Select Committee on Standards and Privileges Thirteenth Report

Written evidence received by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

1.  Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Hugo Swire MP, 4 July 2006

You will be aware of recent newspaper reports concerning a visit by the Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott to the Colorado home of Philip Anschutz.

A number of allegations have been made concerning the nature of the trip, and in particular whether it should have been registered as stipulated by the Ministerial Code.

Paragraph 5.24 of the Ministerial Code states 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."

Clearly given the nature of Mr Prescott's role in relation to the awarding of the casino licenses, the fact that this meeting should take place raises a number of questions.

In addition, the admission that the hospitality was not registered, and that the subsequent donation to a charity appears to have been made by a Government Department appears to raise further questions.

I would therefore be grateful if you could examine the circumstances surrounding the visit and the subsequent registering of the gift as a matter of urgency.

2.  Letter to Mr Hugo Swire MP from the Commissioner, 4 July 2006

Thank you for your letter (of which I received a faxed copy earlier today) about a visit by Mr Prescott to the home of Mr Philip Anschutz. You ask whether the visit should have been registered in the Register of Members' Interests, and also raise other questions relating to the position under the Ministerial Code.

As you know, my responsibilities under Standing Order No. 150 of the House relate to the interpretation and application of the Code of Conduct and associated Rules approved by the House. Broadly, Ministers of the Crown who are Members of the House are subject to the rules on registration and declaration of interests in the same way as all other Members (see paragraph 7 of the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members).

In addition, Ministers are subject to further guidelines and requirements laid down in the Ministerial Code promulgated by the Prime Minister. The interpretation and application of that Code is ultimately the responsibility of the Prime Minister advised by the Secretary to the Cabinet.

The questions you raise appear to span both Mr Prescott's obligations under the Parliamentary Code and his obligations under the Ministerial Code. Accordingly some may be outside my terms of reference, while others fall within them.

As a first step I am therefore contacting Mr Prescott and his Department to establish the facts surrounding the visit. Once I have the outcome of these preliminary inquiries, I will let you know how I intend to proceed.

In the meantime I enclose a copy of a note I send all complainants setting out the procedures I follow when considering a complaint under the House's Code. May I draw your attention in particular to paragraph 14 of the note?

I will write again as soon as I have been able to consider the outcome of my preliminary inquiries.

3.  Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Hugo Swire, 10 July 2006

Thank you for your recent acknowledgement of my letter concerning a visit by the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott to the Colorado home of Philip Anschutz.

You will be aware of the further allegations made against the Deputy Prime Minister in recent days.

I would be grateful therefore if you could lay out fully the scope and remit of your investigation.

In particular, whether you will be taking into account any other undeclared gifts or undeclared hospitality on this or other occasions enjoyed by the Deputy Prime Minister? Will you also examine whether duty should have been paid on the importation of any gifts?

4.  Letter to Mr Hugo Swire MP from the Commissioner, 11 July 2006

Thank you for your letter of 10 July.

The principal matter into which I am inquiring is the question you raised in your letter to me of 3 July as to whether Mr Prescott's stay at the ranch of Mr Philip Anschutz in July 2005 should have been registered in the Register of Members' Interests. As I said to you in my letter of 4 July in reply, the other matters you raised in relation to the Ministerial Code are a matter for the Prime Minister, advised by the Secretary to the Cabinet.

In the light of newspaper reports over the weekend alleging that Mr Prescott received gifts from Mr Anschutz during his stay at the ranch, I have asked some questions of Mr Prescott designed to enable me to assess whether or not, if any gifts were indeed received, they were also registrable in the Register of Members' Interests.

I envisage reporting on both matters to the Committee on Standards and Privileges before the Summer Recess.

You ask whether I will be taking into account any undeclared gifts or hospitality which may, on other occasions, have been enjoyed by Mr Prescott. I remind you that (a) I am not empowered to consider possible breaches of the Ministerial Code; and (b) under the procedures relating to the Parliamentary Code I am not normally expected to investigate a matter purely on the basis of newspaper reports but following the submission to me of a complaint, in writing, supported by evidence.

If you are aware of evidence about other matters, in addition to that you have already referred to me, involving the conduct of Mr Prescott in relation to the Parliamentary Code and Rules, I urge you to let me have it immediately.

I am not responsible for the question whether duty should have been paid on any gifts imported into the UK. That is a matter for HM Revenue and Customs and those responsible for policing paragraph 5.25 (d) of the Ministerial Code.

