BBC Framework Agreement, Section 67 Defence and Emergency Arrangements
Did the UK Government lie in a FOI or not?
In the BBC’s Framework Agreement that came into force in 2016 if Section 67, page 43, Defence and Emergency Arrangements.
This is what it says in the first 2 lines:
67. Defence and Emergency Arrangements
(1) Any UK Government Minister-
(a) may request that the BBC broadcast or otherwise distribute any announcement; and
(b) may, if that Minister has requested that the announcement be broadcast or otherwise distributed on television or by means of an online service, request that the BBC accompany that announcement with a visual image (moving or still) of anything mentioned in the announcement.
(2) If it appears to any UK Government Minister that an emergency has arisen, that Minister may request that the BBC broadcast or otherwise distribute any announcement or other programme.
I asked the UK’s Department of Communications and Social Media (DCSM) if any Minister had invoked this clause with reference to SARS-CoV-2.
Their answer was basically “nothing to do with us, try the Cabinet Office. They deal with all these types of things”.
So I asked the Cabinet Office the same questions I asked the DCSM:
FOI request - communication with Ministers and with particular emphasis on Framework Agreement 2016 and the section “67. Defence and Emergency Arrangements."
Please supply the following information including relevant e-mails, memorandums, telephone call logs, meetings held in person or on video conferencing, investigations of complaints, both internally at the BBC and externally with any UK Minister or Secretary of State:
1 - What communication between the BBC and any Minister or their representative has there been about the “coronavirus pandemic” being an Emergency Arrangement?
2 - did the BBC discuss with any Minister or their representative about implementing the policy of deplatforming and refusing airtime to scientists, doctors etc that held opposing views to the official Government narrative?
3 - did the BBC discuss with any Minister or their representative about implementing the policy of the interviews being hostile towards scientists, doctors etc that held opposing views to the official Government narrative ?
4 - has any Minister or their representative supplied any guidance to the BBC about how the BBC should support the Government’s position?
5 - has any Minister or their representative made any contact with the BBC with complaints that certain shows (TV, radio and online), and presenters had deviated from the official narrative and guidance?
6 - if any question is answered “yes”, what was the outcome?
Their first reply was this:
“I am writing with regards to your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which was received on 1st February.
We have given consideration to your request and have concluded that we require further clarification as to what you are requesting before we are able to proceed.
Please can you provide some further information about the Framework Agreement referenced in your request?”
So they couldn’t even look up the relevant BBC document themselves even though I named it to make it easy for them - obviously not easy enough though.
So I replied with:
“The information you requested about the BBC’s Framework Agreement.
In addition to the last BBC Charter issued in 2016 is a Framework Agreement.
Included within this Framework Agreement 2016 is section “67. Defence and Emergency Arrangements."
This states:
"67.Defence and Emergency Arrangements
(1) Any UK Government Minister-(a) may request that the BBC broadcast or otherwise distribute any announcement; and(b) may, if that Minister has requested that the announcement be broadcast or otherwise distributed on television or by means of an online service, request that the BBC accompany that announcement with a visual image (moving or still) of anything mentioned in the announcement.(2) If it appears to any UK Government Minister that an emergency has arisen, that Minister may request that the BBC broadcast or otherwise distribute any announcement or other programme.
(3) A request under paragraph (1) or (2) must be made in writing, and the BBC-(a) must comply with the request in the timescales specified by the Minister;(b) mustmeet the cost of doing so itself; and(c) may, when broadcasting or distributing the announcement or other programme, announce that it is doing so pursuant to such a request
(4) The Secretary of State may give the BBC a direction in writing that the BBC must not broadcast or otherwise distribute any matter, or class of matter, specified in the direction, whether at a time or times so specified or at any time.
(5) The BBC may, if it wishes, announce that such a direction has been given, varied or revoked
This means that ANY Minister can contact the BBC and basically dictate the narrative and agenda that the BBC are to follow and broadcast without giving reasons as long as they believe “an emergency” is happening.
