Consultation on draft guidelines for the coverage of a referendum on the UK s membership of the European Union Outcome of Consultation

Transcription

1 Consultation on draft guidelines for the coverage of a referendum on the UK s membership of the European Union February 2016 Getting the best out of the BBC for licence fee payers

2 Contents Consultation Statement 1 Background 1 The Guidelines 1 The Consultation 2 Responses 2 The issues raised 3 Broad balance 3 Designated organisations 3 Monitoring 3 Accuracy and Impartiality 4 Consultation submissions 5 The Association of Electoral Administrators (AEA) - Southern Branch 5 Audience Council Scotland 5 Britain Stronger in Europe 6 Ekklesia Think-Tank 9 The Green Party of England and Wales 11 The Liberal Democrats 12 Newswatch 13 UK Independence Party 15 Ulster Unionist Party 16 Vote Leave 16 An individual response from an MP 20 Other responses 23 Decision 24 February 2016

3 Consultation Statement Background There will be a referendum on the UK s membership of the European Union before the end of 2017 on a date that will be set by the Government. In preparation for its coverage, the BBC is seeking to put guidelines in place to supplement its usual Editorial Guidelines and help define how the BBC will comply with its duty of due impartiality during the period leading up to and including the referendum. The BBC is required by its Charter and Agreement of 2006 to ensure that political issues are covered with due accuracy and impartiality. The BBC s Editorial Guidelines set out the values and standards all BBC content must meet. However, the BBC intends to publish additional Guidelines for its editorial staff to refer to when covering the referendum. The Guidelines are developed by the BBC Executive (which is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the BBC) and brought to the Trust for approval. The BBC Trust is the governing body of the BBC. It is separate from the BBC Executive, which is responsible for all BBC content. The Trust is also the final appeal body in the BBC complaints process. Once published, the Guidelines will be available for producers and editors to refer to when producing coverage of the referendum. The draft Guidelines were approved with two changes 1 and can be found at Annex A. This document explains the considerations that were taken into account by the Trust in approving the Guidelines. The Guidelines The Guidelines are intended to offer a framework within which journalists and content producers can operate in as free and creative an environment as possible, and can deliver to audiences impartial and independent reporting of the campaign, giving fair coverage and rigorous scrutiny of the policies and campaigns of all relevant parties and campaigners. The Executive s proposals included that: achieving due impartiality during the campaign means finding broad balance between the arguments and not necessarily between the designated campaign groups 2. 1 To paragraphs 1.2 and 3.1. These changes and the reasons for them are set out later in this paper. February

4 there may be circumstances in which other voices, beyond the formal representatives, are relevant to the arguments and these too should be weighted in terms of broad balance. each editorial area of output, such as programmes, strands or channels, must take responsibility for ensuring that it achieves an appropriate balance across the campaign as a whole. The Guidelines will come into effect at the beginning of the formal Referendum Period, which will be a number of weeks before polling day. They will remain in force until the close of polls The Consultation On 20 November 2015, the Trust published its consultation on the Executive s proposed Guidelines for the coverage of a referendum on the UK s membership of the European Union. The Trust s consultation asked the following three questions: 1. Do the proposed EU Referendum Guidelines seem relevant and appropriate for this referendum? If not, please explain why? 2. Do you feel there are any omissions from the Guidelines? 3. Do you have any other comments on the proposed Guidelines? Responses The Trust received 16 responses to the consultation; seven were from individuals (including an MP writing in a personal capacity) and the remaining nine were from the following organisations or groups: Association of Electoral Administrators (Southern Branch) the (BBC) Audience Council for Scotland Britain Stronger in Europe Ekklesia The Green Party (England and Wales) The Liberal Democrats Newswatch UK Independence Party The Ulster Unionist Party Vote Leave 2 That is to say, the designated organisations, within the meaning of Part 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act Designations are made by the Electoral Commission. February

5 The Electoral Commission also provided a brief response, indicating that in its view The referendum guidelines... seem to cover the right range of issues. For the responses from the organisations listed above (including political parties), please see Annex B. A summary of the other individual responses is set out in Annex C. The issues raised The approval of the Referendum Guidelines is delegated to the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust which considered the draft Referendum Guidelines at its meeting on 4 February Before reaching a decision on the Executive s proposed Guidelines, the Committee considered all the responses to the consultation and took into account all relevant points raised. It also took into account the clarifications received from the Executive on some points. A summary of the key issues raised in the consultation responses that were directly relevant to the drafting of the guidelines is below. In some cases, the comments were not directly relevant to the drafting of the guidelines themselves, but raised broader issues relating to the BBC's referendum coverage. A summary of the main issues raised and the Committee's consideration of these issues is also outlined below. Broad balance While accepted by most consultees, some respondents raised points about the general principle adopted in the draft Guidelines, that the aim is to achieve impartiality by observing a "broad balance" between the arguments and not necessarily between the designated campaigns. In particular, they questioned if this might mean differences in approach and argumentation between different viewpoints within each campaign might not be adequately reflected in coverage; Designated organisations Some consultees advanced the argument that coverage should give preference to those speaking for the designated organisations, as they will have been selected by the Electoral Commission, under a process put in place by Parliament, as capable of representing those campaigning for a particular outcome; Monitoring Several consultees mentioned the need for effective monitoring and the rapid resolution of complaints to ensure that the principles in the Guidelines are actually implemented in practice: February

