Downing Street Says » Tessa Jowell

The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman advised journalists that he had copies of three documents to hand out. A statement from the Prime Minister, a statement from Tessa Jowell and from the Cabinet Office the letter from Sir Gus O’Donnell to Theresa May, he would then take questions.

Asked why the Cabinet Secretary had not judged the gift a gift, the PMOS said that questions for Sir Gus O’Donnell should be addressed separately to the Cabinet Office after this briefing. Today people needed to separate out the two very separate issues. One was Tessa Jowell and the ministerial code issue; this was what we would deal with. The other was about questions considered as part of the Italian investigation. People had to bear in mind that the tradition in this country was that someone was innocent unless proven guilty. We should not in any way therefore be dragged into a situation where we were prejudicing or interfering in an investigation in another country. If that were to happen in the reverse way, in other words in a case here, people would rightly be outraged. We had to obey the same judicial standards as we would here. Asked if the outcome of any court proceedings might cause Sir Gus O’Donnell to reopen his investigation, the PMOS said that he did not answer hypothetical questions. There was an ongoing case and he would not speculate about the outcome. Everyone should wait, first and foremost, to see if there would be any court proceedings and then the subsequent outcome.

Asked if this drew a line for the Prime Minister under this issue, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister’s final paragraph made that point absolutely clearly. Asked whether the Prime Minister would remind ministers of their responsibilities and duties as Sir Gus O’Donnell had with permanent secretaries, the PMOS said that the appropriate person to remind ministers of the ministerial code was the Cabinet Secretary. The Prime Minister was fully aware of what Sir Gus O’Donnell had done and the Prime Minister had fully endorsed it. Asked how realistic it was to draw a line under this when information would continue to come out from Italy, the PMOS said that it was a fact of life that there was a legal proceeding going on in another country. It was also a fact of life, however much we regretted it, that there were leaks and documents coming out in the process of that legal proceeding. That, however, did not take away from the fact that we should adopt the same approach to that legal proceeding as we would here in the UK. In other words we should not interfere, comment, speculate or get involved. A separate issued had been raised about Tessa Jowell and the ministerial code. The facts of that issue had been established by Sir Gus O’Donnell and the Prime Minister had made his judgement about the ministerial code on the basis of that. Put to him that the damage would continue, the PMOS said that Tessa Jowell had an excellent record as a minister not least in relation to the Olympics. She would continue to get on with her job. It was a reality that the Italian legal proceedings would continue. Asked if the Prime Minister was prepared to continue to stand by Tessa Jowell, the PMOS pointed out that the Prime Minister had said in his statement that he had full confidence in Tessa Jowell in the knowledge that the legal case in Italy would continue.

Put to the PMOS that it seemed from the documents like the only reason that Sir Gus O’Donnell had cleared Tessa Jowell was because her husband had not told her of the gift and whether an explanation had been given about that, the PMOS said that he would not get drawn into commenting on Mr Mills’ reasons for why he acted in the way that he had. However, if people looked at Tessa Jowell’s statement it had explained the circumstances. She accepted that her husband should have told her and said that she would have informed her permanent secretary if she had known. It was on this basis that the Prime Minister had made his statement. Asked if the Prime Minister accepted the views of those that said the investigation procedure was unsatisfactory and whether anything new would be set up, the PMOS said that he accepted that there was a genuine debate to be had about this. The Prime Minister had stated in his response to the Alistair Graham’s proposals that of course the Cabinet Secretary could establish facts but in the end decisions about ministers, who were accountable to the public as a whole, had to be made by the person who headed up the government – the Prime Minister. It was the Prime Minister who had to make the decision. Sir Gus O’Donnell had independently established the facts but what Sir Gus O’Donnell could not do, anymore than anyone else, was make a ruling on the issues that were before the Italian investigators. Therefore it was misleading to suggest that an independent investigator could have produced any different an outcome. The sub judice point remained valid for whoever established the facts. Put to the PMOS that there was a requirement in the ministerial code to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest and there appeared to be a conflict in the documents coming from Italy, the PMOS said that unless the journalist was advocating summary justice he did not see how the issue could be addressed. People had to respect legal due process.

Asked whether the Prime Minister thought that Tessa Jowell’s standing had been damaged, the PMOS referred the journalist to the Prime Minister’s statement where he had said that Tessa Jowell was an excellent minister who was widely respected and that he had full confidence in her. Tessa Jowell had explained the circumstances and the Prime Minister had fully accepted that explanation. Asked if the Sir Gus O’Donnell letter was effectively saying whatever a spouse may have done that had no effect on a minister, the PMOS repeated that it was important to distinguish two things, as had been the point of the whole exercise. Where there could be an apparent conflict of interests in what a spouse did that had to be declared. The other issue was the investigation in Italy and we could not prejudge the outcome of that case. Sir Gus O’Donnell’s letter was a matter for the Cabinet Office. Put to the PMOS that it was incredible that David Mills had not mentioned the gift and secondly how was it that it was not a gift just because it was taxed, the PMOS said that Tessa Jowell had accepted that her husband should have told her. It was best that the Cabinet Office dealt with specific points from Sir Gus O’Donnell’s letter but the important point was that Sir Gus O’Donnell’s role was not to ultimately decide the fate of ministers, that was the Prime Minister’s task. The Cabinet Secretary’s role once he had consulted permanent secretaries was to advise ministers, including the Prime Minister.