I hope this clarifies the position helpfully, and am copying my letter to Mr Prescott to ensure that he too has the same understanding of it.

5.  Relevant provisions 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. The same principle applies if gifts etc are offered to a member of their family.

5.25 This is primarily a matter which must be left to the good sense of Ministers. But any Minister in doubt or difficulty over this should seek the Prime Minister's guidance. The same rules apply to the acceptance of gifts from donors with whom a Minister has official dealings in this country as to those from overseas (paragraph 10.19), that is:

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, except that:

i. the recipient may purchase the gift at its cash value (abated by £140);

ii. if the Department judges that it would be of interest, the gift may be displayed or used in the Department;

iii. if the disposal of the gift would cause offence or if it might be appropriate for the recipient to use or display the gift on some future occasion as a mark of politeness, then the gift should be retained in the Department for this purpose for a period of up to five years;

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.

5.26 Gifts given to Ministers in their Ministerial capacity become the property of the Government and do not need to be declared in the Register of Members' or Peers' Interests. Gifts given to Ministers as constituency MPs or members of a political Party fall within the rules relating to the Registers of Members' and Peers' Interests.

Annual List of Gifts

5.27 The Government publishes an annual list of gifts received by Ministers valued at more than £140. The list provides details of the value of the gifts and whether they were retained by the department or purchased by the Minister. Departments must ensure that they maintain records of gifts received in such a way as to be able to provide this information on an annual basis to the Cabinet Office.

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.[28]

6.  Letter to Mr Hugo Swire from Mr John Prescott, 4 July 2006

You wrote regarding my official trip to the United States in July of last year, which I undertook to discuss issues around urban and rural sustainability and regeneration, and to specifically visit, at the request of the Foreign Office, parts of "Middle America".

The trip included many official visits and meetings, with local, regional and national politicians, business leaders and workers involved in farming and agricultural industries in Colorado, and visits and keynote speeches in Texas and Los Angeles.

I totally reject the allegations that have been made in the press, and that you repeat, that draw into question the transparency and independence of the decisions made in respect of the Dome or an application for a regional Casino.

As has been made clear in the statement I put out over the weekend, I played no role with any planning decision relating to the Dome, or in any negotiations with Philip Anschutz for the sale of the Dome, which were carried out by Lord Falconer at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and which were completed in May 2002.

Planning permission for the Dome, was granted in February 2004. Again, I played no part in this, as was made clear to Parliament.

I have met Philip Anschutz on 7 occasions, between August 2002 and July 2005, with officials present at all times.

These meetings related to the post-sale use of the Dome, and potential involvement of the Dome in promoting London's 2012 Olympic Bid. They also included wide-ranging discussion on a shared interest in the abolition of slavery and the role the former Hull MP and Abolitionist, William Wilberforce, played in this.

Indeed, Mr Anschutz's production company is making a film to commemorate the 200^th Anniversary of the Abolition of Slavery. I chair the Government's 200th Anniversary Slavery Advisory Panel. We discussed his film and plans Hull has to commemorate the 200th Anniversary.

I can categorically confirm that no discussion took place about the sale of the Dome (indeed contracts had been signed 3 years earlier), nor about the awarding of regional casino licences.

Towards the end of the US trip, I visited farmers to discuss agricultural subsidies in the sugar beet industry and the impact of the Doha international trade negotiations on their holdings.

I then travelled on to Mr Anschutz's ranch, arriving later that evening. I was accompanied by 2 civil servants and my media special adviser. Mr Anschutz hosted an informal dinner for my team and several members of his staff.

The only discussions concerned the running of a large ranch and William Wilberforce and the abolition of slavery, and the production of a film that Mr Anschutz is making on this issue. At no time were any issues regarding the Dome or casinos discussed, and at no time did I hold any private discussions with Mr Anschutz on these or any other issues.

Mr Anschutz left very early the next morning and I spent the day travelling around the large cattle ranch, discussing with ranch staff the issues and problems of running a large scale farming enterprise. We then left early the next morning and spent Sunday travelling to Los Angeles.

I sought and accepted the advice of my then Permanent Secretary on all details of this visit. Prior to the visit, the department offered to meet the cost of the stay on the ranch for myself and my party. This was declined, and therefore in lieu of payment and on the advice of my Permanent Secretary, the department offered to make a donation to a charity of Mr Anschutz's choice, equivalent to the cost of the stay. A donation of $600 was therefore agreed before the visit and subsequently made by the department to the Red Cross appeal for victims of the London bombings of 7 July.

