This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/dec/21/parliamentary-commissioner-faces-questions-over-rifkind-straw-sting
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
Version 0 | Version 1 |
---|---|
Parliamentary commissioner faces questions over Rifkind and Straw sting | Parliamentary commissioner faces questions over Rifkind and Straw sting |
(34 minutes later) | |
The parliamentary standards commissioner Kathryn Hudson is facing questions for criticising the media sting on Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Jack Straw, after regulator Ofcom found the reporting was of significant public interest and did not unfairly represent the MPs. | The parliamentary standards commissioner Kathryn Hudson is facing questions for criticising the media sting on Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Jack Straw, after regulator Ofcom found the reporting was of significant public interest and did not unfairly represent the MPs. |
Ofcom opened an investigation into the programme in question, a joint operation between Channel 4 and the Daily Telegraph, after Rifkind and Straw were cleared of cash-for-access allegations by Hudson and the standards committee of MPs in September. | Ofcom opened an investigation into the programme in question, a joint operation between Channel 4 and the Daily Telegraph, after Rifkind and Straw were cleared of cash-for-access allegations by Hudson and the standards committee of MPs in September. |
The programme used secret filming to allege that the MPs offered their political connections to earn money from commercial companies. | The programme used secret filming to allege that the MPs offered their political connections to earn money from commercial companies. |
After exonerating the MPs of breaching parliamentary standards, Hudson said the damage done to the former MPs could have been avoided if Channel 4’s Dispatches and the Daily Telegraph had accurately reported the exchanges they had filmed. | |
The House of Commons standards committee was even more critical of the journalism, saying it was “very concerned that the matter should have been reported in this fashion”. | The House of Commons standards committee was even more critical of the journalism, saying it was “very concerned that the matter should have been reported in this fashion”. |
But Ofcom took a different view on Monday, saying there was a “significant public interest” in exploring the conduct of the MPs and that in the circumstances undercover filming was “proportionate and warranted”. | But Ofcom took a different view on Monday, saying there was a “significant public interest” in exploring the conduct of the MPs and that in the circumstances undercover filming was “proportionate and warranted”. |
In its 38-page ruling, Ofcom also said that the filming was an “accurate representation” of the discussions the MPs held. | In its 38-page ruling, Ofcom also said that the filming was an “accurate representation” of the discussions the MPs held. |
Related: Channel 4’s Dispatches cleared over Malcolm Rifkind and Jack Straw sting | Related: Channel 4’s Dispatches cleared over Malcolm Rifkind and Jack Straw sting |
It has since emerged that Rifkind was one of a five-person panel that helped appoint Hudson to her position three years ago. | It has since emerged that Rifkind was one of a five-person panel that helped appoint Hudson to her position three years ago. |
Hudson’s judgment in the case was challenged by Paul Flynn, a Labour member of the public administration and constitutional affairs committee, who said it was the second time the commissioner had been “too permissive” about the conduct of MPs. | |
He said he would be writing to Hudson to raise concerns that the Commons is “slipping back into sleaze again” and to seek an explanation of her leniency. | |
“There is serious doubt about whether the House of Commons and Lords standards people have gone soft and are being too lenient...[Former MP] Tim Yeo was given a clean bill of health but when he sued the Sunday Times he was told he was wrong. When I read the report from the standards committee about Straw and Rifkind, I was baffled by it. I did not think the reporting was distorted in any way,” Flynn said on Monday. | “There is serious doubt about whether the House of Commons and Lords standards people have gone soft and are being too lenient...[Former MP] Tim Yeo was given a clean bill of health but when he sued the Sunday Times he was told he was wrong. When I read the report from the standards committee about Straw and Rifkind, I was baffled by it. I did not think the reporting was distorted in any way,” Flynn said on Monday. |
“If we are to restore trust in parliamentarians, we are not doing very well. We cannot be permissive about the behaviour of our own members. There is a case to answer and I shall be writing to the standards commsioner because it is very worrying..” | “If we are to restore trust in parliamentarians, we are not doing very well. We cannot be permissive about the behaviour of our own members. There is a case to answer and I shall be writing to the standards commsioner because it is very worrying..” |
Tamasin Cave, campaigner for the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency, also said the standards regime was “not fit for purpose and not doing what the public expect of it”. Cave added that David Cameron had failed in his promise to clean up politics when it comes to MPs being lobbied by corporate interests. | Tamasin Cave, campaigner for the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency, also said the standards regime was “not fit for purpose and not doing what the public expect of it”. Cave added that David Cameron had failed in his promise to clean up politics when it comes to MPs being lobbied by corporate interests. |
