House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee

The BBC’s response to the Jimmy Savile case

Oral and written evidence

23 October 2012 George Entwistle, Director-General, and David Jordan, Director of Editorial Policy and Standards, BBC

27 November 2012 Lord Patten, Chairman, BBC Trust, and Tim Davie, Acting Director-General, BBC

Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 23 October and 27 November 2012

HC 649-i and -ii Published on 26 February 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £10.50

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and its associated public bodies.

Current membership Mr John Whittingdale MP (Conservative, Maldon) (Chair) Mr Ben Bradshaw MP (Labour, Exeter) Angie Bray MP (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton) Conor Burns MP (Conservative, Bournemouth West) Tracey Crouch MP (Conservative, Chatham and Aylesford) Philip Davies MP (Conservative, Shipley) Paul Farrelly MP (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme) Mr John Leech MP (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington) Steve Rotheram MP (Labour, Liverpool, Walton) Jim Sheridan MP (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North) Mr Gerry Sutcliffe MP (Labour, Bradford South)

The following members were also members of the committee during the parliament. David Cairns MP (Labour, Inverclyde) Dr Thérèse Coffey MP (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal) Damian Collins MP (Conservative, Folkestone and Hythe) Alan Keen MP (Labour Co-operative, Feltham and Heston) Louise Mensch MP (Conservative, Corby) Mr Adrian Sanders MP (Liberal Democrat, Torbay) Mr Tom Watson MP (Labour, West Bromwich East)

Powers

The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publication

The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/cmscom.

Committee staff

The current staff of the Committee are Elizabeth Flood (Clerk), Grahame Danby (Second Clerk), Kevin Candy (Inquiry Manager), Victoria Butt (Senior Committee Assistant), Keely Bishop (Committee Assistant) and Jessica Bridges-Palmer (Media Officer).

Contacts

All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6188; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]

List of witnesses

Tuesday 23 October 2012 Page

George Entwistle, Director-General, and David Jordan, Director of Editorial Policy and Standards, BBC Ev 1

Tuesday 27 November 2012

Lord Patten, Chairman, BBC Trust, and Tim Davie, Acting Director-General, BBC Ev 24

List of written evidence

1 Correspondence from the BBC Trust to the Chair of the Committee Ev 47: 49 2 Correspondence from David Jordan, Director of Editorial Policy and Standards, BBC Ev 48 3 BBC Ev 48: 50 4 Correspondence from the Chair of the Committee to Mark Thompson Ev 49 5 Correspondence from Mark Thompson to the Chair of the Committee Ev 50

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o001_th_121023 BBC JS corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 1

Oral evidence

Taken before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on Tuesday 23 October 2012

Members present: Mr John Whittingdale (Chair)

Mr Ben Bradshaw Paul Farrelly Dr Thérèse Coffey Steve Rotheram Damian Collins Mr Adrian Sanders Philip Davies ______

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: George Entwistle, Director-General, BBC, and David Jordan, Director of Editorial Policy and Standards, BBC, gave evidence.

Q1 Chair: Good morning, everybody. This is a authorities. The first thing we did was that I personally special session of the Culture, Media and Sport Select made contact with the police, when the scale and Committee to look specifically at the recent credibility of the allegations had started to become revelations about the abuse committed by Jimmy clear, and said to them, “This looks like it has the Savile during the time when he was employed by the potential to become a criminal matter.” I have BBC, and also the handling of those revelations by the significant anxiety about action by the BBC in any BBC. I would like to welcome the Director-General, way compromising, or in some way damaging, George Entwistle, and the Head of Editorial Policy, potential criminal investigations; that is the first thing David Jordan. I am sorry that the first appearance I am determined to avoid. Those conversations with before this Committee by the Director-General should the police were characterised initially by them saying be in these circumstances, but I would also like to to me, “Please do not rush into setting up your own express the thanks of the Committee for your offering internal review or inquiry of any kind, because we are to come before us this morning to address what, I am also worried that you may trespass on our position”. sure you will agree, are very serious concerns. So we spent that first week absolutely making sure If I may start off, last night on Panorama, you will that our liaison with the police was as good as it could have seen John Simpson, that very experienced and possibly be, and putting our investigations unit and all respected member of BBC staff, describe this as “the our internal resources at the service of the police in worst crisis that I can remember in my nearly 50 years such a way that they could get to work as fast as at the BBC”. Would you accept that that is the case? possible, and that we would be in a position to help George Entwistle: There is no question in my mind them. that what we now know happened is a very, very On the Monday of the following week, I went on the grave matter indeed. For somebody to have worked Today programme and announced that, when the for the BBC and at the BBC over a number of decades police were ready, we wanted to have our own internal and have been responsible for what the police describe review. Perhaps I could have made it clearer the as “an unprecedented scale” of child sexual previous week that I was prepared to do that, once the exploitation—there is no question in my mind but that police were ready for me to do it, but the key thing this is a very grave matter indeed, and I would seek for me was to absolutely make sure that I did not do to show that the response the BBC has made anything that trespassed on the authority and recognises that gravity. prerogative of the police at that point.

Q2 Chair: I think we would all accept that, but you Q3 Chair: We will want to come on to look at the will also be aware of the concern about the handling co-operation between the BBC and the police in due of this matter by the BBC. It raises very serious course, but in terms of the communication and the questions about potential suppression to avoid handling of this, I am sure you would accept that the embarrassment, and obviously about some of the BBC’s reputation for trust and integrity is one of its allegations broadcast last night on Panorama. Would most precious assets. Do you not accept that that is in you accept that this has not been handled well by the jeopardy as a result of some of the suggestions that BBC in the last few weeks? have been made in the last few weeks? George Entwistle: No, I would not accept that. I George Entwistle: There is no question but that what would accept that there have been times when we Jimmy Savile did, and the way the BBC behaved in have taken longer to do things than I would have liked those years—that the culture and practices of the BBC in a perfect world, but if you look at what we have seemed to allow Jimmy Savile to do what he did— achieved since the scale of the crisis became clear, I will raise questions of trust and reputation for us. think you would see that we have done much of what There is no question about that. This is a gravely we should have done, and have done it in the right serious matter, and one cannot look back at it with order and with proper respect paid to the right anything other than horror, frankly, that his activities cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o001_th_121023 BBC JS corrected.xml

Ev 2 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

23 October 2012 George Entwistle and David Jordan went on as long as they did undetected. Of course, Chair: We are going to come back to each of these that is a matter of grave regret to me, and something issues in more detail, but I want to start off by that the BBC and I need to demonstrate an absolute returning to the original main concern that you rightly determination, here and now, to do everything we can focused on, which is what happened during the time to put right. There is no doubt about that at all in my that Jimmy Savile was employed by the BBC. mind, and I am determined to do that. I believe that the two reviews we have set up have been given the Q5 Philip Davies: In view of all the recent independence and support they need absolutely to get allegations, how likely do you think it is that sexual to the bottom of this. I think there is virtue in having abuse of children and young women was endemic at established two separate reviews rather than one the BBC? overall review, because the review that will be done George Entwistle: I do not yet have enough of a by Dame Janet Smith has decades of culture to look picture to know whether it was endemic. The key at. The truth is that Jimmy Savile worked at the BBC question for me is: what was the extent of it? The only from the mid-1960s, and there are a great many possible way to go about answering that question is people we need to try to talk to, to find out whether to look as deeply and as broadly as we would have to anybody did know what was going on. What was do to find out. The remit of Dame Janet Smith’s going on, in terms of how he was managed and how review is drawn very widely in that regard, in terms he was overseen? This is a really significant exercise of the period of time it can cover and the range it in cultural examination. It is critically important that gives her to ask the questions she needs to ask. It is a we do that with absolute thoroughness. At the same question to which I am determined we shall have an time, I recognise there are questions about the way the answer, but I am afraid I do not know the answer yet. Newsnight investigation unfolded, and I would seek to answer those much more quickly. Nick Pollard has Q6 Philip Davies: We know enough now to know been given the task of weeks, rather than months, in that there was a culture of unacceptable and that regard. inappropriate behaviour at the BBC. Jimmy Savile was at the far extreme of that, but it seems perfectly Q4 Chair: We will come on to that as well, but you clear that it was not just Jimmy Savile. We have had people coming out virtually on a daily basis to talk of must accept that in the last 24 hours, a BBC things that happened—them being groped on air by programme carried interviews with a reporter and other people—so this is a culture at the BBC. How producer of another BBC programme, in which they satisfied are you that this was a problem of culture publicly disagreed with the explanation given for the within the BBC? dropping of that investigation; the BBC then had to George Entwistle: I am convinced it must have been issue a statement saying its original explanation was a problem of culture inside the BBC. I do not believe misleading. That is not exactly a triumph of handling, that somebody like Jimmy Savile could do what he is it? did without there being a broader cultural problem. George Entwistle: If I can take the correction to the That is why we were so careful to specify “culture and blog first, there is no doubt that it is a matter of regret practices” in the terms of reference for Dame Janet’s and embarrassment that the version of events recorded review. If I could, I should like to distinguish in Peter Rippon’s blog on 2 October did not turn out between—and I think it is important to distinguish to be as accurate as it should have been. Again, that between—criminal allegations, criminal behaviour, is something that should not have happened, and that criminal activity of the sort that is alleged about I regret. Whenever the BBC puts something into the Jimmy Savile, and sexual harassment. It could well be public domain, it has an ongoing obligation to ensure that all these things are part of the same culture, and the accuracy of whatever it has put out there, so there that is something I hope Dame Janet will give us an is no question in my mind but that we were right to understanding of, but it is important to recognise the identify the inaccuracies in the blog. It seems to me difference between direct criminal allegations and absolutely the right thing to have done. allegations of sexual harassment. When it comes to last night’s Panorama, in a way, although I think the BBC does look mystifying to Q7 Philip Davies: How does the BBC deal with some outsiders in respect of its capacity to do this allegations of sexual harassment? kind of thing, I think the fact of last night’s Panorama George Entwistle: Do you mean today? is something everybody in the BBC should be Philip Davies: Yes. incredibly proud of. Here is an organisation George Entwistle: We have a number of routes investigating itself, in its own airtime, on its main TV available to people who need to address a complaint channel, with appropriate resources given to the task, of sexual harassment. They can speak to their line asking questions of itself that I do not believe any manager. They can speak to the HR Department. We other media organisation on earth would do. The have a whistleblowing line available, if they do not BBC’s capacity to interrogate its own corporate regard any of those things as possible. Of course, if situation, its own corporate priorities, its own they are a member of a trade union, they could go to corporate handling of things, is unmatched in the the trade union and expect to be represented there. world. Rather than regarding last night’s Panorama as a symptom of chaos, I regard last night’s Panorama Q8 Philip Davies: How does that differ from how as a symptom of the fundamental health of the the BBC dealt with these things in the 1960s, 1970s independence of BBC journalism. and 1980s? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o001_th_121023 BBC JS corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 3