No record of this stay was made in the Register of Members' Interests, as my visit to the US was entirely on official business and the cost was entirely covered by public funds.

I also include, as requested, a copy of the itinerary for the visit.

7.  Detailed list of Mr John Prescott's US programme and dates of meetings with Mr Anschutz

ITINERARY

Monday 18 July (Washington)

Lunch hosted by the Ambassador at the Residence with Senator Mel Martinez.

Meeting with Alphonso Jackson, Secretary for Housing and Urban Development.

Tuesday 19 July (Arrive Austin)

Discussions with Secretary of State, Roger Williams, Texas Capitol building.

Discussions with Mayor of Austin, Will Wynn, Austin City Hall.

Discussions with Michael Dell - Chairman and Founder of Dell, Round Rock.

Dinner with Texas politicians and business leaders, Austin.

Wednesday 20 July (Austin)

Discussions with Carole Keeton Strayhom, Texas Comptroller.

Keynote address "UK and Texas: Partners for the 21^st Century", Austin. Speech to local politicians and business leaders.

Meeting with Dr Henry Cisneros - Chairman and founder of American CityVista.

Meeting with Mayor of San Antonio Phil Hardberger.

Thursday 21 July (Arrive Denver)

Meeting with Andrew Romanoff, Speaker of the House, Colorado State Assembly.

Drinks reception for local business leaders hosted by the British Consulate.

Friday 22 July (Denver)

Discussions with Mayor of Denver, John Hickenlooper, and his staff.

Visit and meetings with American farmers/agricultural workers.

Dinner at Phil Anschutz's ranch.

Saturday 23 July

Phil Anschutz has left ranch - tour of ranch, discussions on agricultural issues.

Sunday 24 July

Travel to Los Angeles

Monday 25 July (Los Angeles)

Speech at Los Angeles World Affairs Council.

Discussions with Mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa.

Drinks reception hosted by Tim Leiweke (AEG) and Bernadette Leiweke in

celebration of London's successful 2012 Olympic bid.

Tuesday 26 July

Depart for London.

Dates of Meetings between the DPM and Philip Anschutz

15 August 2002 - London

18 June 2003 - London

14 January 2004 - London

22 June 2004 - London

4 July 2004 - Los Angeles

23 June 2005 - London

22 July 2005 - Denver

8.  Note of meeting between the Commissioner and Mr John Prescott, 5 July 2006

I saw Mr Prescott this morning, at his invitation, about the issues raised by Mr Hugo Swire's letter of 3 July. . . one of Mr Prescott's special advisers, was also present. (I have incorporated into the account given by Mr Prescott which follows his responses to the questions I put to him.)

Mr Prescott (JP) said that he had met Philip Anschutz (PA) on 7 occasions between August 2002 and July 2005. The meetings had begun after PA's company had acquired the Dome. JP had played no part in negotiations for the sale of the Dome nor in any planning decision related to it. The meetings had been suggested by PA as a means of keeping JP in touch with the progress of the Dome following its sale. Officials had been present on all occasions.

PA had also told JP that he was producing a film on William Wilberforce. This was of considerable interest to JP both in his capacity as a Hull MP and as Chair of the Government's Advisory Panel on the 200^th Anniversary of the Abolition of Slavery.

At one of these meetings PA had suggested that, if JP were to visit the States he would be welcome at his ranch near Denver. When JP's visit to the US had been in the planning stage, JP's staff (. . .) had checked with the then Permanent Secretary at ODPM that it would be acceptable for a stay at the ranch to be included in the trip. The Permanent Secretary had approved the visit and a payment of $600 to a charity nominated by PA in lieu of payment for the hospitality received.

JP had visited the ranch as part of his official programme. He had been accompanied by 3 officials. He had had no private meeting with PA. The main discussion had been over an informal dinner, at which 14 guests had been present, although no record of it had been taken. Topics had included Wilberforce and the proposed film. Neither the Dome nor casinos had been discussed.

JP had no ministerial responsibility in relation to planning decisions about casinos. Decisions on their siting were to be taken through an independent process laid down by Parliament.

Farming and international trade had been one of the themes of the ministerial trip and discussion over the dinner table had also included the running of a large ranch. This had been the focus of the following day, during which JP had toured the ranch. PA had not been present.

