Allan Massie: A truly pressing matter for the PM

Published on Tuesday 7 September 2010 13:35

It's time for Number 10 to return to having an impartial media chief, not partisan spin doctors, writes Allan Massie

• Andy Coulson should be delivering the message, not be the story himself Picture: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images

David Cameron took a risk when he made Andy Coulson his press adviser, spin doctor, and now director of communications at Downing Street. The reason for the appointment was, however, clear.

While in opposition, Cameron wanted an experienced journalist and skilled media operator; he had, like other Tories, been impressed by what Alastair Campbell had done for Tony Blair. For years Campbell had controlled what New Labour called "the narrative"; for years he had managed to keep the tabloids "on message". Cameron needed someone capable of doing the same, just as effectively. Who could be more suitable than a former editor of the News of the World?

It seemed to work. Coulson greatly improved the Conservatives' news management, which had been lamentable for years. The revelation of the non-dom status of Lord Ashcroft, the party's big donor and vice-chairman, was neatly handled - a good example of damage limitation. Cameron had reason to be happy with his choice.

Yet the risk was real. Peter Oborne, political journalist and author of a fairly critical biography of Alastair Campbell, explained why. "Under the editorship of Coulson," he wrote, "the News of the World was running what was effectively a private intelligence service, using some of the same highly intrusive techniques as MI5." It was engaged in "illegal surveillance" of a large number of people prominent in public life. Some of this came to light: the hacking of the mobile phones of members of the royal family or royal household. This led to a police investigation, and the paper's "royal editor", Clive Goodman, and a private detective who was in possession of about 3,000 mobile phone numbers and 90 pin codes, were prosecuted and given prison sentences. Coulson denied all knowledge of what his subordinates had been up to; nevertheless he resigned the editorship of the paper.

Yet the matter couldn't be laid to rest. After complaints of phone-hacking from others - among them the junior Labour minister, Clive Bryant - Home Secretary Alan Johnson was urged to have the Metropolitan Police's handling of the affair investigated by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary.

On 13 July last year, Stephen Rimmer, the Home Office director-general for crime and policing, e-mailed Johnson's private secretary. In the message, he said: "My own advice is that there are insufficient grounds to [investigate], and that the Met would deeply resent what they would see as ‘interference' in an operational investigation which could of course be revived at any given moment."

That moment may have finally arrived, following an article in the New York Times which quotes a former NoW reporter, Sean Hoare, who claims that Coulson ordered him to tap phones. The NYT also asserts that another source - an unnamed former News International executive - says that Coulson knew of the phone-tapping. The reliability of these claims has of course been questioned - Hoare is said to have been dismissed from the paper because of problems with drugs and alcohol; the executive remains unidentified. However, others, among them Tony Blair and Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, have said they suspect their phones too have been tapped.

So it is a murky business, and it looks as if the Met is going to re-open its investigation.

Meanwhile, the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee yesterday questioned the Met's Assistant Commissioner, John Yates (who also led the investigation into Labour's alleged "cash for honours" scandal) and Coulson has volunteered to be questioned by police.

He says he knew nothing about the phone-tapping. This may be true; his resignation of the editorship is not evidence of guilt. A crime had been committed on his watch, and he took responsibility for the misdemeanours of members of his staff. One can say this was the correct way to behave. In like manner, government ministers used to be expected to accept responsibility for the actions of their department and resign if rules have been broken.

It is quite possible that Coulson may be guilty of nothing worse than lax supervision of his staff. Unfortunately for him this is beside the point. As director of the government's communications, he is responsible for handling media relations. Can he do this effectively if he himself has become the subject of media speculation? Can he advise the Prime Minister on how to present policy in these circumstances? Can he brief journalists if every briefing is likely to be interrupted by questions about his own position?

The man who is supposed to deliver the message - or at least offer advice on the manner of delivery - has become the story. The man whose task it is to smooth the path of government has become an obstacle in that path. How can he give advice on dealing with the media when he is himself the object of so much media speculation?

It is understandable that Cameron should not want to be seen to get rid of someone he values because of pressure from the opposition and the media. Nevertheless Coulson should go - and preferably of his own accord.

Coulson's appointment was a mistake. It was natural that while in opposition Cameron should have appointed an experienced journalist to handle media relations and act as his director of communications. But government is different, and in following the bad precedent set by Tony Blair's employment of Alastair Campbell, Cameron acted unwisely.

The business of the prime minister's press officer is to present government policy in a straightforward and neutral fashion. He is not - or rather, should not be - partisan. Cameron should revert to old ways, which were better than New Labour's bad ways. His press secretary and government information officers should all be career civil servants, as they used to be. This would be a step towards restoring dignity and honesty to government.

The distinction between the interest of government and the interest of party is naturally often blurred. Nevertheless there is such a distinction, and prime ministers should resist the temptation to blur it. The employment of partisans to deliver the government's message makes such blurring likely, even unavoidable.

If respect for politicians is at a low ebb, this is partly because of the prevalent culture of spin. Spin may make things easier for a government, but in the long run reliance on it is self-defeating, for it breeds distrust among the public. Nothing would serve the coalition better than to be seen to reject this culture. The appointment of a career civil servant as the intermediary between the Prime Minister and journalists would be a welcome reversion to better practice.