23 October 2012 George Entwistle and David Jordan

George Entwistle: I do not believe there was a culture George Entwistle: To be honest, I would be worried of awareness, as there is today, that you have to have if there were anything in excess of five a year. your systems built to be ready to deal with allegations of sexual harassment. I am not sure that, in the ’60s Q15 Philip Davies: So up to five is okay? and ’70s, people would have known what to do with George Entwistle: No, up to five is not okay. I am not an allegation of sexual harassment. Perhaps more suggesting that for a moment. No number of sexual worryingly, I am not sure in the ’60s and ’70s that harassment complaints is okay. they would have felt there was anything they could do. What we strive to do today is to be really clear Q16 Philip Davies: When you have something like to our staff that there are various routes and options this—you can see that there has been a culture at the available to them if they need to make a complaint BBC of inappropriate behaviour, sexual harassment, about sexual harassment. Those options have been set and sexual abuse—surely the very first thing you do out twice in e-mails—I think I am right in saying is want to think, “Well, the first thing we can do is “twice”; once certainly, and I think there was make sure nothing like this is happening at the reference in another all-staff e-mail—since this Savile moment, and that nobody who is currently employed crisis began, to make sure people know where to go by the BBC is involved in any of this inappropriate if they have a complaint to make. behaviour. If there is, I am going to get these people out as a matter of urgency”. You do not seem to have Q9 Philip Davies: How many sexual harassment done any of that. complaints have there been at the BBC each year George Entwistle: What I have not done is asked the since the 1960s? statistical question. I have paid very close attention to George Entwistle: I am afraid I do not know the the existing structures we have in place, and to answer to that, Mr Davies, but of course I am very making sure that any current complaints, any happy to try to get the answer for you. complaints that are coming through, are being properly dealt with. Q10 Philip Davies: Have you not looked into how many complaints there have been about sexual Q17 Philip Davies: Have you asked who, currently harassment at the BBC? Has that not been of interest working for the BBC, has had complaints of sexual to you as the Director-General? harassment made against them? George Entwistle: It is very much of interest to me, George Entwistle: We are tracking any complaints at the moment, to ensure that the existing structures made about people currently working for the BBC at are in place to deal with new allegations of sexual the moment; anything that has come out of the current harassment. That is what I have been focusing on. Of affair is being tracked. course, I am very happy to get hold of any data I can to answer your question. Q18 Philip Davies: It is not a tracking matter, is it? It is a question of whether anybody has made any Q11 Philip Davies: I am just surprised that that is complaint. It is a factual point; it is not a tracking not something that you have wanted to find out for matter. Have you asked if any people currently yourself, without me having to ask you. I would have employed by the BBC have had complaints of sexual thought one of the first things that you would have harassment made against them? wanted to do was to say, “Hold on a minute, we have George Entwistle: Information is being assembled on a problem here. This is clearly a cultural problem. exactly that subject, so yes. Let’s go back and let me see how many complaints we have been having at the BBC about this.” Q19 Philip Davies: How long does it take to George Entwistle: I have made inquiries about the assemble that kind of information? It is fairly current scale of activity and complaints, but I have not straightforward information to find out. made those historical inquiries. George Entwistle: The thing is new allegations are being made, and are coming in, and that is what I Q12 Philip Davies: How many complaints have meant by tracking it. there been in the last couple of years then, for example? Q20 Philip Davies: What about the ones that have George Entwistle: I cannot give you a firm answer to already been made? that question. George Entwistle: What I am looking at is all the existing current allegations. Q13 Philip Davies: You have not even looked at what the current situation is? Q21 Philip Davies: What have you found when you George Entwistle: I have asked whether or not there have been looking at it? How long does it take to look are significant numbers, and I have been assured there at them? How many are there? How many are you are not significant numbers at the moment, but I— looking at? George Entwistle: We are looking at between five and Q14 Philip Davies: What is a significant number? 10 serious allegations relating to activities, but over Surely one complaint of sexual harassment is too the whole period in question—the Savile period. many in the BBC. When you asked for other significant numbers, what sort of number did you have Q22 Philip Davies: What about people who are in mind? employed by the BBC now? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o001_th_121023 BBC JS corrected.xml

Ev 4 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

23 October 2012 George Entwistle and David Jordan

George Entwistle: I believe they are included in the Q28 Philip Davies: Have you set up the review to numbers I am giving. allow you to avoid answering these sorts of questions? To try to farm it out—palm it off on somebody else— Q23 Philip Davies: How many of them are there? and say, “It is nothing to do with me; I have set up a George Entwistle: I do not know. review”? We see politicians do this all the time: when Philip Davies: You do not know? in a hole, set up a review and kick it into the long George Entwistle: I cannot differentiate between the grass. Is that not exactly what the BBC is doing? total numbers we are looking at for historical George Entwistle: I do not think there is anything allegations and current-day allegations. about what we have structured by way of the two independent reviews that is designed to avoid answering questions. The whole point of their Q24 Philip Davies: Can I suggest that that is independence, the way they have been set up, and the unacceptable, and that you need to be getting a grip support they are given is that it will enable them to of your current organisation? You are the Director- ask absolutely any question they want, to go anywhere General of this organisation. You have a duty to make they want. It is the opposite of an attempt to hide sure that the people you are employing are safe to be things. It is the opposite of an attempt to cover things employed by the BBC. Do you know that it was up. This is an attempt to make things wide open. The discussed in some of the programmes that there was fate of these reviews is that they will be provided an allegation that there was a paedophile ring at the direct to the BBC Trust. They will not be edited in BBC? Have the BBC taken any steps to identify who any way, except for any legal reasons that are else was involved in that paedophile ring? necessary. The completed reviews will be handed to George Entwistle: That is an allegation I have seen the BBC Trust, alongside BBC management’s made in the last few days. It is something on which proposal to act, and then the Trust will review whether we are putting our resources at the disposal of the or not we have done what we should have done, but police. A paedophile ring would be a matter for a the scope and scale of these reviews is as wide as it police investigation, and we are taking every step we could possibly be to get the answers to the questions can to ensure that we are able to support the police in you ask. investigating that. Q29 Philip Davies: Based on what I have just asked, Q25 Philip Davies: Who in the BBC decided to bus and your lamentable lack of knowledge about any of in young vulnerable girls from institutions to be in the the questions that I have asked, and coming back to audience of programmes that were being presented by the Chairman’s question, are you still going to Jimmy Savile? maintain that you and the BBC have dealt with this George Entwistle: I genuinely do not know the matter as well as you should have done? answer to that yet. We are trying to pull together all George Entwistle: I think that the independent the documentation we can about which managers and reviews are absolutely the right answer to getting to so on were in positions of authority at the time Jimmy the bottom of the questions you are asking. There is Savile’s programmes were being made. We are no question in my mind about that. supplying that information to the police, so that they know how to take their investigations forward. Q30 Philip Davies: I did not ask you about that. I said, are you still maintaining—despite your lack of knowledge about any of the issues that I have asked Q26 Philip Davies: Who in the BBC allowed these you about, including people currently working at the children to be taken backstage to Jimmy Savile’s BBC who may have had sexual harassment dressing room after the shows? complaints made against them—that you personally, George Entwistle: Mr Davies, we are trying to answer and the BBC, have dealt with this matter as well as those questions in the same way. Dame Janet Smith’s you should have done? review has been set up to ask and answer all these George Entwistle: I am sorry I cannot answer the questions, and we will give every support we can to detailed questions you have given me on the current her to enable her to do that. status of sexual harassment. I am confident that everything we have done, by way of making sure that Q27 Philip Davies: With respect, you do not need to our systems and processes are available to people who set up a review to ask questions like that, do you? need to complain, are strong. But no, I think the key Surely you are more than capable of asking that. way to sort this out is to give the two reviews the Surely you do not need somebody else to ask those chance to do their work. questions for you. George Entwistle: We have set up an independent Q31 Steve Rotheram: Mr Entwistle, it is clear that review, for the precise reason that we want the outside you do not know whether sexual abuse of children world to be assured that we have asked these and young women was endemic within the BBC. You questions properly. We set up that review within two do not know how many cases there are, or historically weeks of the scale of this crisis becoming known. I have been, within the organisation, but on 12 October am absolutely convinced that the right way to get to you announced an inquiry that, in your words, “will the bottom of this is to give all the support to Dame also examine whether the BBC's child protection, Janet Smith now, so that she can answer the sort of whistle-blowing and bullying and harassment policies question that you are asking. and practices are now fit for purpose.” Is that true? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o001_th_121023 BBC JS corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 5