JP said that he had assumed that given that his stay at the ranch had been approved by his then Permanent Secretary as part of his official ministerial programme, and given also the payment made to charity, he was not under any obligation to register his stay at the ranch. He continued to feel that he had done nothing improper in accepting the hospitality.

However his attention had been drawn to the provision in paragraph 5.28 of the Ministerial Code which reads:

"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 the Register of Members' or Peers' Interests."

In the light of the fact that recent events had illustrated the possibility that his acceptance of PA's hospitality might be perceived as laying him open to influence (though for all the reasons he had given, in his view it had not), he had decided to register the stay in the Register of Members' Interests.

I thanked JP for his account of what had happened. My jurisdiction was, as he realised, limited to the Parliamentary Code and the question raised by Mr Swire as to whether he (JP) should have registered the hospitality received in the Members' Register. The other matters raised by Mr Swire, relating to the Ministerial Code, were for the Prime Minister, advised by the Secretary to the Cabinet.

The key question in relation to the issue of registration was whether the stay at the ranch had been an official part of JP's ministerial programme for his tour or whether it had been largely personal, an unofficial interlude or "time off during" that programme. The position was complicated because JP had a clear constituency as well as a ministerial interest in any discussions with PA about Wilberforce. In all the circumstances, his decision now to register the stay seemed wise.

I intended to make some further inquiries (eg of his former Permanent Secretary) to corroborate the account JP had given me. I would then report to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. In view of the approach of the recess, I would aim to do this as quickly as possible and would, of course, be in touch with him again before any report went to the Committee.

9.  Note of a telephone conversation between the Commissioner and Dame Mavis McDonald, 10 July 2006

1. I telephoned Dame Mavis McDonald (Permanent Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2002-05) on 5 July about the complaint I had received from Mr Hugo Swire that the Deputy Prime Minister, Rt Hon John Prescott (JP) had failed to register in the Register of Members' Interests hospitality he had received in July 2005 from Mr Philip Anschutz.

2. I explained to Dame Mavis the focus of my inquiry, which was on the registration issue only, matters concerning the Ministerial Code being entirely for the Prime Minister, advised by the Cabinet Secretary. Dame Mavis readily understood, of course, the position.

3. I reported to Dame Mavis (MM) the explanation I had received from Mr Prescott and, separately, from officials in his private office about the circumstances in which JP had stayed at Mr Anschutz's ranch. MM said that she was happy to respond to my questions on the matter, although she would be relying on memory to do so.

4. MM said that she recalled that when the programme for JP's visit to the USA in July 2005 was being drawn up, there had been a discussion about whether Mr Anschutz's invitation to JP to stay at his ranch should be accepted. She had been consulted. Her primary concern had been that there should be no impropriety or perceived conflict of interest in JP accepting the invitation. She had established that there were no outstanding issues relating to either the Dome or the Greenwich Peninsula which were awaiting Departmental decision. She had therefore felt that, from this point of view, the invitation could be accepted.

5. She had also approved a payment to a charity, for which there were precedents, to provide an element of reciprocity in relation to the stay. The charity had been nominated by Mr Anschutz. The payment was intended to cover JP and his party.

6. MM added that she had been satisfied that, in accepting the offer of a visit to the ranch, there was no conflict of interest in relation to the deal for the regeneration of the Greenwich Peninsula and the Dome, the details of which had been scrutinised at a PAC hearing earlier in the year. It then became a matter of judgement whether or not to accept the offer. She had not been asked to advise on whether the visit should be registered in the Parliamentary register.

7. MM pointed out that although as Secretary of State JP had general responsibility for planning and for regeneration issues, he was not the Minister responsible for any planning decisions on the Dome. This was a matter of public record.. Nor had JP been involved in negotiations with PA for the sale of the Dome, which had been carried out by Lord Falconer and had preceded the establishment of the ODPM. English Partnerships had handled the sale and the setting up of a joint venture company with a consortium of private sector companies, including that owned by Mr Anschutz (AEG). As for AEG's interest in the possible location of one of the proposed super-casinos at the Dome, the establishment of a casino in the Dome had never been part of the original deal to sell the Dome, as she had made clear to the PAC (indeed it was expressly not part of the business case for the deal). JP as Secretary of State did not lead on casino policy: this rested with the DCMS.