6 Accuracy and Impartiality A number of consultees raised points which, while valid, are actually met by the usual Editorial Guidelines - especially those on accuracy and impartiality. The Editorial Guidelines continue to apply alongside the Referendum Guidelines. February

7 Consultation submissions The Association of Electoral Administrators (AEA) - Southern Branch o The AEA stated that the use of words 'akin to impartiality, independence, accuracy... ' was welcomed by the "electoral community", who could be directly affected should those principles not be adopted The Committee's Decision: Trustees noted the submission and decided that no change was required. Audience Council Scotland o In its submission the Council said it might be helpful to producers to stress that coverage should go beyond impartial and independent reporting of the campaign to "reflect as wide a range of views as possible." A lesson from the Scottish Referendum was that audiences want information on the impacts of the various policy positions. The Council said there was a need for more advice on the range of factors producers would weigh up when covering the EU Referendum, in particular with regard to how network services 3 should handle different, but interrelated campaigns in the various UK nations. o The Council said there were aspects of the BBC s reporting, raised by licence fee payers, which contributed to perceptions of impartiality. These included headline writing, social media, original journalism and analysis on key issues, and a concern that UK programmes do not present Anglocentric perspectives where that is not appropriate. It said it might be useful for the Guidelines to draw the attention of journalists to these factors. o The Council stated that in broadcast debates of national significance such as the EU Referendum either in Scotland or the UK the electorate should be represented both socially and geographically in audience terms and it called for clearer guidance on how this might be achieved. o The submission noted the possibility of overlap between elections for devolved legislatures and the EU referendum and stated this may require further guidance, especially if parties allow representatives (including Ministers) to adopt personal rather than party positions on this issue. The Executive's position: The Executive said that the focus of the guidelines must be in setting out a clear framework for journalists and other content producers, which is fully available to the licence-fee payers. The Executive stated that it is important to recognise that the Referendum Guidelines are 3 That is, those broadcast to the whole UK. February

8 complementary to and supplement the normal Editorial Guidelines, which would apply to issues identified by the Council. The Committee's Decision: The Committee considered that the choice of interviewees is a matter of editorial judgement and so a matter for the Executive, but they also noted that the Referendum Guidelines do encourage editors to draw from a wider field than just politicians or campaigners. On the coverage of the Nations on the UK network, Trustees noted that they expect this output to be duly accurate, which includes ensuring that it is clear when a story is about the UK as a whole or is applicable only to one (or more) of the nations. In terms of the selection of audiences, Trustees noted that this is a matter for the Executive as long as due impartiality is achieved in the resulting broadcast. On the question of a possible overlap between the referendum and elections, the Committee noted that the Referendum Guidelines explain that impartiality must be applied to both the referendum and to the election if the formal periods coincide and that it is for the Executive to comply with this requirement. Trustees concluded that, given the many different circumstances that might apply, setting out further detail on how this might be achieved would be disproportionate and would risk interfering with editorial judgement. The Committee concluded that no change was required to the Referendum Guidelines. Britain Stronger in Europe o Britain Stronger in Europe said it was seeking to become the "designated organisation" as the "remain" side of the argument in the referendum. Q.1 on whether or not the proposed EU Referendum Guidelines seem relevant and appropriate for this referendum Broadly, the submission said, the proposed guidelines were generally relevant and appropriate; though it believed they could be enhanced and clarified in a few areas to ensure rigorous impartiality throughout the campaign. o In this respect, the submission covered seven areas: Broad Balance: The submission said this was its principal concern. It was right (the submission stated) that there would be "a very wide range of voices" on both sides but in terms of the balance of coverage of "campaign groups", it expressed some concerns that the guidelines as drafted ruled out a commitment to "broad balance", instead opting for the "weaker option" of 'similar levels of coverage'. It stated this was particularly important given the legal obligations of each designated organisation. If successful in becoming a designated organisation, it said it would be obligated to show how it would demonstrate the entire breadth or argument on the "remain" side, as would the successful organisation on the "leave" side. February

9 Britain Stronger in Europe believed that all parties in the EU Referendum debate needed to be heard. But it said it would not be acceptable for a spokesperson for either designated organisation to put forward its view, at the same time as the opposing viewpoint was selected from a nondesignated organisation participant. The submission stated that allowing a spokesperson from the designated leave organisation to appear against or on the same programme as a remain voice who was not associated with the designated remain organisation would not be sufficiently impartial. That, it added, would give a strategic advantage to one campaign over the other. Britain Stronger in Europe believed there should be broad balance during the designated period between the two official campaigns. Who speaks for each campaign? The submission said this also raised questions of who would speak for each campaign and the need for clarity with audiences about the position a guest was taking in relation to the referendum. Sectoral expertise: The submission said that, when an issue was being discussed, it would be reasonable to expect" the participants to be from the same sector or area of expertise. Contextualising opinion: The submission said it was important to contextualise the weight of opinion in any sector being discussed. Equal prominence for equal activity: The submission stated it would expect new supporters who were unveiled by each side during the campaign to be given a similar level of prominence. What does remaining and leaving mean? The submission said it was important for there to be clarity about what the designated leave organisation s official view was on the kind of relationship the UK should have with Europe if there were a vote to leave. The referendum question: The submission said it was the responsibility of the BBC to inform its audiences about the implications of what leaving and remaining in the EU would mean. The Executive's position: On the question of designated organisations, the Executive stated that the legislation gives these groups the right to Referendum Campaign Broadcasts; but it does not confer any particular status on these groups in the editorial coverage of the broadcasters. "Fair coverage of the designated organisations, whilst of course central to the campaign, is a matter of editorial judgement". The Executive stated that whilst it may be appropriate on many occasions for spokespeople from the two campaigns to be representing the two arguments, there is no impartiality reason for not allowing one side to be represented by a spokesperson from a designated organisation and the other by a spokesperson not representing the other such organisation, in appropriate February

10 circumstances; indeed such a stipulation could impede the obligation to achieve a "broad balance" of arguments. The Executive added that if such an approach were applied unevenly, that would be inconsistent with the need for fairness to both campaigns. In relation to the question of who speaks for each campaign, the Executive proposed a short addition to the end of paragraph 3.1 of the draft Guidelines: Particular care should be taken in ensuring it is clear to the audience who or what a contributor is representing (for instance, one of the designated groups.) On the question of sectoral expertise, the Executive said this is a matter for normal editorial judgement and should not be prescribed in the Guidelines. The point about contextualising opinion would be covered by the Editorial Guidelines on fairness and accuracy while the question of equal prominence for equal activity is covered by consistency of editorial approach, which is central to the obligations on editors. The Executive added that the meaning of "remaining" and "leaving" in terms of the UK's relationship with Europe is not an issue for the BBC's guidelines, while the question of how the BBC informs its audiences about the implications of what leaving and remaining in the EU mean, is a matter for editorial judgement. The Committee's Decision: The Committee noted and accepted the Executive's addition to paragraph 3.1 as set out above. Trustees considered that the change provided greater clarity to audiences and would assist audiences by adding context to a speaker's contribution. On other issues: Trustees considered it correct that impartiality, in the context of a referendum, should be applied to the arguments and not to the designated organisations. They also noted that legislation does not require broadcasters to give precedence to designated organisations in coverage (but by contrast the BBC's overall obligation to achieve due impartiality and due accuracy in coverage is clear). Therefore, the Committee stated it would be an inappropriate curb on the Executive's exercise of editorial judgment to assert that the lead organisations should be afforded precedence over other contributors by the Referendum Guidelines. Trustees noted that a number of the other points raised were matters of editorial judgement and so a matter for the Executive or were already covered in the Editorial or Referendum Guidelines. On the issue of what the designated "leave" organisation's official view might be on the kind of relationship the UK should have with Europe, Trustees stated that it is for the designated organisations and their supporters to explain their positions but that BBC News would be expected to explore the issues with due accuracy and impartiality. The Committee concluded that no other change was required to the Referendum Guidelines. Q.2 on whether there are any omissions from the proposed Guidelines February