23 October 2012 George Entwistle and David Jordan

George Entwistle: Yes. That is one of the terms of the Q39 Steve Rotheram: It was suggested in the review, yes. programme that Righton operated a network of paedophiles, some of whom were connected to Q32 Steve Rotheram: From what we now know, 21 powerful people in government and other professions. days after that announcement, do you think that the Therefore, do you think it is ironic that the institution current policies towards child protection, that produced a documentary exposing the secret whistleblowing and bullying require modification? modus operandi of career paedophiles could not apply George Entwistle: In 2002, we introduced new child the same insight into its own celebrity paedophile, protection policies—if I may, I will ask my colleague, Mr Savile? David Jordan, to provide some extra detail on this— George Entwistle: As far as I have been able to tell that were of a completely different scale and order so far, Mr Savile prosecuted his disgusting activities from anything that the BBC has had before. I regard in a manner that was very successfully and skilfully those policies as fit for purpose, but I am not settling concealed. Experts in paedophile behaviour have for assuming that that is the case. An internal audit pointed out that this is very often the case. The case was already under way to check that our child in the United States of Jerry Sandusky is one that has protection policies were working properly, and the been covered recently. These people build very long- Trust has asked me to report to them in December, range plans to put them in contact with their targets, again, to check that all those policies are working as and these things are institutionally, it seems, very effectively as they should be. difficult to deal with.

Q33 Steve Rotheram: When will that report back, Q40 Steve Rotheram: In response to the Chair’s because it is important that you are able to make a opening question, you said, and I quote, that the judgment on whether those policies are fit for “culture and practices of the BBC” seemed to allow purpose? Jimmy Savile to get away with it. Is this not the crux George Entwistle: The internal audit will be of the problem now? He has got away with it. Do you completed as soon as possible, which is the first thing think that the current child protection, whistleblowing, I will see, and then I will give my interim report to bullying and harassment programmes will prohibit a the Trust in December. Jimmy Savile in the future from carrying out these heinous crimes? Q34 Steve Rotheram: In your time at the BBC, have George Entwistle: I believe that we have good you ever personally investigated or been part of policies, but I am currently checking them to make programme teams that have investigated child abuse sure they are good as they need to be. As for Jimmy and paedophile rings? Savile, of course he is dead now, so to that extent, he George Entwistle: Just reflecting on my time as a has got away with it, but I do not think that can be journalist, I do not believe so. I do not recall any. said or seen to be the end of it, in any sense. That is why we are asking Dame Janet Smith to look at this Q35 Steve Rotheram: You are aware of period as thoroughly as she can, and understand how investigations into child abuse and paedophile rings. that happened and how managerial oversight did fail. Other than on Newsnight, are there any other David Jordan: The way in which child protection programmes that have failed to be broadcast? policies operate now is very, very different from the George Entwistle: Not that I am aware of. way in which they operated in the 1960s and 1970s— if, indeed, they operated at all. The BBC brought in a policy in 1994 across the whole of the BBC—in 1992 Q36 Steve Rotheram: Can you recall any in CBBC—following on initially from Government documentaries or current affairs investigations that legislation that introduced CRB checks, and then exposed paedophile rings during your 23 years at the following on from the awful events in Soham, to corporation? ensure that a number of steps will be taken whenever George Entwistle: Yes, I remember a documentary children enter the BBC. Every BBC division has a series—I would struggle to say exactly when it was; I nominated manager that is responsible for child think it was probably in the 1990s—that focused on protection. Every child that comes into the BBC has paedophile activity. to be supervised by a parent, a guardian, or a chaperone. There is a risk assessment every time Q37 Steve Rotheram: Is that The Secret Life of a children come into programmes—that is, come into Paedophile? the audience of programmes, not participate in them. George Entwistle: Yes. There is a legislative framework that operates around David Jordan: There have been others as well. For children who are involved, who are participating in example, there was a Panorama investigation into bail programmes themselves, which is the child licensing hostels, which centred on paedophiles who were in arrangements. Those in Scotland are slightly different bail hostels at the time. That was much more recent. from those in England and Wales, but they apply everywhere. There is a whole series of measures that Q38 Steve Rotheram: The Secret Life of a are taken now to ensure that children come into and Paedophile exposed, obviously, the secret life of so- leave the BBC safely. The sorts of things that called child protection expert Peter Righton. You are happened, and that Mr Davies referred to, where aware of that story? You do recall it? people were allowed to be taken into the dressing George Entwistle: Yes. rooms of stars in the BBC, as is alleged, should not cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o001_th_121023 BBC JS corrected.xml

Ev 6 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

23 October 2012 George Entwistle and David Jordan and could not happen today under these arrangements. review is already reviewing papers and documents The whole situation has been transformed, as that we have supplied to them. From here on in, our compared with the 1960s and 1970s. approach is to make sure that we supply in advance George Entwistle: It is provisions like this that give absolutely anything we think may be useful to them me the confidence that we do have a much stricter that we can identify. Of course, anything that they ask regime in place now, but as I say, I am not prepared us for, we also supply as fast as we can. to take that on trust, and we are checking that the operation of these policies is as good as it should be. Q45 Mr Sanders: How have you involved former— presumably mostly retired—BBC employees in your Q41 Steve Rotheram: Further to the specific attempts to encourage people to come forward with question that Mr Davies asked, you are aware of any knowledge that might be helpful? further allegations of this sort of unacceptable George Entwistle: In the first week I wrote an internal behaviour in the BBC. Can you confirm that you message, which was given wide external coverage, believe that to be between five and 10? calling on absolutely anybody—any BBC employee, George Entwistle: No, I must clarify what I said there. past or present, who has any insight to give into these My guess is that an institution of the BBC’s size might affairs—to come forward and make themselves expect to have that many in a year. The number of available, either to the inquiries or to the BBC, so that allegations we are looking at, at the moment—and this we can connect with the relevant review. I made the is historical—is, I would have thought, between eight same request at my press conference. and 10. Q46 Mr Sanders: You can understand that there may Q42 Steve Rotheram: Is that eight and 10 be a reluctance of people, past and present, to come individuals, and not individual cases? forward, because it may require them to admit to George Entwistle: Individuals. having not come forward earlier. Is there any David Jordan: Can I reassure you on that point as whistleblowing policy in place for existing staff, and well? If any of the allegations are current, and involve have you made it clear that there is strict anybody still working at the BBC, we have taken confidentiality, perhaps, that could be made available steps to make sure that— to former employees coming forward? George Entwistle: They go straight to the police. George Entwistle: There is a whistleblowing line that David Jordan:—they go straight to the police, and operates within the BBC, and we have re-publicised that if anybody is still operating in areas where they that on a couple of occasions over the last two weeks. can come into contact with children or young people, We have made clear to everybody that that represents or people who might be the targets of abuse, action is an entirely secure resort to them. I take your point, taken about that. There has not been the need to take and I think that there is something we can make more that action so far, but every case is scrutinised very public, or more broadly known, so that former carefully to make sure that we cannot be in a position employees could take advantage of that. I think that where someone accused of any form of sexual abuse is a good idea, and we will follow it up. is still working in a situation that would allow them to continue to do so. That is being done actively. Q47 Mr Sanders: The interview last night—the George Entwistle: That is what I meant by “tracking”. Karin Ward interview from 2011—had you seen that We are collating any names there are centrally. We are interview before it was broadcast last night? making an immediate assessment of whether there is George Entwistle: No, I had not. a potential criminal dimension, and referring those immediately to the police. Q48 Mr Sanders: Had you heard a recording of the interview? Q43 Steve Rotheram: That has negated the question George Entwistle: No, I had not. that I had on that particular issue. In your 23 years at the corporation, with your vast experience of current Q49 Mr Sanders: Had you read a transcript of the affairs and documentaries, are you aware of any interview? investigation that linked high-ranking politicians and/ George Entwistle: No, I had not. or their advisors to child abuse? George Entwistle: I cannot recall that. Again, my Q50 Mr Sanders: Had anyone told you about the colleague, David Jordan, in editorial policy, may have content of the interview? seen something of that kind. I cannot recall anything George Entwistle: I knew the interview existed. I like that. became aware in the last few weeks that the interview David Jordan: I do not recall. existed, and that serious allegations were made.

