Finding of the Editorial Standards Committee Party Election Broadcast allocation Appeal by Siobhan Benita, Independent Candidate for Mayor of London

Transcription

1 Finding of the Editorial Standards Committee Party Election Broadcast allocation Appeal by Siobhan Benita, Independent Candidate for Mayor of London Finding of 23 April 2012 Getting the best out of the BBC for licence fee payers

2 The Editorial Standards Committee s decision on the appeal brought by Siobhan Benita The Editorial Standards Committee (the ESC ) met on 23 April 2012 to consider an appeal to the BBC Trust brought by Siobhan Benita. Ms Benita challenged the BBC Executive s (the Executive ) decision not to allocate to her a Party Election Broadcast ( PEBs ) in the 2012 election for London s Mayor (the Mayoral Election ) which is part of the Greater London Authority elections. 1. Regulatory framework and background to the PEB allocation decision 1.1. The Mayoral Election will take place on 3 May The BBC is obliged under clause 48 of the Framework Agreement to include PEBs in some or all of its public services and it is for the Trust to determine (in so far as it is permitted so to do by sections 37 1 and 127 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (the "PPERA")) the political parties on whose behalf party political broadcasts may be made. Section C of the Protocol on Editorial Standards 2 provides that prior to each local, national or European election the Executive will draft PEB allocation criteria for the Trust to consider, review and approve, and that the Executive will then apply those criteria in respect of each election In relation to the Greater London Authority Elections, the relevant allocation criteria approved by the Trust on 2 February 2012 are as follows: Threshold Criteria To qualify for one PEB in the relevant nation (or area in the case of London elections), a political party must be registered with the Electoral Commission and satisfy the following criteria: A registered political party must stand: A candidate for Mayor AND A full slate of candidates in all constituencies OR a full slate of candidates for all list seats. Exceptionally, a PEB may also be offered to: An individual candidate for Mayor who can demonstrate evidence of substantial current electoral support in London; or A registered political party without a Mayoral candidate but: Standing a full slate of candidates in all constituencies OR a full slate of candidates in all list seats; AND Can demonstrate evidence of substantial current electoral support in London. 1 Section 37(1) of the PPERA provides that "A broadcaster shall not include in its broadcasting services any party political broadcast made on behalf of a party which is not a registered party. 2 Protocol B2, Finding of 23 April

3 It is a matter for those receiving PEBs to determine whether the allocation is used to communicate party policies generally or those of an individual candidate, such as a candidate running for the role of Mayor As required by section 11(3) of the PPERA, the PEB criteria were sent to the Electoral Commission for comment prior to being approved by the Trust. The Electoral Commission confirmed to the Trust on 11 January 2012 that it supported the approach taken by the Trust In accordance with Protocol B2, paragraph C3.4, the Executive applied the allocation criteria to determine the PEB allocations for the Greater London Authority Elections. No PEB was allocated to Ms Benita The Trust does not publish further guidance as to the evidence relevant to determination of substantial levels of past and/or current electoral support as the Trust takes the view that the evidence relevant to specific allocations will need to be determined on the facts in the context of any specific election and the political landscape at that time. However, the following points were made in the Trust consultation paper regarding the approach to allocation of Party Political Broadcasts, as published on 6 December In determining substantial electoral support across a series of elections for the allocation of PPBs, examples of the evidence that will be taken into account by the Executive are: Performance in different types of elections in terms of number of seats held and share of the vote; Levels of support in recent elections; Changed circumstances (for example, the formation of new parties or party splits). This is not, however, an exhaustive list. [ ] Evidence taken into account in allocating PPBs and PEBs is similar, however, the due weight given to that evidence differs because PEBs are tied to a particular election. 2. Ms Benita s appeal to the BBC Trust 2.1. Stage 1: complaint to the Chief Adviser, Politics On 10 April 2012, Ms Benita wrote to the Chief Adviser, Politics, to formally complain that she had not been awarded a PEB for the London Mayoral election. The basis for her complaint was as follows: Firstly, she considered that she should be offered a PEB on the basis that she could demonstrate substantial current electoral support in London. In her view, the first part of the allocation criteria did not apply to her, as she does not represent a political party. Therefore it was appropriate to look at the exceptional circumstances, under which an individual candidate can be offered a PEB, namely when he or she can demonstrate evidence of substantial current electoral support in London. She therefore cited the following examples as evidence: Finding of 23 April

