RSS Feed
Prescott Has Broken the Ministerial Code
Iain Dale 8:37 PM
Earlier today I wrote about John Prescott's stay at the Anschutz Ranch in Colorado (HERE), pointing out that the taxpayer donated £60 to charity on Prescott's behalf in lieu of a hotel room. It is reasonable to think that the cost of overnight accomodation and meals at a ranch which has just been put on the market for £47.5 million might be considerably more than £250 a night. With this in mind, read Section 5.28 of the Ministerial Code...
5.28 In the event of a Minister accepting hospitality on a scale or from a source which might reasonably be thought likely to influence Ministerial action, it should be declared in Register of Members' or Peers’ Interests. Registration of hospitality would normally be required for hospitality over £550 in value for the Commons and £1000 for the Lords.
To me, this is one of the key aspects of the affair Sir Philip Mawer ought to be examining. The fact that Prescott has now registered it is of no consequence. Had there not been a media furore, he wouldn't have done so. I cannot see how Sir Philip can find Prescott anything other than banged to rights. But then I would say that, wouldn't I?
UPDATE: I've just realised that Sir Philip's get-out will be that the Ministerial Code is "nothing to do with me, guv", so that point is somewhat eroneous. This is why it should also be investigated by Sir Gus O'Donnell, who I would have thought ought to be the overseer of the Ministerial Code. If he says he's not, who is? Oh, right, the Prime Minister. What a ridiculous way of conducting the running of government.
5.28 In the event of a Minister accepting hospitality on a scale or from a source which might reasonably be thought likely to influence Ministerial action, it should be declared in Register of Members' or Peers’ Interests. Registration of hospitality would normally be required for hospitality over £550 in value for the Commons and £1000 for the Lords.
To me, this is one of the key aspects of the affair Sir Philip Mawer ought to be examining. The fact that Prescott has now registered it is of no consequence. Had there not been a media furore, he wouldn't have done so. I cannot see how Sir Philip can find Prescott anything other than banged to rights. But then I would say that, wouldn't I?
UPDATE: I've just realised that Sir Philip's get-out will be that the Ministerial Code is "nothing to do with me, guv", so that point is somewhat eroneous. This is why it should also be investigated by Sir Gus O'Donnell, who I would have thought ought to be the overseer of the Ministerial Code. If he says he's not, who is? Oh, right, the Prime Minister. What a ridiculous way of conducting the running of government.
13 Comments:
The question that needs to be asked is, why did Anschutz buy the Dome in the first place? Given its remote location and poisoned reputation it would be a liability at any price. But combined with the promise of a Super Casino licence it could just be worth a punt. Originally Tessa Jowell proposed a string of super casinos throughout the land but caved in pretty quickly at the first whiff of grapeshot, conceding that there should only be one. Obviously the fewer there are the more valuable they will be. I wonder where the nation's only super casino will be? The capital is an obvious choice, innit? Lucky Mr. A.
I don't think that's right. A super casino would have been of tremendous value, especially in the capital, even if they'd been 7 or 8 of them. What seems far more likely is that the OPDM thought that it would be a doddle to secure one of the licenses for the Dome, and Anschutz was persuaded to take it over on that condition.
What they hadn't done is anticipate the DCMS capitulating as they did with the result that securing the Single license for the Dome would be nearly impossible without being exposed. But that didn't stop them trying, and their desperation has led to the whole thing coming into the open.
Isn't the man who decides on ministerial code breaches, er, the Prime Minister? Given his constant inability to spot dodgy behaviour amongst his minions and his desire to avoid any kind of leadership election, surely he'll just say 'John is John' as usual?
Sounds like the Mail will be interesting tomorrow...talk of hand-crafted gifts: Cowboy Boots, Stetson and a J.P Belt.
I hope Mr Prescott didn't forget this section of the Ministerial Code:
5.24 It is a well established and recognised rule that no Minister or public servant should accept gifts, hospitality or services from anyone which would, or might appear to, place him or her under an obligation.
or this one:
5.25
a. Receipt of gifts should be reported to the Permanent Secretary;
b. Gifts of small value (currently this is set at up to £140) may be retained by the recipient;
c. Gifts of a higher value should be handed over to the Department for disposal...
d. Gifts received overseas worth more than the normal travellers' allowances should be declared at importation to Customs and Excise who will advise on any duty and tax liability. In general, if a Minister wishes to retain a gift he or she will be liable for any tax or duty it may attract.