11 o The submission stated that more detail could be provided on the potential overlap between the May elections and the coverage of other political issues during the Referendum Period. o Referring to UKIP, it said the referendum could not be allowed to act as the country s longest Party Political Broadcast for just one party. It said it was absolutely vital that leave voices from UKIP were properly balanced with representation from strong remain voices. o The submission stated that Britain Stronger in Europe believed there was one small omission in the section on reporting polls. It said that it hoped that interviews with its spokespeople would not be dominated by questions about polls, but focus instead on the big issues. The Committee's Decision: Trustees considered the impact of the elections and, as explained above, noted that impartiality in the referendum context is applied to the arguments not to political parties or parties that advocate a particular referendum position. The Committee noted that the Referendum Guidelines explain that impartiality must be applied both to the referendum and to the election if the formal periods coincide. On the issue of polls, Trustees discussed lessons from the General Election coverage with the Executive. They also noted that although polls may well be part of the story, the dissection of the arguments in favour of both sides of the referendum question is crucial to informed public understanding of the issues. The Committee noted this is a matter for editorial judgement and as such the current Editorial Guidelines and Referendum Guidelines do not require adjustment. The Committee concluded that no change was required to the Referendum Guidelines. Q. 3 Additional comments o Britain Stronger in Europe thought it absolutely critical that the Guidelines should state that newspaper coverage should take account of whatever editorial stance is adhered to. The submission concluded by saying Britain Stronger in Europe completely agreed that neither side of the argument should be able to exercise a right of veto on debates or discussions by declining to take part. If that was to be enforced, it said, there must also be some flexibility from BBC outlets about which participants take part. The Committee's Decision: The Committee considered these points and concluded that they were covered by the BBC's Editorial Guidelines or the Referendum Guidelines and that, accordingly, no change was required to the Referendum Guidelines. Ekklesia Think-Tank February

12 o Ekklesia said its overarching concern was that the BBC's public service remit and statutory obligations as to coverage of the referendum campaign should be discharged in such a way as both to avoid undue impartiality (sic) and to enable the widest possible democratic scrutiny of facts and arguments between the contending propositions. o In terms of achieving balance between arguments, it urged the BBC to pay particular attention to the sourcing and interpretation of data and to ensure it was subject to rigorous scrutiny. Referring to the BBC's coverage of the Scottish referendum, the submission said some assertions broadcast during that campaign appeared 'not to have been fact-checked'. It referred to some guidance on social media (paragraph 6.2) which stated that producers should be rigorous about establishing the origins of material offered as audience contributions and said this should apply to business leaders and financiers. o On the BBC's commitment to 'broad-balance', Ekklesia said it hoped this would not exclude or marginalise the more nuanced viewpoints and voices. It said it agreed with paragraph 4.2 of the Guidelines (where one side of the campaign declines to speak, reasonable steps should be taken to ensure representation of their perspective), but suggested that it might be fairer in some circumstances that the 'empty chair' remains an absent voice (as otherwise, their views would be presented but not subjected to proper questioning and scrutiny). o The submission noted that producers should plan to reflect a range of voices, but added that campaigns and protagonists should not be unduly limited in their ability to choose spokespeople for themselves. Ekklesia urged the BBC to give attention to groups like trade unions and labour/workers organisations, migrants and "other marginalized groups" and stated that research indicated there was already a 'severe imbalance' in terms of BBC coverage of these groups and on the other hand, corporations and businesses. o In most other respects, Ekklesia said it welcomed the attempts of the Guidelines to be fair and reasonable. But it urged further consideration of independent monitoring procedures in relation to the discharge of the terms of the BBC's Charter and Agreement to ensure that the referendum is covered with due accuracy and impartiality. The Executive's position: In considering the submission, the Executive said that the comment about business leaders etc. was a misinterpretation of paragraph 6.2, which was about establishing the authenticity of sources on social media, rather than testing their arguments. The Executive added that this could be covered, as would the scrutiny of business leaders by the need for a 'consistent editorial approach'. On the issue of one side of a campaign declining to take part, the Executive explained that gaining "tacit advantage" would be precisely what paragraph 4.2 sets out should not happen, but different circumstances may February

13 require a range of responses within the principle of that paragraph. The Executive added that the principle that "arguments" (rather than the designated organisations) need to be balanced would normally have the effect of preventing either designated campaign from veto-ing. The Committee's Decision: On the question of interviews, Trustees regarded this as a matter for the Executive, who would use their editorial judgement and consider a range of factors which would vary according to context. The Committee noted that the Referendum Guidelines encouraged editors to include different sorts of interviewees during the Referendum Period. The Committee noted the accuracy and impartiality sections in the Editorial Guidelines and reflected that the BBC was required to cross-check its own work to achieve due accuracy. However, Trustees concluded that it would be too great a burden upon the BBC to expect it to check every 'factual' statement by all interviewees. Trustees noted that the decision to "empty chair" was a matter for the Executive, while in relation to 'nuanced viewpoints', the Committee noted that the Referendum Guidelines explicitly say:...there may be circumstances in which other voices, beyond the formal representatives, are relevant to the arguments: these too should be weighted in terms of the broad balance. The Committee concluded that no change was required to the Referendum Guidelines. The Committee considered the issue of monitoring elsewhere - see below under individual response from an MP. The Green Party of England and Wales Q.1 on whether or not the proposed EU Referendum Guidelines seem relevant and appropriate for this referendum o The Green Party (E&W) said they were broadly satisfied with the Guidelines, but they did have concerns that the terms used in the proposals were vague and might not allow for the full range of views on EU membership to be fairly covered by the BBC. o The Party's principal concern was the specification that achieving due impartiality during the campaign meant finding 'broad balance' between the arguments and not necessarily between the designated campaigns. The Party said this did not do justice to the wide range of arguments within campaigns to either leave or remain in the EU and it called for additional information on how editorial judgement would be used to define the arguments. February