8. MM said that JP's overall programme for his US tour had been fully justified in terms of his concern for regeneration policy and the international profile he enjoyed on such matters. It had also included elements suggested by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, reflecting his wider role as Deputy Prime Minister, which had taken JP to Denver. In response to my comment that I could not easily see a clear departmental purpose to JP's visit to the ranch, MM repeated her earlier point. JP and his party would have needed to be accommodated (at Departmental expense) if the visit to the ranch had not been accepted.

10.  Note of Meeting with Principal Private Secretary and Official, 5 July 2006

Following a request I made of the Deputy Prime Minister (JP) at my meeting with him on the morning of 5 July, I met Mr A, Principal Private Secretary and Ms B, Grade 7 in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on the afternoon of 5 July.

Mr A said that he had become JP's Principal Private Secretary in mid-June 2005. Ms B had been a Private Secretary in July 2005, with a particular responsibility for JP's overseas visits, and had accompanied JP on his tour of the USA which had included the stay at Philip Anschutz's (PA's) ranch.

I explained the locus of my interest, which lay in JP's obligations under the Parliamentary Code. This meant that I was required to address Mr Hugo Swire's question whether or not JP should have registered the hospitality he had received from PA in the Register of Members' Interests. The other matters Mr Swire had raised concerned the Ministerial Code, and were therefore for the Prime Minister, advised by the Cabinet Secretary, not for me.

My concern was the conduct of JP. It was not for me to inquire into the actions of civil servants or others advising him, nor would I do so.

I was particularly concerned to understand the circumstances in which JP and his party had come to stay at PA's ranch and to what extent the stay had formed an official part of JP's ministerial tour programme. Broadly speaking, Ministers were not required to register hospitality they had received purely in their ministerial capacity. However hospitality received in, for example, an unofficial interlude in a ministerial programme and/or with some other parliamentary (eg constituency) connection might be registrable. The provisions of section 5.28 of the Ministerial Code were also clearly relevant.

Mr A described the origins of the US tour. JP had been keen to visit regeneration projects in the USA. This was a matter within his departmental responsibilities and an area in which his interest is internationally recognised. The FCO had been consulted in the usual way and had suggested that the tour take in a visit to the Mountain States as they thought that it would be valuable for someone as senior as the DPM to visit this part of the USA. This suggestion had been welcomed locally. The tour as a whole was due to end with a major speech in Los Angeles on Monday 25 July, which meant that JP would be in Denver over the weekend.

JP had met PA first in August 2002, through the involvement of PA's company (AEG) in the Greenwich peninsula regeneration project (the largest regeneration project in Western Europe). PA had suggested that he and JP keep in touch and they had subsequently met at roughly 6 monthly intervals. At a later point, PA had also mentioned his planned film on William Wilberforce, in whom JP and PA had a shared interest. JP had visited the Staples Centre in Los Angeles in July 2004, an example of a project by AEG contributing to regeneration which PA regarded as something of a model for his plans for the Dome.

PA had suggested that, when in the US, JP should visit his ranch outside Denver. There would be value to the Department in maintaining the relationship with PA but officials nonetheless discussed the invitation with the then Permanent Secretary, Dame Mavis McDonald, who had been satisfied that the visit would entail no conflict of interest from a Departmental point of view. She had suggested that the Department pay an accommodation cost in respect of the stay for JP and his accompanying officials. PA had declined to accept any payment and it had subsequently been agreed that a payment would be made to a charity of PA's choosing. PA had suggested a figure of $600 (ie 6 x $100, there being 6 members in JP's party). The details of this arrangement had been settled by officials.

JP had arrived at the ranch on the Friday evening accompanied by 3 officials and 2 protection officers, having previously called in on a local sugar beet farm. (This particular visit had not been in the original programme but had been added at a later stage.)

Ms B said that the stay at the ranch had begun with an informal dinner on the Friday evening. Present had been JP and his party, PA, PA's son and various staff including the ranch manager. The conversation over dinner had been wide-ranging but because the occasion had been informal and no action points had come out of it, she had not taken a note. She recalled that JP had spoken about his tour and discussion had also embraced the events of 7 July and PA's planned films (including one on William Wilberforce), as well as JP's early thoughts about linking Bristol, Hull and Liverpool to mark the anniversary of the end of slavery. She did not recall any discussion about the Dome or the Government's plans in respect of super-casinos.

She was confident that there had been no separate, private conversations between JP and PA. PA had left the ranch at breakfast time the following morning (Saturday). JP had spent the day touring the ranch, accompanied by his special adviser (not Ms B). JP and his party had left the ranch after breakfast on Sunday.

