Suspended BBC presenter should not be named using parliamentary privilege, cabinet minister urges MPs | Politics News
A cabinet minister has cautioned MPs against using parliamentary privilege to name the BBC presenter who has been suspended over allegations he paid a teenager for sexually explicit photographs.
Work and Pensions Secretary Mel Stride told Sky’s Kay Burley the facts appeared to have changed in the last 24 hours and MPs should wait to “see where all of this lands” before the presenter is named and that “privilege… should be used sparingly”.
Speculation continues to mount about the identity of the broadcaster, whom the BBC suspended on Sunday after the claims were reported in The Sun.
It comes as the BBC’s director-general Tim Davie faces the media today as the controversy over the top presenter deepens.
A number of high-profile presenters at the BBC – including 5 Live’s Nicky Campbell, Eurovision’s Rylan and Top Gear’s Paddy McGuinness – have all been forced to publicly deny they are the one who has been suspended after social media users named them online.
Parents of young person ‘stand by account’ – BBC presenter latest
There have been growing calls for the accused presenter to name themselves to prevent the spotlight wrongfully falling on other colleagues, while the Daily Mail reported that some MPs are considering naming the individual concerned.
Parliamentary privilege is a right granted to MPs that allows them to speak freely in the Commons chamber without being subject to laws around slander.
Asked by Sky News’ Kay Burley whether the presenter should be named, Mr Stride said: “Those decisions have to be taken on the known facts. And it seems to me that even the apparent known facts seem to be changing within 24 hours.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
BBC and The Sun face serious questions
Pressed on whether he would “implore” his colleagues not to name the presenter using parliamentary privilege, Mr Stride replied: “I can only speak for myself – that’s a very personal thing.
“I would personally certainly not be doing that.
“Members of parliament do have a right to privilege and to be able to say things in the Commons without fear of legal repercussions.
“But I think that is a privilege that should be used very sparingly and with great thought.
“I would want to see process continue here as quickly as possible. And that is what the secretary of state, media and culture, has been doing, has been pressing the BBC to do that.
Could the BBC presenter be outed by an MP?
As the BBC presenter at the centre of pay-for-images allegations remains anonymous, there is the possibility an MP or peer could name the star.
Parliamentary privilege is a right dating back to 1689 which protects parliamentarians from being sued, for example on the grounds of defamation.
It has been used to expose corruption or criminal activity, but more recently – and controversially – to name rich and famous people protected by the courts.
For example, back in 2011, Ryan Giggs was named as the “married footballer” with an injunction, after tabloid reports that he had an affair with a reality star.
He was named by former Lib Dem MP John Hemming, who campaigned against secrecy in the family courts, but was criticised by some colleagues for going against a court order.
The retail tycoon Philip Green was by Lord Hain, back in 2018, using privilege, as the mystery businessman involved in allegations of misconduct, reported by the Daily Telegraph.
The peer later said: “What concerned me about this case was wealth, and power than comes with it, and abuse, and that was what led me to act in the way that I did.”
In the case of the BBC presenter, there is no specific injunction we know of, but he is unnamed because of the tightening of privacy laws particularly after the case of Sir Cliff Richard, who was paid damages by the BBC after being named as part of a police investigation.
Both Conservative cabinet minister Mel Stride and Labour’s Jonathan Ashworth told Sky News this morning they would not name the presenter, although some newspapers report that other MPs are discussing it.
Although they have legal protection, MPs are likely to be wary of the many disputed claims in this case with regards to naming.
The former Labour deputy leader Tom Watson faced calls to resign after he named public figures in parliament accused of involvement in child abuse by Carl Beech, who was later revealed to have fabricated the allegations and was jailed.
“I’m as confident I can be that they will be now moving at pace. I think we have to see where all of this lands and then start to make these judgements about whether things were done the right way or not, whether people should be named or not, and so on and so forth.”
Mr Stride’s comments come as Mr Davie prepares to speak to journalists about the broadcaster’s annual report, which is set to reveal how much its biggest stars are paid.
The story took a further development on Monday night after the young person at the centre of the controversy released a statement to the BBC saying that nothing inappropriate or unlawful happened, while also describing allegations made by The Sun as “rubbish”.
Their lawyer added that the 20-year-old is estranged from their mother and stepfather, who made the claims to the newspaper.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘We need a detailed account of what happened, but BBC needs time’
In response, the young person’s mother told The Sun she stood by her claims and said the presenter had “got into their head”. She also questioned how they were able to afford legal representation.
Read more:
Why hasn’t the BBC presenter at the centre of the allegations been named publicly?
BBC presenter scandal is sleazy and depressing – but at the heart of this a family is suffering
Mr Stride’s warnings to MPs were also echoed by Labour’s shadow work and pensions secretary Jonathan Ashworth, who also said he “wouldn’t name him”.
“I know it’s certainly a very sensitive and difficult story for the BBC,” he told Sky News.
“Developments overnight suggest there are some complications and disputes in versions of events.
“I think the most important thing is that this is thoroughly investigated, the BBC look into this all properly and they should be allowed to get on with that.
“I don’t think it’s helpful for politicians to be offering a running commentary or making statements in the House of Commons about who this person might be or not be.”