4 The broadsheets, including the Guardian and the Times, are backing her claim for more airtime; She is receiving support from high-profile political commentators, such as David Aaronovitch and Matthew Taylor; She is being treated as a serious candidate by the press, citing a number of examples including the Financial Times, the Times, the Guardian, the Sunday Telegraph, the Evening Standard, Metro, and Time Out; She is polling third on Twitter, and first on Twitter as the candidate with the highest percentage of positive tweets; and Bookmakers are putting her in third place, ahead of Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats) and Jenny Jones (Green Party) Secondly, Ms Benita also considered that the current allocation of PEBs was discriminatory, on the basis that she is the only candidate not to be awarded a PEB, simply by virtue of being an independent candidate. She stated that her policies, as an independent, are distinctive but in no way extreme On 13 th April 2012, the Chief Adviser, Politics, replied to Ms Benita. He considered her arguments about whether or not she had demonstrated substantial current electoral support in London, as follows: 2.3. While he accepted that she is a serious candidate, he did not accept that points 1 to listed above demonstrated substantial current electoral support in London so as to warrant allocating a PEB to Ms Benita In addition to points , the Chief Adviser, Politics also considered opinion polling and referred to the ComRes poll published that week, which found only 3 out of 840 respondents intended to vote for Ms Benita (less than 0.5%). He considered that this did not present any positive evidence of substantial support He also considered that her policies, and whether or not they are distinctive or moderate, were an irrelevant consideration for the purposes of making this decision. 3. Stage 2: appeal to the Director-General 3.1. That same day, Ms Benita wrote to the Director-General of the BBC (the DG ), appealing the decision of the Chief Adviser, Politics. She explained her view that the allocation had been discriminatory and unfair against her as an independent candidate. She said this resulted in a failure to provide properly and fairly for independent candidates, thereby breaching the due impartiality obligations in the Communications Act This view is based on the following reasons: Finding of 23 April

5 She is the only candidate of the seven standing in the election to be denied a PEB, simply by virtue of being an independent and not a registered political party; The allocation criteria are unsuited to a Mayoral election, as it treats independents as exceptional, requiring them to pass a much higher threshold than political parties who are standing a candidate for Mayor and a full slate of candidates in all constituencies or all list seats. Ms Benita considers that it is discriminatory, unfair, irrational and a breach of due impartiality that a party that is simply running a full slate of candidates is entitled to a PEB, but an independent that is not representing a party is required to demonstrate substantial current electoral support. She considers this particularly unfair when the main distinctive objectives of Mayoral elections are for strong independent candidates to be encouraged to put their names forward. Furthermore, it results in a vicious circle, whereby an independent is asked to demonstrate substantial current support to achieve a PEB, but is unable to do so because he or she is being denied air time and coverage She considered that the allocation criteria are unclear because the threshold criteria for one PEB require a political party to be registered, suggesting (in her view) that an independent candidate cannot ever qualify for a PEB Ms Benita repeated points noted above regarding why, in any event, she considers that she can demonstrate substantial levels of support. She also highlighted a flaw in the ComRes poll cited by the Chief Adviser, Politics, in that it asked simply whether voters were intending to vote for Boris Johnson, Ken Livingstone, Brian Paddick or another candidate: it did not draw attention specifically to who I am and that I am an independent Finally, Ms Benita also raised points regarding the BBC s refusal to allow her to be a full participant in the Mayoral TV debates. This issue has been considered separately to this appeal. [ ral_debate.pdf] 3.5. The DG replied on 17 April 2012, upholding the decision of the Chief Adviser, Politics. As a preliminary point, he stated that the BBC is prohibited by statute from granting a PEB to an unregistered independent candidate. The basis for this decision was that section 37 states that A broadcaster [including the BBC] shall not include in its broadcasting services any party political broadcast made on behalf of a party which is not a registered party. Section 40 of the PPERA provides that party includes any organisation or person. The DG construed section 37 and 40 together so as to conclude that only registered parties are eligible for PEBs. He stated that the BBC Agreement is consistent with this legislation, in that it refers to this section at paragraph 48(3): In particular, the Trust may determine, so far as they are permitted so to do by sections 37 and 127 of the Political parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (only registered parties and designated organisations to be entitled to party political broadcasts or referendum campaign broadcasts) (a) the political parties on whose behalf party Finding of 23 April

