Complaint
This edition of the current affairs series was presented by the comedian Jon Holmes and examined the controversy over practices relating to adoption up to the mid-1970s in the context of his own efforts, as an adoptee, to contact his birth family.听 A listener who had himself been adopted in the period under consideration complained that it gave an unduly negative impression of the adoption process and its outcomes, suggesting babies had been summarily removed from their mothers with no provision for considering the mother鈥檚 wishes; that it did not consider whether some children had better lives as a result of adoption; that its treatment of the debate about whether the UK Government should apologise to those affected was not balanced; and that it had not been properly flagged as a personal view programme, which was in any case inappropriate for a current affairs series such as File on 4.听 The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the 成人快手鈥檚 editorial standards of impartiality.
Outcome
The programme was largely informed by the findings of a joint parliamentary committee on Human Rights in 2022, which had concluded that around 185,000 babies of unmarried mothers were forcibly adopted in England and Wales between 1949-1976.听 The ECU acknowledged that the legal framework during this period made provision for the mother鈥檚 wishes and that there were cases where the adoption process was humanely conducted, with beneficial outcomes for the children concerned.听 However, it noted the committee鈥檚 conclusion that 鈥渢he pressure from their families, social workers, medical practitioners, the Church, and society at large was such that many vulnerable young, unmarried mothers were made to believe that they had no choice but adoption鈥, and considered it legitimate for the programme to focus on such cases.
In relation to whether the Government should apologise (as the joint committee had recommended), the ECU noted that the programme-makers had reflected the response offered by the office of the then Secretary of State for Education, which repeated the reason for not offering a formal apology already given by the Government in its response to the joint committee鈥檚 report, and already quoted in the programme 鈥 that 鈥渢he State did not actively support these practices鈥.听 While the ECU agreed that more might have been said in defence of the Government鈥檚 position, it did not think the programme could be faulted for confining itself to the response in fact offered on behalf of the Government.
In relation to the personal character of the programme, the ECU judged the continuity announcement and the programme鈥檚 opening sequence gave listeners a clear expectation that it would draw on the presenter鈥檚 own experience.听 However, when the presenter said "I do think the government should be apologising" he expressed a personal view on a controversial matter explored in the programme. 听File on 4 is not a programme which meets the Editorial Guidelines鈥 provision for personal view content.听 The 成人快手鈥檚 Editorial Guidelines on impartiality say 鈥Our audiences should not be able to tell from 成人快手 output the personal opinions of our journalists or news and current affairs presenters on matters of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or on 鈥榗ontroversial subjects鈥 in any other area鈥.听 File on 4 being a long-established current affairs series, the inclusion of a programme in which the presenter expressed a personal opinion on a controversial matter was inappropriate, and in breach of the 成人快手鈥檚 standards of impartiality.听 This aspect of the complaint was upheld.
Partly Upheld
Further action
The finding was reported to the management of 成人快手 Radio and discussed with the programme team.