Testi originali dei comunicati sul caso di Tessa Jowell (Mills/Berlusconi)
TONY BLAIR
The full text of the statement by prime minister Tony Blair on Tessa Jowell's
failure to declare a payment to her husband.
"I have now received a report back from the cabinet secretary on the allegations made in respect of Tessa Jowell and the ministerial code. The allegation is that Tessa Jowell's husband received a gift and that she did not report it to her permanent secretary. Under the ministerial code, ministers are obliged to report any gift. Tessa Jowell has stated categorically that she did not know of the existence of any such sum of money until August 2004. At this time her husband told her that he had received a sum of money that he thought was a gift but which had been classified by the Inland Revenue as earnings, so that tax had to be paid on it. As a result there was no obligation to report it since by the time she knew of it, it had been designated as earnings. I accept Tessa's assurance that she did not know about it until the issue was resolved with the Inland Revenue. In these circumstances, she is not in breach of her obligations under the ministerial code. In doing this, I make it clear that I am not in a position to make any finding about the nature of the sum of money received by Tessa Jowell's husband, which is the subject of Italian court proceedings. The Home Office has also re-examined the facts in relation to the extradition request. As the Home Office has made clear, in late 2004, the Serious Fraud Office received a request from the Milan prosecutor for legal advice about the circumstances in which David Mills could be extradited under UK law, based upon possible charges against him. The request was passed to the Crown Prosecution Service who took legal advice which was passed by the Home Office to the Italian embassy in May 2005. As the Home Office explained to the Milan prosecutor last September, it was normal practice to deal with such matters through diplomatic channels before Italy's designation in July 2005 as a European Arrest Warrant partner. During this process, which was handled at Home Office official level in the routine way, there was no contact between the Home Office and DCMS at any level, or indeed with Tessa Jowell's husband. There is therefore nothing to investigate. Tessa Jowell is an excellent minister who is widely respected. I have full confidence in her."
*****************
SIR GUS O'DONNELL
The full text of cabinet secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell's letter to shadow
Commons leader Theresa May.
Dear Theresa, Thank you for your letter of 21 February. As you say, any proceedings in respect of Mr Mills are a matter for the Italian courts and, like you, I make no comment in that respect. I also agree with you that spouses or partners of ministers should be free to undertake their own careers and business dealings. Turning to the ministerial code, let me be absolutely clear about the proper procedures that should apply when cases arise where allegations are made as to whether a minister has acted in accordance with the code. Section 1.3 of the code states that: 'Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the Code and for justifying their actions and conduct in parliament. The code is not a rulebook and nor is it the role of the secretary to the cabinet or other officials to enforce it or to investigate ministers although they may provide ministers with private advice on matters which it covers'. The process followed in this case has observed these clear procedures. In the first instance, the secretary of state for culture, media and sport has worked closely with her permanent secretary, in close consultation with me, to establish the facts. It is for me to provide advice as necessary to the prime minister and secretary of state, in line with the code. The work done relates solely to the secretary of state's responsibilities under the code. It is not an investigation of Mr Mills' financial affairs. The prime minister's official spokesman has been clear about this process throughout the course of the week. Following this painstaking process undertaken by the secretary of state, with the departmental permanent secretary and myself, the secretary of state has today made a full, public statement about how she has discharged her responsibilities under the code in line with the facts established. I have reported these facts to the prime minister and he has also made a statement. As has been made clear consistently throughout this series of events, it is the prime minister, not me, who, constitutionally, is the right and proper person to take a view on matters arising based on the ministerial code. In her statement, the secretary of state has said that she first became aware in August 2004 that her husband had received in September 2000 a sum of money which he thought he had reasonable grounds to believe was a gift. By the time she became aware of it, he had already agreed with the then Inland Revenue that it should be classified as earnings on which tax should be paid. As the secretary of state says in her statement, she did not therefore consider it necessary to make any reference of any of this to her permanent secretary. However, she fully accepts that Mr Mills should have informed her, and if he had, she would of course have reported it to her permanent secretary. For my part, with regard to the civil service, I have reminded permanent secretaries that notification of personal financial interests of ministers and their partners remains the individual responsibility of ministers. Given that the financial disclosure provisions of the ministerial code have been tightened since the present government came to office, and the fact that the financial affairs of ministers and their partners may well have changed over the course of time, I have asked permanent secretaries to discuss regularly with their ministers their obligations to declare any necessary relevant information, as set out under the code. Finally, I am aware of the conversations between you and Lord Turnbull, my predecessor, about the actions of civil servants on Mr Mills' behalf. I am satisfied that since that exchange, civil servants have acted in accordance with the civil service code and no civil servant has acted for Mr Mills or made representations or statements on his behalf. The prime minister is addressing the points raised about the Home Office issues set out by the Rt Hon David Davis MP in his letter to me yesterday.
Yours ever, Gus."
****************************
TESSA
JOWELL
The full text of Tessa Jowell's statement on her failure to declare a
payment to her husband.
"This statement deals with my responsibilities under the ministerial code. It will not deal with those matters subject to legal proceedings in Italy. They will be contested by my husband, in court if necessary. Questions have been raised about my personal finances. These are the facts. My husband and I jointly own our family home in London. The house in Warwickshire belongs to my husband. Since 2000 we have twice changed our mortgage arrangements on our London home. On the first occasion it was to pay for home improvements. On the second occasion we remortgaged the house to get a better interest rate. In addition, I have twice agreed to use our homes as security against a bank loan, and signed the relevant papers to do so. On the first occasion, on 9th June 2000, my husband took out a loan using his Warwickshire house as security, to pay for home improvements and an investment made by him. Because the bank viewed me as a resident in the Warwickshire house, it required my formal agreement to this arrangement and I signed the relevant papers. On the second occasion, 20th September 2000, my husband wanted to make an investment, and took out a loan using our London home as security. I signed the relevant papers. My husband has a number of investments and I knew there would be no difficulty in repaying the loan. I knew nothing more about the nature of the investment. I was not aware until recently that the loan had been repaid shortly after it was taken out, so our London home was no longer needed as security. I first became aware in August 2004 that my husband had received in September 2000 a sum of money which he thought he had reasonable grounds to believe was a gift. By the time I became aware of it, he had already agreed with the Inland Revenue that it should be classified as earnings on which tax was paid. I did not therefore consider it necessary to make any reference about any of this to my permanent secretary. However, I fully accept that my husband should have informed me and, if he had, I would of course have reported it to my permanent secretary. I have always discharged my responsibilities under the ministerial code in good faith. There are separate issues relating to legal proceedings in Italy, which my husband will vigorously defend. I cannot prejudge the outcome of those proceedings. Nor will I comment on them." .
by www.osservatoriosullalegalita.org
___________
I CONTENUTI DEL SITO POSSONO ESSERE PRELEVATI CITANDO E LINKANDO LA FONTE