BBC issues correction after Debate Night 'bias' on eve of by-election
The programme, aired on June 4 – the night before the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election – was billed as a "Glasgow Special" episode.
It featured the SNP's Glasgow Council leader Susan Aitken, Scottish Tory MSP Annie Wells, artist David Eustace as well as both Scottish Labour MSP Paul Sweeney and Labour peer Willie Haughey.
READ MORE: Scottish Labour drop below Alba and Greens as by-election results called
The initial promotion material for the programme did not make it immediately clear that Haughey was a Labour peer, instead stating that he was an "entrepreneur".
Tonight, join Debate Night for a Glasgow Special@StephenJardine will be joined by @SusaninLangside, @AnnieWellsMSP, @PaulJSweeney, Lord Willie Haughey, and David Eustace
June 4th at 9pm on @BBCScotland, 10:40pm on @BBCOne Scotland
Apply here: https://t.co/UxxKWtFY2y pic.twitter.com/PuNB1janJc — BBC Debate Night (@bbcdebatenight) June 4, 2025
Further, there were no Green politicians represented on the programme, despite being the third largest party at Glasgow City Council with 11 councillors, leading the party to lodge a formal complaint accusing the BBC of "bias".
The SNP also expressed anger at the decision, with a party source telling The National that Debate Night appeared to have 'thrown the BBC's proposed guidance on balance out of the window.'
The by-election, which took place the following day, was won by Scottish Labour's Davy Russell with 8559 votes. The SNP's Katy Loudon came in second with 7959 votes, while Reform UK's Ross Lambie picked up 7088 votes.
Now, the BBC has issued a correction on its decision to feature two Labour politicians.
READ MORE: Actor Alan Cumming to receive honorary degree from University of St Andrews
In a clarification published on Friday, the BBC admitted that it "could have been clearer" on Haughey's designation as a Labour peer.
The full statement reads: "In featuring Lord Haughey, as part of the panel, we could have been clearer on his designation as a Labour peer.
"While the programme did cite his status as a Labour donor and our social media team referenced prominently his party political affiliation in the House of Lords once the programme was live, we should have applied that approach consistently to both the pre-broadcast publicity on social media and referenced that point clearly on air.
"We are happy to clarify that point."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
32 minutes ago
- The National
SNP minister hits out at Labour Government's welfare cuts
Equalities Minister Kaukab Stewart's comments came as she launched the Scottish Government's Disability Equality Plan in Glasgow on Friday, a report which aims to put disabled people's experiences and concerns at the centre of policymaking. The plan – which has been in the making since 2016 – looks to improve access to mental health, advice and support services, as well as funding training for policymakers and leaders to build understanding of the issues facing disabled people. READ MORE: Independent MPs table amendment to scrap 'disgusting' welfare bill It also sets out plans to have an annual "Cabinet Takeover", where disabled people will be given a "direct platform" to speak to ministers. As she launched the review, Stewart said she was "firmly opposed" to the UK Government's approach, as she called on Labour to "follow our lead" and protect the welfare system "rather than dismantling it". "At a time when the UK Government's welfare reforms appear to be driven more by cost cutting than by compassion, and balancing the books at the expense of disabled people, let me be frank: Scotland will not, by any means, mirror that approach," she said at the launch. The Labour Government is preparing to push through its Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, which – among other things – would change the eligibility criteria for the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) disability benefit. The UK Government's own analysis has found that the cuts would push 250,000 people into poverty, including 50,000 children. Speaking to The National, Stewart reaffirmed the Scottish Government's commitment to a welfare system based on the principles of "dignity, fairness and respect". She said: "In Scotland, we're very proud that we support the social model when it comes to addressing disabled people. "That means that we work very hard to make sure that the environment and the society that they live within – the barriers lie there, we have to limit those barriers, and that includes providing welfare support." READ MORE: BBC issues correction after Debate Night 'bias' on eve of by-election She added that the UK Government's approach "appears to be doing the opposite, by making even further hurdles and undignified and demeaning processes to put off disabled people from claiming what is actually their right". "If you look at Personal Independence Payments, for example, those are very demeaning processes," Stewart continued. "Often disabled people have long-term conditions, they shouldn't have to go through those additional and humiliating experiences to explain time and time again. "Where's the dignity in that?" Stewart said the Scottish Government was "not following that model". She said: "We believe in empowerment, we believe in supporting all of our citizens, and that includes disabled people. "The UK Government should do the same." Labour are facing anger from MPs on both sides of the benches over the cuts, with a significant number of their own MPs set to oppose them. Meanwhile, on Thursday evening, Labour MP Vicky Foxcroft resigned from her position as a Government whip over the planned cuts, which she said were not "part of the solution" to the growing welfare bill. MPs are set to debate the UK Government's welfare proposals on July 1.
