Straw and Rifkind in the clear over cash for access
Ex-ministers caught in sting broke no rules, says watchdog
TWO former foreign secretaries have been cleared of cash-for-access allegations despite being caught on camera touting for work.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Jack Straw were accused earlier this year of telling undercover reporters they would be prepared to use their positions to benefit a private firm.
But in a report published yesterday, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards found ‘ there was no breach of the rules on paid lobbying’ and criticised Channel 4’s Dispatches and The Daily Telegraph over the joint sting.
Last night the broadcaster said it ‘stands by its journalism’, adding it had taken the ‘unprecedented step’ of asking the broadcasting watchdog Ofcom to investigate its cash-for-access report.
And the newspaper said ‘we suspect voters will find it remarkable that, despite the scandal of MPs’ expenses, Parliament still sees fit for MPs to be both judge and jury on their own conduct’.
The standards commissioner’s verdict paves the way for the pair to be given seats in the Lords. Mr Straw had been expected to get one after stepping down as an MP at the election, but did not as a direct result of the scandal.
It erupted in February when undercover reporters claiming to represent a Hong Kong-based communications agency called PMR, seeking to hire senior British politicians to join its advisory board, secretly filmed the former MPs.
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 EU rules on behalf of a commodities firm that paid him £60,000 a year.
After the broadcast, Mr Straw suspended himself from the Parliamentary Labour Party and Sir Malcolm stood down as chairman of Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee and as an MP.
But yesterday, standards commissioner Kathryn Hudson found there was no breach of the rules of the House ‘other than in Mr Straw’s case – by a minor misuse of parliamentary resources’.
She said neither MP had been asked to do any lobbying by the fake firm, and neither had offered to do so. In fact, they had both pointed out the limits of what they should be able to do.
Ms Hudson accused Channel 4 of using ‘carefully selected excerpts from the recordings’, with viewers ‘being led to conclusions which do not stand up to detailed scrutiny’.
In a report published by the Commons Standards Committee, MPs said Sir Malcolm and Mr Straw had been ‘scrupulous in observing the requirements relating to registration of interests’.
The committee also raised concerns about media coverage of the allegations and claimed the former Cabinet ministers had been ‘presumed guilty’ before any investigation had taken place.
‘By selection and omission, the coverage distorted the truth and misled the public as to what had actually taken place,’ the MPs said.
Sir Malcolm said: ‘Channel 4 Dispatches and The Daily Telegraph must recognise the judgment of the standards commissioner and the standards committee that they were responsible for “distortion” and for misleading the public in making these allegations.
‘It has been for me, for my family and for my former parliamentary staff a painful period which we can now put behind us.’
Mr Straw said: ‘I have been fully vindicated in this. The commissioner’s report gives the full context of what happened, which was not available to the public at the time.
‘The whole episode has taken a huge toll on my family, my friends, and on me, but the commissioner’s conclusions and the committee’s findings will now enable me to get on with my life.’
He suggested he would still like a seat in the Lords.
A Channel 4 spokesman said: ‘This programme raised important questions which concern voters about how senior politicians are able to use their public office for personal financial gain. This is a matter of public interest and was a legitimate journalistic investigation.’
A spokesman for The Daily Telegraph said the newspaper ‘conducted an investigation that was in the public interest and accurately revealed matters which were of concern to millions of voters. We raised a number of serious questions about the conduct of MPs.’
‘A matter of public interest’