John Prescott is in trouble yet again. This time the fuss is about alleged wrong doings in relation to a Super casino that was supposed to be set up at the Millennium Dome and taking backhanders from an American billionare!
Here’s a transcript of Two Shags being grilled about this and other scandals by John Humphrys on Radio 4′s Today programme. Listen to it here.
John Humphrys: John Prescott has said he is not going to resign as deputy prime minister (DPM). He’s been under enormous pressure over the past few months ever since it was reported that he’d been having an affair with one of his secretaries. Soon after that he was photographed playing croquet at his official residence, Dorneywood, when it was said he should’ve been in London working. He was forced to give up Dorneywood and he’s lost responsibility for the huge department he was running. Then questions were raised about what exactly he does as DPM to earn his salary. But it all died down for a while and it seemed Mr Prescott was out of the woods, until last week. Then it was reported that he and some of his officials had been entertained for a weekend at the American ranch of a billionaire businessman, Philip Anschutz. Mr Anschutz owns the Millennium Dome, and he wants to turn it into Britain’s first super-casino. This morning it’s been reported that Mr Prescott used his influence to help Mr Anschutz. Like every other news programme we’ve been trying to interview Mr Prescott since his problems began, but he’s always said no. Last night he said yes, and I spoke to him an hour ago. I asked him why did he spend that weekend with Mr Anschutz at his ranch in the United States?
John Prescott: Well, when the Dome was sold, John, in 2002, sold by Charles Faulkner on behalf of the government, I actually took over the responsibility. He came to see me in that time, in 2002, and said to me at the first meeting look we’re very concerned about hostile press over the Dome, he can be true about that can’t he. And also he said that I’m very concerned that the government supporting the Dome, you’re the new minister involved in it, and I gave him the assurance we were and he told me about what was going to happen to the Dome but he also asked me could he meet me regularly to update, and I said yes. So he said he’d come here about every six months so I did see him, presumably with others as well to have an update on that matter. But since he wanted to discuss those issues as well, I made it very clear that I separated any planning decisions on this, and it was stated in Hansard, I think in August 2002, that it would be Chris Leslie, my minister, who dealt with this, and Lord Rooker would deal with all the planning matters. So, we had those regular meetings of discussions. Now the last one was in July 2005. He knew I was in America and he said would you like to come and see a cattle ranch, which I was very much interested in, and also I said I wanted to talk to farmers, which I did, about the Doha and the negotiations, sugar beet industries, agriculture subsidies. So I used the Saturday and Sunday in between a ten-day meeting in America, to actually visit the ranch. The only time I met Mr Anschutz was at the dinner for two hours, where no discussion took place about the Dome or planning, or those matters, ’cause they had took place in our regular meetings, when we were discussing the Dome, and so that is why I took that opportunity, probably not only to look at a working cattle ranch but to visit one, I’m curious about it, I saw the cowboy films over my young years, didn’t you, I was interested to have a look at it.
John Humphrys: Why did you say that you had made a donation to charity out of your own money when in fact the donation to charity was made out of government money?
John Prescott: I never said that, John. Not at any time did I say that. In fact, I didn’t know there was a payment made by charity money. I mean this is one of the difficulties of it. I asked my permanent secretary, look, if I’m going to do this, is it ok? Am I OK by the rules on this matter? She came back and said yes, that it was so. I didn’t know until later that the payment of it, and I always thought that it was public payment was done by the arrangement of a payment to charity because they didn’t want to receive a payment. Now I just assumed that that was a normal thing that went on I now discover that it’s not, but myself and other civil servants were involved in the recommendation of going there. Once we found that the charity was not seen as a payment for it then clearly you would enter the issue of hospitality, which led me to have to reassess it.
John Humphrys: Why should the British taxpayer…
John Prescott: But be clear John, I didn’t pay, er, I didn’t pay any money towards that charity payment, I wasn’t aware it was a charity payment. I just assumed that the whole thing like hotels that are provided for me when I’m travelling through America, that was just the way it had been done.
John Humphrys: Why should the British taxpayer pick up the bill for you and indeed your officials going to stay with a very rich man to indulge your interest in cattle and cowboys?
John Prescott: Well, I would say it’s a…as to whether the charity money should be used, that’s a legitimate point made and I would, I never got into the details of it, I just assumed all those matters of payment for accommodation wherever you were [unintelligible] was cleared and arranged by the Department and that’s what happened, and you’re quite right to raise that question but in fact it wasn’t one that was put to me.
John Humphrys: But I mean you’d gone there to have a good time
John Prescott: I’d gone there [unintelligible] of a weekend – good time, to look at how a cattle ranch works to see how the farmers on sugar beet were run, and had those talks, and as you know John, I’ve been actively involved in international politics, on Doha, on climate change and this instance I was making a speech in LA on the challenges to America and Europe as to how we could deal with these challenges globally, how could you deal with agriculture subsidies. As you know, in America there’s real problems on sugarbeet and also European agriculture subsidies. So here was a chance not to just sit in a hotel by the pool and do nothing but learn a little bit more about some international kind of problems and talk to them about it in the context of, in this case, the ranch and on a farm.
John Humphrys: You’d said there was no [need] to register it in the Register of Members’ Interests, then when Mr Mawer, the commissioner, said he would look into it, you decided that you should register it?
John Prescott: This is the trouble with all the interpretations, I had decided to register when I realised this new information about the registrations under the ministerial rules and I’d done that before I met the commissioner and the only reason I was at the commissioner was because Mr Swire had written to the commissioner and I had to re-write right away, because he hadn’t written saying “is there something wrong here?”, he released the letter, and it was important that I put my response out, so I sent it to Sir Philip and then I said to Sir Philip can I see you? He didn’t ask to see me, I said can I see you, and discuss this matter. He is looking at it from my role as a member of parliament, he has no responsibilities for the ministerial rules and so I told him when I met him yesterday that I’d already taken that action.
John Humphrys: The fact is that you had a total of seven meetings with Mr Anschutz.
John Prescott: Well, if you work it out from 2002 it work out about every six months, yes, that’s what he asked to do.
[John Humphrys attempts to interrupt]
John Prescott: By the way John, can I just tell you this. Here’s a guy who comes along, buys the Dome, right, when everybody said it was a liability, now converting it into a very successful asset, was giving ten thousand new homes, 24,000 jobs, 400,000 commercial and retail space, £5bn of private investment coming into the project, turning a poisonous bit of land into one of the best re-creates for regeneration that we’ve seen developing East London to its greater advantage. Now, if a man has to see me, I tell you what John, if he comes offering that deal I’ll see him every three months
John Humphrys: It will be a very very successful asset if the dome gets the casino licence.
John Prescott: No, no, no, no…
John Humphrys: Let me just finish the question if I may, and the charge against you is that you have used your influence to help the Dome to get that licence.
John Prescott: Well, first of all, the Dome, the license, casinos were not involved in the application and the sake of the Dome. Nothing to do with the dome.
John Humphrys: No, I didn’t say that.
John Prescott: No, no, but I’m just trying to make some facts clear, right, secondly in those circumstances, I had no influence over the planning decisions in these matters, though ironically enough the planning decision didn’t have to come to my department because the local government made it. Now, there were issues that were brought up, for example from time to time controversially, publicly – how many casinos were there going to be? Here’s a man coming seeing a hell of a row going on, on your programme as well John, about gambling and whether we wanted casinos or not, and in all those matters the government decided in a gambling bill to say it’s going to be an independent commission makes the recommendations about casinos. It then goes to the Secretary of State, in this case Tessa Jowell. She then makes recommendations to parliament, and all these procedures were agreed by Mr Swire and the opposition as well, and that will be decided by parliament. I would never be having a decision on the casino in this case, neither would…and it would be done by parliament after an independent commission recommendation.
John Humphrys: The point is that documents have been obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the Guardian and Newsnight that show that your office knew that the granting of a casino licence at the Dome was a central feature, I’m quoting…
[John Prescott tries to interrupt]
John Humphrys: No, let me just finish the quote if I may, and key plank of the company’s business strategy and they also show that your officials pressed ministers in the department for culture, which is responsible for the gambling policy obviously to meet senior executives at Mr Anschutz’s company, AG.
John Prescott: Well, I’ve no doubt my officials might’ve been talking about that and it was being dealt with at the early stages by Lord Rooker, then other ministers had responsibilities, because I’d separated myself from that, particularly as I was meeting regularly Mr Anschutz right, and I think that was quite proper to do.
John Humphrys: But your officials weren’t separated from it, and you’re the head of that department.
John Prescott: Well listen, let me make the answer, and that’s what I think the minutes are, these minutes reflect the getting-together of officials from my department and I think from the culture department as well, right? I haven’t seen the minutes, I’ve just read what they’re saying in the papers, but I did hear Newsnight last night but it didn’t say that I was involved in those discussions.
John Humphrys: Your officials…
John Prescott: Yes, fine, well let’s make that clear because it’s assuming as if I was involved, I was not.
John Humphrys: It’s your department!
John Prescott: I know, well, I’m not involved because it’s quite normal under all Governments that you can separate the Secretary of State from these decisions ’cause he’s inevitably involved in all sorts of discussions with people, and that’s normal under Tory governments and Labour governments.
John Humphrys: But it’s normal for the head of department, which is you, the boss, which is you, to know what your officials are doing, and to give it your approval?
John Prescott: I need to know my officials are talking about the enforcement and development of the contract for all these jobs and houses so they have a responsibility but it’s mainly the main department is the culture department and they would naturally want to have a look what’s going on.
John Humphrys: Right -
John Prescott: and I’ve no doubt those discussions go on, but John, thousands of civil servants in all sorts of discussions. What they do is work to a remit and the remit in this case is to have a look at the contract, how is it being implemented, and then to work with the department that has that responsibility.
John Humphrys: You are the, if I may, you are the deputy prime minister, you have enormous influence and one of the rival bidders for that licence, Southend-on-Sea, say that your office pressured them to stand down in favour of Anschutz.
John Prescott: Well, [unintelligible] my office and me, first of all, I wasn’t involved in any way and categorically I can say that in no way did I express an opinion, as I hear it’s been reported in the paper that I was supporting some link for the Thames. Absolute rubbish, not involved, very clear about it. If you say to me…
John Humphrys: Right, well let me…
John Prescott: Wait a minute, if you say to me some officials have been talking through the process of a very controversial piece of legislation in the house, where there was much argument about what gambling, how many casinos, if you remember the Tories only wanted there to be one casino, I think others wanted more, but at the end of the day that debate was settled in parliament. I was not involved in that process at all.
John Humphrys: So when…
John Prescott: Except as a parliamentarian.
John Humphrys: So when Anna Waite, the former leader of Southend-on-Sea Council, says it is was made clear to me that pressure was coming from on high that there should be only one bid in the Thames Gateway area, and it should be the Dome, the suggestion was that the ODPM was using its influence to push the Dome bid, the whole thing stank from beginning to end. When she says that, she’s not being truthful?
John Prescott: Well, stink and stank like on your programme is coming from Tories, and there’s a very active Tory policy involved here quite frankly with the media and they’ve got it up there they want to carry out this campaign, particularly against me, but let me say again on your programme, I was never involved in any such action, people had better bring the evidence. But if you say to me were there some civil servants down the line exercising some judgement about this in view of the circumstances, I wasn’t involved in it, didn’t even know about it until I read in the press, and totally reject any idea that I expressed any pressure whatsoever. Look, I know there’s a media storm against me, they don’t like me and to be quite honest I don’t like them. But in reality, you have to deal with the facts, not that the papers deal in that too much, but here, in what you’re saying to me, officials might have been involved, I don’t know for sure. I was not involved, ’cause the suggestion at the end of the day was my meeting with Mr Anschutz was somehow giving him preference for a bid. It was not, I did not get involved and there’s no evidence to that effect at all and I deliberately separated, in 2002, made a statement at parliament to separate the planning decision away from me.
John Humphrys: If there is a media storm against you, as you suggest, it’s for a number of reasons apart from this. It began with the revelation of your affair with your secretary. There are now reports, and they’re circulating on the internet, as you know, that you have had other affairs – is that true?
John Prescott: John, you’re doing exactly what you read in the paper, you did it once to me before on the Minerva building…
John Humphrys: I’m asking you a question.
John Prescott: Well, and I’m trying to answer it my best way in the context of what you do John. You remember that I had an argument with you, tried to get on the air to deny it, you suggest I’d made a planning decision in regard to a man who’d made a contribution to the Labour party, wouldn’t let me come on the programme…
John Humphrys: Not true, but let’s not go down that road.
John Prescott: I know, but an absolute lie anyway, it’s never ever been corrected on your programme. That’s the first point. Coming back to the point about these allegations…
John Humphrys: I asked you whether you’d had any other affairs apart from that with…the one we know about.
John Prescott: I told you what the answer is, I’ve given a statement about that – I made a mistake, I’ve owned up to it [unintelligible] that is life and I’ve made a statement and I’ve certainly paid the price for it.
John Humphrys: Have you had other affairs?
John Prescott: Hang on I watched Newsnight last night and the pressures you know, most people don’t, I think it’s called the internet or blogs or something – I don’t know, I’ve only just got used to letters John, I haven’t got into all this new technology, but I would say the guy on television last night who does that says ‘I have no evidence for these allegations I’ve made’.
John Humphrys: So they’re not true, are they?
John Prescott: There’s no truth in much of the stories that are made in the paper, but John …
John Humphrys: So you have not had other affairs? It’s a very straightforward question …
John Prescott: I told you, listen, you’re talking about a lot of people here who have in fact denied these stories. Names have been mentioned, some of them are in the process of perhaps suing about it – I’m not going to get involved in that – I’ve made my statement about making a mistake and I’ve told that I’m leaving it at that. But I notice the guy that’s making these allegations says there’s no evidence for it, so why are you justified to keep on trying to push this? It hurts so many people -
John Humphrys: Because I wanted to give you, would still like to give you, the opportunity to clear it up once and for all to say: ‘I made that mistake with that particular lady I have had no other affairs’.
John Prescott: I’ve made my mistake and I’ve made my denials. It doesn’t make any difference of course to what the press say. But I will keep on saying I’ll get on with my job. That’s it to do with it, people must judge me on what I do on the job. I know that’s controversial, I’ve been a lot of controversial errors, that’s what I’m doing John that’s what people expect me to do, and I’ll get on with doing my job and I’m not leaving it. I’m getting on with it.
John Humphrys: There are going to be people who will be dismayed by that, including some of your own backbench MPs. Does it worry you that you do not have the support on your backbenches that you might like?
John Prescott: I’m going to ask you for the evidence. You’re asking me for a lot of evidence. Who are the people on the backbench?
John Humphrys: Well, as you’ll know, we had an awful lots of quotes from an awful lot of people, most of them, as you rightly say, most of them have been off-the-record, mostly people have not been prepared…
John Prescott: Well how do I know they’re true John? You just always repeat these allegations, and you make it sound on your programme as if it’s true. I know Kate Hoey’s said something, well that’s up for Kate Hoey…
John Humphrys: Well Steven Pounder is a “residual loyalist, there’s quite a bit of affection, but everybody now recognizes”, Let me finish…
John Prescott: Wait a minute, Steven Powell wrote me an apology about what was said.
John Humphrys: He said: “Everybody now recognizes that the sell-by date is rapidly approaching.”
John Prescott: When did he make that point?
John Humphrys: Well he made that point months and weeks ago, several weeks ago.
John Prescott: To which he wrote and apologized.
John Humphrys: Well, does that mean that he doesn’t mean it any longer? What about Derek Wyatt, Labour MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey: “I don’t think it’s tenable that he should maintain Dorneywood” at the time of that particular incident? I mean…
John Prescott: Dorneywood is gone.
John Humphrys: Dorneywood is gone, indeed, and lots of these things have gone.
John Prescott: Let me just say to you, ’cause you’re going to now, I hope you’re not going to edit this programme now you’ve extended over time.
John Humphrys: Nope, it’s not going to be edited.
John Prescott: What I say to these colleagues, I bear in mind the points they’re taking, I’m very sorry for what has happened, I do believe in a way it’s not been good my party or government, of course I’m conscious of that, all my life has been that. I have never had another job, I’ve never had a penny off anywhere else, all I’ve done is this job. Now very few MPs can say that. But when I get involved as I have been in these incidents I am extremely sorry about it, there’s no doubt about it because I do feel, in that sense that I’ve not added to the government in a sense, in a way it’s a very negative position I’ve been in. But, I’ll get on with the job, I listen to what my colleagues say to me, of course I do, and I meet them all the time, I meet the constituencies I go out. But much of the way out today I’ll be Hull helping Wilberforce, that was another part of the discussions with them, with Mr Anschutz. He’s doing a Wilberforce film which is being celebrated of 200 years of Wilberforce. Today I’ll be opening the Wilberforce centre in Hull with the president of Ghana. I mean, these are the things I’m involved in, in a job, John, and I get on with it.
