British Broadcasting Corporation Room BC2 B6 Broadcast Centre White City Wood Lane London W12 7TP Telephone 020 8008 2882 Email [email protected] Information Policy & Compliance bbc.co.uk/foi bbc.co.uk/privacy Mr Moran By email to: [email protected] 21st January 2014 Dear Mr Moran, Freedom of Information request – RFI20131965 Thank you for your request to the BBC of 29 December 2013, seeking the following information under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000: “Could you please provide figures for the amount the BBC spent on lawyers to cover up attendees of the BBC Climate Panel 26 January 2006? Could you also please provide figures for the amount the BBC spent on BBC Staff time/wages to cover up attendees of the BBC Climate Panel 26 January 2006? Could you also please confirm whether the following list of attendees of the BBC Climate Panel 26 January 2006 was available on the internet throughout the legal battle to cover it up? January 26th 2006, BBC Television Centre, London Specialists: Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant Trevor Evans, US Embassy Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation Claire Foster, Church of England Saleemul Huq, IIED Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund Matthew Farrow, CBI Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables Richard D North, Institute of Economic Affairs Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs Joe Smith, The Open University Mark Galloway, Director, IBT Anita Neville, E3G Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University Jos Wheatley, Global Environment Assets Team, DFID Tessa Tennant, Chair, AsRia BBC attendees: Jana Bennett, Director of Television Sacha Baveystock, Executive Producer, Science Helen Boaden, Director of News Andrew Lane, Manager, Weather, TV News Anne Gilchrist, Executive Editor Indies & Events, CBBC Dominic Vallely, Executive Editor, Entertainment Eleanor Moran, Development Executive, Drama Commissioning Elizabeth McKay, Project Executive, Education Emma Swain, Commissioning Editor, Specialist Factual Fergal Keane, (Chair), Foreign Affairs Correspondent Fran Unsworth, Head of Newsgathering George Entwistle, Head of TV Current Affairs Glenwyn Benson, Controller, Factual TV John Lynch, Creative Director, Specialist Factual Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy Jon Williams, TV Editor Newsgathering Karen O’Connor, Editor, This World, Current Affairs Catriona McKenzie, Tightrope Pictures Liz Molyneux, Editorial Executive, Factual Commissioning Matt Morris, Head of News, Radio Five Live Neil Nightingale, Head of Natural History Unit Paul Brannan, Deputy Head of News Interactive Peter Horrocks, Head of Television News Peter Rippon, Duty Editor, World at One/PM/The World this Weekend Phil Harding, Director, English Networks & Nations Steve Mitchell, Head Of Radio News Sue Inglish, Head Of Political Programmes Frances Weil, Editor of News Special Events” 2 I have addressed each of your questions in turn below. However, before doing so, I have set out some background to the Tribunal case you refer to. In July 2007, the BBC received a request for information it held relating to a seminar held at Television Centre in 2006. The seminar was one in a series which looked at a range of global topics in order to assist the BBC’s journalism. The title of the seminar was “Climate Change, the Challenge to Broadcasting” and was attended by BBC editors, journalists and managers as well as a number of invited guests from business, science and academia. In this regard, the guests were not “a panel.” Seminars such as this do not set BBC editorial policy on how it covers climate science. The setting of editorial policy is a formal process involving BBC Boards and the BBC Trust; it does not take place at seminars such as this one. Instead, the seminars can help inform the BBC’s journalism through debate and access to expertise. The BBC refused to disclose some of the requested material it held about the seminar, including the agenda and the names of all of those who attended the seminar. This was on the basis that the BBC is only bound by the FOIA in respect of information held for purposes “other than those of journalism, art or literature” (Schedule 1, Part VI), commonly referred to as the designation, and at the time of the request the information held about the seminar was held for the BBC’s journalistic purposes. In addition, the seminar had been held under the Chatham House Rule, which enables free and frank discussion and prohibits the publication of lists of attendees. The individual requesting the material appealed, to the ICO who agreed with the BBC decision. The requester then asked for a hearing before the Information Tribunal. In October 2012, a hearing took place and the Information Tribunal unanimously upheld the BBC’s decision that it was right not to disclose the requested material. A few days after this decision in October 2012, the individual put in a new request for the same material. The requested was again refused by the BBC, upheld by the ICO and again the individual appealed. A hearing was listed at the individual’s request. Before the hearing took place, on 24 October 2013, the BBC re-reviewed its use of the information requested, and decided to provide the individual with all of the information subject to some redactions which were carried out pursuant to s.40 (personal data). The BBC explained that it was providing the material because, whilst it maintained its position that the information was held for the purpose of journalism at the time of the request, were the BBC to receive a request for the material now, it would disclose the material. The BBC explained that the redacted material included personal email addresses and personal information in the biographies of attendees. The individual withdrew his appeal and the hearing was vacated. The BBC also published the material within the frameworks of its Publication Scheme under the following links: 3 1) http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/foi/classes/disclosure_logs/rfi20121417_climate_change_se minar_2006_1.pdf; 2) http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/foi/classes/disclosure_logs/rfi20121417_climate_change_se minar_2006_2.pdf. As for your specific questions: 1. Could you please provide figures for the amount the BBC spent on lawyers to cover up attendees of the BBC Climate Panel 26 January 2006? We cannot accept the characterisation of the money paid in legal fees in this case as being for the purpose of “covering up the attendees of the Climate Change panel”. As explained above the case was successfully defended to protect the BBC’s journalistic space and its use of the Chatham House Rule. You should note these fees were in relation to the first Information Tribunal case. No external fees were incurred in relation to the second request. In total, £19,485 (including VAT at 20%) was spent on external legal fees. 2. Could you also please provide figures for the amount the BBC spent on BBC Staff time/wages to cover up attendees of the BBC Climate Panel 26 January 2006? Again please note we do not accept the characterisation of your question. However we can provide the following information in relation to staff costs/time. The majority of Freedom of Information work is carried out in-house within the BBC. Lawyers and other staff within the Information Policy and Compliance team, which deals with many aspects of FOI, do not charge out for their work and therefore no records of the time that is spent on each case are kept. Staff time outside of the legal division is similarly not logged as all FOI work is undertaken on top of the normal workload of any staff involved. However, I can inform you that the BBC Litigation department does log time against cases and in ‘FOI Newbury V Information Commissioner’ this was logged at 120 hours. This covered time by a number of BBC lawyers at the different stages of Mr Newbery’s Appeal including preparing submissions and attending the hearing. 3. Could you also please confirm whether the following list of attendees of the BBC Climate Panel 26 January 2006 was available on the internet throughout the legal battle to cover it up? On 13 November 2012, a member of the public published a list of attendees for the seminar which took place on 26 January 2006. The individual said he found a copy of the document using an internet archive. It became apparent that the list had been posted on a website in 2007 without the permission of the BBC but had been taken down shortly afterwards. The list was therefore not available on that website during the appeal which was heard by the 4 Information Tribunal and which concluded on 8 November 2012 when the unanimous decision was handed down that the BBC was correct not to disclose the copy of the list that it held. As far as the BBC was aware, the list of attendees was not in the public domain at the time of the hearing. The fact a member of the public found the copy through the internet archive does not impact on the decision of the Tribunal nor the reason the BBC defended its decision not to disclose the material sought under the FOI Act. I hope that this information satisfies your request.