As to the purpose and nature of the visit to the ranch, Mr A agreed with my suggestion that there had been an element in the arrangement of finding a suitable way in which to occupy JP over the weekend in Denver. But the visit had also enabled the relationship with PA to be maintained and, given JP's wider role as Deputy Prime Minister, it had a broader, in part educational, value, since it had enabled JP to learn more about farming and running a large ranch. JP had made very clear in all official meetings with PA that he had no ministerial involvement in decisions about the Dome or casinos and PA would therefore have known there was no point in raising such matters with JP.

11.  Note of telephone conversation with the former Special Adviser, 14 July 2006

I spoke on the telephone on Friday, 14 July to Mr C, Mr John Prescott's (JP's) former press secretary and subsequently special adviser and media adviser. Mr C had worked for JP between December 2002 and the end of April 2006 and had accompanied JP on his tour of the USA in July 2005.

Mr C confirmed that he had been present during JP's visit to the ranch of Mr Philip Anschutz (PA) in Colorado. As far as he was aware there had been no conversation between JP and PA during that visit other than that which had taken place around the dinner table on the evening of the arrival of JP and his party at the ranch. PA had hosted what was a relaxed and informal occasion attended by PA's son and some ranch staff as well as all of JP's party. He had taken care to involve all present in the conversation.

Among topics discussed had been terrorism and the events of 7 July 2005 in London; PA's forthcoming film production, 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe", as well as his planned film about William Wilberforce; and JP's initial ideas for marking the 200^th anniversary of the Abolition of Slavery. There had also been discussion about ranching and running a large ranch. It had been a convivial evening. There had been no discussion about the Dome or planning or casinos.

PA had left the ranch after breakfast the following morning. JP, accompanied by Mr C, had spent the day touring the ranch on horseback, talking to an experienced ranch hand about running the ranch, and enjoying the countryside.

Mr C confirmed press reports that JP had been presented during the visit with gifts of a Stetson hat, leather riding boots and an engraved silver belt buckle by PA. No return gift had been made.

The gifts had been posted on to the UK. Mr C did not know whether their receipt had been declared to the Permanent Secretary immediately on the party's return to the UK: this was not his responsibility. He was aware, however, that the private secretary present had taken a note of them at the time.

When asked whether he would describe the nature and content of the visit to the ranch as essentially ministerial or otherwise, Mr C said that there was no doubt that the programme for JP's US tour as a whole had been firmly ministerial in character. The visit to the ranch was more difficult to characterise. It was partly leisure in content, but JP would have needed to be provided for over the weekend if he had not visited the ranch. It had also been an opportunity to keep up contact with PA, who was a key player in the regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula. If pushed, he would describe the visit as primarily a ministerial occasion.

12.  Letter to Mr John Prescott from the Commissioner, 10 July 2006

You will be aware of recent allegations in the press that, while staying at the ranch of Mr Philip Anschutz in Colorado last July, you received gifts from Mr Anschutz of a pair of tooled leather boots, a Stetson hat and a belt bearing your initials on its silver buckle.

Paragraph 5.26 of the Ministerial Code says in relation to gifts:

"Gifts given to Ministers in their Ministerial capacity become the property of the Government and do not need to be declared in the Register of Members' or Peers' Interests. Gifts given to Ministers as constituency MPs or members of a political Party fall within the rules relating to the Register of Members' and Peers' Interests."

If the weekend press allegations are correct, I am clear that there would be no need for you to register the gifts received from Mr Anschutz in the Register of Members' Interests provided that they were immediately handled in accordance with paragraph 5.25 of the Ministerial Code, ie

• You reported receipt of the gifts to your then Permanent Secretary immediately on your return to the UK;
• Assuming the value of the gifts was greater than £140, they were either retained by the Department or purchased by you for their cash value minus £140.

If, however, the gifts were not declared or were retained by you without any off-setting payment to the Department, they would, in my view, be registrable under Category 7 of the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members. (The threshold for registration under that category was, in July 2005, £590 and the articles would be registrable if their cumulative value exceeded that amount.)

In order for me to establish whether or not any issue of registration under the Parliamentary Code and Rules does arise, I should be grateful if you would respond to the following questions:

1.  Did you receive any gifts from Mr Philip Anschutz during your stay at his ranch in July 2005?

2.  If so, what was their nature and the estimated cash value of each of them?

3.  Were they declared on your return to the UK to your then Permanent Secretary? When were they declared?

4.  Were they retained by the Department or purchased by you in accordance with paragraph 5.25 of the Ministerial Code?

I am aware that the Cabinet Office is likely to publish shortly its annual list of gifts received by Ministers valued at more than £140. If you did receive any gifts from Mr Anschutz of relevant value, I assume that they will be recorded there if they do not need to be recorded in the Parliamentary Register.

