by The BBC is under fire after a short interview with Angela Rayner over whether she broke electoral law amid “concerns” from Labor staff.
On Friday, Newsnight political editor Nick Watt admitted editing an interview he did with the deputy Labor leader three weeks ago to compare the row over his former council house with the “Beergate” saga “.
In the clip which was omitted from the original broadcast, Mr Watt asked Rayner if she thought she could not take her job if she was wrong, just as Sir Keir Starmer had promised to quit if he was fined for on claims he broke Covid rules. in “Beergate”.
Speaking live on the program on Friday, he said the decision to cut the exchange was made for “good editorial reasons”. But he also admitted that Labor staff had expressed “concerns” after the interview that the “Beergate” comparison was unfair, as Ms Rayner was not under police investigation at the time.
Greg Smith, the Conservative MP for Buckingham, said license fee payers who “expect impartiality” will “want answers” as to why the broadcaster made the edit when “virtually every media outlet has focus on this story”.
The broadcaster aired the clip for the first time on Friday after Greater Manchester Police (GMP) said it had launched an investigation into claims Ms Rayner had wrongly stated which house was her permanent address on the electoral roll, which is a criminal offence.
Ms Rayner has also raised questions about whether she should have paid capital gains tax on the sale of her council house in 2015 because of confusion over whether it was her main residence.
‘Good editorial reason at the time’
She and Sir Keir Starmer called on Boris Johnson to resign when the police launched an investigation into him over “Partygate”. Both also said they would resign if they were accused of the so-called “Beergate”, where the Labor leader and his colleagues drank beer and had takeaway curry after a campaign event in April 2021 when which was banned from most indoor gatherings.
Since the Newsnight interview, Ms Rayner has vowed to resign if she is found to have broken the law. But she insists she “always followed the rules”.
In the part of the interview that was cut, Ms Rayner refused to commit to resigning if found guilty and said: “Well, I’ve had the expert advice and I don’t owe any capital gains tax. on that property.”
Explaining the decision to edit out the interview, Mr Watt said on Friday: “Now, on that last exchange we saw just between me and Angela Rayner, where I was making that comparison between where us today with the so-called “Beergate” issue. two or three years ago, I decided at the time for editorial reasons that we should not run that.
“Now, of course, you can’t run an entire interview – you have to make cuts. But for the sake of transparency, I should say that Labor staff raised concerns about that exchange after the interview.
“They basically said they didn’t really see how you could compare Keir Starmer’s commitment two years ago after the police announced they were going to investigate him and Angela Rayner’s stance after the police to say they would not investigate her.
“Because of course when I interviewed Angela Rayner, the police said they would not be investigating this matter. So, look, the situation was different then, good editorial reason at the time to not include that exchange. But of course, things changed today with that statement.”
He added: “This provides an interesting insight into the world of relationships between political broadcasters and political parties. It is quite normal for a political party – it does not happen every time – that they raise concerns during an interview.
“Sometimes they do that after a live interview, sometimes they do it after an interview that was recorded before the program aired, and that’s what happened in this case.
“So keeping that in mind and making the whole interview a roundup, I made that editorial decision. But obviously in light of today’s statement, today’s development, which is the police statement, and what Angela Rayner said, we think that exchange from that interview should be broadcast.”
A BBC spokesman said: “Nick Watt explained the whole story to viewers on Friday’s Newsnight, including the fact that editorial decisions about what is and isn’t used are usually made from a pre-recorded interview.
“This was a challenging forensic interview in which Angela Rayner was asked in detail about her tax affairs. When the situation changed, including the police’s decision to investigate, we broadcast this exchange. We have covered this story impartially throughout.”
Mr Smith told the Telegraph: “With almost every media outlet picking up on this story, it’s ‘odd’ at best that the BBC would cut the interview short and press charges heavily licensees who expect impartiality will want answers as to exactly why.
“The fact that it took a police investigation to get the full interview speaks volumes in itself.”
In March, GMP said Ms Rayner would not oppose an investigation. However, he was forced to reconsider his decision after James Daly, a Conservative MP, complained that officers appeared not to have contacted witnesses or looked at the electoral roll, deeds and other relevant documents.
On Friday, a GMP spokesman said: “We are investigating whether any offenses have been committed. This has followed a re-evaluation of the information provided to us by Mr Daly.”
