Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: David Blunkett and Climate Change
David Blunkett
Put to him that the Prime Minister felt that David Blunkett had broken the Ministerial code but that he didn’t think the transgression merited any further action other than to recognise that he had done it, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that we had covered this in our statement yesterday afternoon. The statement set out the sequence of events and set out that the period between David Blunkett leaving government and taking up this post was four months and traditionally the period recommended before ministers took up posts was three months. What was important was that David Blunkett, as he had said, thought he had understood the rules but had not. Therefore that was why he had made a mistake. He had admitted making a mistake and that mistake did not affect the substance of his job. Therefore he should be allowed to get on with his job.
Asked if the Prime Minister was confident that he had been given all the information by David Blunkett which would allow him to have complete confidence in him without regret, the PMOS said yes. In terms of the information which had come out today, it was not often that he had to cause to quote the Independent on Sunday in aid but if people went back to the Independent on Sunday they would discover that all the allegedly new information had in fact been dealt with by the paper and the Sunday Times as well. It was in relation to that that David Blunkett issued his statement admitting that he had misunderstood the rules and had apologised for that. There had been no new information out there and the Prime Minister made his statement yesterday afternoon in full knowledge of the information that was out there.
Put to him that Sir Alistair Graham had been saying for some time that there should be an independent advisor to ministers and that there should also be someone who was independent to investigate any irregularities, and the Government had done nothing, the PMOS said it was not true to say we had done nothing. The matter was and remained under active consideration. The important point was that there should be someone who ministers could have absolute trust in, in terms of advice, judgment and confidentiality. There were a series of questions around it but it was being actively considered. Put to him that 2 years was a pretty slow form of acting, the PMOS repeated that there were issues to be resolved. It was right and proper that it was considered properly.
Asked if it was accepted that the code had been breached then was it fair to say that the Prime Minister’s view was that breach should be without consequence, the PMOS repeated that all the information available today had been available over the weekend. In terms of the consequences of course you had to judge the implications of a mistake in terms of whether it affects someone’s ability to do the job, and the Prime Minister’s view was that in this case it didn’t affect David Blunkett’s ability to do the job.
Put to him that Lord Mayhew had said quite explicitly to David Blunkett in his letters both in December and March that he should consult the committee before taking up any external appointment or business appointments, the PMOS referred journalists to David Blunkett’s statement to the Independent on Sunday last Saturday. The confusion arose out of David Blunkett’s interpretation of the third paragraph in the 15th March letter over the word ‘voluntary.’ David Blunkett took it to mean one thing where it was now clear it had meant something else. David Blunkett had accepted that he had made a mistake. The question was whether that mistake prevented him from doing his job.
The Prime Minister’s view was that it didn’t. Put to him that it was not the only question, that there were issues of ethical propriety which needed to be taken into consideration and it looked like the Prime Minister was saying that minister’s could do what they liked, the PMOS said that would be unfair. What we had seen was a process where clarification about the rules had been sought and provided so that everyone was now clear what the rules meant. But you did have to make a judgement about the nature of the mistake and whether it interfered with the role of Cabinet Minister. In this case it didn’t. That did not mean that the Prime Minister had turned a blind eye to this mistake, quite the reverse. We had gone through the process of seeking clarification. We had sought advice and David Blunkett had made the decision to sell the shares from his family trust, not because there was an immediate problem but because there was a perception there would be a problem in the future. That should be recognised.
Put to him that David Blunkett didn’t seem to be particularly contrite about his mistake, the PMOS said that David Blunkett had explained why he came to the misunderstanding in his statement on Saturday. David Blunkett had, quite rightly, pointed out the facts of how he notified his Permanent Secretary of the fact that this company did not have contracts with the DWP or the CSA. He was perfectly entitled to do that. What he had responded to was the fear that there could be a perception that at some future point there could be a conflict. He had done the proper thing in doing that and should be given credit for that.
Put to him that this was a clear set of rules and David Blunkett broke those rules, the PMOS said that you had to make a judgment call as to whether making a mistake which he then admitted affected his current role. David Blunkett had not tried to hide that he had this job, what he hadn’t done was complied with the rules and admitted that. Put to him that it wasn’t a question of David Blunkett trying to hide anything but that in the very short period between being Home Secretary and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions he had tried to make a lot of money, which was how it appeared, the PMOS said that in terms of profits and getting rid of the shares David Blunkett had dealt with that in his statement.
Asked what the key third paragraph in Lord Mayhew’s letter had said, the PMOS read it, Lord Mayhew had said: ‘I think it is right to point out that the voluntary character of the scheme for former minister’s is exactly that, it is voluntary.’ That was what the letter said. Put to him that in the previous letters from Lord Mayhew was explicit that David Blunkett should consult the committee, the PMOS said that David Blunkett had admitted that he had made a mistake. As he had said on the 29th October, he thought that he had understood the advice but clearly he had not. Put to him that the message this gave was that if there was a breach to the ministerial code, provided it didn’t affect that minister’s job, it didn’t matter, the PMOS said that in terms of the processes we had gone through over the last few days to clarify what had happened that wasn’t a fair summary. What you did need was a sense of perspective about the nature of the mistake and that was what had guided the Prime Minister. Asked if the Prime Minister felt that that Mr Blunkett had acted in the spirit of the code, the PMOS said that the important thing was that David Blunkett had admitted he had made a mistake.
Asked how this incident had squared with the Prime Minister’s commitment prior to being elected to be "whiter than white", the PMOS said that in terms of the procedure, we had gone through this in a transparent way. We had explained at each stage why the decisions we had taken were taken and David Blunkett had admitted he had made a mistake. Now there was a judgment call about whether the mistake was sufficient to stop him doing his job. The Prime Minister’s view was that it wasn’t.
Climate Change
Asked what the best possible outcome could be expected from today’s G8 dialogue on climate change, the PMOS said that first and foremost this was the follow-up to Gleneagles. The reason for it was because Kyoto did not cover India and China, and as people knew the US didn’t agree with it. Yet if you looked at the potential threat to the environment these countries were as much a part of that as anyone else. That was why it was very important that we had the dialogue between the G8, China and India as well as Mexico, Brazil and South Africa. What had already been achieved since Gleneagles was an agreement between EU and China to capture and store Carbon Dioxide emissions. We had already funded new work to look into efficiency in buildings, appliances and transport and we had already begun dialogue with Latin America and China as to how we invested in low carbon strategies. This would be a genuine discussion today but what we were hoping for was agreement on when and how key technologies could be deployed and identifying strategies and roadmaps for key sectors such as the automobile industry and other technologies to reduce emissions. Already in the UK for instance were looking at options such introducing bio-fuels and raising the rate at which bio-fuels were used in petrol.
delicious
digg
facebook
