Evan Davis being told to stop hosting podcast was ‘tough' for BBC boss
BBC presenter Evan Davis has said the corporation's director-general said it was a 'very tough' decision for the broadcaster to stop the Dragons' Den star hosting a podcast about heat pumps.
Davis, who hosts the BBC Radio 4 current affairs programme PM and Dragons' Den, was told a few weeks ago that the Happy Heat Pump Podcast could be seen as a breach of rules around presenters speaking about issues of public policy.
It is believed that the podcast focusing on one possible solution to reducing carbon emissions, when responses to climate change are a matter of public policy, was the issue.
Davis told the PA news agency on Wednesday that the BBC felt 'there's a danger he will be seen' as having a view on heat pumps and being in favour of the efficient heating technology in his capacity as a PM presenter.
'Perception matters, so they thought it was probably unhelpful,' he said.
'I just did it for the sort of fun of it, but they do always regulate what you do outside, and I totally accept that they have to make those judgments.'
Davis, who says he received no money for the podcast, and is not involved in any heat pump business arrangements, added that he is 'not bitter' about the decision.
However, he does not 'agree with this judgment, because I thought we were promoting an understanding of heat pumps, not promoting heat pumps'.
When asked if he thought political opposition to net zero was the issue, Davis said it was 'very much probably in the minds of the BBC'.
'If you don't like net zero, you're probably not going to think we need to install heat pumps, and … that's a perfectly legitimate point of view,' he said.
Davis admitted that heat pumps 'have been an issue that's been argued about, which is why the BBC didn't want me to do it'.
He also said there is an 'irony' that air conditioning has not been in the 'middle of a cultural war', unlike heat pumps, when the technology uses a similar refrigerant liquid to make rooms hot and cool.
Davis said: 'There were some conversations internally about it, and the decision was finally confirmed about two weeks ago, and we wanted to record a little mini last episode, just closing the series down so that's why we didn't announce it until yesterday.
'I actually chatted to (director-general of the BBC) Tim Davie about it, he thought it was very tough decision and a very finely balanced thing, we had really grown-up conversations about it, it's not like it's been a sort of horrendous process.
'Tim appreciated that for me, this was a bit of a hobby, and I am very interested in this transition, or this potential transition.'
Davis, who has heat pumps in his home in France, and a gas boiler in his London house, said he was not 'attacking the BBC decision'.
He added the BBC does not want him to take down the 20 or so episodes of the show, and the corporation has said they 'should talk about doing something for the BBC on heat pumps'.
Evans hosted the podcast with Bean Beanland, who works at the Heat Pump Federation (HPF), with the first episode being uploaded in December 2024 to YouTube.
In March, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said she will task shadow ministers with finding 'achievable solutions' to delivering cheap, clean energy after declaring that reaching net zero by 2050 is 'impossible'.
A BBC spokeswoman said: 'The BBC editorial guidelines are clear that anyone working for the BBC who does an external public speaking or writing engagement should not compromise the impartiality or integrity of the BBC or its content, or suggest that any part of the BBC endorses a third-party organisation, product, service or campaign.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
27 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The radio debut of the House of Commons: ‘there could be a long-running series here' – archive, 1975
Permanent radio broadcasts from the House of Commons began on 3 April 1978, and from the House of Lords on 4 April. Television broadcasts began on 21 November 1989. 10 June 1975 Ed Boyle, the commercial radio commentator for the first broadcast of parliament, yesterday spent two hours cooped up in a tiny glass box at a temperature of nearly 90 degrees, wearing a jacket, tie, and buttoned up collar, suffering from a particularly ferocious type of dysentery which has already brought his weight down to eight stone. Just to add a touch of challenge to the job, he was operating a new type of microphone kindly supplied by the BBC with operating instructions entirely in Japanese. In spite of this, Mr Boyle and his BBC colleague, David Holmes, who were trapped together in the same tiny glass box, managed somehow to give composed and informative account of the proceedings. Mr Holmes admitted afterwards that the heat had been so great that at times he had thought he would not be able to carry on, and though listeners may have noticed his voice fading occasionally, he always remained strikingly coherent and apparently in command. Mr Boyle now intends to make a few swift changes to make life slightly more bearable. Apart from sartorial changes to Bermuda shorts, for himself, he plans to make commentating easier by fading out some members when the discussion gets too technical. 