07/06/2013 Newswatch

Now, it is time for Newswatch. This week, a state operation by Panorama

comes under the spotlight. -- a staying operation. Welcome to

Newswatch. Panorama and the Daily Telegraph set up a fake company and

secretly filmed parliamentarians for an investigation into lobbying. Was

this justified? Viewers object to being told about road safety

offences by a reporter while he is driving. Who is that staring through

the window? The phrase cash for questions was bandied about in the

1990s so there may have been a sense of deja vu you for some viewers over

charges that a peer and an MP had agreed to do Parliamentary work for

money. On Panorama, a fake lobbying company was set up and secretly

filmed Patrick Mercer who told an undercover reporter that he would

help start an all-party parliament to group for Fiji. -- group. He

denied any wrongdoing, saying he had taken the money for consultancy work

outside Parliament. He has since resigned the Conservative party whip

and is taking legal advice and has referred himself to the Standards

Commissioner. Meanwhile Lord Laird also secretly filmed by the Panorama

team, said he had been the subject of a scam by journalists and that he

had not broken any rules, although he has since also resigned at the

party whip. What are the methods used? One viewer had concerns,

writing... An element of subterfuge is of course integral to much

investigated journalism. Panorama has often done this to a chain

footage, as in John Sweeney's recent trip to North Korea. Journalists are

banned here, part of a tour group. Hidden cameras have been employed in

some programmes. By secretly filming inside here, the BBC found staff out

of control. Operations of the sort seen this week or not you, featuring

in a recent Expose on the UK's tax avoidance industry. Here and

undercover reporter, posing as a tax investigator. Was this programme and

unjustified entrapment, but the only way to expose wrongdoing which was

in the public interest? Let us explore that question with the

editor of Panorama. It was clearly in the public interest to expose

wrongdoing, but viewers are concerned about the setting up of

the fake company, can you explain why you did this? First of all, I

will make it clear, the public interest in this story, it was felt

by the BBC, was overwhelming. It was about the standard of contact in

Parliament by elected members of parliament. That was a very

important matter. The proper subject of scrutiny and public interest. The

decision to fake -- set up a fake company would be because there was

sufficient evidence, both in terms of the amount of lobbying and in

terms of the amount of consultancy activity going on in Parliament,

which has been the subject of widespread concern, not least by

this government and this Prime Minister, while in opposition. It

was the level of that evidence, specifically over a range of

individuals, that made us feel that that was the best way of actually

approaching a story like this. those two people, viewers might say

that we have seen a particular operation, and they would not have

done that without you. You have not proved that they have done it in the

past. I will not go into business ethics of those cases. This was the

subject of legal correspondence before we went on air. In general,

when you go about setting up anything like that, you have to have

a pretty strong amount of evidence, before you can even start the

process. I will also say that we would not have started even secret

filming, until there had been some sort of initial contact, which would

then give grounds for that secret filming to be allowed. You said that

there is a process for secret filming and for setting up a fake

company, can you tell us how that worked? What we have to do is gather

as much extensive research and evidence, which is exactly what

happened in this story, and go to editorial policy and make a case for

whether there is sufficient evidence to allow us, in the public interest,

and perhaps criminality, though that was not the case in this case, to

allow us to basically use secret filming and inherently, the

deception involved. I would stress that over and above this kind of

operation, or a scam company, undercover filming of the sort that

you have described, it is of course inherently deceptive. There is a

deceit and that deceit is allowed by the BBC, under the terms of its

guidelines, if there is clear public interest in terms of wrongdoing,

anti-social behaviour and potential criminal activity. Do you think

viewers might have a reason to be concerned? There is a difference

between abuse in a care home and setting up a fake company. That is

debatable. Clearly the evidence that we had gathered is that there was

sufficient concern that this was happening. I would ask people to

watch the film and answer questions in their own heads about whether

these people felt reasonably at ease in the sort of circumstances in

which they found themselves. The fact that they volunteered quite

willingly, their own rates for which ever they would get paid. I would

also hope that the viewers, if they solve the programme, would be more

concerned by what they saw, for example the member of Parliament,

Patrick Mercer, in terms of putting questions down. We have not heard

the like of for money since the 1990s. One other issue was the fact

that this was an independent production company behind this. It

was carried out with the Telegraph newspaper. There is some interest,

after what happened with other investigations, like the one into

Lord McAlpine, should the BBC give up control of these stories? It is

interesting that people highlighted the Daily Telegraph. We did a

similar film before Christmas, with the Guardian. The essence of all

these things, whether it is independent companies or

newspapers, is that the journalism itself, the final decision making is

my own as editor. We go through a vigorous process which is run

internally by the BBC and the legal side, to make sure that all the

processes and journalism is right and proper. Thank you. Do let us

know your thoughts. Details of how to contact us will be on at the end

of the programme. Before that, some of your other reactions, starting

with the reporting of Prince Philip's visit to hospital for a

planned operation. Mike McCarthy was not alone in responding... Now, when

reporting about the crackdown on a set of motoring offences such as

tailgating and lane hogging, from where does a transport correspondent

address the camera, from the driving seat of a car, it seems. What will

change for motorists? Until now, if the police wanted to prosecute

someone for blocking a lane or jumping a junction or driving too

close to the car in front, they had to take them to court. That used up

a lot of time and resources. Richard Westcott up there. Barry Mason was

one of those who took exception to that piece to camera, e-mailing...

Finally, we have aired complaints recently from viewers that they have

been distracted by all the people visible in the newsroom behind the

presenters. On Friday, there was a rather unusual presence hovering

over the newsreader -- newsreaders s' shoulders. Let us join the Queen.

Her Majesty, the Queen, is in the heart of Broadcasting House. It is a

view that we share with our audience every day, but today, a unique

moment with a special Royal guest. That bizarre piece of television

came about because the Queen was officially opening the new

Broadcasting House building, a visit shown in all its glory on the News

Channel. One viewer was unimpressed with the reception she was given,

asking... They were and they did not. That is all from us. If you

want to share your opinions with us or appear on the programme, you can