It's difficult, if not downright impossible, to have any sympathy for Blunkett in his latest problem. How on earth he can claim that Article 5.9 of the Ministerial Code is ambiguous beats me. Here is the Article:
"On leaving office, ministers should seek advice from the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments about any appointments they wish to take up within two years of leaving office. This is not necessary for unpaid appointments in non-commercial organisations or appointments in the gift of the government, such as prime ministerial appointments to international organisations. Although it is in the public interest that former ministers should be able to move into business or other areas of public life, it is equally important that there should be no cause for any suspicion of impropriety about a particular appointment. The advisory committee may recommend a delay of up to two years before the appointment is taken up if: a) an appointment could lead to public concern that the statements and decisions of the minister, when in government, have been influenced by the hope or expectation of future employment with the firm or organisation concerned: b) an employer could make improper use of official information to which a former minister has had access."
He was warned on a couple of occasions by Sir Patrick Mayhew, Chairman of the Advisory Committee. Unfortunately for Blunkett, these letters have now been leaked to the Times (source)
One of the most curious parts of Blunkett's October 31st Statement statement is this:
"There has therefore been no conflict of interest. However, I am not prepared even to have the appearance that there could be any potential future conflict whilst the trust retains any shares in DNA Bioscience."
Curious because he appears not to grasp that a potential confict arose on May 6th when he was appointed Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and in his statement has not denied the allegation that DNA Bioscience were rummaging about for work from HMG. Indeed it seems the company were already using the Blunkett connection in its advertising. Between May and the end of October there was a potential conflict.The shares he obtained, even though he placed them in trust did not avoid that conflict. His sons, the beneficaries of the trust, would gain from the certain increase in the value of the shares should DNA Biosciences subsequently manage to acquire the government business they were punting for. The expression "potential future conflict",which Blunkett uses does not cover that period.
It seems preposterous, despite no doubt the usual " all the papers that cross my desk" defence, that this could have slipped his mind.
I suppose he expected to get away with it!
Comments