Q44 Mr Sanders: Would it possible for you to talk Q51 Mr Sanders: Can I ask some specific questions through what you are doing as an organisation to in relation to Top of the Pops? uncover the extent of abuse and to identify abusers? George Entwistle: Yes. George Entwistle: Yes. The key thing to establish here is the relationship between the Dame Janet Smith Q52 Mr Sanders: Why did the BBC not have an age review, and the BBC resources that we have put at the restriction on Top of the Pops audiences until 1971? disposal of the Dame Janet Smith review. The Smith George Entwistle: I have not been able to find any review is already under way. The secretariat of that documentation that explained what the BBC’s cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o001_th_121023 BBC JS corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 7

23 October 2012 George Entwistle and David Jordan approach to age limits on the Top of the Pops audience people who find themselves the subject of this review, in the 1960s and 1970s was. What we know is that of course. there was a change from 15 to 16 in the early 1970s, but we are not able to to make a direct causal link Q58 Dr Coffey: My colleagues and I on the between anything that happened and that change, Committee will later get into the editorial reasons why through any documentation. As I understand it, around Peter Rippon decided to pull the story, but there were that time there was a News of the World investigation three chilling words used last night—reported to be into the activities of BBC DJs, and there was another those used by Mr Rippon—which I thought reflected case that may have played a part in giving rise to that very badly on the culture. Of course, I am referring to age change, but we have not been able to establish “just the women”. To give the wider quote, “our any direct causal connection between the two. sources so far are just the women and a second-hand briefing”. To me—this is a comment made just a few Q53 Mr Sanders: So there was an age limit? months ago—“just the women” actually just reflects George Entwistle: There was an age limit of 15, but the culture of deciding whether sexual abuse it was increased to 16. allegations should be recognised or not. Actually, the culture has not changed at all. Q54 Mr Sanders: It was increased to the age of George Entwistle: On the face of it, of course, that consent? phrase is not in the least defensible. I do believe the George Entwistle: In 1971. culture has changed since the 1970s and 1980s, but I David Jordan: Mr Sanders, of course you understand am not convinced that it has changed as much as it that, in order to get to do things that maybe they should have. That takes me to the third strand of work should not be doing, sometimes young people attempt I announced at my press conference on 12 October, to lie about their ages. At that time there was no when I talked about wanting to bring in an external tradition of asking people for their passports or other expert or advisor who would help us with any ongoing forms of information to prove it. There was an age allegations of sexual harassment, and effectively limit, but—bars, clubs and others sometimes have the provide an external pair of eyes for me, in the broader same problem—it was not always possible to be sense, with regard to how women are treated at the absolutely certain that people were telling the truth BBC. In a number of things I have said already in about their ages at that time. public, I have said that this is something the BBC simply has to get right, and I am not sure that we do Q55 Mr Sanders: I accept that point. The other case have it right in every respect at the moment. I am in that you refer to is, presumably, the tragic suicide of a position to give this news to the Committee today: a 15-year-old girl who had been a dancer on Top of we have asked Dinah Rose QC to come and work with the Pops. In a press report, it said that in her suicide us to look at how our handling of sexual harassment note she had named a string of radio disc jockeys and charges of any kind is working, and to look at cases other show-business personalities—all household individually to see if there are any common threads or names—who she claimed had used her. Did the BBC themes that we need to be alive to, and then to work undertake any kind of investigation at that time? What with me on the question of making sure our culture is was the extent of that investigation? everything that it should be. George Entwistle: I have not been able to find any record of an investigation carried out at the BBC at that time. I should make it clear that all the searches Q59 Dr Coffey: Do you think those words, “just the we are doing through BBC records are ongoing. We women”, will encourage anyone now to come forward are looking for any places there might be reserves of to the editor of Newsnight with any potential documents that we have not yet found, and we are whistleblowing allegations? I am not talking determined to make sure that we furnish everything necessarily about members of staff, but members of we do find to the Dame Janet Smith review. the public. Or will they go to ITV Exposure instead, which was happy to go on the words of “just the Q56 Mr Sanders: There was also a report that the women”? BBC had legal advice at that time. Presumably, there George Entwistle: I desperately hope people will not would be documentation of the legal advice at that be put off, because I think a great deal of good and time. Are you able to uncover that and put that at the consistent BBC journalism, across a wide range, service of the inquiries that are taking place? proves that that is not an attitude we have, but I George Entwistle: We will of course do that, if we understand why you found the phrase disturbing. are able to find anything. I am not aware that we have Dr Coffey: Also, who would women at the BBC now yet found anything in relation to that. approach, in that particular area? I know we are going to come on to other reasons later. I will leave it there, Q57 Mr Sanders: There is a real concern that—in Mr Chairman. relation to trying to discover who did what and Chair: We will now look in closer detail at the when—there is a danger of persons within the BBC Newsnight investigation. being accused of wilful blindness. Is that something that concerns you? Q60 Mr Bradshaw: I draw attention to the George Entwistle: I would be concerned about any declaration I made when I joined this Committee: my allegation of improper behaviour in respect of the partner works for the BBC. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o001_th_121023 BBC JS corrected.xml

Ev 8 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

23 October 2012 George Entwistle and David Jordan

Mr Entwistle, do you now accept, in the light of last allowed to review them properly myself, rather than night’s Panorama, that the decision to drop the being pulled into them, which is why I asked Mr Newsnight investigation was a catastrophic mistake? MacQuarrie to have those conversations on my behalf. George Entwistle: I came away from Panorama firmly of the view that that investigation—even if, in Q65 Mr Bradshaw: What about your news the judgment of the editor, it was not ready for managers? What about Helen Boaden and her deputy? transmission at the point when he was looking at it— Surely it is their job to get to the bottom of this dispute should have been allowed to continue. very, very quickly. George Entwistle: My anxiety, and the reason I asked Q61 Mr Bradshaw: Why did it take three weeks for Mr MacQuarrie to do it, was that the journalists on the BBC to realise that the account given by Mr Newsnight may have things to say about the overall Rippon was inaccurate and incomplete? chain of news management that they would not feel George Entwistle: When you want to find out why able to say to news management. That was why I a programme has done an investigation, in my long wanted to create a separate chance for them to do that. experience at the BBC, the person you go to is the editor of the programme containing that investigation, Q66 Mr Bradshaw: Do you think that your news or the commissioning editor of that investigation, managers behaved properly in this regard? because they should know why they commissioned George Entwistle: I was not in any sense making a the piece, and they should have the most complete judgment then about how they had behaved. I wanted picture of why they commissioned the piece. What to be absolutely clear to the people involved that they became clear to us, after the blog was published, was should have a chance to speak to somebody who that what had happened on Newsnight was that it would stand apart from the entire story on Newsnight, seemed there was a significant difference of opinion and be able to give me an account of what had between the people working on the investigation and happened. After I received the Ken MacQuarrie note, the editor, Peter Rippon, who commissioned the we began work on pulling together more evidence, investigation. That difference of opinion was made basically—documents, e-mails and so on—relating to clear to me relatively soon after the blog was published, the following week. At that point— the Newsnight investigation, with a view to us being although I would normally absolutely expect to be able to supply them to the review that we had able to get, from the editor of a programme, a announced, but also with a view to trying to get to the complete and full picture of what had been going on, bottom of what really had happened on the on that programme—I thought I needed to get to the programme. It was in the process of having those bottom of why there seemed to be a difference of conversations with people, pulling the documentation opinion, and there definitely seems to me to have been together and cross-checking those two accounts, that a breakdown in communication on Newsnight in that it became clear to us that there were inaccuracies in regard, so I— the blog.

Q62 Mr Bradshaw: What did you do to get to the Q67 Mr Bradshaw: Is not the most important job of bottom of it? a senior manager and of a Director-General, when a George Entwistle: I asked my colleague, Ken crisis hits the BBC like this, to establish the facts as MacQuarrie, who sits on the BBC’s management quickly as possible, get them out and act decisively board, to speak to the two journalists involved, to get on them? David Jordan spent a whole day touring a sense of what they thought had happened. television studios, still peddling the Peter Rippon defence, after you had received the emails from Liz Q63 Mr Bradshaw: This was nearly three weeks McKean and from Meirion. ago, and the BBC only changed its story yesterday in George Entwistle: I had absolutely to keep alive in light of the Panorama programme? my mind the possibility that Peter Rippon’s version of George Entwistle: Ken MacQuarrie spoke to the two events was accurate. Peter Rippon was, after all, the journalists in question and then wrote me a note, and editor of the programme. It seems to me, in the end, this takes us to the middle of the week ending the the only person who knows for certain what he has 12th. I read that note and I no longer felt confident commissioned, or at least could be expected to know that getting a full understanding of what had happened for certain what he has commissioned, is the editor of on Newsnight would be possible to do inside the BBC. the programme, so it was not a question of suddenly I concluded from that that I needed to move to an realising that one account was definitely wrong and external review of what was happening on Newsnight some other accounts might be right. It was a question to achieve that. of trying to balance the various accounts we had, to work out where the truth lay. Invaluable in that regard Q64 Mr Bradshaw: Did you ever consider talking to was the documentation and the e-mails we managed Liz McKean and Meirion Jones? These are ex- to pull together, which allowed us to get to the view colleagues of yours. we eventually got to—that the blog needed changing. George Entwistle: They are ex-colleagues of mine, We did that absolutely as fast as we could. It was and I thought it was important, in my position as difficult, evidence-based work, but I was determined, Director-General, to be able to maintain sufficient having published what I now know to be one distance from any allegations people were making, inaccurate account of what had happened, that we and any accounts people were giving, and to be should not do that again. It had to be right. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o001_th_121023 BBC JS corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 9

23 October 2012 George Entwistle and David Jordan

Q68 Mr Bradshaw: Are you satisfied that the Rippon was discussing this with his superiors in the account that the BBC is currently publishing, as we BBC? meet here today, is accurate? George Entwistle: Mr Bradshaw, I genuinely do not George Entwistle: To the best of the evidence we know what Peter Rippon meant by “long political have been able to assemble, we believe the account chain”. we published today is accurate. Q74 Mr Bradshaw: Have you asked Mr Rippon Q69 Mr Bradshaw: One of Peter Rippon’s central about any conversations he had with BBC colleagues planks of argument was that the main witness for the above him in the food chain about the decision to drop Newsnight investigation had gone to the police, and the Newsnight investigation? the police had not acted further. That is denied by the George Entwistle: No. I have observed the chain of people behind the investigation. Karin never went to command in this regard, so I have spoken to the the police. That has still not been corrected, as far as Director of News and the— I am aware. George Entwistle: No. I think we have pointed out in Q75 Mr Bradshaw: Has Helen Boaden asked him the correction to the blog that the blog says that all that question? women spoken to in the programme had contacted the George Entwistle: I do not know for certain whether police independently already. It appears that, in some she has or not. cases, women had not spoken to the police, and the police were not aware of all allegations. Q76 Mr Bradshaw: Is that not a critical question to ask the editor of the programme—whether he had Q70 Mr Bradshaw: Given that this was your main conversations? Given that the BBC is still insisting witness, and Peter Rippon had built part of his defence that there was no pressure put on him and that there for dropping the investigation, would it not be sensible was no cover-up, is not one of the basic questions? correct that error here now? You go to the editor and say, “What conversations did George Entwistle: I believe we are being clear here you have with Helen Boaden? What conversations did that the blog, as published, was not accurate, and we you have with Steve Mitchell?”. are being clear about the nature of that inaccuracy. George Entwistle: That is something that Steve Mitchell and Helen Boaden have done inside news. Q71 Mr Bradshaw: Why did the BBC decide last night not to include the e-mail that Liz McKean sent Q77 Mr Bradshaw: They have admitted to having a friend, which referred to a long political chain, in conversations with Peter Rippon about the Newsnight the context of a conversation she had had with Peter investigation? Rippon, when this e-mail was used in Channel 4 George Entwistle: As I understand it, they spoke to News? It is widely reported in the papers today. Peter Rippon during the investigation. George Entwistle: I need to explain my relationship with last night’s Panorama to give you an insight into Q78 Mr Bradshaw: Do you know what the nature that. As soon as it was clear that Panorama were of those conversations was? going to be investigating the BBC—something that is George Entwistle: I understand that Helen’s only absolutely in their right to decide to do—we conversation with Peter, in respect of the Newsnight recognised that the standard editorial chain, up investigation, was to remind him that, just because through news and finally to the Director-General as Jimmy Savile was dead, it did not mean that there editor-in-chief, could not be allowed to stand because could be any skimping in journalistic standards, and of the questions that were openly being asked about that the usual BBC standards would apply. people inside the news management chain, and about me, and my involvement. We set up a completely Q79 Mr Bradshaw: Could that not have been separate editorial management chain for that film, and interpreted by Peter Rippon as pressure from above to a separate legal referral chain for that film, over which drop the investigation? I had no oversight, so I cannot answer any detailed George Entwistle: I would say that I do not regard it questions about the handling of journalism in that film as an inappropriate point, in any sense, to make to because I was not responsible for them. My an editor. BBC journalistic standards are exactly what understanding, which is gleaned from reading the Helen is there to support. papers, is that a legal judgment was taken, and legal David Jordan: Can I just clarify one thing before we judgments of that kind are made in respect of move on? You mentioned some interviews I did. I investigations of that kind. should just be clear that the Director-General did not receive any e-mails until after I had done those Q72 Mr Bradshaw: The BBC’s lawyers took a interviews. A misimpression was given on the different view from Channel 4’s lawyers and everyone Panorama programme last night that I did an else’s lawyers? interview after an e-mail had been sent to the George Entwistle: It is possible for lawyers to differ Director-General questioning his version. Actually, in that regard. that interview was pre-recorded on Friday afternoon before the e-mail was sent to the Director-General. Q73 Mr Bradshaw: But is that not absolutely critical, because this “long political chain” implies Q80 Mr Bradshaw: You must have been aware, Mr that there was some kind of cover-up—that Peter Jordan, that Newsnight staff were unhappy about the cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o001_th_121023 BBC JS corrected.xml

