Complaint
A viewer complained an interview with Priti Patel showed “open hostility†towards the then Â鶹ԼÅÄ Secretary and was “overtly aggressiveâ€.  The ECU considered whether the report by the Â鶹ԼÅÄ’s Â鶹ԼÅÄ Editor Mark Easton met the Â鶹ԼÅÄ standards on impartiality.
Outcome
The Guidelines say the Â鶹ԼÅÄ must always “scrutinise arguments, question consensus and hold power to account with consistency and due impartialityâ€.  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’s 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 “hundreds of Â鶹ԼÅÄ Office staff doing visa applications, processing on the ground, providing supportâ€.  She also explained a bespoke centre to process applicants had been set up in France in conjunction with the French Government.  In the ECU’s 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