14 o The Party called for further clarification and illustration of how the relevance of different voices would be determined editorially, and on the working definition of 'formal representatives' in the context of the campaign. The Executive's position: The Executive said the formulation already specifically pointed to the importance of a "range of views" on each side. It added that it would not be appropriate to commit all types of output necessarily to including the "widest range" of views or to name one particular perspective which should be included. However, none which might be pertinent was excluded as a result of this guideline. The Executive had however proposed clarifying the meaning of "formal representatives". It added that how relevance was determined was a matter of editorial judgement, in concert with the guidelines. The Committee's Decision: Trustees accepted the additional wording at (see above). Trustees agreed the Referendum Guidelines make clear that a range of views may be included and it is not appropriate to require the Executive to set out how editorial judgement will be applied, as this can depend on a range of factors which differ according to context. The Committee concluded that no other change was required to the Referendum Guidelines as a result of this submission. Q.2 on whether there are any omissions from the proposed Guidelines o Apart from the issues raised in Q.1 the Greens said they do not believe there are any significant omissions. The Liberal Democrats Q.1 on whether or not the proposed EU Referendum Guidelines seem relevant and appropriate for this referendum o The Liberal Democrats said they believed the proposed Guidelines were broadly relevant and appropriate. The Party said that in providing a broad balance of debate, specific parties or individual politicians should not be given disproportionate coverage, especially if the Referendum Period coincided with an election. Q.2 on whether there are any omissions from the proposed Guidelines 4 The wording added is Particular care should be taken in ensuring it is clear to the audience who or what a contributor is representing (for instance, one of the designated groups.). February

15 o The Liberal Democrats said that where political voices are used there should be due consideration to balance between the parties advocating that position. Q. 3 Additional comments o The Liberal Democrats said they believed their distinctive position on Europe should be fairly represented in the coverage of the referendum. The Executive's position: The Executive said that in relation to 'balance between the parties advocating that position', the Referendum is a vote between two competing positions, not between political parties. Achieving "balance" between political parties in the context of the referendum alone would not be appropriate, according to the Executive. In the event of an overlap between the Referendum Period and the Election Period, the Executive said the following reference (in paragraph 5.1) would address the treatment of political parties with due impartiality: If the Referendum period overlaps with an election period, content producers must also take account of the election guidelines and ensure due impartiality is achieved with regard to both votes. The Committee's Decision: Trustees noted that impartiality in the referendum is applied to the arguments and not to political parties or parties that espouse a particular position. In addition, they noted that the Referendum Guidelines explain that impartiality must be applied to both the referendum and the elections if the formal periods coincide. The Committee concluded that no change was required to the Referendum Guidelines. Newswatch o Newswatch called on Trustees to adopt in the proposed Guidelines a 'much more rigorous and demonstrably independent approach' to ensuring impartiality during the referendum campaign. The submission said the Referendum Guidelines ignore "vital considerations" of how guest speakers are actually treated. In addition, it was concerned that measures for monitoring content would be "ineffective" in ensuring a fair treatment for both sides. o The submission made a number of observations and said that the Guidelines left too much to the BBC's own editorial judgement applied in the "loose and imprecise framework of 'due' impartiality. It said a major concern was whether Trustees were themselves sufficiently independent and questioned the relationship of some Trustees to the BBC and several other Trustees to what it referred to as the 'man-made climate change camp'. February

