• Home
• UK Politics
• World Politics
• Policy
• Media
• Lifestyle
• Sport
• Contributors
• Topics

Is Hackgate the MPs' Expenses Scandal for the Press?

As someone the subject of huge press interest during the MPs' expenses scandal, former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith wonders if some direct comparisons can be drawn with what's happening now to the press.

By Jacqui Smith

9 Jul 2011, 14:30

There may well have been former or current MPs having a small bitter smile of satisfaction this week as they saw newspaper journalists rushing to declare that we shouldn’t let a few ‘bad apples’ distort everyone’s view of the majority of fine and decent journalists in the world.  We know what it’s like to suddenly see our embedded practices exposed to the light of public opinion.  Like a nightclub in the daylight, what seemed ok the night before now seems tawdry and a bit shameful.

But is this really the newspaper’s expenses scandal?  There are certainly similarities but it’s very early days.

Firstly – many journalists are now finding it difficult to publicly defend practices that presumably they felt were legitimate when seen through the lens of investigative journalism and holding the powerful to account.  Accessing people’s private conversations; being tipped off by police; carrying out covert surveillance on people might just be defensible as a final resort in the most serious journalistic investigation where power or privilege were conspiring to cover up something illegal or totally immoral.  But 4000 people from just one investigator for just one newspaper can’t possibly be justified.  And that’s before we get to the most appalling examples of hacking the phones of victims of crime and personal tragedy.

MPs genuinely believed that to represent the interests of people who had elected them, they needed to be able to live and work in two places and that it would be bad for democracy if only independently wealthy people could afford to do the job.  That’s why a system of allowances grew up to enable them to fulfil that democratic role.

In both cases, over time, there appears to have been a ‘creep’ where practices that were vital for the fundamental elements of the job begin to be used with less care.  A closed group – sharing the same objectives – justifies to each other why their practices are legitimate.

Secondly – there is no independent regulation or external scrutiny.  The methods some journalists use are certainly not visible – even if you’ve been on the receiving end of them.  And apparently, they’re not even always visible to their bosses and editors either.  Even the PCC, which should be the watchdog, can be lied to and has been toothless.

MPs who asked for guidance from the parliamentary authorities about their expenses claims thought they were taking independent advice.  Of course they weren’t as the parliamentary authorities proved incapable and unwilling to disrupt practices that had built up over years.

Thirdly – it takes a crisis to prompt reform.  When I was Chief Whip, I can remember discussing the unsatisfactory nature of parliamentary allowances with another senior Minister.  Even though we didn’t know about law breaking, we both agreed that the public would be pretty unimpressed by the day to day operation of the system.  Why didn’t we act?  Firstly because we were wary that Parliament, not Government should take responsibility for Parliament.  Secondly we couldn’t imagine returning to our constituencies to tell people that we’d been spending our time and effort reforming our expenses system rather than dealing with their jobs, their security and their families futures.

There is certainly a crisis in confidence in journalistic practices this week.  But will this be sufficient to prompt the real scrutiny and reform that appears necessary.  Today all party leaders are calling for scrapping of the PCC and reform to regulation.  They are right, but how effective will this be in an era of intense competition between papers for the scoops and stories.  Unlike in politics, there is a profit motive (or a survival motive) in newspapers which has not driven higher quality – it seems to have driven more and more desperate journalistic methods.

Fourthly – the first and most high profile culprits aren’t necessarily the worst offenders.  Many of my colleagues understandably kept their heads down whilst I appeared on newspaper front pages.  Many  escaped without much personal attention to their expense claims despite repaying significantly more than me.  In the end the worst offenders were uncovered some way down the line.  

The former regime at the News of the World are certainly guilty, but I doubt they’re the only sinners!  I suppose the key question here is whether the newspapers which were so keen to parade the shortcomings of MPs will be quite as willing to turn the spotlight on each other.
 I doubt it which is why an independent inquiry which uncovers the extent of unacceptable practices is so vital and so urgent!  And why truly independent regulation of standards is necessary.  If this is the equivalent of the MPs' expenses scandal, I can only promise my journalistic friends a lot of pain along the way!