Oh and that's another thing - did he pay the duty? You can only bring in £145 worth of all other goods including gifts and souvenirs without paying duty.
I understand Blair paid around £200 for his stay Chez Cliff Richard on Barbados or was it Bermuda ?
It's my humble opinion that Prescott is the bagman for NuLab. Brown got his cut for the Dome and AEG. If the bagman goes, all collapses around them.
All this stress could have health problems.
With my serious head on I have mixed opinions on this issue. What has Prescott actually done wrong? Regardless of the petty ins and outs of the ministerial code surely the central question is: Is he on the take? One would have to conclude (probably) that he is not. After all where do we expect the Deputy PM to stay in a Travel Lodge?
"..why did Anschutz buy the Dome in the first place?"
Perhaps Mr A was told that the Dome marked the birthplace of Wilberforce.
Over on Conservative Home William Norton posted on 06 July about the Kafka-like shuffle that accompanied attempts to nail Prescott for misdeeds surrounding the NE Referendum - everyone could see an egregious offence, but all pleaded that it was someone else's remit. Prezza is home and hosed, yet again, and there is no meaningful Executive accountability.
(and you wonder about the contempt for the political elites.)
tonbridgeblog - Why would he take actual money when he has had absolutely everything free of charge for the last 10 years? Did he pay for the whiskey he sloshed into glasses for Tracey Templeton - and the quick lays - in his office? Did he pay for a taxi home for her or did he use his official car?
He got gifts in Colorado. A Stetson - I know they can be expensive, but I don't know how expensive.
But Western boots? A pair of Tony Lamas could set Mr Anshutz back easily $10,000. Easily. Western belts also cost in the hundreds.
Did John Prescott walk through the Green Channel when he got back to Britain - as does Cherie Blair, carrying thousands of pounds worth of designer gifts from New York? Or did he he go through the Red Channel and declare the value of the boots and belt? Hmmmm ... anybody's guess, really ...
Michael Martin told the Con MPs that he couldn't allow their questions about anything investigated by Sir Philip, but the *ministerial* code (which Mawer can't cover) *could* be the subject of questions in the House.
I had the impression at the time that Hon Con Members hadn't quite grasped Martin's helpful hint. I hope they will. Anon at 10.53 pm has suggested a useful line of enquiry. Someone should pass it on to Sid (or Gavin), if they haven't twigged by now.
Casinos were dealt with by DCMS. The FIOA minutes of DCMS meetings (2003-05) show that at one point they noted (i.e it was a surprise) that Prescott had met Anschutz.
Tonbridgeblog: You ask, "where do we expect the Deputy PM to stay..."?
The hell away from the levers of power. And women, planning decisions, freebies, etc.
Tonbridge,
Even Fatty Boy isn't so stupid as to be accepting brown papaer bags full of used fivers (or at least I hope so).
No this sort of corruption is far more subtle. Quiet weekends at luxury ranches, seemingly insignificant gifts (I mean who'd suspect a pair of cowboy boots could be worth $10,000?).
Mr A will get his licence and maybe in a couple of years NuLab's election fund will be boosted by a couple of mill. NuLab's plan is to keep themselves in power for as long as possible. That's where all the pecuniary goodies are: Free houses, mortgage support on other homes, expense allowances, travel allowances, free cars, you name it.
At worst, JP and/or some other government minion(s) will be offered a non-exec directorship once NuLab is finally kicked out of power.
These days even local councillors have evolved beyond the envelopes stuffed with cash sort of corruption.
Ok you all have a good point, but my point is this. If he is out purely for personal gain, ie to line his own pockets in whatever way he can, then that is one thing. If he is out for political gain for his own party through influencing and networking, even if that does involve receiving expensive trinkets, that is entirely different. In Prezza's case I'm not sure which one it is and maybe the lines separating the two have become too blurred, which is part of the problem. One thing is certain though: I doubt if any of the political parties do not court influential businessmen etc. with a view to keeping them, their influence and their future funding on board. Clearly though the media at large now will not back off until another scalp is claimed. Having said all that, sod the bloated, egotistical, money grabbing, northern, uncultured, semi illiterate, beer swilling philistine. Now there's serious political criticism and comment for you....
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home