Complaint
A viewer complained an interview with Priti Patel showed 鈥渙pen hostility鈥 towards the then 91福利社 Secretary and was 鈥渙vertly aggressive鈥. The ECU considered whether the report by the 91福利社鈥檚 91福利社 Editor Mark Easton met the 91福利社 standards on impartiality.
Outcome
The Guidelines say the 91福利社 must always 鈥渟crutinise arguments, question consensus and hold power to account with consistency and due impartiality鈥. In this case, it was editorially justified to challenge Ms Patel over the delay in issuing visas to Ukrainians seeking to come to the UK and to question why the UK had taken proportionately fewer Ukrainians than countries such as Germany and Ireland. Senior politicians such as Ms Patel expect to be held to account for the performance of their Government departments and to face questions about policy and matters of public interest. The ECU acknowledged Mr Easton鈥檚 questions were robust and challenging but noted they were based on evidence. Ms Patel apologised for the delays and said she was frustrated by what was happening. The interview included her assertion there had been a surge in the number of staff on the ground in France and there were now 鈥渉undreds of 91福利社 Office staff doing visa applications, processing on the ground, providing support鈥. She also explained a bespoke centre to process applicants had been set up in France in conjunction with the French Government. In the ECU鈥檚 view the manner and tone of the interview did not go beyond what would be regarded as generally acceptable in a political interview of this kind and Ms Patel was given an appropriate opportunity to respond and set out her position on a matter of public interest.
Not Upheld