6 political broadcasts may be made; and (b) the length and frequency of party political broadcasts and referendum campaign broadcasts. In his view, the individual candidate for Mayor referred to in the allocation criteria was not an independent candidate, such as Ms Benita, but a reference to a candidate standing on behalf of a registered party which is not standing a full slate of candidates Notwithstanding this, the DG went on to respond to the other points raised in Ms Benita s appeal as follows: He did not consider that the allocation criteria are discriminatory or unfair: First, the criteria have been approved by the BBC Trust; they were not challenged by any of the candidates (including Ms Benita) at the time and they were endorsed by the Electoral Commission Second, the purpose of the criteria is to establish a threshold of seriousness of candidates. The starting point is that a registered party will be entitled to a PEB where it fields a candidate for Mayor and a full slate of candidates, and then the PEB is intended to advertise all of the candidates from that party. In relation to an individual candidate, the intention is to ensure that the candidate has equally demonstrated a level of seriousness such as to warrant a PEB, by demonstrating substantial current electoral support Third, the criteria need to cater for two sets of elections, not just the Mayoral elections, and therefore will need to refer to parties standing a full slate of candidates in the assembly elections as well as the mayoral elections The DG also considered whether, in any event, Ms Benita would meet the criterion of substantial current electoral support: He firstly considered the opinion polls which provide some evidence of her support but that, as internet polls, these should be given limited weight. He addressed the ComRes poll, in which she received around 0.5% of support among first preference voters and 5% support among supplementary votes (compared to 1% for UKIP and BNP for first preference and 7% and 1% respectively among supplementary votes). He noted Ms Benita's point that she had not been named in this poll or identified as an independent and concluded that the results demonstrated low levels of support for Ms Benita. The second poll, conducted by YouGov put Ms Benita s first preference votes at 2%, equal with the Green Party (compared to 1% for BNP and 3% UKIP). He considered that this support was also relatively low, considering that when Ken Livingstone won the Mayoral election in 2000 as an independent the opinion polls indicated support ranging from 43% to 53%. He stated in conclusion that he did not consider these polls to indicate a level of support for Ms Benita that significantly exceeds those of smaller parties standing a full slate of Finding of 23 April

7 candidates (comparing the support apparently generated for Ms Benita with that of Ken Livingstone when he ran as an independent); He considered that the Twitter polls were relevant but, as a new and untested form of polling, determined not to attach much weight to them (although he did not discount this evidence altogether); He noted that the bookmakers rankings are relevant in the absence of much other data but of limited assistance as the precise factors which lead them to offer those odds are unknown to the BBC; He took the view that newspapers, commentators and celebrities support is of little, if any, relevance; and 3.8. He also took the view that the other candidates opinion is of little, if any, relevance to the question of whether Ms Benita has substantial current electoral support. 4. Stage 3: Appeal to the Trust 4.1. On 18 April 2012, Ms Benita lodged an appeal against the DG s decision. The principal grounds were as follows: She disagreed with the DG s preliminary point above that s37 of the PPERA precludes independent candidates from being offered a PEB, not least because this point was only raised by the DG (and she thinks it is therefore at odds with Ric Bailey s decision) and she believed Ken Livingstone had a PEB when he was an independent candidate in She stated that the DG s interpretation of the PPERA is incorrect because s37 is about the proper regulation of political parties, and means only that a party political broadcast cannot be made on behalf of a party which is not a registered party, but that it can be made on behalf of independent, nonparty candidates. She said it should be read in the context of s22, which draws a distinction between a person who standards for election in the name of a qualifying registered party and a person who does not purport to represent any party She alleged that the allocation criteria are in breach of the overarching obligation of due impartiality, as they have the effect that she is the only candidate to be denied a PEB, even though she is polling higher than the BNP and the Green Party In relation to the DG s justification of the allocation criteria, she made the following points: the DG s interpretation of demonstrating substantial levels of support means demonstrating levels of support that significantly exceed those of smaller parties standing a full slate, which is not part of the criteria the DG wrongly conflated the two elections, as PEBs for Mayoral elections are all about the individual candidates rather than about the Finding of 23 April

