Downing Street Says » Tessa Jowell

Asked about the allegations from the Italian prosecution team that the Home Office had "sabotaged" the investigation, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman said that the Home Office had dealt with the issue last night, and the PMOS said he had nothing further to add to what they had said. The PMOS underlined that this was handled in the normal way, and the criticism would be if we had handled it any other way.

Asked if we had categorically declared that Ministers had played no role in any of the events involved, the PMOS said that this was dealt with official to official, and Ministers were not involved.

Asked if Sir Gus O’Donnell might now widen his investigation to include the Home Office allegations, and would that delay things, and was he still aiming for Thursday, the PMOS replied that this was a matter for Sir Gus to decide when he replied. The PMOS said that his hunch was that some people had indicated that it might be Thursday, but it was up to Sir Gus.

Put that the Guardian had suggested today that there might be a question mark over whether or not Tessa Jowell should have registered the home loan as part of the Register of Member’s Interests, which she had not done, the PMOS said that it was better to deal with this whenever all the facts were established.

Asked if that aspect might form part of Sir Gus’s inquiry, the PMOS replied that it was entirely up to him on what basis Sir Gus decided to reply to Theresa May, but the PMOS was not going to give a running commentary on it.

Asked if the Prime Minister had discussed David Mills with Silvio Berlusconi, the PMOS replied that as he had said yesterday, he was not aware that the Prime Minister had.

Asked if Tessa Jowell had at any point offered to resign, the PMOS said he was not aware that she had.

Asked if the Prime Minister had any reason to doubt Tessa Jowell’s integrity, the PMOS said: no.

Asked if Sir Gus O’Donnell’s inquiry was purely in response to Theresa May’s question about the Ministerial Code, or did it cover a wider range of issues, the PMOS replied that people should not get sucked into the idea about a formal inquiry. Theresa May had written to Sir Gus O’Donnell, and Sir Gus, when he had established all the facts, would reply to Theresa May. It was entirely a matter for Sir Gus on what basis he did so.

Asked whether Sir Gus would then report back his findings to the Prime Minister and Tessa Jowell, the PMOS said that as he had been saying all week, Tessa Jowell, as like any other Secretary of State, consulted her Permanent Secretary, and the normal discussions took place.

Put that it was a surprise that there might be a possibility that Sir Gus might look at the Home Office aspect, as there was no aspect of the Ministerial Code involved, the PMOS said that he had not said what Sir Gus would look at, as it was not for him to do so. Therefore, people should not take an interpretation of something that he had not said. What the PMOS had said was that it was entirely a matter for Sir Gus on what basis he replied to Theresa May.

Asked if Sir Gus’s role was clearly defined, the PMOS said again that it was entirely up to Sir Gus how he wanted to reply. What people should not read into that was that Sir Gus would or would not be looking at certain aspects.

Asked if the Cabinet Secretary was not constrained by any limits set by either the Prime Minister or his job description, the PMOS replied that as he had said, it was entirely a matter for Sir Gus to decide how he replied.

Put that people were asking if Sir Gus was "simply following his nose" and doing what he saw fit, or whether he had been given open remit by the Prime Minister, the PMOS replied that what people were asking was for the PMOS to give a running commentary on how Sir Gus was preparing to reply to Theresa May, and he was not going to give that commentary.

Asked further on the allegations, the PMOS said that people had had the answer from the Home Office about the allegations that were made, and they could not have been clearer in saying that normal procedures were followed. Those were internationally accepted, and speaking entirely on a matter of principle, the reasons those procedures were there were precisely to stop maverick prosecutors seeking extradition of individuals in another country. That was an internationally accepted safeguard that it should go through the normal channels, and that was what had happened in this case.

Asked by ITN if the Prime Minister thought it was "unfortunate" in the particular circumstances in this case that these documents were sent back to the Justice Ministry, and surely that was not a "very bright thing to do", the PMOS replied that the journalist might be a barrack room lawyer, but the PMOS was not. The PMOS followed normal, internationally accepted rules, and if we had deviated from them in this case, criticism would have been justified. The PMOS reminded journalists that in this country, the tradition was that someone was innocent unless proven guilty. Because the Italian prosecution system operated in a different way, it did not mean that we would deviate in any way from that basic principle, and nor should we.

Put again by ITN that when it was the Government itself that was under investigation, would it not be logical not to send key documents back to that very same Justice, the PMOS factually pointed out that it was not the Italian Government itself that was under investigation. The PMOS also pointed out that what the journalist was suggesting was in some way meaning that we should be making a verdict on guilt or innocence in a case in a foreign country. The PMOS said he could just imagine what the reaction in Britain would be if a foreign country did that involving a case here. Therefore, what was needed was a little less populism and a bit more rationality.

Asked again if the Prime Minister thought it "unfortunate", the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister viewed it as absolutely correct that normal procedures were followed.

Asked what was the Prime Minister’s feeling about what effect this affair was having on Tessa Jowell and her ability to do her job, and the effect it was having on the Government, the PMOS said that firstly, people should remember the huge contribution that Tessa Jowell was making, and had, made to this Government, not least in terms of winning the 2012 bid. Secondly, Tessa Jowell continued with her job; these questions had been asked, and it was right and proper that they should be answered.

Asked if the Prime Minister thought that aside from that, it was an "unhappy distraction" that he could do without, the PMOS said that questions were asked all the time, and it was our job to answer them. It was also our job to establish the facts before answering them. As always, there was a tension between on the one hand, the desire to answer questions quickly, resolve matters and move on, and on the other hand, to make sure that what we were saying was correct. Therefore, we had to live with that tension.

Asked about the Prime Minister’s personal relationship with Silvio Berlusconi, the PMOS said that Silvio Berlusconi was elected Prime Minister in Italy, and the Prime Minister had dealt with him on a number of issues. He had a high regard for the stance that Prime Minister Berlusconi had taken on a number of hard foreign issues.

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, March 1, 2006

Tessa Jowell

No Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries