There are few British breakfast tables around which a “gift” of £350,000 to one of those present would go un- remarked. The Jowell-Mills household seems to eat its corn flakes without referring to such extraordinary windfalls. Not just on the day the cheque arrived — there may have been a particularly exciting episode of EastEnders to discuss from the previous night. But for the next four years Mr Mills omitted to tell his wife about an amount of money that would prompt many of their compatriots to start making retirement plans. Mr Mills and Ms Jowell clearly had better things to talk about than the arrival of a six-figure sum.

That, at least, is the conclusion of Sir Gus O’Donnell’s investigation into whether Ms Jowell had broken the ministerial code of conduct by failing to pass on details of her husband’s financial dealings to her permanent secretary, as required.

The result is unsatisfactory, not least for the precedent it sets. The absence of communication between the Culture, Media and Sport Secretary and her husband sets a bad example. It is not necessarily one for Relate, but it risks deterring ministerial openness. The code of conduct is designed to encourage disclosure. Yet Ms Jowell, perhaps unwittingly, has demon- strated that it can be rendered moot by domestic silence. Public faith in British democracy will not be helped by future ministers who construct a Chinese wall down the middle of their kitchen and pursue a policy of wilful ignorance about their spouse’s business dealings. Ignorance is rarely an excuse.

The problem for Tony Blair in making his decision to clear Ms Jowell of wrongdoing is the narrow field on which he was judging. The main player in this drama is Mr Mills. It is not the business of the Cabinet Secretary to try to decipher the more Byzantine business dealings of a minister’s husband with wealthy and influential Italians. Mr Blair can judge only what is put before him. If Ms Jowell swears that she lacked a certain piece of information, most surprising though that may be, the initial choice for the Prime Minister is whether to believe her. In this case, he appears happy to back one of his most devoted supporters. But his vote of confidence is by no means the end of the affair.

The key relationship in this saga is not between Ms Jowell and the man with whom she shares two homes, but between her and her political master. Her fate will depend less on the decisions of Italian prosecutors and jurors than political calculations inside Downing Street. Mr Mills has shown himself to be remarkably unguarded whether talking to, for instance, his accountant, potential business partners in Dubai or Italian investigators. Every additional scrap of paper that shows him to be cavalier, indiscreet or unwise will make it harder for Ms Jowell to do her job. In an ideal world, that a wife should be made to pay for a husband’s sins would be deemed immensely unfair. But this is politics and politics is about more and less than the ministerial code. Mr Blair may yet decide that, for the good of his Government, he needs a separation.