When added to the OFCOM Notice to Broadcasters on 23rd March 2020
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/193075/Note-to-broadcasters-Coronavirus.pdf
This in effect has turned the BBC and all other broadcasters into a propaganda arm of Government and they cannot broadcast anything that goes against the officially mandated and approved narrative without sanctions and fines being imposed as has happened to Loveworld in 2020 when they broadcast shows and interviews that did not meet the official narrative even though not one Government department nor advisor can supply and scientific evidence to prove what Loveworld broadcast was factually incorrect.
My FOI is to find out what Ministers have been in contact with the BBC and what was discussed about an “Emergency Arrangement” and what the BBC were to broadcast and so on.
If you require further information please do not hesitate to contact me again.”
They then replied with:
“I can confirm that the Cabinet Office holds information relevant to your request but I must advise you that I must extend the time limit for responding to your request.
It is occasionally necessary to extend the 20 working day time limit for issuing response. Information you have requested is exempt under Section 43 of the Act, which relates to information where disclosure would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person. Section 43 is subject to a public interest test and the Cabinet Office has not yet reached a decision on whether the balance of the public interest favours disclosure of this information.
By virtue of section 10(3), when public authorities have to consider the balance of the
public interest in relation to a request, they do not have to comply with the request until such time as is reasonable in the circumstances. Owing to the need to consider, in all the circumstances of the case, where the balance of the public interest lies in relation to your request, we will not be able to respond to your request in full within 20 working days. I hope to let you have a response by 30/03/2021. If I can reply before that date, I shall do so. If I need more time to consider the balance of the public interest, I shall write again to let you know.
So they admit they hold the information but don’t know if I should be given it or not.
At this point I imagine meetings with the higher authorities to discuss this while the juniors rush round shredding papers and deleting files and e-mails.
They then supply me a reply in FOI Reference: FOI2021/02113 which states “I am writing to advise you that following a search of our paper and electronic records, I have established that the information you requested is not held by the Cabinet Office.”
I challenge them on this answer:
“In your previous e-mail dated 01st March 2021 you stated "I can confirm that the Cabinet Office holds information relevant to your request” and said that you were extending the decline by which you had to reply to because of "Owing to the need to consider, in all the circumstances of the case, where the balance of the public interest lies in relation to your request, we will not be able to respond to your request in full within 20 working days. I hope to let you have a response by 30/03/2021."
So your original reply stated quite categorically you had the relevant information but were debating whether to release it or not.
Now you claim you do not have the information.
What is the correct answer?
They both cannot be correct.
What has happened to the information you stated quite clearly existed and gave the impression that it was that politically sensitive it required more deliberation to decide if it was to be released or not between the 01st March 2021 and today, the 29th March 2021?
As for contacting the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport they told me months ago in a similar FOI request that matters of this nature were the responsibility of the Cabinet Office and not them.
So which department is responsible for contacting the media, DCMS or yourselves?
The contracts with TV personalities and media advertising during the “pandemic” are under your remit as you told me in an earlier FOI answer.”
Here is their wishywashy justification:
“With regard to your original request (FOI2021/02113), I can confirm that we initiated searches for the information you requested in a number of locations across the Cabinet Office that may have held relevant information. We understood at the time that information was held by the Department, and that such information was likely to be commercially sensitive and therefore fall within the remit of section 43 of the FOI Act, and would also require us to consult with the BBC. However, upon further investigation and the completion of our searches, we established that no information was, in fact, held within the scope of your request. We apologise for this error and our subsequent lack of communication with you on this issue.“
I requested an internal review and received this reply:
“Your previous request (FOI2021/02113) was incorrectly handled. A letter was sent to you extending the deadline for providing you with a final response under section 43 (commercial interests) of the Act. This extension letter should not have been sent to you as no commercial information in scope of your request was identified. Proper searches were not concluded before issuing the extension letter to you. Clearly this should not have been the case and we apologise for the confusion this has caused. Once the searches were completed it was established that the Cabinet Office did not in fact hold any information in scope of your request. Because the information requested was not held, and no information was deleted, there were no discussions or correspondence in the manner which you have described in your letter of 10 June 2021. We hope this clarifies matters.”
Something stinks doesn’t it?
Personally I think they are doing a cover-up as the BBC were warned under Section 67 in addition to the OFCOM threat to broadcasters.
My goodness, well done for persisting! We need to go and get these b*****s out and give them a jolly good hiding for obfuscation.