I am copying this letter to Ms D in the Cabinet Office in relation to the Ministerial Code. I should be grateful for a swift reply to this letter in order that I can cover the matter in the report I shall be making to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, a draft of the factual sections of which I hope to be able to send you shortly.

13.  Letter to the Commissioner from Mr John Prescott, 14 July 2006

Thank you for your letter of 10 July about allegations that I received gifts from Philip Anschutz during my stay at his ranch in July 2005, and for your letter of 11 July, enclosing an initial draft of the factual part of your report. I apologise for the delay in replying because of my official visit to Turkey.

I attach a revised version of your draft report, clearly showing my suggested amendments, which I hope you will be happy to accept. I assume you will produce a further draft for me to consider once you have completed your interview with […], and your enquiries about the gifts I received.

Turning to your questions about gifts, there is, as you observe, no need to register these in the Register of Member's Interests if they are retained by my department. I am happy to confirm that the gifts I received from Mr Anschutz have been retained by my department and included in the annual list due to be published shortly.

I was initially provided with many of these items to enable me to participate in a tour of Mr Anschutz's ranch. Sometime after my departure from the ranch they were sent on by Mr Anschutz to my departmental office. Press speculation that these gifts were worth £20,000 is grossly exaggerated. My office has gone to considerable effort to value them by comparing them with similar items in publicly available catalogues from which I attach relevant extracts.[29] On the basis of these, I estimate that the value of the items was:

• A Stetson hat - £97
• A pair of calf length boots - £120
• A belt and buckle - £207
• A pair of spurs - £185

The total value of these gifts is around £600 - just 3% of the figure being quoted in some parts of the press. I should also record that I received a leather bound notebook. As I have indicated, all of these will be included in the list of Ministerial gifts to be published shortly.

I am also aware of reports in the American press that a spokesman for Mr Anschutz has issued a statement to an American newspaper stating that the total cost of the gifts I received was $1354 (just over £700 at today's exchange rates), though those reports include the cost of a pair of jeans that I did not receive

I hope that this clarifies the position. Please feel free to contact me again if you would like further clarification, or wish to discuss further.

14.  Letter to Mr John Prescott from the Commissioner, 17 July 2006

Thank you for your letter of 14 July, conveying your comments on the initial draft factual sections of my report and your response to my letter of 11 July about gifts you received from Mr Anschutz. Perhaps I may deal with each of these in turn.

Draft Factual Sections of Report

As I understand it, the only amendments you wish to suggest to the draft I sent you on 11 July are to paragraphs 2 and 3 respectively. I am content in principle to accept both of these.

You will see from the enclosed revised version of the draft that I have suggested a slightly different wording for the amendment at the end of paragraph 2, although the effect is the same. Are you content with this? [Question 1]

As regards your suggested amendment to the end of paragraph 3, I assume that the 'he' you refer to in it is yourself, (as the spokesperson quoted in the press was reported to be female). It would be helpful if you would confirm that my assumption is correct. [Question 2]

You will notice that there are a number of other amendments marked on the revised text. Most of these simply correct small infelicities or typing errors in the earlier draft. However, I draw your attention in particular to paragraphs 33-34, 39-40 and 46, which are new.

The first two of these summarise my conversation with Mr C, the draft file note of which I am also sending you. I have e-mailed the draft file note to Mr C, requesting his urgent comments. If he comes back with any, I shall adjust the text of both the file note and the draft report as necessary.

The other paragraphs are intended to reflect the contents of your letter of 14 July about gifts, on which I comment separately below.

I shall be grateful if you will let me know as soon as possible (preferably by noon on Tuesday, 18 July if you have any comments on these additional paragraphs, [Question 3], and also let me have by then your response to the other points I raise in this letter.

Gifts

In my letter of 10 July I said that, in my view, there would be no need for you to register the gifts you received from Mr Anschutz in the Register of Members' Interests provided that they were immediately handled in accordance with paragraph 5.25 of the Ministerial Code. I therefore included in the questions I put to you in that letter whether the gifts were declared on your return to the UK to your then Permanent Secretary and when they were so declared (question 3 in my letter of 10 July).