In the wake of the Straw and Rifkind case, Sir Alistair Graham, former chairman of the committee on standards in public life, has also called for the entire parliamentary standards regime to be changed to ensure it “genuinely represents the broader public interest”. | In the wake of the Straw and Rifkind case, Sir Alistair Graham, former chairman of the committee on standards in public life, has also called for the entire parliamentary standards regime to be changed to ensure it “genuinely represents the broader public interest”. |
Related: Rifkind and Straw are cleared, but parliament’s rules remain murky | Related: Rifkind and Straw are cleared, but parliament’s rules remain murky |
Asked about the Ofcom report, a spokeswoman for Hudson said she would not be answering any questions about her inquiry into Straw and Rifkind or replying to any criticism of her findings. | Asked about the Ofcom report, a spokeswoman for Hudson said she would not be answering any questions about her inquiry into Straw and Rifkind or replying to any criticism of her findings. |
The Channel 4 programme had alleged that Straw boasted to undercover journalists that he had operated “under the radar” to use his influence and change EU rules on behalf of a firm that paid him £60,000 a year. A recording obtained with a hidden camera shows Straw saying: “So normally, if I’m doing a speech or something, it’s £5,000 a day, that’s what I charge.” | The Channel 4 programme had alleged that Straw boasted to undercover journalists that he had operated “under the radar” to use his influence and change EU rules on behalf of a firm that paid him £60,000 a year. A recording obtained with a hidden camera shows Straw saying: “So normally, if I’m doing a speech or something, it’s £5,000 a day, that’s what I charge.” |
Rifkind reportedly claimed to be able to gain “useful access” to every British ambassador in the world. Journalists recorded him describing himself as self-employed, even though he earned a salary of £67,000 as MP for Kensington: “I am self-employed – so nobody pays me a salary. I have to earn my income.” | Rifkind reportedly claimed to be able to gain “useful access” to every British ambassador in the world. Journalists recorded him describing himself as self-employed, even though he earned a salary of £67,000 as MP for Kensington: “I am self-employed – so nobody pays me a salary. I have to earn my income.” |
Ofcom ruled that Channel 4 had taken reasonable steps to avoid “unfair and unjust” treatment of the MPs, making sure their views were fairly aired. | Ofcom ruled that Channel 4 had taken reasonable steps to avoid “unfair and unjust” treatment of the MPs, making sure their views were fairly aired. |
“There was sufficient balance, by the inclusion of statements by the MPs that they were aware of the parliamentary rules and their responsibilities as MPs, in the programme such that it did not unfairly represent the MPs as ‘politicians for hire’,” said Ofcom. “[The programme] allowed viewers to make their own minds up as to whether or not they thought the conduct shown fell short of public expectations for MPs’ conduct. | “There was sufficient balance, by the inclusion of statements by the MPs that they were aware of the parliamentary rules and their responsibilities as MPs, in the programme such that it did not unfairly represent the MPs as ‘politicians for hire’,” said Ofcom. “[The programme] allowed viewers to make their own minds up as to whether or not they thought the conduct shown fell short of public expectations for MPs’ conduct. |
“We considered that the programme’s presentation of the statements made by Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Mr Straw during the secretly filmed meetings did not give a misleading impression of their conduct in a way which was unfair to them,” Ofcom said in its ruling. “And the programme-makers took reasonable care to satisfy themselves that material facts were not presented, disregarded or omitted in a way that was unfair to them. The presentation of the secretly filmed footage was an accurate representation of the discussions.” | “We considered that the programme’s presentation of the statements made by Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Mr Straw during the secretly filmed meetings did not give a misleading impression of their conduct in a way which was unfair to them,” Ofcom said in its ruling. “And the programme-makers took reasonable care to satisfy themselves that material facts were not presented, disregarded or omitted in a way that was unfair to them. The presentation of the secretly filmed footage was an accurate representation of the discussions.” |
The programme, which aired on 23 February, and Telegraph articles led Straw to suspend himself from the parliamentary Labour party and Rifkind to step down as the chairman of parliament’s intelligence and security committee and as an MP. | The programme, which aired on 23 February, and Telegraph articles led Straw to suspend himself from the parliamentary Labour party and Rifkind to step down as the chairman of parliament’s intelligence and security committee and as an MP. |
“We are delighted this important piece of public service journalism has been thoroughly vindicated by the independent regulator,” said Daniel Pearl, Channel 4’s deputy head of news and current affairs and Dispatches editor. | |
“This was a rigorously detailed investigation which paid scrupulous attention to fairness and accuracy at all times. We are pleased that Ofcom has recognised that the secretly filmed comments, ‘accurately represented the discussions that took place between the MPs and the undercover reporters’.” |
Previous version
1
Next version