The Independent
35 minutes ago
- The Independent
MPs voting to legalise assisted dying is a momentous day for choice
Many of the great advances of liberal social legislation have been made in the form of bills promoted by backbench MPs under a benign Labour government. The abolition of the death penalty in 1965, by a bill sponsored by Sydney Silverman; the partial decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1967, by a bill from Leo Abse; the Abortion Act 1967, by a bill from David Steel; and the Divorce Reform Act 1969, which followed another private member's bill by Abse. To this roll call of liberal reform, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Act is now likely to be added, and Kim Leadbeater's name will join those of her illustrious predecessors. In a week in which the House of Commons has also voted to decriminalise abortion, it is good to see that progress is still being made towards giving citizens more choice in how they live their lives – including in today's case how they end them. This is a difficult subject, and, as with any step forward to a more liberal society, there are those who object that the change breaches a fundamental moral principle. We understand that there are some difficult moral issues in assisted dying, but we do not accept that today's vote in the Commons crosses some kind of Rubicon. The Independent 's starting point is that it cannot be right to treat as criminal someone who is terminally ill and who wants to decide the time and manner of their death – or the people who assist them in this decision. The only question, it seems to us, is whether the protection against pressure being put on someone to end their life was strong enough. There were those MPs who argued today that those protections can never be 100 per cent secure, and it may be that in no part of life can people be absolutely protected from malign actors. But the protections in the bill are as good as they can be. They have been significantly strengthened since the bill was first published. The main change that Ms Leadbeater has made to the bill has been to replace a High Court judge with a panel of a lawyer, a social worker and a psychiatrist as the second line of defence after two doctors have approved a patient's decision. This is a better arrangement, drawing on a wider range of expertise. There remain concerns about the bill. One of the objections we take most seriously is from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which says, among other things, that 'there are not enough consultant psychiatrists to do what the bill asks'. This is a question of whether the provisions of the bill will be adequately resourced, which is related to the worry expressed by Wes Streeting, the health and social care secretary, who is opposed to the bill on the grounds that end-of-life care in the NHS is under-resourced as it is. The Independent 's view, however, is that the issue of resources should not be a reason for blocking the bill. If, for example, there is a shortage of psychiatrists, it would be wrong to deny the right to an assisted death altogether just because it cannot be offered to all. After all, the current situation is that those with means can travel to Switzerland to take advantage of the law there, as Mary Dejevsky writes in a moving account of her husband's death. This bill will make that choice available to more people in England and Wales, and under rather stricter rules than apply in Switzerland. We welcome today's decision by the House of Commons. It was decisive, although we wish it could have been more so, because this is the kind of change that benefits from a wide consensus. We urge the House of Lords to take its role seriously as a revising chamber. Peers should not seek to block the bill, or to pass amendments designed to render it ineffective. Instead, they should look at those aspects of the bill that are most contentious and seek to improve the legislation if at all possible. Ultimately, however, the upper house should respect the democratic mandate of the Commons and pass this law, the most significant social policy shift by a private member's bill since abortion was legalised in 1967, to allow more people to make their own decisions about their lives and how to end them.
The National
37 minutes ago
- The National
Warning for Scotland as report finds time running out to limit climate change
On Thursday, top scientists warned that the Earth could breach the 1.5C global warming limit in as little as three years. It comes as the Scottish Government published its carbon budgets plan, a replacement for net-zero targets that were not reached. Campaigners described the move as a 'weakening' of climate policy. With the new climate change plan draft due later this year and only one full parliamentary term left before the Holyrood 2026 elections, campaigners have criticised the Scottish Government's 'slowing' approach to tackling climate issues. READ MORE: SNP councillor forces Labour to take action against Israeli arms sales Rising temperatures in Scotland could have a devastating impact on communities, with increasing risks of flooding, rising sea levels and coastal erosion, or dry hot weather causing sweeping wildfires and water scarcity. Jamie Livingstone, head of Oxfam Scotland, said: 'We're going to be having the new Climate Change Plan published in draft form in autumn that will cover from 2026 through to 2040. 'The near term of that is going to be absolutely critical, which means, you know, the next Scottish Parliament will make or break Scotland's ambitions to achieve net zero by 2045. 'But we will stand no chance of delivering that unless the Climate Change plan is backed up by meaningful investment.' Livingstone (below) added that the 'richest and biggest polluters are driving the climate crisis' and should have to pay up. 'If we don't invest now, then it will cost us much more down the line to respond to that,' he said. He added: 'What people don't want in Scotland is any more hollow climate promises. We've kind of been there, we've done that, that undermines public confidence. 'Actually what we need to see is near term action, properly financed and delivered in a way that is genuinely fair. That's what people in Scotland want to see going into the Scottish elections and throughout the next parliament.' Meanwhile, Rosie Hampton, oil and gas campaigns manager at Friends of the Earth (FoE) Scotland, also argued that companies who have 'contributed vastly' to the climate crisis should be made to pay. She said: 'I think if people felt like there was a clearer sense of who's coughing up and who's actually going to save money, I think people would feel a lot more confident that measures to address the climate crisis actually can save them money and improve people's lives. READ MORE: Scottish Labour drop below Alba and Greens in Highlands by-election 'There's that kind of absence of Scottish Government and political will to say - this is who's paying for it, because this is how you've contributed. People fill in the gaps and they think, well, I'm going to have to have to pay for it. 'That's not a just transition, it's not fair, because why should ordinary people be forced to bear the brunt of it? 'It's a legitimate concern. It should be big industry, who have profited off oil and gas and things like that for a long time when communities haven't seen the benefit.' 'We need to see a serious level of ambition and a recognition of just how much needs to change,' Hampton added. Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie told The National he had concerns that the Scottish Government's 'policy response is getting weaker' while the 'pace of warming is getting more alarming'. 'It's not just about the SNP, it's about our whole political landscape,' Harvie said. He said that when the party started talks with former first minister Nicola Sturgeon, that would later lead to the Bute House Agreement, Scotland was already missing its climate targets and needed to 'accelerate'. 'That means we need to do some of the politically difficult stuff, the easy stuff's all been done,' Harvie added. (Image: PA) 'If we're not going to be politically able to do the more challenging things, that means changing the way we move about, that means changing the way we heat our homes. It means changing agriculture as well and giving rural communities a viable way forward that isn't high carbon. If we're not willing to do those things, then we fail.' The MSP added that he was 'disturbed' by the Scottish Government refusing to accept certain recommendations from the Climate Change Committee (CCC) in its carbon budget plan. The Scottish Government has been contacted for comment.