8 Greater London Assembly candidates more generally. She considered therefore that the DG is wrong to use the full slate of candidates fielded by parties for the Greater London Assembly elections as justification for the difference in treatment between independent candidates standing for Mayor as compared to candidates affiliated to a party the DG s analysis of the YouGov poll demonstrated how unfair the criteria are, because she is polling equal to the Green Party, ahead of the BNP and just behind UKIP, even though she has not been awarded a PEB Ms Benita also repeated her previous points about how she has demonstrated substantial levels of electoral support, including that the bookies are putting her in third place and that she is receiving positive coverage across the broadsheets On 19 April 2012, the Executive responded to Ms Benita s appeal. The Executive reiterated view that the BBC is prohibited as a matter of law from allocating a PEB to an independent candidate. In particular, the Executive, made the following points: the DG benefited from fuller advice than was available to Mr Bailey, and that was the reason for the difference in interpretation of the allocation criteria, and the DG did in any event consider that Ms Benita did not demonstrate substantial levels of support; to clarify a factual point, Mr Livingstone did receive a PEB when he stood as an independent candidate, but the PPERA was not yet in force at the time; while the PPERA is generally about the need to properly regulate political parties, it is not exclusively concerned with that objective and s37 addresses the particular question of party political broadcasts; section 22 deliberately draws a distinction between persons who stand as representatives of parties and those who do not, in terms of who needs to register as a political party; however the rule in section 37 does not draw such a distinction as it applies to all parties, including any person, by section 40; the Executive were not suggesting that Ms Benita was obliged to register as a party In terms of the fairness of the allocation criteria and the Executive s interpretation of them, the letter claimed that DG was not introducing new criteria when he referred to individual candidates needing to significantly exceed the levels of support of party candidates. He was explaining that the published criteria distinguish between parties which have mayoral candidates with a full slate and those that do not, and the latter category must also demonstrate substantial levels of current electoral support. Given this distinction, it follows that if an individual Mayoral candidate polls the same level of support as a Mayoral candidate for a political party with a full slate, that does not mean that the Finding of 23 April

9 individual candidate necessarily should be given a PEB. In the Executive s view, the bar should not be set so low as to ignore the real distinction between parties with mayoral candidates and a full slate and individual candidates without a full slate On 19 April 2012, Ms Benita responded to the Executive s comments on her appeal. The key points raised are as follows: She repeated the point that the BBC has failed to exercise due impartiality" because the criteria produce a discriminatory result - six of the seven candidates are entitled to a PEB automatically, but Ms Benita is not only by virtue of being an independent candidate; There is a clear inconsistency between the position adopted by Ric Bailey and that of the DG, which has not been addressed by the Executive. She notes Ric Bailey s involvement in and knowledge of the rules concerning PEBs and suggests that he, the Electoral Commission and the Trust must each have considered that independent candidates could be entitled to a PEB; She considers that the BBC has created a legitimate expectation for independent candidates that they will be entitled to a PEB if they satisfy the substantial current electoral support condition (and that there is a legitimate expectation that independent candidates will be treated fairly and impartially by the BBC) and that she has relied on such expectations in putting herself into a position where she might argue for a PEB; She repeats the view that section 37 of the PPERA cannot have been intended to discriminate against independent candidates. She adds that, if the BBC cannot award a PEB because of the PPERA, then it should offer Ms Benita an equivalent election broadcast, on the basis of due impartiality obligations; She does not consider that it is plausible that the reference in the criteria to an individual candidate for Mayor can mean what the DG suggests it means ( an individual candidate standing on behalf of a registered political party which is not standing a full slate of candidates ), as this would have needed to have been made clear; She questions the Executive s explanation of how substantial electoral support is assessed on the basis that it seems unclear where the bar is being set and notes that the nominations process should not be overlooked; She also repeated arguments raised at stages one and two as to how she can demonstrate substantial levels of current electoral support, including that the bookies are now placing her odds on winning at 14/1, as compared to 100/1 for the Liberal Democrats and 200/1 for the Green Party. 5. The Committee s consideration of the appeal Finding of 23 April