16 o Newswatch said there was nothing in the Guidelines about transparency of process and it called for measures in which decision-making would be open to retrospective scrutiny and would demonstrate that concerns about balance would be taken into account. o The submission said that the key provisions in paragraph 3.1 of the document were too vague to provide a reliable framework to ensure impartiality and that the BBC should be aiming to achieve genuine impartiality (not just 'due') between the 'yes' and 'no' camps. It said that the word 'due' had been the "justification for major imbalances within EU coverage. o Further, the submission said the guidelines did not spell out the need for exact terminology and it questioned the use by BBC programmes of terms 'European Union' and 'Europe' and said they had wrongly been used interchangeably. o On the issue of the lack of a system of monitoring, Newswatch said there was a 'gaping hole' in the assessment process and it questioned how impartiality could be achieved. It also questioned paragraph 3.1 of the guidelines, which it said, ruled out 'stopwatch' and 'mathematical' measurements. o Newswatch asked how the "trap" of covering the campaign through the "Westminster bubble" could be avoided and it raised questions about the coverage of various political parties e.g. what it considered disproportionate coverage of internal disputes within UKIP. o The submission also raised questions in relation to the EU training plan for the BBC's journalists, as discussed at the European Scrutiny Committee of the Commons. o In conclusion, Newswatch noted that the Guidelines did not refer to any special programming in the news arena to inform audiences better about issues relating to the EU or any measures to ensure that it would be properly impartial. The Executive's position: In relation to ignoring a "vital consideration", the Executive said the reference in the draft Guidelines to "consistent editorial approach" would cover all these instances. In terms of coverage, the Executive referred to the obligation of fairness and consistency in the Guidelines and in terms of the query around the use of the phrase "exact terminology", it referred to paragraph 3.5 of the draft Guidelines. The Executive added that the draft Guidelines and paragraph 3.1 in particular did not rule out 'stopwatch' and 'mathematical' measurements, or any other quantitative approach. Paragraph 3.1 says that due impartiality "is not necessarily achieved by the application of a simple mathematical formula or a stop watch" (emphasis added). As to internal February

17 disputes and when "broad balance" might apply, the Executive said that internal disagreements over tactics may apply to either side. The Committee's Decision: It was noted that Trustees declare their personal interests and these are published. 5 Further, no Trustee on the ESC has been an advocate for either side of the EU referendum question. The Trustees uphold complaints about the BBC and these are published. As to the argument for "genuine impartiality", "due" impartiality is the requirement placed on the BBC by the Framework Agreement. Trustees noted the editorial and creative direction of the BBC is a matter for the Executive and not the Trust and additionally, descriptions of proposed programmes are not a matter for the Referendum Guidelines. The Committee concluded that no change was required to the Referendum Guidelines. The Committee considered the issues of monitoring and training elsewhere - see below under individual response from an MP. UK Independence Party o UKIP said it was in broad agreement with the proposed guidelines but as currently drafted they did not explore the likely interaction of the broadcaster and the 'Leave' campaign, 'Remain' campaign and the political parties. o The Party said it believed that UKIP should have equal representation with both the 'Remain' and 'Leave' campaigns as it is the only political party in some parts of the UK representing the 'Leave' point of view. o UKIP asked for assurance from the BBC Trust that in the interests of 'broad balance' the Party's viewpoint on the referendum would be represented in the debate, regardless of the positions by the two campaigns. It said this was a matter of some consequence as UKIP was the only party defined by its position on the UK's continued membership of the EU. The Executive's position: The Executive said it did not accept the suggestion that any political party should have "equal representation" with both the "remain" and "leave" campaigns. This would make "broad balance" between the arguments impossible to achieve. Similarly, the Executive stated that it did not accept that any party should - under the Guidelines - be guaranteed representations in any output "regardless of the positions taken by the two campaigns." For further clarity on this point, the Executive referred to its response to the Liberal Democrats (see above). 5 February

18 The Committee's Decision: The Committee noted that impartiality in the referendum is applied to arguments and not political parties or parties that adopt a particular referendum position. The Committee concluded that no change was required to the Referendum Guidelines. Ulster Unionist Party o The Ulster Unionist Party welcomed the proposed EU Referendum Guidelines and added that it was crucial that the BBC ensured a proper balance between the two sides. The UUP said the references in the draft Guidelines to the need to achieve 'broad balance' and to demonstrate 'due impartiality' represented a "genuine attempt" to meet the BBC's commitment to cover political issues with accuracy and fairness. The Executive's position: The Executive had no comment. The Committee's Decision: Trustees noted the comments and concluded that no change was required to the Referendum Guidelines. Vote Leave Q.1 on whether or not the proposed EU Referendum Guidelines seem relevant and appropriate for this referendum o Vote Leave said that the draft guidelines, in general, were relevant and appropriate and welcomed them as testament to the BBC's determination to cover the referendum with 'due accuracy and impartiality'. o On the use of language, the submission said the draft Guidelines "appear to ensure...that conflation of 'Europe' and the 'European Union' will not form parts of the BBC's coverage of the referendum". It was concerned that what it called 'clear commitments' were not being put into practice. o Vote Leave welcomed the references in the draft Guidelines to the need to take account of "the nature of quoted research or polling" and not to rely on the interpretation suggested by the organisation or publication that commissioned the work, and said that that was particularly important in the case of business polling. o The submission was critical of the Today programme in the euro debate before 2003 and suggested that during the referendum campaign "generally business people should be interviewed with business people, and politicians with other politicians". In terms of impartiality, it added, this must mean there was no requirement for household names necessarily to be placed against each other. February

