» Thursday, May 21, 2009


Asked to explain the apparent inconsistency in the Prime Minister s remarks about Communities Secretary Hazel Blears, the PMS said there was no inconsistency in the Prime Minister s remarks.

Asked whether it was capital gains tax, or flipping that the Prime Minister found totally unacceptable in Hazel Blears behaviour, the PMS reiterated the Prime Minister s comment of that morning that not everyone was in the same situation, that Hazel Blears herself decided that in order to remove any ambiguity the right thing to do was to pay the capital gains tax liability and the Prime Minister welcomed that. The PMS said that in relation to the case of Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon and Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell, they had given detailed explanation of their situation in relation to capital gains tax and sought advice from HMRC. On the basis of the explanations they have given the Prime Minister was confident that they have both acted in a way that was consistent with both the letter of the law and the spirit of the rules.

Asked if the Prime Minister thought Hazel Blears acted within the spirit of the rules, the PMS said it was the Prime Minister s view that it was right that Hazel Blears paid capital gains tax and that she herself acknowledged it was the right thing to do to remove any ambiguity. Asked if the Prime Minister thought what Geoff Hoon and James Purnell had done was acceptable, the PMS said the Prime Minister thought that on the basis of the explanations the two had given, they acted in a way that was consistent with the letter of the law and the spirit of the rules.

Asked if the Prime Minister believed Hoon and Purnell had no capital gains tax liability, the PMS said it was clear from their statements that they have confirmed with HMRC there was no capital gains tax liability a fact which had nothing to do with the system of parliamentary allowances and the designation of first and second homes for parliamentary allowances.

Asked if the Prime Minister stood by the remark that what Hazel Blears did was totally unacceptable, the PMS said the Prime Minister stood by what he had said, but also welcomed the fact that Hazel Blears repaid the money when she found out there was a problem.

Asked how the Prime Minister could have someone in his Cabinet who behaved in a totally unacceptable way, the PMS reiterated that Ms Blears had repaid the money, the Prime Minister believed she was doing a good job in helping communities get through this difficult time and that the Prime Minister had full confidence in her.

Asked whether it was true that the PMS did not know whether Hazel Blears ought to have paid capital gains tax or not and that her account with HMRC was currently in credit, the PMS said the issue was one for HMRC.

At for the Prime Minister s views on the comment that Conservative MP Anthony Steen had made, blaming this wretched Government for introducing the Freedom of Information Act, the PMS said he would not comment on the matter directly, but pointed out the Prime Minister thought introducing the Freedom of Information Act was the right thing to do to bring transparency to Government, which was good for the country and the better functioning of Government.

Put that some reports were estimating it would take one year to examine all of the MPs expenses claims for the last four years – how much money would be spent, and how speedy would the process be? The PMS pointed out that the Prime Minister would like to see the exercise completed as soon as is practical but acknowledged it was a big logistical exercise.

original source.

Briefing took place at 16:45 | Search for related news


  1. i am a carer,, you tell me how much i get min wage ,i do a great job looking after the elderly like thousands of other carer,s . how do you think i feel when i read your mp,s are taking money from my pitence i earn (taxes) i am 63yrs old , love to retire ,yes i do get my pension because i have worked all my life!!!! as i have a ill husband who would love to work but cannot , so i carring on working ,if i retire you still tell me how much i can live on ,i will have £6.00 for luxurys a week because i am over your thresh hold of what coming into the house (money),, now you have dwindled down who is not to stand for election next , you are rewarding them with agolden hand shake£ 78.000 i do believe!!!!! so you reward your people for taking money that do,es not belong to them what would the law do to me i wonder . i do feel very strong about this mr brown ,think you would too being in my shoes

    Comment by jill brookshaw — 24 May 2009 on 9:15 am | Link
  2. Prime Minister, Chancellor,

    I don’t feel that pleased when neither of you are making out your cases well enough in my opinion.

    It appears to me that on the infomation I have, the Chancellor paid in advance for service to his flat. Chancellor submits the invoice to the treasury or whoever it is that is supposed to scrutinise this stuff. Now at the time this was paid and claimed, it was legitimate and it was the government that had responsibility to pay the Chancellor for that service charge.

    Then some 5-6 months later circumstances change.
    The Chancellor did not know he was to be appointed Chancellor and would go and live in a rather posher house.

    Meanwhile, Chancellor, doing his due diligence in his own records finds this invoice and deduces that it can only legitimately cover six months when actually he has received the whole amount as the invoice was presented and approved.

    It seems to me there are two other factors that ought to be brought into focus.

    (1) The service agreement may not have a refund or reclaim clause for any service less than one year;

    (2) It is the government’s responsibility to go after that excess payment if it thinks it can get it from the provider of the service.

    This is all rather getting out of proportion; now with the suggestion that we might lose a rather bright chancellor, I too, am getting fed up with all this.

    Stand your ground, defend your corner. Some of these expenses were not recoverable and if they were then it was the treasury that should have written to the service provider and asked that the balance be refunded.

    Comment by R Newton — 2 Jun 2009 on 4:12 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)


This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Downing Street Says...

The unofficial site which lets you comment on the UK Prime Minister's official briefings. About us...


May 2009
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
« Apr   Jun »

Supported by


Disruptive Proactivity

Recent Briefings



Syndicate (RSS/XML)



Contact Sam Smith.

This site is powered by WordPress. Theme by Jag Singh