Asked why Tessa Jowell had not told her permanent secretary about the gift in August 2004, the PMOS said the reasons were set out in her letter. It had been agreed with the Inland Revenue that the sum be classified as earnings upon which tax was paid therefore she did not consider it necessary to tell her permanent secretary. Asked whether the Prime Minister was satisfied that if gifts were given but classed as earnings there was no need to tell the permanent secretary, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister was satisfied that Tessa Jowell had accepted that had she known about the gift that she should and would have told her permanent secretary. By the time Tessa Jowell had become aware of the gift it had been classified as earnings on which Mr Mills had paid tax, therefore under the rules it did not have to be declared. Put to the PMOS that it beggared belief that Mr Mills knew about the gift for fours years before he told Tessa Jowell, the PMOS said that he would not give a running commentary on what people thought. All he could say was that Tessa Jowell had stated the facts and the Prime Minister had accepted her version of the facts.

Asked whether Sir Gus O’Donnell was aware of the Dubai letter about the right to practice law there, the PMOS said that again, he was not going to comment on information emanating from Italy. All the PMOS could repeat was what he had said already, which was that this allegation arose out of the investigation in Italy, and therefore, it was part of an ongoing investigation. For that reason, he would not comment on it.

Put to the PMOS that the Ministerial Code when used for investments applied not only to Ministers, but to their spouses as well, and in September 2000, Tessa Jowell had said that she knew that her husband had wanted to make an investment, and that she had signed a loan in the form of investments that were used to fund another investment, and had she taken advice on whether to disclose this, and if not, why not, the PMOS referred back to what he had said before which was that Tessa Jowell had accepted that her husband should have told her about it. He had not. Tessa Jowell said that if she had been aware that she would have declared it.

Asked in that case if a minister’s spouse did not confide about substantial sums if that then meant that minister had done nothing wrong, the PMOS replied that that was another contentious interpretation. The message from this was that Tessa Jowell and the Prime Minister took the Ministerial Code very seriously, and they accepted that in this case, Tessa Jowell’s husband should have told her about this gift, and if he had, it would and should have been declared.

Asked if a gift could be made into earnings the PMOS said that Inland Revenue ruling was in compliance with the rules about earnings, which had been taxed. Asked further about earnings, the PMOS said that at the point of taking a gift, it had to be declared. Put that the Prime Minister’s statement indicated that David Davies was going to receive a letter as well, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister’s statement addressed the issue, as indeed the Home Office had the other day. Put that there was no current incentive under the current Code for a spouse of a Minister to disclose to the Minister any information about their financial dealings, and for four years Tessa Jowell’s husband had financial information that he did not tell her about, and did we accept that the Ministerial Code was sufficient, the PMOS said that anyone looking at the events of last week and the problems that had arisen out of the fact that this gift had not been declared would argue that there was an incentive. Asked if the Prime Minister believed that this had been a valid investigation, the PMOS said that there had been no suggestion at all from No10 or any other part of Government during this week that we had thought otherwise. People had the right to ask these questions.

Asked how Tessa Jowell became aware in 2004 of the financial dealings, the PMOS said that her husband had told her. Asked why the PMOS had said that Tessa Jowell had set that out in the letter but that he would not get into a running commentary on further details. The PMOS reiterated that she had explained the circumstances in her letter and that further information should be sought from DCMS. Asked if it was implicit in the letters that if one received a gift or earnings and did not tell their ministerial spouse then the minister could not be influenced or compromised, the PMOS replied that what was important in terms of the overall judgement was that Tessa Jowell had not known and equally that she had accepted, and that the Prime Minister had accepted, that she should have been told. The PMOS further stressed that Tessa Jowell had not knowingly decided not to declare but equally she should have been told.

Asked if the Prime Minister still stood by his foreword to the Ministerial Code which stated that he expected all ministers to work within the letter and the spirit of the code, the PMOS replied yes. Pressed on whether Tessa Jowell had complied with the spirit of the code, the PMOS replied that Tessa Jowell had admitted that she should have been told but that she had not been told and that was why she had not declared it. Put that there had been a breach of the code and that it had not been Tessa Jowell’s fault, but her husband’s fault, the PMOS replied that Tessa Jowell had not breached the code because if she had been told she would have complied with it. Pressed again that there had been a breach of the code, the PMOS repeated that Tessa Jowell had not breached the code.

Asked about the question of payment not being declarable and whether this was Sir Gus O’Donnell’s view or only the Prime Minister’s view, the PMOS replied that was the general interpretation of the code. Asked whose interpretation this was, the PMOS stated that this was the general interpretation of those who interpreted the code.

Asked if he regarded all of David Mills’ financial affairs as being covered by the proceedings in Italy and if that meant that anything that came out of those proceedings on his financial affairs could not be looked at until all those proceedings had concluded, the PMOS said that there was a very simple case here: he could not in any way comment on any of that material without interfering in an ongoing investigation. Put that he was taking a fastidious view but that associates in the Italian judicial system appeared not to, the PMOS stated that he worked on the UK judicial system and that he would not comment further on this line of questioning.

Asked if it should be inferred that these were really quite well off people for whom the movement of large sums of money in and out of their bank accounts was not discussion worthy, the PMOS referred the questioner to Tessa Jowell’s statement. Asked if there was any difference in the Prime Minister’s view between a gift from a foreign politician and a gift from a foreign businessman, the PMOS replied that since one of the issues at the heart of the Italian investigation was precisely who this money came from, he could not comment. Pressed that this was about trying to establish the difference in the regard the Prime Minister had for the seriousness of this case, the PMOS replied that he understood why the question was being asked and that he hoped it was understood why he could not answer it.

Asked who interpreted the Ministerial code, the PMOS replied that each secretary of state could consult their permanent secretary and that permanent secretaries could talk to the Cabinet Secretary about matters relating to the code.

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.

» Thursday, March 2, 2006

Tessa Jowell

No Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries