Mrs Blair has to be cleaner than clean

The consequences of the Royals' neglect of this principle is a powerful warning to Downing Street

The Cherie Blair story touches on the public interest at two points. The first concerns the role of the Number 10 (Government) press office in responding to questions which, strictly speaking, are nothing to do with the Government at all. The second is the appropriateness of speculative investments of any kind by the Prime Minister and his wife.

Both the Royal Family and government ministers have to maintain a distinction between their official duties and their private activities. In the case of the Royal Family, for instance, the question is particularly relevant because of the way in which royal gifts have been sold off by palace servants. If the goods were privately owned, then the practice is no worse than tacky. If they were official presents, and thus the property of the state, then the pocketing of the proceeds by members of the Royal Family or their servants would be a form of embezzlement. This is an example of the dangers which await princes and prime ministers when the line between public and private is crossed.

Questions about the private lives of prime ministers and their families have traditionally been answered by civil servants serving as press officers. Until last week, at least, such inquiries were a minor aspect of the work. In any case there is a sense in which the prime minister of the day has virtually no private life. A decision, for instance, about the schooling of a prime minister's children clearly has a political dimension. It tells us something we need to know.

I cannot see, however, that, interesting though it may be, the purchase by the Prime Minister's family of a flat in Bristol for their student son is remotely public business. The transaction as such does not imply any comment on issues of public policy. Let us suppose the story had been slightly different – "Mr and Mrs Blair have bought a cottage in the Lake District for an elderly relative". In a month of Sunday newspapers, that would never have been considered a matter of public interest.

But in carrying out the purchase in Bristol, Mrs Blair has let herself be drawn into using a ring of dealers, solicitors and accountants some of whom either face trial shortly or have been found guilty of malpractice. Do these details bring the story within the ambit of public affairs and thus appropriate that civil servants should respond to questions about the matter?

Again, I don't think so. In handling the transaction, Mrs Blair has done nothing improper. She may have unwittingly run the risk that her name might have been used for a fraudulent purpose. But as a matter of fact, that did not happen.

In my view, what has been quite improper has been the involvement of the government machine in dealing with this. The questions have been directed at Mrs Blair, not at the Prime Minister. Mrs Blair's status is that of self-employed, private person. None the less, civil servants have had to answer questions about her private activities. Indeed, the meshing of the public and the private has worked so badly that the government officials concerned find themselves accused of misleading the press.

However the Blairs purchased not one flat, but two. The second is an investment for profit and is no different from, say, buying shares in BP. Now if it had become known that the Prime Minister and his wife had recently bought shares in a major oil company, there would have been a great clucking of disapproval. Mr Blair has inside information about the prospects for war in the Middle East, an event which would affect the price of oil. That is why all the Blairs' investments are held in a blind trust so that they have no knowledge of where their money is invested. I don't see that investment in residential property is any different.

Mr Blair likewise has an insider's understanding of policy regarding economic and taxation issues which affect property values. What would be said, for instance, if it turned out that stamp duty on purchases of private property was raised next spring. Wouldn't people then wonder whether the Blairs had knowingly, so to speak, bought early? That is the danger.

If they wish, the Blairs can repair the damage in such a way that the matter will soon be forgotten. There are three steps to take. When the allegations of inappropriate activities surfaced, Mrs Blair should have employed her own press advisers and paid for them out of her own pocket. She must still do that. She will always need privately funded help of this kind.

Furthermore, Mrs Blair should make a payment into the public purse to cover the cost of the inappropriate use of government press officers. The amount should be what it would have cost to hire a private firm for a week to carry out the same function. The only way to deal with the possibility of the misuse of public funds is to sweep cleaner than clean. The consequences of the Royal Family's neglect of this principle is a powerful warning to Downing Street.

Finally, the Blairs should quickly sell the second flat in Bristol. The funds thus released can be passed to the trustees of their blind trust. If the trustees are doing their work properly, they will understand – without being told – that the Blairs are worried that, while they have been living in Downing Street, property prices have risen sharply.