10 5.1. The Committee noted that Clause 48 of the Framework Agreement requires the BBC to include PEBs in some or all of its public services and that the Trust must determine the basis upon which PEBs are to be included in BBC services. Section C of the Protocol on Editorial Standards as set by the Trust provides that the Trust will approve the criteria for allocation of PEBs ( the Allocation Criteria ) and that the Executive will apply the criteria in respect of each election so as to allocate PEBs to political parties The Committee first turned to the question of whether Ms Benita is eligible for a PEB as a matter of law. It considered the DG's view that Ms Benita, as an unregistered independent candidate, is not eligible for a PEB, by virtue of the PPERA. The Committee noted that section 37(1) of the PPERA provides that: "A broadcaster shall not include in its broadcasting services any party political broadcast made on behalf of a party which is not a registered party" and that section 40 of the PPERA provides that "'party' includes any organisation or person". The DG interpreted the PPERA as meaning that a broadcaster cannot include in its broadcasting services any party political broadcast made on behalf of a person (i.e. including an independent candidate) who is not a registered party. The Committee considered Ms Benita's argument that section 37 is about regulating political parties only, and that a party must be a registered party to get a PEB, but that does not prevent an independent candidate from receiving a PEB or an equivalent broadcast. The Committee noted that Mr Benita refers in particular to section 22 of the PPERA, which makes a distinction between "a person who stands for election in the name of a qualifying registered party" and "a person who does not purport to represent any party" and argues that this section does not make sense if the word 'party' also means a 'person' The Committee noted that, not being a court or tribunal, it is not in a position to determine definitively a question of law. However, the Committee considered that it is entitled to take a view on the proper application of the law in this case and noted that it is both the Committee's responsibility to set the policy on PEB allocation within the parameters of the law and the duty of the Trust to hold the Executive to account for compliance with the law more generally The Committee accepted that, on an ordinary reading of the legislation, there is ambiguity in the wording such that more than one construction is possible. It noted that the Explanatory Notes to the PPERA state that section 37 of the PPERA is intended so as to re-enact section 14 of the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998, which provided that: "A broadcaster shall not include in its broadcasting services any party political broadcast made on behalf of a political party which is not registered under this Act.". Although that legislation also contained a rule on interpretation defining a party to include any person or organisation, the Committee noted that the draftsman of the 1998 Act had referred specifically to a political party rather than to a party defined so as to refer to a person or organisation The Committee found it difficult to accept that Parliament could have intended independent candidates to be excluded from being awarded a PEB or, if this had been the approach adopted by Parliament, that the legislative intent had not been Finding of 23 April

11 signalled clearly on enacting the PPERA. The Committee noted that it had not approached the allocation criteria from this perspective when it approved them and proposed to proceed on the basis that an independent candidate was not precluded by statute, or by the allocation criteria, from being eligible for a PEB The Committee then moved on to consider Ms Benita's allegation that the BBC had clearly breached its overarching obligation of "due impartiality" in its approach to allocation of PEBs. Ms Benita had argued that the BBC breached this obligation because she was the only one out of seven candidates not to be awarded a PEB, simply by virtue of being an independent candidate rather than a candidate affiliated to a party fielding a full slate of candidates. The Committee noted that the BBC's duty of impartiality is derived from the Charter and the Agreement, not the Act, and as such is a matter to be determined by the Trust rather than Ofcom. The Committee was mindful of paragraph of the BBC's Editorial Guidelines, which states that "Allocation of a series of broadcasts to different parties is assumed to fulfil the requirement for due impartiality". The Committee therefore determined that compliance with the obligation of due impartiality in the context of PEBs is achieved by the fair and impartial allocation of PEBs according to the criteria approved by the Trust. With that in mind, the Committee then went on to consider whether the criteria themselves are fair and non-discriminatory, in order to ascertain whether the BBC could comply with its duty of due impartiality provided that it applied the criteria appropriately The Committee first considered Ms Benita's arguments that the criteria are geared solely towards political parties and are "wholly unsuited to a Mayoral election which should provide for the very different position of independent candidates." She said for that reason it was wrong to conflate the Mayoral elections with the London Assembly elections. She had argued that the criteria have the result that the other six candidates qualify for at least one PEB by virtue of standing a full slate of GLA candidates and, unlike her, do not have to prove "substantial current electoral support". The result, she says, is "discriminatory, irrational and a breach of 'due impartiality'" The Committee also noted that Ms Benita had complained in her appeal that the DG had referred to whether or not levels of electoral support demonstrated by her significantly exceeded those of other candidates. Ms Benita contended that it was unfair to require her to show support significantly exceeding smaller parties with a full slate of candidates and that this was effectively adding a new criterion to the allocation criteria. The Committee noted the Executive's clarification that the mere fact that an individual mayoral candidate polls the same level of support as a mayoral candidate for a political party with a full slate of candidates does not mean that the individual candidate should be given a PEB. The Executive further clarified that it is important not to exclude individual candidates where their support significantly exceeded smaller parties fielding a full slate of candidates. The Committee noted that the Executive are to apply the criteria as set by the Trust and cannot add to or amend those criteria. However, it considered that the DG was attempting to explain the Executive's approach to application of the criteria in this case rather than introducing new elements or attempting to vary the approach. Finding of 23 April

