This edition of Newsnight was broadcast at the height of the controversy over a journey taken by Mr Cummings with his family to Durham, and a subsequent trip to the nearby town of Barnard Castle. It sought to examine in detail the available evidence and assess the political fall-out from the decision by the Prime Minister to defend his Chief Advisor. The opening remarks, by the presenter Emily Maitlis, set the scene.    

At the beginning of the programme:

Tonight, the public can see that Dominic Cummings broke the rules, so why is the Government tying itself in knots to defend him?

Introduction to the item in question:

Dominic Cummings broke the rules. The country can see that and it’s shocked the Government cannot. The longer ministers and the PM tell us he worked within them, the more angry the response to the scandal is likely to be. He was the man, you may remember, who always “got” the public mood who tagged the lazy label of “elite” on those who disagreed. He should understand that public mood now; one of fury, contempt and anguish. He made those who struggle to keep to the rules feel like fools and has allowed many more to assume that they can flout them. The Prime Minister knows all this, but despite the resignation of one minister, growing unease from his backbenchers, and dramatic early warning from the polls and a deep national disquiet, Boris Johnson has chosen to ignore it. Tonight we consider what this blind loyalty tells us about the workings of Number 10. We do not expect to be joined by a Government minister but that won’t stop us asking the questions.

Section 4 of the Editorial Guidelines demand due, rather than absolute impartiality, defined as “adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content”. Presenters may not give their opinion on controversial subjects but are allowed to offer their professional judgements, provided they are rooted in evidence. It is against this guideline that the complaints have been assessed.

Some complainants have also argued that it was inaccurate to state Mr Cummings had broken the rules. To the extent that Ms Maitlis offered this as a statement of fact it would potentially engage Section 3 of the guidelines on accuracy. However in the ECU’s view, given the question of accuracy is in this case inextricably intertwined with that of impartiality, the latter is the pre-eminent test against which this broadcast must be judged.

In the ECU’s view there was clear evidence at the time to support the assertion that many, though not all, voters felt anger at Mr Cummings’ behaviour. The story had run prominently in the media for several days, and a petition calling on him to resign had gathered a large number of signatures - reaching one million shortly after the Newsnight broadcast.  A number of Conservative MPs had also expressed disquiet, and the unhappy mood on the backbenchers was reflected in a later contribution from the programme’s Political Editor Nick Watt. To that extent Emily Maitlis’s opening remarks in relation to the public and political mood of the country were rooted in evidence and a legitimate professional, rather than personal, opinion. The ECU also took into account the fact that a programme like Newsnight is designed to provoke debate and discussion. Viewers expect presenters to ask difficult and challenging questions on their behalf and there is more latitude to play “devil’s advocate” under such circumstances than in a conventional news bulletin.    

BBC News say that the remarks were intended to explain the questions Newsnight planned to raise about Mr Cummings’ trips. In the ECU’s view however they went beyond an attempt to set out the programme agenda. The definitive and at times critical nature of the language – asserting without qualification that Mr Cummings broke the rules, that “the country could see that”, and that the Prime Minister was guilty of “blind loyalty” in refusing to sack him, placed the presenter closer to one side of the debate over his behaviour. At the time of broadcast a statement from Durham Police had yet to be published and arguments over Mr Cummings’ behaviour were largely based on varying interpretation of rules which lacked an agreed arbiter, and concerned laws yet to be tested in the Courts. In the ECU’s view the opening remarks did not sufficiently acknowledge such uncertainties.

BBC News has conceded that the introduction did not meet the required standards on accuracy or impartiality. In earlier responses it accepted that more should have been done to explain the purpose of the piece, and that the script risked giving the perception that the BBC was taking sides and voicing an opinion on a controversial matter.  Whilst some complainants believe BBC News should have gone further, in the ECU’s view this is sufficient to judge the editorial matter resolved. This means that although a breach of standards has been identified, no further action is required.

Some complainants also expressed concern at the managerial response to the breach of standards. However the ECU’s remit does not extend to judging whether disciplinary action against individual members of staff is warranted or what it should consist of, as that is a matter for BBC News and not the complaints process. 

Resolved