Ev 10 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

23 October 2012 George Entwistle and David Jordan

Peter Rippon version of events. There had been a embroiled in that and unable to exercise the authority delegation led by the deputy editors of Newsnight to I am here to exercise as Director-General. a senior news manager at the BBC to say that the official BBC version was wrong. Are you telling me Q85 Damian Collins: You will see that the concern you did not know about that? is not just about the change of language or small David Jordan: Not initially. When I— details, but actually a concern that the BBC’s initial version of events—Mr Rippon’s initial view he gave Q81 Mr Bradshaw: Steve Mitchell did not tell you? as to why the programme had not been right—made David Jordan: Not initially, which is why I reflected it sound like there was no real new information; it was the version of the editor of the programme in the just going over ground that had been covered in a interviews I did, not realising that there was a major police investigation that had not gone anywhere, and dispute at the heart of Newsnight about what the that was the reason why the programme was not aspects of that were about. broadcast. In fact, the Newsnight investigation team had new witness statements, and new evidence about Q82 Mr Bradshaw: Have you both been seriously crimes committed on BBC property. There is a let down by BBC news managers? material difference from the version of events Mr George Entwistle: I do not think it is right to make Rippon initially gave. that judgment now. The reviews are there to shed light George Entwistle: There is, and that goes to the on every aspect of this. Only once the reviews have reason why we have not taken the blog down, but heard evidence from all the relevant people, and made issued corrections to the inaccuracies it contained. a study of all the documentation, will we know There is no doubt in my mind that for us to have exactly what happened. That is why I felt it was published a blog with these inaccurate details in it is essential to bring an external pair of eyes to bear on deeply regrettable. But the key point was to establish this. what those inaccuracies were and publish that account, which is what we have done. Q83 Damian Collins: There seem to be a lot of very important questions you have not asked your Q86 Damian Collins: Were you angry when you colleagues. Does this reflect a broader management found out about this? culture problem at the BBC? George Entwistle: I was very disappointed indeed that George Entwistle: No. What I think it reflects is the the blog should have turned out to have been as way we operate through the chain of command. The inaccurate as it was. Of course I was. colleague I speak to, when I want to find out what is going on in the Department, is the Divisional Director. Q87 Damian Collins: Maybe I would have expected The Divisional Directors of the BBC report to the a slightly rawer emotion than being “very Director-General. If I want to find out what has disappointed indeed”, because you have been very happened on a programme, I ask the Divisional badly let down and exposed by a senior colleague. Director to go and make those inquiries on my behalf. George Entwistle: What I relied upon is something that, in my BBC career, I have always been able to Q84 Damian Collins: That is all well and good. I rely on, which is the editor of a programme having a am sure most people outside the BBC do not really full grip and understanding of an investigation they understand why you would insist on working that way were in charge of. On this occasion, it does not seem in the middle of what one of your senior colleagues has called the worst crisis to affect the corporation in to have been the case, and that is disappointing. 50 years. Would it not have been your first responsibility to have seen the script of the Newsnight Q88 Damian Collins: My concern, from what you programme, to see exactly what they had before have said, and looking forward to the investigations putting your name to a corporate position that turned the BBC has commissioned, is we clearly have the out to be completely untrue? situation where entirely the wrong thing has George Entwistle: No. I do not think that would have happened, but all the BBC procedures have been been right. The reason I do not think it would have followed, so no one is too exercised about it. been right is that, in the end, any internal disciplinary George Entwistle: There is one matter here that I have matter at the BBC needs to be referred up to a point given considerable thought to, and it goes to the that has not been involved in that disciplinary matter. question of what should happen to an investigation It seemed to me, as this process unfolded, that for that does not end up being broadcast but, nonetheless, some time there was a possibility that we might need makes discoveries that are important and should be to make disciplinary inquiries into what had taken paid attention to. David Jordan, who is in charge of place, and that it was critical that the chain of editorial policy at the BBC, and I have talked about a command was observed, keeping the Director-General potential amendment to our guidelines that makes in reserve and able to look at the review or any clear to people what obligations they might have in challenge to those processes. That is the way big respect of an investigation that does not, for whatever organisations work. I do not believe it would have reason—and in the end that reason will only ever be been appropriate for me to do a detailed examination an editor’s judgment about whether it should— of what were contended over documents myself, for proceed to air, and what should happen to any fear that I would simply become irrevocably journalism done in the course of that. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o001_th_121023 BBC JS corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 11

23 October 2012 George Entwistle and David Jordan

Q89 Damian Collins: Are you saying that it would time to say, “Do you want to press the button to stop ultimately always have been the editor of Newsnight’s it or not?” decision to run that programme or not? David Jordan: Preparations were made, but it was not George Entwistle: Unless he had referred it to his line actually commissioned. Had it been commissioned manager, yes, it would always have been his decision. and was it to proceed to transmission, in the way that Editors of BBC programmes are put in a position the editor had originally planned, then this probably where they make the decision about what they run. It would have been referred to various senior managers is their responsibility. We devolve that authority down at the BBC. The most delicate, the most significant, to them. They are entitled to refer a demanding the most sensitive investigations, some of the biggest editorial position to their line manager if they want to. ones that I have been involved in, do eventually get up to Director level, sometimes even to Director-General Q90 Damian Collins: What is the point of the level. For example, I was in charge of the Director-General being the editor-in-chief if he does investigation into Robert Maxwell when I was on not have editorial control over what is going out in Panorama. That investigation went up to and included the company’s name? the Deputy Director-General at the time. So, some of George Entwistle: The Director-General has editorial the most significant, some of the most sensitive, some responsibility and accountability for what goes out in of the most potentially defamatory, biggest his name, but he does not have direct editorial control. investigations would get to that point, but only if you Editorial control is devolved throughout the BBC. The were intending to proceed with them. A lot of BBC is a big organisation journalistically. There are a investigations get stood up and stood down in the great many different programmes and strains of course of programmes throughout the year and, if they journalism where actual responsibility for the are not being proceeded with, they would not journalism is devolved down to them. I think that is normally go up the line management chain. appropriate. Q94 Damian Collins: We know in this case Q91 Damian Collins: A programme being made by Newsnight was certainly preparing for broadcast one of the BBC’s flagship news programmes was within a matter of weeks, and so it would have been bringing forward very serious criminal allegations late in the day, if it had reached that far. From what about someone who was an icon for children in this you are saying, it may be totally proper for this never country—created as an icon by the BBC, an icon for to have gone to the Director-General for a decision very vulnerable people as a result of his celebrity BBC before it went to air. status. Would the creation of a programme like that, George Entwistle: The thing about Newsnight,Mr or even the preparation for broadcast of a programme Collins, is that because rather than having individual like that, not routinely have gone to the editor-in-chief slots for a documentary, you own that chunk of BBC for consideration of whether he wished it to go? Two, you have an enormous amount of flexibility George Entwistle: No, it would not routinely have about which programme you choose to put the gone to the editor-in-chief. I would have expected it investigation into. It is very rarely the case that an to be referred to the line manager, as I understand it editor of Newsnight would say, “I am intending such was. I might have expected the Divisional Director to and such a thing, definitely in a few weeks’ time for be made aware; in this case, I understand that they that date”. It would be intended for that week, and were. But I would not necessarily have expected it to they might work out much closer to the time which be referred to the editor-in-chief. David will be able day it might be expected to go on. I am inferring here, to provide a perspective on this because he has from what I saw on Panorama last night, that Mr worked across the whole range of the BBC, but the Rippon’s enthusiasm for the idea was higher at one editor-in-chief becomes involved in relatively few stage and then became lower. Therefore, I would not final editorial decisions. necessarily expect him to have committed—

Q92 Damian Collins: I can understand that. There is Q95 Damian Collins: But would you like to know enormous output of programming, but you would why? think this might be one. If this did not qualify, I George Entwistle: Absolutely so. Therefore, you wonder what the bar is. would not necessarily have expected him to be David Jordan: In all truthfulness, if it had not reached committed to a date or, therefore, committed to a the Director-General level it would certainly have referral up in a particular timescale. reached Divisional Director level, had the investigation proceeded to a position in which it was Q96 Damian Collins: From some of the going to be transmitted. At that point, it would have contributions to the Panorama programme last night, been referred upwards, particularly if it was going to and from some of the things you said even today, I have the sort of— think it sounds strange that not only was the programme considered not ready for broadcast, but Q93 Damian Collins: What am I missing, though? the investigation was dropped altogether, and nothing At what point does that kick in? We know from the was done as a result of the investigation that had taken e-mails that the editor had asked his team to prepare place. Do you not find that strange? for transmission and the BBC press office had been George Entwistle: On the basis of what I now know, briefed about the likely content of the programme. I am surprised that nothing further happened with it. Does it go up the organisation 10 minutes before air It seems to me entirely appropriate for an editor to cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o001_th_121023 BBC JS corrected.xml

Ev 12 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

23 October 2012 George Entwistle and David Jordan decide, for reasons in the end that he or she has to BBC, in particular regarding an alleged cover-up. You own, that they are not ready to proceed with an idea. did not have to be a card-carrying member of the There was clearly some good journalistic material National Union of Journalists to realise that the blog here and, even if there was no prospect of immediate begged more questions than it answered, for the very transmission, a continued investigation might have simple journalistic fact that the main story about been appropriate. Jimmy Savile being a paedophile had not been aired. There was not an angle regarding whether the CPS or Q97 Damian Collins: It is more than good the police had decided to pursue a prosecution, or the journalistic material; there were eye-witness reasons for dropping it. That central journalistic fact statements about a criminal offence, and they were does not seem to have set people who are journalists kept in a locker at the BBC until what you saw of it at the BBC asking more questions. Why do you think yourself last night. that was? George Entwistle: There are two separate points George Entwistle: The state of knowledge at that there, though. Journalistically, one of the questions stage at the BBC was that Peter Rippon, with a full that it is important for the Pollard review to ask is: understanding of everything that had been available to why was the investigation stopped, rather than being him, had made the decision he had made about the allowed to continue? Then there is the question of investigation not proceeding. As I understand it, the what should have happened, corporately, with the principal purpose of the blog was to address the information that investigation had discovered. particularly prevalent allegation, at that stage, that he had come under unreasonable managerial pressure to Q98 Damian Collins: That is not included in the drop the investigation. Mr Rippon was clear in that terms of reference of your investigations. Will that be blog—and I believe absolutely stands by that—that included now? he did not come under managerial pressure; well, no George Entwistle: No, I understand it to be included. inappropriate managerial pressure. The management of the Newsnight investigation, it seems to me, covers the aftermath of the Newsnight Q105 Paul Farrelly: But the blog said lots of other investigation as well as— things that raised obvious questions that did not seem to be asked. Q99 Damian Collins: It will cover the entire 10- George Entwistle: Can you spell out what you mean? month period from the decision not to broadcast through to the beginning of this month? Q106 Paul Farrelly: I have just given you an George Entwistle: Being plain, we have made it clear example. The central question of what the to Nick Pollard that he is allowed to go wherever his investigation was about, which was Jimmy Savile investigation takes him, so yes. being a paedophile. George Entwistle: Obviously, that became the Q100 Chair: Just on that point, I have here a substance of all our efforts in the inquiry the statement issued by BBC News and Current Affairs, following week. from a publicist to a journalist making inquiries on 13 October, which begins, “The independent review will Q107 Paul Farrelly: That was the glaring question, not revisit the Newsnight Editor’s decision”. which was obvious as soon as you read that blog, George Entwistle: No. I think that was a mis- because that story had never been run; there was not provision. We have said to Nick Pollard that he is an angle on the story. entitled to look at anything he needs to look at. George Entwistle: No, I agree, but it was run the following day by ITV. Q101 Chair: So the News and Current Affairs Paul Farrelly: Yes. Department, in stating that, were wrong? George Entwistle: Obviously it is a matter of regret George Entwistle: I do not think that is right. that it was not run by the BBC.