19 The Executive's position: The Executive had no comment. The Committee's Decision: On the issue of referring to the European Union simply as "Europe", the Committee noted that an expectation that language should be clear and precise is set out in the BBC's Editorial Guidelines on accuracy. Trustees considered that the Referendum Guidelines already set out the need for care around the use of certain phrases or words in a particular context, and the need for content producers to ensure that the use of language does not inadvertently convey a meaning which may be construed as favouring one side or the other. Trustees also noted, however, that context is crucial, and where the context was entirely clear it might be appropriate for contributors and the BBC to refer to Europe rather than always to the European Union. The Committee considered that the choice of interviewees is a matter of editorial judgement and so a matter for the Executive. The Committee concluded that no change was required to the Referendum Guidelines. Q.2 on whether there are any omissions from the proposed Guidelines o Vote Leave called for clarification about the mechanism (if any) that the BBC had in place to ensure that the Guidelines were adhered to and in particular, what system there was to ensure that complaints that the guidance was not being followed could be speedily resolved. o The submission said the draft Guidelines paid insufficient regard to the fact that a designated organisation would have been ruled by the Electoral Commission 'to represent to the greatest extent those campaigning for a [given] outcome'. It called for the guidance to give explicit effect to the policy that designated organisations are the principal representative of those campaigning for a given outcome. It stated that the Guidelines should 'explicitly recognise the primacy of designated organisations in the referendum campaign'. o In terms of the BBC's coverage, Vote Leave said there must be a requirement to achieve balance in the coverage given to permitted participants on each side and there should not be a bias towards spokespeople who are household names only. Otherwise, the coverage would be biased towards the 'remain' campaign. o The submission stated that Vote Leave had concerns about the fact that the draft Guidelines were to apply during 'the formal Referendum Period' and said that at the very least, additional guidance to editors should apply as soon as the lead campaign groups were designated by the Electoral Commission. February

20 The Executive's position: On the "primacy of designated organisations", the Executive said that the legislation gives designated groups the right to Referendum Campaign Broadcasts. Fair coverage of the designated organisations, whilst central to the campaign, is a matter of editorial judgement. In relation to due impartiality, the Executive's view was that that is achieved by balancing the arguments, not by balancing contributions of organisations, whether they be designated groups, or permitted participants. The Executive said the draft Guidelines specifically give editors the freedom to match different sorts of spokespeople. Giving "unduly favourable treatment" to any group, including "Cabinet ministers or former cabinet ministers now heading multi-national companies", would be in breach. The Executive stated that the draft Guidelines would not allow one campaign to be "given more airtime" in the event of a "majority of Cabinet ministers supporting remain". The Executive said that the Guidelines were applied to the formal period, be it for elections or referendums. However, it drew attention to the BBC's Editorial guidelines (Chapter 4 "Impartiality" ) which say: Special considerations apply during the campaigns for elections and referendums and, in some cases, the period running up to campaigns will involve greater sensitivity with regard to due impartiality in all output genres. Chief Adviser, Politics will issue specific advice and, for the UK, will publish separate guidelines for each campaign period. The Executive said this was referenced in the draft Election Guidelines; in the light of submissions, the Executive now proposed also referencing this in the Referendum Guidelines, at paragraph 1.2, as follows: "Campaigning begins before the formal referendum period and content producers should be sensitive to need for particular care during the run up to the Referendum Period. Advice is available from the Chief Adviser, Politics". The Executive stated that although "greater sensitivity" had already been deployed since there was confirmation of a referendum taking place, the Executive would expect this to increase again, once the date is announced. The Committee's Decision: The Committee noted and accepted the Executive's proposed amendment at paragraph 1.2 of the Referendum Guidelines in the light of the political sensitivity of the referendum. Trustees noted that the BBC Executive is responsible for ensuring compliance with the BBC's Editorial Guidelines including Referendum Guidelines. Trustees considered the issue of complaints during the Referendum Period and welcomed the decision by the Executive that the designated organisations would be given a specific hotline number to call to bring complaints to the attention of the BBC Executive rapidly. The Committee also referred to the letter from the February

21 Chairman of the Trust to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport addressing this issue 6, in which the Chairman stated that complaints handing is an essential part of making sure output has met the BBC's standards. In terms of appeals to the Trust, the Chairman confirmed that generally the Trust would expect to be able to complete an expedited appeal within 7-10 days and she explained how complaints are expedited when a timely decision is needed on an urgent issue. Trustees also noted the mechanisms already in place through the Trust's Editorial Complaints Procedure. 7 On the "primacy of designated organisations", the Committee noted that legislation does not require broadcasters to give precedence to lead organisations in coverage. Trustees stated that it would be an inappropriate curb on the Executive's exercise of editorial judgement to specify in the Referendum Guidelines that the lead organisation should take precedence over other contributors. Trustees noted that the Referendum Guidelines encourage editors to include different sorts of interviewees and they stated that they expect that many different types of interviewees will be given the opportunity to explain their views to the public during the Referendum Period. The Committee concluded that no change was required to the Referendum Guidelines Q. 3 Additional comments o The submission referred to the mandatory referrals section of the draft Guidelines and to what it said was the definition of politicians. It queried why the definition of 'politicians' was not consistent across the draft Guidelines. o Vote Leave also queried the interaction between the draft EU Referendum Guidelines and the draft Election Guidelines and what it said were the "divergent" obligations as they related to balance: the former stated that there is no requirement for balance between the parties in discussing referendum issues", while the latter provided that the BBC "must ensure that the parties... are covered proportionately over an appropriate period". It called for further clarification of how overlapping campaign periods would work in practice. o The submission concluded by noting that the Head of Communications and Chief Campaign Spokesman for the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign February