'Some of the questions are really on very minor and erudite issues, and I guess the MPs won't mind if we turn them down occasionally so as to explain to the listeners what is happening.' Yesterday the two broadcasters were blessed by a good chunk of pungent topical debates, with Tony Benn using industry questions as the chance to prove himself a good Euro-democrat, and with splendid quotations like: 'If the opposition wants any head on a charger, the leader of the Conservative party will have to be a lot more seductive as a Salome than she has been so far.' At the same time, there were highly complex questions about, for example, the funding of the new pod for the stretched version of the Rolls-Royce RB 211 – a matter of great importance, but one which cannot be explained in the few seconds between question and answer. Both commentators had to trim down their remarks to within a second or so either way: Mr Holmes reckoned that if he did not spot immediately whether the speaker was calling an MP for a supplementary or for the next question on the order paper, he would lose two of the four or five vital seconds of explaining time. Time was so tight that Mr Boyle had to make a definite policy decision to give the first name of each MP as well as his surname and party. Often their time was so limited they could only say: 'This is a question about Europe' or, 'This is about British Leyland.' Mr Holmes hopes to grab a few more seconds of talking time while MPs are laughing and cheering between answers. But both men were pleased with the way things had gone, and came out of the box easier in mind if not in body than they had been when they went in. 'What's encouraging is that it looks as if we can do a proper job without the house having to change its way of going about business or even the tempo of its debates, so no one need feel that we are interfering in any way,' said Mr Holmes. The commercial company plans to use more material than the BBC will use, with prime minister's questions live every Tuesday and Thursday, plus special debates. It will also have an hour of extracts and highlights each morning – twice as long as the BBC – with an instant feedback service from a panel of MPs who took part in the debate; and possibly a Saturday morning edition giving chunks of the week's committees. Val Arnold-Forster, our radio critic, adds: It was a lucky day for broadcasters, according to David Holmes at the end of the transmission – audibly breathing a sigh of relief. It was too, it was a well or luckily chosen parliamentary day. At first, both Holmes and his opposite number, Ed Boyle of IRN, seemed to feel a trifle defensive about parliament. Well they might, for BBC listeners anyway missed not only some of Woman's Hour and a play, but since political events always seem to invade children's entertainment, they also missed Listen with Mother. Before the actual live broadcast started, both political editors showed us round like keen members of a parent-teachers association displaying their school: eager to tell us about the hallowed tradition, the problems that the whole institution had in a changing society, and the usefulness of the work done. The leader of the house, Edward Short, appeared on both channels in his headmasterly capacity to say that this was a particularly noisy House of Commons, but he hoped that the MPs would be on their best behaviour. A bit unruly, he thought, and not only the MPs either. There would have been more room, said Mr Short, in the tiny broadcaster's box if IRN and BBC had done the decent thing and agreed to a joint transmission. Nobody need have worried: from the moment question time started we were in capable hands. Both David Holmes and Ed Boyle chipped into the debate sotto voce, to identify and give party allegiances and explanations. Both tried valiantly to feed the listener with the details that make the House of Commons come alive. 'Mr Bidwell, chairman of the Tribune Group … Mr Denis Skinner, always a lively performer … Mr Benn is smiling to himself.' But they need not really have bothered: the proceedings were jolly enough. For those of us used to hearing politicians debating cautiously in front of untried audiences or answering laboured questions and phone-ins, it was an entertaining experience to hear such skilful parliamentary technicians as Harold Wilson and Tony Benn, parrying questions, riposting, joking, and scolding. The jokes were not always very good, but that's true of other radio comedians. Perhaps the laughter and applause sometimes seemed excessive but the barbed retorts were well placed and, as in other radio shows, what seemed like impromptu repartee must have been rehearsed, if only in the bath. 'I do not require lessons in political morality from an honourable member who regularly signs the oath of allegiance and snipes continually at the royal family,' snapped Tony Benn to Willie Hamilton. The uproar which worried Edward Short was cheerful mostly. The general cosiness, which came through strikingly as everyone complimented everyone else on performances in the referendum debate, seemed as easy to grasp as the Archers: we could become as familiar with William Whitelaw's idiosyncrasies as Walter Gabriel's. Final verdict: early days yet, but there could be a compulsive, long-running series here.
The National
11 hours ago
- The National
Farage's proposal is just the latest undermining of the Barnett system
This, according to senior criminologists and ex-police officers, is not just a failure of admin, it's the result of austerity-era cuts that stripped police forces of capacity, dismantled the state-run Forensic Science Service in 2012, and left fragmented, underfunded systems to cope with ballooning evidence demands. Austerity didn't just weaken institutions; it disassembled infrastructure. READ MORE: Nigel Farage could cut the Barnett Formula. Here's what devolution experts think of that While these failings may seem like an English and Welsh concern, they tell a broader UK-wide story. Because when public services are cut in England, the Barnett formula translates those cuts into reduced budget allocations for Holyrood, too. Scotland has long borne the dual burden of being denied full fiscal autonomy while also seeing its devolved budget squeezed by decisions made for entirely different priorities south of the Border. Cuts to police, criminal courts, housing, public health, and local government in England have systematically eroded the spending floor on which Scottish services rest. So when justice collapses in England, it affects Scotland financially – even if the governance is separate. And now, against this backdrop of UK-wide budgetary degradation, Nigel Farage has called for the scrapping of the Barnett formula entirely. It's a move that's politically convenient, historically illiterate, and economically reckless. But more than anything, it's a distillation of what's already happening by stealth. Successive UK governments have undermined the foundations of the Barnett system – and devolution itself – for more than a decade. READ MORE: Furious Anas Sarwar clashes with BBC journalist over Labour policies It's obvious to every Scot that Farage's view relies on a mischaracterisation of Barnett as a subsidy, when in fact it simply ensures Scotland receives a proportional share of changes to spending in England for devolved services. It doesn't calculate entitlement or need, it mirrors policy shifts at Westminster. If England increases education or health spending, Scotland sees a relative uplift. If England cuts deeply, Scotland's budget falls, even if demand remains or rises. This has led to an absurd and punitive dynamic where Scotland loses funding not by its own decisions, but because England spends less. And when Scotland chooses to maintain higher standards in public services, it must do so from a proportionately smaller pot. Perversely, it doesn't stop there, though. Since the 2016 Brexit vote, Westminster has begun bypassing devolved governments directly. Funds like the Levelling Up Fund and Shared Prosperity Fund are allocated by UK ministers to local authorities, often bypassing Holyrood entirely. Promises made in The Vow on the eve of the 2014 independence referendum to deliver near-federal powers and respect Scottish decision-making have unravelled. READ MORE: SNP must turn support for independence into 'real political action' The Internal Market Act has overridden devolved laws under the banner of market 'consistency'. Powers that returned from Brussels in areas like food standards, procurement, and agriculture were supposed to go to Holyrood, but in many cases they were retained by Westminster. The Sewel Convention, once a safeguard of devolved consent, has been treated as optional. Farage's proposal to scrap Barnett isn't an outlier, it's the natural conclusion of a decade-long pattern: cut services in England, shrink the Barnett allocation, bypass devolved institutions, and then blame the devolved nations for 'taking more than their share'. There's no consideration of fairness, or implementation of a needs-based analysis, it's a strategy of erosion; one that gouges out the Union from the centre while draping itself in the flag. The failures of justice in England, catastrophic as they are, expose a deeper injustice: the systematic unravelling of the constitutional promises made to Scotland. Ron Lumiere via email
Belfast Telegraph
11 hours ago
- Belfast Telegraph
Declan Lynch: The BBC got us through endless Northern nights, Gerry Adams
The BBC is 'The British Broadcasting Corporation', but nobody calls it that except Gerry Adams. Again and again, very deliberately, as he savours his triumph in the recent libel action against 'The British Broadcasting Corporation', he gives it the full official title — almost as if the 'British' part has connotations of inherent badness. He claims that his purpose in taking the action was to 'put manners' on this British Broadcasting Corporation. There were even suggestions — later denied — that the BBC would consider blocking the transmission of its programmes in this country, rather than risk further exposure to our atrocious libel laws.