Q102 Damian Collins: If it were not for ITV, there Q108 Paul Farrelly: I see from Panorama last night might have been no investigations now. There may that you were e-mailed, on 5 November, by Meirion not have been an escalation of awareness of the case Jones to say that the explanation you were giving was against Jimmy Savile. We might not have been sitting wrong. You have explained what you went through in this room. then to come to the changes that you made yesterday. George Entwistle: Of course I accept that. In essence, what you have done over the past three weeks is the basic journalism and fact-checking that Q103 Damian Collins: Is that a source of huge regret you should have done before you made statements in for you, as head of the BBC? the first place. Is that correct? George Entwistle: Yes. It is a matter of great regret George Entwistle: No. What we have done over the to me. past three weeks is try to get to the bottom of why there was this significant disagreement inside Q104 Paul Farrelly: I remember reading the blog Newsnight on what the purpose of their investigation about three weeks ago, before I was asked to do an had been. It is not a situation I have ever encountered interview on BBC Radio Stoke. The blog was clearly before—that there should be a dispute of such written to try to shoot down some of the allegations virulence inside a programme. Normally, you would that it was expected that ITV might level against the expect a programme team, and their editor, to have cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o001_th_121023 BBC JS corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 13

23 October 2012 George Entwistle and David Jordan reached an understanding of what their programme effectively, launching my own set of inquiries inside was there to investigate. Our concern came to be, the BBC alongside that. rather than listening to individual accounts that may or may not have been full, but that apparently clearly Q113 Paul Farrelly: One of the e-mails, in which contradicted each other, getting a full understanding, Peter Rippon seemed to go cold on the story, was by reliance on other documentation and evidence, to aired on Panorama last night. It was copied to ensure that we had an accurate overall picture before Stephen Mitchell. I do not know whether that was we published again. routine copying, but do you know from what stage Peter Rippon was in touch with Stephen Mitchell and Q109 Paul Farrelly: You have already made public Helen Boaden, and whether those conversations went statements on the basis of a blog that would have further to Mark Thompson? begged questions not necessarily just to a card- George Entwistle: I do not have any awareness of carrying member of the National Union of Journalists, whether they went further from Helen Boaden to but to a one-eyed Albanian. Do you not feel it is rather Mark Thompson. My understanding is that strange that the BBC makes public statements—which conversations with Steve Mitchell took place. I would I hope you would agree is a broadcast to the public not be able to say exactly when they first took place, and the world—without going through the same but there were a number of conversations during the processes of checking that it would do in broadcasting production of that item. I do not have any more detail something like Newsnight? Will you change that in on that, and all the detail we are gathering we are now the future? making available to the inquiry. George Entwistle: As I have explained, I would absolutely have expected the editor of a programme Q114 Paul Farrelly: Given the importance of this— to be able to give a definitive and factually accurate and there are only relatively very few individuals— account of what had taken place on that programme. this seems, just like the blog not raising any questions The lesson here for everybody asked to write blogs in that seemed to be obvious, to be another example of future is that they need to recognise that a publication an amazing lack of curiosity on the part of a journalist. on behalf of the BBC has exactly the same standing as any other piece of BBC journalism. It must be George Entwistle: On behalf of which journalist? accurate. It must be honest. Clearly, that is not what Paul Farrelly: You as a journalist, and the BBC, happened on this occasion. That, as I have said, is a being full of journalists. matter of regret and something we have had to put George Entwistle: My key approach to this was to right. recognise that if all this was to have proper justice done to it, it would need to go into the independent Q110 Paul Farrelly: I think we are going to move inquiry, and it would not be appropriate for me to run on shortly to conversations that you had, and also to an inquiry alongside that. the tributes, but in terms of your recollection of what happened in the editorial chain, since the affair broke, Q115 Paul Farrelly: I want to turn briefly to have you asked people such as Helen Boaden and Panorama, because there will be further questions Stephen Mitchell what they knew about the Newsnight about Newsnight. You said that you set up a separate programme, and whom they conveyed that to? process where you took yourself out of the line of George Entwistle: I have asked Helen what her being the editor-in-chief. At the same time, you have understanding of the investigation was, and her set up a process; you have set up some inquiries. They understanding was conveyed to her by the editor of have changed as time has gone on, and then the programme. That is consistent with what was put Panorama decides to wade in. This begs the question in the public domain in the blog. of who is in control at the BBC, does it not? George Entwistle: Panorama’s right to decide what it Q111 Paul Farrelly: In terms of the central investigates is absolutely Panorama’s right, and I allegations that Newsnight was going to make, which think it is appropriate that Panorama should never were about Jimmy Savile being involved in sexual take any broader corporate picture or broader activity with underage girls, did she know that that corporate interest into account when making its mind was the content of the programme? up as to what to do. That is something I am proud of. George Entwistle: I do not know the full extent of the That is not something I regard as chaotic. Panorama detail of her knowledge of the investigation, but I do has its own agenda. It is editorially independent of the know that she had conversations. She had at least one corporate interests of the BBC. It never seemed to me conversation with Peter Rippon, where she came to anything other than entirely an appropriate matter for understand what the nature of his reluctance to go them to decide what they wanted to investigate. ahead was. Q116 Paul Farrelly: Having looked at Panorama Q112 Paul Farrelly: Why do you not know exactly last night, would you agree that it might seem to the what she knew? outside world as the BBC at war? You have a producer George Entwistle: Because by the time it became and a reporter/presenter against an editor who chose clear to me that I needed to know, I had already not to appear, but it seemed to be moderated by Kevin decided I had to set up an external review. I had Marsh, who was the former editor of the Today already gone to that, and I did not feel it was programme and the former editor of the BBC college. appropriate for me to prejudice that review by, It looked like the BBC at war. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o001_th_121023 BBC JS corrected.xml

