:00:05. > :00:12.Now, it is time for Newswatch. This week, a state operation by Panorama
:00:12. > :00:20.comes under the spotlight. -- a staying operation. Welcome to
:00:20. > :00:23.Newswatch. Panorama and the Daily Telegraph set up a fake company and
:00:23. > :00:29.secretly filmed parliamentarians for an investigation into lobbying. Was
:00:29. > :00:33.this justified? Viewers object to being told about road safety
:00:33. > :00:43.offences by a reporter while he is driving. Who is that staring through
:00:43. > :00:46.
:00:46. > :00:50.the window? The phrase cash for questions was bandied about in the
:00:50. > :00:54.1990s so there may have been a sense of deja vu you for some viewers over
:00:54. > :00:59.charges that a peer and an MP had agreed to do Parliamentary work for
:00:59. > :01:04.money. On Panorama, a fake lobbying company was set up and secretly
:01:04. > :01:14.filmed Patrick Mercer who told an undercover reporter that he would
:01:14. > :01:19.
:01:19. > :01:22.help start an all-party parliament to group for Fiji. -- group. He
:01:22. > :01:26.denied any wrongdoing, saying he had taken the money for consultancy work
:01:26. > :01:30.outside Parliament. He has since resigned the Conservative party whip
:01:30. > :01:35.and is taking legal advice and has referred himself to the Standards
:01:35. > :01:40.Commissioner. Meanwhile Lord Laird also secretly filmed by the Panorama
:01:40. > :01:44.team, said he had been the subject of a scam by journalists and that he
:01:44. > :01:51.had not broken any rules, although he has since also resigned at the
:01:51. > :02:01.party whip. What are the methods used? One viewer had concerns,
:02:01. > :02:25.
:02:25. > :02:29.writing... An element of subterfuge is of course integral to much
:02:29. > :02:36.investigated journalism. Panorama has often done this to a chain
:02:36. > :02:42.footage, as in John Sweeney's recent trip to North Korea. Journalists are
:02:42. > :02:51.banned here, part of a tour group. Hidden cameras have been employed in
:02:51. > :02:55.some programmes. By secretly filming inside here, the BBC found staff out
:02:55. > :03:02.of control. Operations of the sort seen this week or not you, featuring
:03:02. > :03:12.in a recent Expose on the UK's tax avoidance industry. Here and
:03:12. > :03:13.
:03:13. > :03:17.undercover reporter, posing as a tax investigator. Was this programme and
:03:17. > :03:20.unjustified entrapment, but the only way to expose wrongdoing which was
:03:20. > :03:25.in the public interest? Let us explore that question with the
:03:25. > :03:29.editor of Panorama. It was clearly in the public interest to expose
:03:29. > :03:33.wrongdoing, but viewers are concerned about the setting up of
:03:33. > :03:39.the fake company, can you explain why you did this? First of all, I
:03:39. > :03:44.will make it clear, the public interest in this story, it was felt
:03:44. > :03:49.by the BBC, was overwhelming. It was about the standard of contact in
:03:49. > :03:54.Parliament by elected members of parliament. That was a very
:03:54. > :03:59.important matter. The proper subject of scrutiny and public interest. The
:03:59. > :04:02.decision to fake -- set up a fake company would be because there was
:04:02. > :04:06.sufficient evidence, both in terms of the amount of lobbying and in
:04:06. > :04:09.terms of the amount of consultancy activity going on in Parliament,
:04:10. > :04:13.which has been the subject of widespread concern, not least by
:04:13. > :04:19.this government and this Prime Minister, while in opposition. It
:04:19. > :04:23.was the level of that evidence, specifically over a range of
:04:23. > :04:29.individuals, that made us feel that that was the best way of actually
:04:29. > :04:33.approaching a story like this. those two people, viewers might say
:04:33. > :04:38.that we have seen a particular operation, and they would not have
:04:38. > :04:44.done that without you. You have not proved that they have done it in the
:04:44. > :04:48.past. I will not go into business ethics of those cases. This was the
:04:48. > :04:52.subject of legal correspondence before we went on air. In general,
:04:52. > :04:56.when you go about setting up anything like that, you have to have
:04:56. > :05:01.a pretty strong amount of evidence, before you can even start the
:05:01. > :05:05.process. I will also say that we would not have started even secret
:05:05. > :05:10.filming, until there had been some sort of initial contact, which would
:05:10. > :05:14.then give grounds for that secret filming to be allowed. You said that
:05:14. > :05:24.there is a process for secret filming and for setting up a fake
:05:24. > :05:28.
:05:28. > :05:30.company, can you tell us how that worked? What we have to do is gather
:05:30. > :05:33.as much extensive research and evidence, which is exactly what
:05:33. > :05:37.happened in this story, and go to editorial policy and make a case for
:05:37. > :05:42.whether there is sufficient evidence to allow us, in the public interest,
:05:42. > :05:46.and perhaps criminality, though that was not the case in this case, to
:05:46. > :05:50.allow us to basically use secret filming and inherently, the
:05:50. > :05:58.deception involved. I would stress that over and above this kind of
:05:58. > :06:02.operation, or a scam company, undercover filming of the sort that
:06:02. > :06:07.you have described, it is of course inherently deceptive. There is a
:06:07. > :06:12.deceit and that deceit is allowed by the BBC, under the terms of its
:06:12. > :06:16.guidelines, if there is clear public interest in terms of wrongdoing,
:06:16. > :06:23.anti-social behaviour and potential criminal activity. Do you think
:06:23. > :06:33.viewers might have a reason to be concerned? There is a difference
:06:33. > :06:34.
:06:34. > :06:37.between abuse in a care home and setting up a fake company. That is
:06:37. > :06:41.debatable. Clearly the evidence that we had gathered is that there was
:06:41. > :06:46.sufficient concern that this was happening. I would ask people to
:06:47. > :06:50.watch the film and answer questions in their own heads about whether
:06:50. > :06:55.these people felt reasonably at ease in the sort of circumstances in
:06:55. > :06:59.which they found themselves. The fact that they volunteered quite
:06:59. > :07:04.willingly, their own rates for which ever they would get paid. I would
:07:04. > :07:09.also hope that the viewers, if they solve the programme, would be more
:07:09. > :07:13.concerned by what they saw, for example the member of Parliament,
:07:13. > :07:20.Patrick Mercer, in terms of putting questions down. We have not heard
:07:20. > :07:25.the like of for money since the 1990s. One other issue was the fact
:07:25. > :07:28.that this was an independent production company behind this. It
:07:28. > :07:34.was carried out with the Telegraph newspaper. There is some interest,
:07:34. > :07:40.after what happened with other investigations, like the one into
:07:41. > :07:44.Lord McAlpine, should the BBC give up control of these stories? It is
:07:44. > :07:49.interesting that people highlighted the Daily Telegraph. We did a
:07:49. > :07:52.similar film before Christmas, with the Guardian. The essence of all
:07:52. > :07:57.these things, whether it is independent companies or
:07:57. > :08:01.newspapers, is that the journalism itself, the final decision making is
:08:01. > :08:06.my own as editor. We go through a vigorous process which is run
:08:06. > :08:14.internally by the BBC and the legal side, to make sure that all the
:08:14. > :08:20.processes and journalism is right and proper. Thank you. Do let us
:08:20. > :08:24.know your thoughts. Details of how to contact us will be on at the end
:08:24. > :08:29.of the programme. Before that, some of your other reactions, starting
:08:29. > :08:39.with the reporting of Prince Philip's visit to hospital for a
:08:39. > :09:04.
:09:04. > :09:08.planned operation. Mike McCarthy was not alone in responding... Now, when
:09:08. > :09:11.reporting about the crackdown on a set of motoring offences such as
:09:11. > :09:18.tailgating and lane hogging, from where does a transport correspondent
:09:18. > :09:22.address the camera, from the driving seat of a car, it seems. What will
:09:22. > :09:25.change for motorists? Until now, if the police wanted to prosecute
:09:25. > :09:30.someone for blocking a lane or jumping a junction or driving too
:09:30. > :09:37.close to the car in front, they had to take them to court. That used up
:09:37. > :09:47.a lot of time and resources. Richard Westcott up there. Barry Mason was
:09:47. > :09:54.
:09:54. > :09:58.one of those who took exception to that piece to camera, e-mailing...
:09:58. > :10:02.Finally, we have aired complaints recently from viewers that they have
:10:02. > :10:07.been distracted by all the people visible in the newsroom behind the
:10:07. > :10:14.presenters. On Friday, there was a rather unusual presence hovering
:10:14. > :10:20.over the newsreader -- newsreaders s' shoulders. Let us join the Queen.
:10:20. > :10:24.Her Majesty, the Queen, is in the heart of Broadcasting House. It is a
:10:24. > :10:34.view that we share with our audience every day, but today, a unique
:10:34. > :10:40.
:10:40. > :10:44.moment with a special Royal guest. That bizarre piece of television
:10:44. > :10:48.came about because the Queen was officially opening the new
:10:48. > :10:52.Broadcasting House building, a visit shown in all its glory on the News
:10:52. > :11:02.Channel. One viewer was unimpressed with the reception she was given,
:11:02. > :11:09.
:11:09. > :11:16.asking... They were and they did not. That is all from us. If you
:11:16. > :11:24.want to share your opinions with us or appear on the programme, you can