You have assured me that the gifts have been retained by your Department and will be included in the annual list to be published shortly. I am grateful for that. However, your letter does not respond in terms to question 3 in my letter of 10 July. I should be grateful if, when you write again, you would let me have your response on those outstanding points. If, as appears from your letter, you were not aware that Mr Anschutz had given you the gifts of the hat, boots, belt and buckle and spurs until some time after your return to the UK, then what I seek is an assurance that they were declared to the Permanent Secretary immediately on their receipt in your office. Am I also correct in assuming that the leather-bound notebook was received during your visit and notified to the Department immediately on your return to the UK? [Question 4].

I look forward to hearing from you on each of the four matters (identified as Questions 1-4) I have raised in this letter. You will understand that I am anxious to be clear about the precise position on all of them before I finalise my report.

I am copying this letter as before.

15.  Letter to the Commissioner from Mr John Prescott, 18 July 2006

Thank you for your letter of 17 July. You pose a series of questions, which I am happy to answer:

Question 1: I am happy with your treatment of my revision to para 2 of your earlier draft;

Question 2: You are correct that my suggested amendment to para 3 was to make the point that I had never described my stay on Mr Anschutz's ranch as a "day off".

Question 3: I am happy with the new paragraphs you have added to your report, though I raise one issue below about para 45.

Question 4: You seek clarification on my understanding of the gifts I received from Mr Anschutz and the process for the declaration of Ministerial gifts under the Ministerial Code.

I apologise if my letter was not clear on the first point. I was always aware that the items I received from Mr Anschutz were Ministerial gifts. Indeed, as my letter states: "I am happy to confirm that the gifts I received from Mr Anschutz have been retained by my department and included in the annual list due to be published shortly."

You request further responses to the questions you posed to me, as identified by paragraph 38 of your report.

Question 1—Did you receive any gifts from Mr Philip Anschutz during your stay in his ranch in July 2005?

Yes, I did receive gifts and I fully understood that they were gifts at the time. Indeed I was informed at the time I used them that they would be posted to my office in the UK.

Question 2—If so, what was their nature and the estimated cash value of each of them?

As I explained in my letter of 14 July, the nature of the gifts I received were designed to allow me to carry out a working day on Mr Anschutz's ranch, and, as you know, in the usual way their value has been estimated at:

A Stetson hat—£97

A pair of calf length boots—£120

A belt and buckle—£207

A pair of spurs - £185

A leather bound notebook (not valued)

Question 3—Were they declared on your return to the UK to your then Permanent Secretary? When were they declared?

The gifts were first noted by the civil servants present with me at the ranch and, on return to the UK, duly recorded on to the official file kept in my Private Office.

As has been the practice throughout my period in office, I play no part in the recording, or valuing of such gifts and have at no time sought to purchase any of the gifts received in this time.

You seek the assurance that they were declared to the Permanent Secretary immediately on their receipt into my office. The record of gifts kept in my Private Office is always available for inspection by my Permanent Secretary, and in accordance with my department's procedures, there was no correspondence between my Private Office and my Permanent Secretary about these gifts - though she did see at least some of the Anschutz gifts when they were displayed in the office on their arrival.

The practice adopted by my department is in line with section 5.25 of the Ministerial Code, which I have an obligation to adhere to at all times. It states that "receipt of gifts should be reported to the Permanent Secretary". The code does not state that this must be done "immediately", though, as I have explained, this "requirement" was, in practice, achieved on this occasion.

Turning to paragraph 45 of your draft report, could I make it clear that my justification for registering under paragraph 5.28 of the Ministerial Code, was not motivated by my acceptance of Mr Anschutz's invitation possibly being perceived as laying me open to influence.

I received clear advice before the visit by my then Permanent Secretary that I could stay at the ranch. I subsequently sought advice from the Cabinet Secretary when this whole matter came to light. His advice was that he would not have authorised a charitable donation for this purpose and that the visit could potentially be deemed as hospitality.

On hearing this I decided for the absolute avoidance of any doubt to record the stay in the Register of Members' Interests.

As the statement issued at the time said, for the avoidance of "any doubt" that I acted "at all times with integrity", I therefore decided to register the stay by me and my civil servants in the Register of Members' Interests.

---

28   These figures will be uprated from time to time by the Houses. Back

29   Not appended to the Commissioner's report  Back

---

Prepared 21 July 2006