Downing Street Says » Deputy Prime Minister-Ministerial Code

Asked if the Prime Minister would now have an enquiry into whether the Deputy Prime Minister had breached the Ministerial Code, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that John Prescott had set out his position, which was that he had thanked Sir Philip Mawer for his report. Mr. Prescott had registered his stay at the ranch, and he recognised that the procedure for registering gifts needed to be improved. The facts were known and the Deputy Prime Minister had responded.

Put that the Committee had said that the point was not about the registration, as the Deputy Prime Minister had done so through his department, but rather, it was about the Ministerial Code, and the Prime Minister was the only arbiter of the Ministerial Code, the PMOS said that in terms of the problem, it had been resolved. John Prescott had now registered both the stay and the gifts, and he had set about improving the procedure for registering gifts in his department.

Put that the problem was the perception of a conflict of interest, and that was a matter for the Ministerial Code, rather than the declaration, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister had very clearly set out and publicly that the Deputy Prime Minister was perfectly right to discuss matter with Mr. Anschutz. Equally, the Deputy Prime Minister had set out, and the Prime Minister had accepted, that Mr. Prescott was not involved in granting planning permission for a license for a casino, and therefore, that addressed the issue.

Asked when the Prime Minister would reply to Don Foster’s letter about whether Mr. Prescott had broken the Ministerial Code, the PMOS said that in terms of letters, we would reply when we would reply.

Put that Mr. Prescott had just admitted that he had breached the Ministerial Code, and what was the Prime Minister’s response to that, and were there any plans to reprimand Mr. Prescott in any way, the PMOS replied that Mr. Prescott had rectified the problem, and the Prime Minister believed that it was the end of it.

Asked how the Deputy Prime Minister had rectified the problem by admitting that he had breached the Ministerial Code, the PMOS said that Mr. Prescott had rectified the problem by registering the visit, and he had set about improving the procedure for registering gifts in the department.

Asked if that meant that Ministers who admitted that they had breached the Ministerial Code could "get away with it", the PMOS replied: no. What it meant was that if there was a problem, it was addressed, but it was also recognised that it was in the wider interests of the country that the Deputy Prime Minister met an investor who was going to improve a major part of London in a very significant way.

Put that by merely meeting Mr. Anschutz and accepting hospitality from him, that could be viewed as a conflict of interest, the PMOS said that the logical implication of that was that no Minister at any time could meet anybody in the business world. People only had to state that to recognise how ludicrous it was. Rather, what we did have was a situation in which visits and gifts were registered so that people could see what had happened. That was what had now happened in this case.

Put that it was not only about meeting an investor, but rather, it was about accepting hospitality from them as well, the PMOS said that the hospitality had now been registered.

Put again that it was not about registering it, but accepting it, the PMOS replied that it had been registered and that what people seemed to be suggesting was that there should not be meetings of any kind with major investors.

Asked if the Prime Minister still stood by the section of the Ministerial Code regarding Ministers accepting gifts, hospitality or services from anyone which could or might appear place them under an obligation, the PMOS replied that in terms of the transparency of the process, the Deputy Prime Minister had registered what was required. That should be viewed in light of the benefit of a major investment in this country which would result in both housing and jobs.

Asked if it was OK for a Minister to accept hospitality as long as it was declared, the PMOS said that the situation was as he had set out. In this case, Sir Philip Mawer had said that the hospitality should be registered, which it had been.

Asked what Sir John Bourn’s job actually was, the PMOS said that it was set out in the terms of reference at the time. The PMOS pointed out to journalists that in this case, no-one was now disputing the facts.

Asked if the Deputy Prime Minister had breached the Ministerial Code at the time of accepting the gifts etc, the PMOS replied that what was important was that when this matter was drawn to Mr. Prescott’s attention, he registered the visit and the gifts, and he was improving the procedures in his office.

Asked if the Prime Minister thought that the situation was damaging for the Government, the PMOS said that what people should recognise was that it was this Government that had set up these procedures. Those procedures had now been followed, and that all the facts in this were out in the open. That would not have been the case before this Government.

Put that when David Blunkett had breached the Ministerial Code, it had led in part to his resignation, and Mr. Prescott had admitted that he breached the Code, and was he going to get away completely "unpunished", the PMOS said again that what was important was that when the problem had been pointed out John Prescott had voluntarily registered the matter, and it had now been investigated by Sir Philip Mawer. As a result, Mr. Prescott was improving the procedures in his office, and the Prime Minister believed that that was the end of it.

Asked repeatedly about the situation, the PMOS stressed that the facts were now known.

Asked what was the point of the Ministerial Code, the PMOS said that the point was to ensure transparency. It was also transparent that the issue had been resolved in that the Deputy Prime Minister had registered the visit and the gifts.

Asked if the Code was therefore not designed to avoid a conflict of interest, the PMOS said that it was designed to ensure that everyone knew that the issues were out in the open.

Asked if we would accept that the matter was drawn to the public’s attention by the press, therefore would the items have been declared if the press had not found out about them, the PMOS said that the matter was now resolved. The Prime Minister believed, as he had stated on many occasions, that it was right that Mr. Prescott had met Mr. Anschutz for the reasons set out.

Asked again if it was OK for Mr. Prescott to accept the gifts now they’d been declared, the PMOS replied again that the situation had been resolved.

5 Comments »

I’m still intriqued to know what this ‘Department’ of Prescott’s does; no other public servant could accept gifts and hospitality in this fashion and remain in post.
The country is being made into a laughing stock.
Comment by Allan M Jones — 21 Jul 2006 on 8:08 pm | Link
I’m still intriqued to know what this ‘Department’ of Prescott’s does; no other public servant could accept gifts and hospitality in this fashion and remain in post.
The country is being made into a laughing stock.
Comment by Allan M Jones — 21 Jul 2006 on 8:08 pm | Link
Will Gordon Brown will have to declare it as a gift when Blair presents him with what remains of the Labour Party?
Comment by Tony — 24 Jul 2006 on 8:35 pm | Link
Folk will know that I don’t like Tony Blair very much because his intellect is limited and insufficient for the job that he attempts to do.

To keep John Prescott in his post merely demonstrates the point.

Leaders are people of character strength and vision – ignoring the obvious comments about character and vision – to keep JP shows TB to be exceptionally weak.
Comment by Roger Huffadine — 25 Jul 2006 on 9:05 am | Link
I am appalled at this administration’s lack of integrity and honesty. In any other democracy resignations would have been made weeks ago. This leads me to the conclusion that we are genuinely a banana republic, led by a despot.
Comment by Tom Dexter — 25 Jul 2006 on 9:41 am | Link

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.

» Friday, July 21, 2006

Deputy Prime Minister-Ministerial Code

5 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries