Jack Straw and Sir Malcolm Rifkind did seek to “exploit their experience and connections” for personal gain, an independent inquiry ruled on Monday.
The judgment, from the broadcasting regulator Ofcom – which conducted a thorough investigation into evidence collected by Channel 4 and The Telegraph – raises serious questions over the ability of Parliament to police its own affairs.
In an undercover investigation, the Telegraph and Channel 4’s Dispatches programme exposed how the two former foreign secretaries had offered to use their positions as politicians on behalf of a fictitious Chinese company in return for payments of at least £5,000 a day.
Earlier this year, Kathryn Hudson, the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner – appointed by MPs to police their affairs – exonerated Mr Straw and Sir Malcolm and criticised the conduct of the media in investigating their affairs.
Channel 4 was so incensed by the criticism that it referred the investigation to Ofcom – which has the power to fine a broadcaster, or even take away its licence if the subjects of documentaries have been treated unfairly.
In an unprecedented judgment covering almost 40 pages, Ofcom ruled that the “conduct and statements made by Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Mr Straw as included in the programme would be likely to be understood by viewers to be evidence of their willingness to exploit their experience and connections that they made as senior politicians who have occupied ministerial roles in, potentially, taking up an advisory position with a foreign company for their own financial interests”.
Ofcom also found that the “presentation of the secretly filmed footage was an accurate representation of the discussions that took place during the meetings” with Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Mr Straw.
The independent regulator’s findings stood in direct contrast to those of Mrs Hudson, and MPs on the Parliamentary Committee on Standards who approved her findings.
Members of the committee said that they would have to study the Ofcom ruling.
In a report published in September, MPs on the committee – which also has lay members – said that they “agreed with her [Mrs Hudson] finding that … 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. This may result in the viewer being led to conclusions which do not stand up to detailed scrutiny.”
The committee also concluded that by “selection and omission the coverage distorted the truth and misled the public as to what had actually taken place”.
John Mann, the campaigning Labour MP, said the Ofcom ruling was a “vindication of the investigation” and put pressure on the position of Mrs Hudson.
Mr Mann said the Ofcom report should be considered at a public meeting of the Standards Committee – which normally meets in private – and that Mrs Hudson should recuse herself from these deliberations.
Asked if Mrs Hudson should resign, he said: “She needs to contemplate the implications of this Ofcom report … This will make uncomfortable reading for her.”
Martin Bell, the former independent “anti-sleaze” MP, said the current system was one of “mates’ justice”. He said: “I am pleased that what the Telegraph and Channel 4 did has been upheld – I always thought it was in the public interest. The House of Commons is incapable of regulating itself and it has never managed to do so impartially and fairly.”
Members on the Standards Committee said they were now likely to re-examine their report at its meeting next month. One said: “We went beyond our remit in saying this [the investigation] seems to be rather unsatisfactory.” It could result in the committee’s criticism being toned down. There is no formal right of appeal against the decisions of either the commissioner or the committee.
Questions have been raised about Mrs Hudson’s judgment and Parliamentary regulation in recent months. In November, a High Court judge found that an MP whom Mrs Hudson had cleared was willing to act in breach of Commons rules.
Mrs Hudson ruled in 2013 that Tim Yeo, a former Conservative MP, did not have “an expectation of financial interest” when he met undercover reporters so could not have broken the MPs’ code when he offered to approach ministers on behalf of their fictitious client. However, Mr Justice Warby said it was clear from the evidence that the then chairman of the Commons energy committee was prepared “to do things which, if they had been done, would clearly have involved breaches of the code”.
Ofcom is overseen by Sharon White. However, the organisation’s director of standards, Tony Close, wrote the report and it was approved by Ofcom’s content board.