12 5.9. The Committee considered that it was appropriate to set a minimum threshold for candidates to meet in order to be eligible for a PEB and agreed that the fact that a party is standing a full slate of candidates is a relevant matter in setting this threshold - hence its incorporation to the criteria. It noted that independent candidates cannot rely on the number of candidates fielded but also noted that, for those entities or candidates participating in an election not fielding a full slate of candidates, it had been determined on setting the criteria that those who could demonstrate evidence of substantial current electoral support in London. might also be eligible for a PEB. The Committee also disagreed with Ms Benita s arguments that the criteria and the Director-General wrongly conflated the Mayoral and GLA elections, as the two elections are necessarily linked because the Mayor is held to account by the Assembly The Committee was not convinced that the requirement to demonstrate substantial current electoral support was a higher threshold than having to stand a full slate of candidates or created a discriminatory effect. It noted that the Trust had not taken a prescriptive approach as to the evidence that might be taken into account in determining if an independent candidate had substantial current electoral support and had afforded the Executive a wide discretion in reaching a decision in this regard. The Committee accordingly remained of the view that it was appropriate for the Trust to take the approach that it had in setting the PEB criteria The Committee then went on to consider whether the Executive had properly applied the allocation criteria in reaching its decision that Ms Benita was not entitled to be awarded a PEB. The Committee noted that, although the Director-General had considered that she was not eligible for a PEB as a matter of law, he had gone on to consider whether, in the event that she was eligible, she would have met the requirements of the allocation criteria and analysed his assessment on allocation The Committee noted that it had set the criteria and afforded the power to allocate PEBs to the Executive in the first instance as a matter of operational discretion. The Committee took the view that its role was therefore to consider whether, in deciding that Ms Benita could not demonstrate substantial current support, the Executive had applied the PEB criteria properly - taking into account all relevant considerations; disregarding any irrelevant considerations; and affording proper weight to the considerations and evidence before it that it deemed relevant to the matters subject to appeal The Committee noted that Ms Benita had raised a number of examples of what she contended to be evidence of substantial support, including that she is getting support from the broadsheets and high profile political commentators; that she is being treated as a serious candidate by the press; that she is polling third on Twitter and first on Twitter as the candidate with the highest percentage of positive tweets; that bookmakers are placing her in third place overall; and that she has distinctive but not extreme policies. The Committee also noted that Ms Benita made the point that she had obtained 10 signatures from every London Finding of 23 April

13 Borough (i.e. 330) and had to pay 20,000 to register for nominations, and therefore she considered that she had already demonstrated that she is a serious candidate, with current electoral support The Committee proceeded to assess critically the way in which the Executive had analysed that evidence. The Committee noted that the allocation criteria do not specify what evidence the Executive should take into account when assessing whether there is evidence that a party has substantial levels of current electoral support and the levels of such support necessary to gain a PEB. The Committee noted that the Executive had taken into account the evidence cited by Ms Benita and acknowledged that her campaign had attracted considerable press coverage and positive comment, but that, taking into account these factors, the Executive was not convinced that she had demonstrated substantial current electoral support in London. The Committee agreed with the Executive that it was inappropriate to take into account her policies and whether or not they are distinctive or moderate in making that judgment. The Committee also noted that the Executive had referred to two opinion polls, a ComRes poll and a YouGov poll. Ms Benita had argued that BBC's reliance on the ComRes poll was flawed because that poll did not refer specifically to her by name or as an independent candidate. However, the Committee agreed that the Executive was entitled to take this poll into account, when deciding that it failed to present any positive evidence that she enjoyed substantial current electoral support, particularly as it had clearly taken a number of other factors into account The Committee considered that the fact that Ms Benita had obtained 330 signatures was a relevant factor for the Executive to have taken into account but that this need not be afforded great weight as all mayoral candidates are required to meet these requirements. It is not, therefore, in and of itself evidence of substantial electoral support For these reasons, the Committee determined that the Executive exercised its discretion properly in determining that if Ms Benita were eligible for a PEB it would not consider it appropriate to allocate her a PEB in respect of the Mayoral elections. The Committee considered that the Executive had had regard to all relevant considerations, not taken into account any irrelevant considerations and afforded appropriate weight to the considerations taken into account. The Committee noted in particular that the DG had accepted as relevant measures of evidence that are relatively new (such as Twitter) and difficult to interrogate (such as bookmakers' odds) and agreed that the approach taken as to the weighting of this evidence was appropriate The Committee was also satisfied that, by properly applying the Trustapproved policy in allocating PEBs, the Executive had ensured that the BBC s impartiality obligations had been fulfilled The Committee therefore decided not to uphold the complaint. Finding of 23 April