22 had previously worked for the BBC Trust, and it called for reassurance that there is no conflict of interest and that he has not benefitted from 'any insider knowledge' from his time at the BBC. The Executive's position: In terms of mandatory referrals, the Executive said that it did not consider there was any inconsistency between these two aspects of the draft guidelines. It explained that the "Mandatory" section was referencing a guideline already contained in the BBC's Editorial Guidelines - which applied at all times - and was, therefore, clarifying what that meant during the Referendum Period. However, in light of submissions, the Executive proposed an addition to paragraph 3.1 (as set out above). With regard to the possible overlap of an EU Referendum Period and an Election Period, the Executive said the circumstances were already taken into account if both sets of guidelines were in operation at the same time. The Executive argued that prescribing any approach in more detail would not be appropriate for the many different sorts of output which would have to take editorial judgements in different circumstances. The Committee's Decision: The Committee noted and accepted the Executive's addition to paragraph 3.1 as set out above. Trustees considered that the contextual explanation around mandatory requirements was clear and concluded that further change was not required to the Guidelines in this respect. The Committee noted that the Referendum Guidelines explained that impartiality must be applied to both the Referendum Period and the Election Period if they coincided. Trustees stated that it was for the Executive to comply with this requirement and they rejected setting out any further detail on how this should be achieved, as that would be disproportionate and risked interfering with editorial judgements. In relation to the position of a member of the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign who had worked for the BBC Trust previously, Trustees stated that the Executive are responsible for the editorial direction of the BBC. Therefore, previous Trust Unit members (in this case a temporary member of staff) were not and would not be involved in or aware of the BBC's plans for future coverage. An individual response from an MP There was an individual response from an MP writing in his personal capacity. He said: o That it was essential that there was a proper monitoring system within the BBC itself, with output "properly logged and recorded...by date, time and immediately after the programme has taken place." Some means must be devised, he added, for all news and current affairs programmes to be February

23 required to reproduce the content of their programmes on request. Furthermore, the Trust needed to have this information available for them to evaluate whether a complaint was justified. o That the researchers/editors/producers of given programmes must have full knowledge of the subject matter. The MP said that this raised questions about training and education, and he asked who had been chosen to take part in the BBC's training programme to ensure staff had full knowledge. He made a similar point in relation to those members of the BBC Trust involved in evaluating relevant complaints. o In reference to "an apparently accurate assertion" made by Newswatch, relating to the complaints procedure at Trust level, he said that in seven years no appeal about EU coverage had been upheld. Unless repudiated, he added, it was "inconceivable that the Trustees are properly conducting their responsibilities on any proportional evaluation". He added that those who adjudicate complaints should have continuous recourse to a panel of advisors throughout the referendum, to help them assess the nature of the complaints with impartiality and with due accuracy. o That interviewers must pose well-informed and rigorous questions to the Prime Minister and other ministers, as the Government is advocating remaining in the EU, and interviews with members of the government should be balanced by a leading campaigner advocating leaving the EU. Paragraph 3 relating to "Due Impartiality covering the Referendum" and the application of the principle of "broad balance" raised "essential questions about what is and is not a fair output". Without "a rigorous determination upheld within the Trust's complaints process to ensure that both sides of the debate are properly reflected... there will be an inevitable failure of impartiality and due accuracy". o That the same criteria should apply to broadcast debates which are held during the Referendum Period and added that there was also the question of the extent to which pre-recordings were done in a fair manner. o There was another issue relating to the extent to which the designated organisation on both sides was given "the degree of authority, as compared to other campaigners and interests and 'voices' deriving from "Parliament itself, which confers on the Electoral Commission the right to designate lead organisations". o It was essential that both the arguments of those wishing to remain in and those who wish to leave were made properly available to the public, with no undue advantage to the Government. The MP concluded that if there was "the will and intention to ensure accuracy and impartiality", he was confident that the BBC output on the referendum could be achieved in the..."spirit of what the BBC is meant to provide and for which the licence fee payer pays". February