Downing Street Says » David Blunkett

The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) read out a statement from the Home Office:

Asked how the statement could command any meaning or credibility without any facts or figures or any indication of what "not unusual" meant the PMOS said that he was glad for the reporter’s instant analysis and no doubt TV stations would be after him for his instant commentary skill but in terms of what he had noticed running on the TV stations today he had members of the public had emailed in their own similar experiences in that period, so there was some supporting evidence. In terms of facts and figures the Home Office would speak to that but what people were anxious to do was to provide a broader context without in any way pre-empting Sir Alan Budd’s report. Asked in terms of the context what the average period was the PMOS said that those type of questions should be directed to the Home Office but that he suspected that their pre-eminent desire was to balance the desire to provide a context and on the other hand the desire not to pre-empt Sir Alan Budd’s review. It was important for the Home Office to take its time to answer those questions properly and for Sir Alan Budd to do his job.

Asked how it could not be suggested that the Prime Minister had pre-empted things with his comments at his press conference the PMOS said that this was the third day he had answered this question but that he was happy to repeat the answer. The Prime Minister had been indicating his trust in the Home Secretary. What he said on Monday in no way pre-empted Sir Alan’s review and he said that it was necessary to establish once and for all that there was no blurring between public and private. In response to the suggestion that because of the clear appearance of a conflict that the Home Secretary had broken the Ministerial Code, which stated that Ministers must not let a conflict arise or let the appearance to arise between their public duties and their private interests the PMOS said that it was precisely to establish the facts and to assess the facts that the Home Secretary had asked Sir John Gieve to appoint an independent figure, Sir Alan Budd, to investigate the facts. Asked why, if there was no conflict between David Blunkett’s public and private life, was the taxpayer being asked to pay for an independent inquiry and why the Home Office had come up with a statement about context that did not deal with the specific case the PMOS said that it was because an allegation had been made that there was a conflict that it was important for an independent person to look into that allegation and find out whether it was justified or not. Asked in relation to the train fares whether it was surprising that a Cabinet Minister did not know the rule referred to wives only the PMOS said that David Blunkett had explained the situation already and he would refer journalists to that.

Asked if Sir Alan Budd was being paid to carry out the inquiry the PMOS said that they should speak to the Home Office, as it was a decision for the Permanent Secretary. Asked if the phrase in the statement "months in advance" referred to April and May 2003 and that the phrase was suitably vague that it covered the application by implication without actually saying the application definitely fell under this period the PMOS said that his reading of it was that the Home Office was trying not to pre-empt the inquiry and therefore we needed to be slightly patient. An allegation had been made. It was now supported by two letters taken out of context in a one sided way published this morning and what the Home Secretary had subsequently been trying to do, suitably, was strike a balance between on the one hand painting a context in a more balance a way, and on the other hand not pre-empting the investigation into this individual case. In answer to further questions the PMOS said that Sir Alan Budd would consider the evidence in relation to that individual case and what the Home Secretary had been doing today was to paint a broader context. What people had to do now was to wait for that investigation into the individual case to take place. What we were trying to say today was: "don’t rush to judgement", unfortunately some people had done so this morning. Despite that we were trying not to prejudge the outcome of the investigation and at the same time provide a broader context. The outcome would depend on what Alan Budd’s investigation reported.

Asked how the Government could be expected to successfully not pre-empt the Budd inquiry whilst dealing with very specific media allegations and subsequently expect the Home Secretary to survive until Sir Alan Budd reported the PMOS said that of course we were in the position where we had to balance things as best a possible. We had a duty to try and let Sir Alan do his job and to try to discourage people from rushing to judgement, even if we couldn’t control all newspapers. We had to try to provide an overall context without pre-empting the independent report. In response to the suggestion that the suspicion must therefore be that he was only being vague to leave the impression that the application fell within the implied fast tracking period regardless of whether it did or did not the PMOS said that he disagreed and that people would interpret it as pre-emption if we provided more detail and that was the problem we faced. What we were trying to do was say: "don’t rush to judgement".

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

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.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Wednesday, December 1, 2004

David Blunkett

No Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries