Main Index

6 August 2001

Sir Robin Biggam
Chairman
Independent Television Commission
33 Foley Street
London  W1P 7LB


Dear Sir Robin,

Thank you for your letter of 20 July, informing me of the Commission's decision to uphold the ITC Secretariat's rejection of my Complaint.  I confess the news came as a complete shock, given the encouraging proceedings of the Sub-Committee hearing of 27 June.

I appreciate that your letter is intended to be the ITC's final word on the matter, but there are a number of statements within your letter that I respectfully submit I should not leave unchallenged.  There also remain issues at the heart of my Complaint that the ITC has still not yet addressed. 

In paragraph three, you state:

'As I explained to you, when you met the Sub-Committee on 27 June, the purpose of the review was to consider whether Granada Television had covered the 'cash for questions' affair in accordance with its statutory requirement to maintain "due impartiality" in its news coverage.  Having reviewed the relevant evidence (including oral and written statements as well as coverage broadcast on Granada's service) the Sub-Committee came to the view that the licensee had done so.'

I have no idea of what this evidence is, as both the ITC's chief executive and Granada's chairman have refused my repeated requests for sight of Granada's submissions.  Specifically, the ITC has not furnished me with any written evidence submitted by Granada; nor any transcripts of oral evidence given by Granada; nor furnished me with any evidence of Granada's coverage; upon all of which the ITC has nevertheless based its rejection of my Complaint.  Indeed, the ITC has not provided me with any indication even as to the specific nature of Granada's evidence.

I submit that this falls well short of what any reasonable person would consider to be acting fairly.  The ITC has not challenged my submission that Granada's behaviour shows that the broadcaster deliberately and persistently suppressed news of a major independent investigation supporting the claims of innocence of a former minister of Her Majesty's Government to allegations that lay at the heart of a major political controversy that affected materially the democratic process in the run up to the 1997 general election.  Given that the ITC has deemed Granada's evidence to be so powerful that it provides a valid defence for such censorship, I respectfully submit that the ITC is bound by the rules of natural justice to provide me with Granada's evidence in full to allow it to be scrutinised openly. 

In this regard I draw your attention to the Code of Practice for ITC Members, agreed on 23 January 1997.  Specifically, the requirement that Commission Members will at all times:

- comply with all reasonable requests for information from Parliament, users of services and individual citizens.

It is clear that the ITC's rules require Members to ensure that I am provided with whatever material it is reasonable for me to request.  My requests for sight of all of Granada's submissions that are pertinent to my Complaint are, I submit, demonstrably reasonable, as indeed are the similar requests from Roger Gale MP and Gerald Howarth MP.  Accordingly I call on you as chairman to ensure that Mr Howarth, Mr Gale and myself are provided with copies of all the evidence that is pertinent to the rejection of my Complaint.

In paragraph four of your letter, you state:

'In particular, after careful consideration of the evidence the Commission took the view that Granada reflected a sufficient range of points of views in reporting this case and that "due impartiality" was accordingly maintained in its news service.'

As stated previously in: my Complaint; my letters to the ITC's chief executive; my Appeal; and before the Sub-Committee; the ITC Code is specific regarding the reporting of political controversies. 

Section 3.4 requires that: 'licensees must ensure that justice is done to a full range of significant views and perspectives'.  With respect, Granada cannot be said to have aired 'sufficient' views to satisfy the definition 'a full range of significant views' whilst censoring news of our investigation.  The only views supporting Neil Hamilton's claims of innocence that I am aware Granada did air are those of Neil Hamilton himself.  Perhaps Granada also aired support for Neil Hamilton from his political allies or maybe even supportive vox populi - I have no way of knowing as the ITC has refused to give me any details - but if so, such support would have been based on blind faith rather than hard evidence as in the case of our investigation.  If these were the only supportive views then Granada would indeed have satisfied the definition 'a full range' by airing them.  However, once Malcolm Keith-Hill and I published the findings of our six-month long investigation into the controversy, the 'range of views' expanded markedly to include our own viewpoint - which was undeniably of significance. 

Neither Granada nor any other news organisation has contested the evidence we unearthed that led us to draw our conclusions vindicating Neil Hamilton and accusing his accusers.  As far as I am aware, Granada has not contested my submission that its News & Current Affairs executives had been made well aware of our investigation.  As far as I am aware, Granada has not denied attending our news conference at which we published our interim report of our investigation.  As far as I am aware, Granada has not denied receiving copies of our report.  As far as I am aware, Granada has not denied that they were aware of the publication of my book detailing our investigation. 

Taking account of all of the foregoing, by no stretch of the imagination could it be argued that Granada 'ensured that justice was done to a full range of significant views'.  To the contrary, Granada ensured the opposite - that no justice was done to a viewpoint that, I humbly submit, was most significant.  Furthermore, Section 3.5 of the Code states: 'In reporting on matters of industrial or political controversy, the main differing views on the matter should be given their due weight in the period during which the controversy is active.'  As mentioned earlier, the ITC has not provided me with any information as to what views supporting Neil Hamilton's claims of innocence Granada has aired.  But unless these completely overshadowed a six-month long investigation by two independent journalists, the term 'main differing views' must by definition also be inclusive of our investigation.

Sir Robin's letter rejecting Hunt's appeal

next page