MPs’ sleaze watchdog branded ‘too soft’ after Press exposé vindicated
PARLIAMENT’S sleaze watchdog was under fire for being too soft on MPs last night after a cash-foraccess investigation it had dismissed was ruled to be in the public interest.
The watchdog cleared the former foreign secretaries Jack Straw and Sir Malcolm Rifkind of wrongdoing in September, saying a TV and newspaper investigation had uncovered ‘no breach of rules on paid lobbying’.
But the broadcasting regulator Ofcom ruled yesterday that Channel 4 had been right to screen the undercover investigation by the Dispatches programme and The Daily Telegraph. Ofcom said the programme had been fair to the two MPs and was in the public interest.
Paul Flynn, a Labour member of the Commons public administration and constitutional affairs committee, said the ruling made a mockery of the findings by Parliament’s own watchdog – and warned that it would raise further concerns about
‘We have to think of our reputation’ What the Standards Commitee said...
By selection and omission, the coverage distorted the truth and misled public ... and regulator Ofcom’s view
It was a serious piece of journalism and there was a significant public interest
MPs marking their own homework. ‘The biggest task Parliament faces is to win back the trust of the people and we won’t do that if our own systems are seen to be too permissive,’ he said.
‘Here we have an outside body of unquestionable independence finding the exact opposite to the Commons authorities on the issue of whether MPs’ conduct is acceptable. We have to think of our wider reputation now and show we are serious about reform.’
The Dispatches investigation used undercover reporters claiming to represent a Hong Kong communications agency called PMR that was seeking to hire senior British politicians to its advisory board. In the sting, the MPs were secretly filmed. Sir Malcolm was said to have claimed he could arrange ‘useful access’ to every British ambassador in the world because of his status, while Mr Straw boasted of operating ‘under the radar’ to use his influence to change European Union rules on behalf of a commodity firm that paid him £60,000 a year.
Both denied wrongdoing, but the timing of the allegations is thought to have prevented them from receiving peerages after stepping down from the Commons in May. In September, Kathryn Hudson, the parliamentary commissioner for standards, cleared both and criticised the broadcaster, saying: ‘The use of carefully selected excerpts from the recordings does not necessarily give the viewer a detailed understanding of the circumstances and the full evidence behind the interviews.’
The Commons standards committee, which is made up of MPs and lay members, went further, saying: ‘By selection and omission, the coverage distorted the truth and misled the public.’
But yesterday’s Ofcom ruling backed the investigation, saying it did not breach the broadcasting code. It found the makers of Dispatches: Politicians for Hire had ‘taken reasonable steps to ensure that it avoided unjust or unfair treatment’ of Sir Malcolm and Mr Straw. The watchdog added: ‘In Ofcom’s view, the programme was a serious piece of broadcast journalism and there was a significant public interest in the programme makers secretly filming both Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Mr Straw.’
Channel 4 Dispatches editor Daniel Pearl said: ‘We are delighted this important piece of public service journalism has been thoroughly vindicated. This was a rigorously detailed investigation which paid scrupulous attention to fairness and accuracy at all times.’
Comment – Page 14