Can I just pursue this slightly, however? Are you saying that apart from those pieces of evidence which are deep inside the security system and would presumably threaten even now individuals, the rest could be done in public?

JACK STRAW:

I'm not saying exactly that, Andrew, because there may be other information. But I'm just saying if you're asking me - as someone who was obviously involved in the decisions - whether I'm comfortable about explaining why we made the decisions in public, of course I am. And indeed I've done it scores and scores of times, including on the Marr Show …

ANDREW MARR:

Indeed.

JACK STRAW:

… and on the Today programme.

ANDREW MARR:

And the legal advice question, the question of whether it was legal and all of that - that could be in public too?

JACK STRAW:

Well I mean, look, on the legal advice, I mean that's been public since late April 2005. I mean, look, of course I understand that in the circumstances in which we thought (with very good evidence) that there were weapons of mass destruction, and like the United Nations Security Council we judged that Iraq was posing a threat to international peace and security - but that turned out not to be the case because the weapons of mass destruction had gone - of course I understand the deep anxiety amongst …

ANDREW MARR:

Right.

JACK STRAW:

… many people in the population, the deep anger about some people - including those who lost loved ones in Iraq.

ANDREW MARR:

Indeed.

JACK STRAW:

Of course I understand that.

ANDREW MARR:

Indeed.

JACK STRAW:

So the argument is understood. But, as I say, the reason why a decision was made …

ANDREW MARR:

Yeah, sure.

JACK STRAW:

… about following Franks was because that's what …

ANDREW MARR:

I understand that.

JACK STRAW:

… the Conservatives had called for and that had worked.

ANDREW MARR:

Sorry, we're nearly out of time. I just wanted to ask you one question. You were very involved in Iran in your time as Foreign Secretary.

JACK STRAW:

Yes.

ANDREW MARR:

Just give us your overview of what's happening there and whether you yourself think these elections were fair, if not free.

JACK STRAW:

Look, I think the evidence points - as far as the elections are concerned - that they were not fair. And if they were fair, it's for the administration in Iran to ensure that there is total transparency about the ballot papers, about the counting process, about the supervision of the ballots. Iran is a great country, but I hope that those who are leading it do remember what happened in 1979 …

ANDREW MARR:

Indeed.

JACK STRAW:

… where there were similar street protests and that led to a whole chain of events, which in the end removed a very discredited Shah of Iran.

ANDREW MARR:

Okay.

JACK STRAW:

Now the interesting, fascinating thing about this is that both sets of candidates support the revolution, but it's where the country goes next.

ANDREW MARR:

Indeed. Mr Straw, we've run out of time, but thank you very much indeed for that.

JACK STRAW:

Thank you.

INTERVIEW ENDS

Please note "The Andrew Marr Show" must be credited if any part of this transcript is used.

NB: This transcript was typed from a recording and not copied from an original script.

Because of the possibility of mis-hearing and the difficulty, in some cases, of identifying individual speakers, the BBC cannot vouch for its accuracy

Your comments

E-mail this to a friend

Printable version