John Humphrys: But isn’t it a problem this, that you are the DPM, that job requires a certain amount of dignity in its holder. The view is that you have lost that dignity, that in the views of many people, you have become a bit of a figure of fun. You know that as well as I do. Is it tenable that you should hold on under these circumstances?
John Prescott: Well, I mean, others have to make judgments about that, I’ll try to do my job. I can’t avoid that. They will make it clear to me in one way or another right, and I have to take all these things into account. But you became a bit of a figure of fun from not long ago when you made that speech and somebody leaked it John, you know the fierce storm that…
John Humphrys: I’m not the DPM.
John Prescott: No, well, no, but you act very much like it, I’m bound to say, but you are paid by the taxpayer, are you not?
John Humphrys: Well, I’m paid by the licence-payer, that is absolutely true.
John Prescott: You’re paid by the taxpayer, like me and therefore there’s always felt to be a certain obligation when you’re paid by the public sector. They will make a judgment about that John, I’ll do the job to the best of my ability, and that’s what I will do. Others can make judgement about it. But I know when I go round in the street I do think all this stuff by the press, the public are getting very wise to the kind of formula that’s going on at the moment. Somebody gets put in the paper like the Mail, you repeat it on your programme, as you did on that planning application, and people begin to worry, they talk and they ask you about it and then they begin to make a judgement. Of course, at the end of the day it’s always in the hands of the public because we’re elected officials. In my case I’m elected by the party also, so there are other people who have judgements and there’s also a process in the party if a party wants to get rid of officials that it’s selected, we have a constitution, a democratic one, that allows that. They are the mechanisms by which if they feel people are not carrying out the job properly, they can act. It’s pure democracy John, and I recognise it.
John Humphrys: Isn’t your situation a little different in that you can’t resign, you’re in an invidious position because if you did resign, your future is so closely, let me make this point if I may, your future is so closely tied in with that of Tony Blair, if you resigned there would have to be an election, then people would say, well since he’s gone we might as well get Tony Blair to go as well, have a double election, you’re tied in so tightly with Tony Blair that you can’t go.
John Prescott: The trouble with you John, is you read too many papers. You want to start talking to people who know what happens. If I resign it doesn’t mean there has to be an election. Read our constitution.
John Humphrys: You resign as deputy leader of the party, there’d have to be an election, wouldn’t there?
John Prescott: No there doesn’t. You just know John, you make all these allegations you read in the press before you come on the programme. If you want me to read out the constitution, I’ll do it. If I resign now, there doesn’t have to be an election, no, so you’re quite wrong.
John Humphrys: So it is possible that you could resign then, is it?
John Prescott: Well, I could resign, if I wanted to say I hadn’t got it, it’s always within my hands. I can also…
John Humphrys: But you’re not, you’re going to stay?
John Prescott: I’m staying as long as I believe I’m getting on with the job.
John Humphrys: How long do you think that’ll be?
John Prescott: You’ve moved off from something you didn’t know to more questions, and this programme…
John Humphrys: That’s what I’m paid to do, to ask you questions. How long are you going to stay in the job?
John Prescott: You’re 20 minutes in this interview, that’s more than you give anyone else and in fact to that extent I’m saying I’m getting on with the job, make no doubt about it. Take no notice the headlines in these papers, I always recognise it is the responsibilities of others that can make a decision about whether I’m worthy of support and a job in government, but while I’m doing it I’ll get on with the job, because what we’ve been doing for the unemployed for housing, for development, for regenerations [Thuds can be heard], and back to the Dome, turning a lousy bit of polluted land into 10,000 jobs, 24,000 houses, jobs and retail, it’s becoming the jewel of London and I tell you what, if it was done by an American Anschutz, I say thank you very much, you’ve helped us turn unemployment into jobs, homeless into houses, that’s what I was elected to do and by God, that’s the job I’ll get on with.
John Humphrys: John Prescott, many thanks.
Technorati Tags: Dorneywood, John Humphrys, John Prescott, New Labour, Philip Anschutz
