Jewish MP’s Jack Straw And Malcolm Rifkind Avoid Charges Of Selling Government Influence To Chinese Companies

Members of the committee which ‘cleared’ Jack Straw and Sir Malcolm Rifkind over a “cash for access” scandal last night expressed serious misgivings about the Parliamentary system which led to the former ministers being exonerated over questionable conduct.

Undated file photos of Jack Straw (left and Sir Malcolm Rifkind.  The two former foreign secretaries are facing accusations that they were prepared to use their positions and contacts to benefit a private company in return for payments of thousands of pounds. PRESS ASSOCIATION Photo. Issue date: Saturday August 23, 2014. Straw and Rifkind have been named in an undercover investigation by the Daily Telegraph and Channel 4 Dispatches. Both men have strongly denied any wrongdoing. The two senior MPs were secretly filmed by reporters claiming to represent a Hong Kong-based communications agency called PMR which was seeking to hire senior British politicians to join its advisory board. See PA story POLITICS Lobbying. Photo credit should read: PA/PA Wire

Mr Straw and Sir Malcolm, both former foreign secretaries, were on Thursday found not to have breached Parliament’s rules by the House of Commons Committee on Standards, the majority of whose members are MPs.

Earlier this year, The Daily Telegraph and Channel Four’s Dispatches programme, revealed that the two MPs offered to use their positions as politicians on behalf of a fictitious Chinese company in return for payments of at least £5,000 per day.

Mr Straw boasted that he operated “under the radar” to use his influence to change European Union rules on behalf of a commodity firm which pays him £60,000 a year. Sir Malcolm told undercover reporters that he was “self-employed” despite receiving an MP’s salary of £67,000 and said that he could arrange “useful access” to ambassadors because of his status.

However, Kathryn Hudson, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards found that “there was no breach of the rules on paid lobbying” after accepting assurances from Sir Malcolm and Mr Straw that they were speaking “off the cuff” and were not intending to back up their words in meetings with actual actions.

The Parliamentary Standards Committee, which is chaired by Labour MP Sir Kevin Barron then launched an attack on the Telegraph and Channel Four and indicated that Parliament may wish to consider whether it was appropriate for media organisations to investigate MPs using undercover reporters. Sir Kevin has remained chairman of the Committee despite himself being exposed for making questionable expense claims.

But, it can now be revealed that other members of his committee privately harbour concerns about the code of conduct for MPs being too weak – and the system which allows MPs to sit as judge and jury on the conduct of fellow Parliamentarians. In America, any employee of the federal government, including politicians, is banned from sitting on the Office of Congressional Government.

One member told the Daily Telegraph: “It is probably true that they [Straw and Rifkind] did not break the rules – and therefore we have got a problem with the rules.”

The member also recounted how there was no proper discussion over the conduct of Straw and Rifkind by the committee. The member alleged that Mr Barron simply held up the report during a meeting and asked for approval for it to be “passed”. The other members sat in silence and he took this as approval.

In her own report Mrs Hudson also suggests that the “broad brush” rules are not adequate.

There were also questions raised about why the report was released before the completion of reforms to the standards committee that had been endorsed by Miss Hudson following an inquiry into the body’s conduct. These reforms were promised following the public outcry over the Committee’s report into former minister Maria Miller who was accused of dubious expenses claims.

The report into the conduct of Mr Straw and Sir Malcolm came seven months after the Daily Telegraph investigation. It was written by Mrs Hudson and endorsed by the panel of MPs and lay members.

MPs insisted in the report that Sir Malcolm and Mr Straw had been “scrupulous in observing the requirements relating to registration of interests”. She ruled that there was no breach of the rules of the House of Commons “other than in Mr Straw’s case – by a minor misuse of parliamentary resources”.

They also criticised The Daily Telegraph and Channel 4’s Dispatches programme over its reporting of the undercover investigation.

The report said: “We are very concerned that the matter should have been reported in this fashion. By selection and omission the coverage distorted the truth and misled the public as to what had actually taken place.”

However, The Daily Telegraph said in a statement that the investigation “was in the public interest and accurately revealed matters which were of concern to millions of voters”. Channel 4 said that it “stands by its journalism”. The broadcaster referred its report to Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator, raising the prospect that another regulator may effectively over-rule the Parliamentary findings.

One member who sat on the panel said that Parliament has “a problem with the rules” and that they must be looked at again.

“It is probably true that they did not break the rules – and therefore we have got a problem with the rules,” the MP said.

“The problem is that the rules are not tight enough. There is a cultural problem as well. Rifkind and Straw’s complaint was that they were stung by Channel Four – not that it would be wrong to work for a Chinese PR company.

“The truth is you can work for as many Chinese PR companies as you like and be a member of Parliament. Before this Parliament is up it would be proper to have a look at them again.”

The report comes after an inquiry which last year recommended changes to the process by which MPs are judged.

The review was launched last year after MPs were accused of “marking their own homework” after the committee’s decision to demand a £5,800 expenses repayment from Maria Miller, the former culture secretary, rather than the £45,000 suggested by Miss Hudson.

The inquiry recommended extending the number of lay members on the committee from three to seven – balanced with the same number of MPs.

In the report Mrs Hudson acknowledges issues surrounding the rules, which critics say are too vague.

She writes that “broad brush rules do not fit the circumstances of different members who come from widely varying backgrounds, nor the expectations which their constituents from equally varied backgrounds may have of them.”

It also emerged that Peter Jinman, a lay member of the committee, has previously written a report in which he examined the case for bringing in external regulation.

It concluded there were “strong constitutional reasons” why MPs needed to have the final say on whether rules had been broken and what punishments should be enforced.

It refused to recommend forming a US-style ethics committee, arguing the cost would be disproportionate.

The Office of Congressional Ethics is an independent body which rules on all allegations of misconduct relating to members of the House of Representatives and their staff.

It is governed by an eight person board of private citizens who cannot work for the federal government.

Martin Bell, the former independent MP and anti-sleaze campaigner, said: “Obviously the system is flawed. We’ve seen over and over again that the House of Commons is incapable of regulating itself. But it won’t accept an outside regulator. There should be an independent system of regulation.”

Asked if Parliament should bring in a US-style ethics committee, Mr Bell said: “Yes, I believe it should.”