Ev 14 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

23 October 2012 George Entwistle and David Jordan

George Entwistle: As I have said, there is no question become of the evidence in respect of the police. I in my mind but that there was a significant breakdown regard that as an important question for the Pollard in communication on Newsnight on the subject of this review to address. I agree with you on that point. investigation, and the editor and the two lead journalists on it were not reconciled in their Q121 Paul Farrelly: Just one final question. The real understanding of what had happened and why it had issue here is that some media groups will look at this happened. I think that is what you saw borne out in and look at what happened with Panorama, and think, the Panorama— “Well, this would never happen in our organisation”. You said it is a strength, but do you not agree it begs Q117 Paul Farrelly: You watched the programme the question of who is in control of the BBC? Who is last night? in charge? Are you an editor-in-chief, as would be George Entwistle: Yes, I did. understood at a newspaper group, for example, or are you just a managing director with lots of editors and Q118 Paul Farrelly: Editorially, did you think it had editors-in-chief below you who do not bring you any defects? problems? George Entwistle: I thought it was a strong George Entwistle: No, I am editor-in-chief, in the programme. sense of absolutely that. In the end, I take Paul Farrelly: Strong, but no glaring defects? responsibility and accountability for all of the BBC’s George Entwistle: No. I thought it was a good edition journalism, but that is not the same as expecting every of Panorama. journalistic decision inside the BBC to be referred to me. I regard the independent right of the editor of Q119 Paul Farrelly: Can I run one past you? Panorama to decide what he should investigate, even George Entwistle: Of course. when that concerns the corporate affairs of the BBC, Paul Farrelly: When it came to one of the points on to be inalienable. It is a really important thing that he which the blog was corrected, which was the issue is allowed to do. of whether Newsnight had evidence that would have provided fresh details for the police, when that Q122 Dr Coffey: I assume Peter Rippon wrote his question was asked by the Panorama presenter of the own blog on 2 October. Did he clear it with anybody Newsnight producer, Meirion Jones, it rather skipped before he published it? from the question of evidence generally to evidence George Entwistle: I understand that it was also seen about a new person rather than Jimmy Savile. It by Mr Mitchell. skipped to Gary Glitter, and the argument was made by the producer that it would have been difficult to do Q123 Dr Coffey: Then who wrote the clarification anything with that because Gary Glitter was alive and, yesterday? therefore, there are libel concerns, presumably; and George Entwistle: The clarification was effectively a secondly, nobody could identify the girl with whom corporate production involving our legal advisers, me, he allegedly had sex in Jimmy Savile’s room. That and the press office. was a sleight of hand, or sleight of vision, to me as a viewer, because the issue really was evidence in Q124 Dr Coffey: Has Mr Rippon agreed to that general, including evidence about Jimmy Savile. being published, effectively? Did he challenge any of Clearly, we know now that the Karin Ward interview it? was not known to the police. Other people have come George Entwistle: It was not up to Mr Rippon to forward who were not known to the police, and yet agree to it, but it was shown to Mr Rippon and he did the presenter of Panorama did not give the producer not change it. of Newsnight any challenging questions over why that evidence was not provided by them to the police. Q125 Dr Coffey: Did you watch the ITV They glossed over it. documentary? George Entwistle: I thought the reporter did press to George Entwistle: Yes, I did. a degree. I accept your point. In my view, it is a matter of absolute importance for the Pollard review to look Q126 Dr Coffey: I appreciate these things have to be at the question of what should have happened to the done thoroughly, but there is still quite an element of evidence Newsnight had after they decided not to time between seeing the documentary and then your proceed in respect of the police. announcement of inquiries. I think it is eight or nine days later. Why do you think the BBC, under your Q120 Paul Farrelly: You recognise there is a Director-Generalship, took so long to make that question there, not only about what the presenter and decision? the producer may have done, let alone the editor of George Entwistle: As I said, the thing that was the programme, with respect to evidence and the uppermost in my mind, from the day before the ITV police, but actually a Panorama programme not documentary—it was the day before that I contacted testing them on that. Therefore, to my mind, that casts the police, and it was clearly, from the pre-publicity some doubts about the objectivity of the Panorama material, of criminal significance, and criminal programme. Again, it just seems to me to reinforce allegations—was that it should be dealt with by the that it is the BBC at war. BBC in an appropriate relationship with the police. George Entwistle: I was pleased to see that the My anxiety was that if we were not careful, we might programme tackled the question of what should have rush to set up an internal review process of some kind cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o001_th_121023 BBC JS corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 15

23 October 2012 George Entwistle and David Jordan that would find itself dealing with criminal allegations David Jordan: Commissioned? It had been it was not qualified to deal with, not capable of commissioned in the sense that it had been started. preserving evidence properly, and not able to compel What I meant by “commissioned” was there was no witnesses. I gave my attention that first week final programme. There was never a final script, absolutely to the business of making sure we were co- therefore the final say so or the final go-ahead had not operating as fully as possible with the police. That been given. involved a number of conversations between me and the police, making sure the BBC Investigations Unit Q133 Mr Bradshaw: Can you give this Committee understood how it was to relate to the police, and what an assurance that the BBC will not do a deal with it would do with any material that came to it. We Mr Rippon, involving him going quietly and you not worked solidly on that through those first few days completely trashing his version of events? after the ITV documentary was aired. George Entwistle: It is absolutely premature to talk By the time I went into the Today programme the about what will happen. following Monday, it was clear to me. I agree I should have made it clearer that I was always prepared to see Q134 Mr Bradshaw: Can you give us that assurance an internal review, which is what I announced on the that no deal will be made? Today programme on the Monday morning. Then we George Entwistle: Can I explain what I think will worked that week to make sure that the shape of those happen? Peter Rippon will take part in the Pollard reviews was properly considered, and reached a review. The findings of the Pollard review will be position to be able to announce those by the end of made available first to the BBC executive before they that week. are then passed to the Trust. The BBC executive’s task will be to make an immediate decision about whether Q127 Dr Coffey: Thank you for that. I would like to any disciplinary consequences should flow from the take you back to your role. Remind us, you were Pollard review. I do not think it would be fair to say Director of Television? anything else that would prejudice any of that process. George Entwistle: Yes, television. Q135 Mr Bradshaw: Finally, you have referred a lot Q128 Dr Coffey: In the run-up to Christmas, this to the Pollard review but, Mr Entwistle, do you accept huge tribute is about to happen, not only on television that the BBC cannot hide behind or wait for the but covering the work that he did on radio. What is Pollard review? You have to get a grip on the facts, still surprising, and it has been reflected already, is establish the facts and act on those quickly and that if Helen Boaden had said to you, “We are looking decisively for the sake of your organisation. into Jimmy Savile—” George Entwistle: I agree that in the process of Chair: We are coming on to that section. We have not providing everything the Pollard review needs, we got to that yet; I do not want to get out of order. will go through that process and do our best to get a Dr Coffey: All right. I will come back to that. picture of what went on. It could yet be the case that people feel able to say things and make a contribution Q129 Mr Bradshaw: Sorry, just before we move off to the Pollard review that they would not necessarily Newsnight, I would like clarification on a couple of feel able to make to the BBC, which is why I think it things you have said here. If I have understood you is so important that is there. correctly, you have confirmed today that the decision Dr Coffey: I have a specific question on Newsnight. to drop the Newsnight investigation was referred up Chair: All right. to Helen Boaden and Steve Mitchell. Is that correct? George Entwistle: No. I do not know that the decision Q136 Dr Coffey: Referring to “just the women”, it to drop it was referred up, but there were definitely is reported that Peter Rippon stopped the programme conversations about it. without reviewing all the material. Would that be normal practice? Q130 Mr Bradshaw: A few moments ago, David George Entwistle: It is hard to say what normal Jordan said something that puzzled me, which was practice would be in an investigation on Newsnight. that investigation of the Newsnight programme had Sometimes the editor would see absolutely all the not actually been commissioned. As I understand it, it material; sometimes they would identify what they had a transmission date of 7 December and was killed thought the critical material was and see only that. It on 5 December, so it must have been commissioned. would be very hard to generalise. David Jordan: Yes. What I meant by that is it had not been given the final go-ahead to go to air. There were Q137 Dr Coffey: As for the critical part of obviously plans in process that if it made its target— Panorama that was displayed—the interview with if it was evidentially okay, if it all stood up—then it Karin Ward—it is reported that that kind of material could go to air. was not reviewed. Do you not find that rather remarkable? Q131 Mr Bradshaw: You would like to correct your George Entwistle: This all goes to the question of earlier evidence? what Peter Rippon thought the Newsnight David Jordan: Clearly, you have to go through those investigation was about. If he was focusing on the processes before anything goes to air. Surrey 2007 police investigation, which Liz McKean has said was an important strand in what they were Q132 Mr Bradshaw: So it had been commissioned? doing, it may be that he did not regard the Ward cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o001_th_121023 BBC JS corrected.xml

Ev 16 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

23 October 2012 George Entwistle and David Jordan interview as essential to that. It is very hard to make Q143 Damian Collins: Did you contact her again a judgment about someone else’s state of mind. about it, or did she contact you to let you know that the programme was not going to go ahead? Q138 Dr Coffey: Are you aware of whether Peter George Entwistle: No. We never spoke about it again, Rippon sought any other advice from people higher from which I inferred that the decision had been made up the chain about the decision to stop, on the basis not to proceed with it, which turned out to be the case. of what should be reviewed as part of that decision? George Entwistle: I am not aware, no. Q144 Damian Collins: Looking back on that, do you Dr Coffey: Thank you. not find that slightly strange, because changes at this Chair: Can we now move on to look at your own late stage, into December, to a Christmas schedule, knowledge at the time when you were Director of which has largely already been published, would be Vision? quite a serious matter? The Jimmy Savile tribute, the main tribute, went out on boxing day. This was a key Q139 Damian Collins: I would obviously like to talk part of the Christmas schedule. Would it not have been about the reports of the conversation you had with normal for you to have asked for more information Helen Boaden. Before getting into that, just for the or updates? sake of clarity, the nature of the conversation is George Entwistle: I would not have had any qualms reported as being about the possibility of the broadcast about making any changes one might have needed to of the Newsnight programme and the impact that make to the Christmas schedule. These were stand- might have on the Christmas schedule. The alone programmes. They were not parts of a series or significance of the two of you discussing that is that anything. The truth is that the schedule can be you, I suppose, were ultimately responsible for the changed relatively easily. It happens relatively often Christmas schedule. that programmes are taken out, for whatever reason, George Entwistle: As Director of Television, I would and then put back in or not put back in. I did not take not have been directly responsible for shaping the away from the conversation any technical challenge schedule, but yes, I had overall responsibility for about the complexity of the Christmas schedule or the every aspect of television. difficulty, if it were necessary, of removing programmes. Q140 Damian Collins: Yes. First, in your own words, do you remember what she said to you, and Q145 Damian Collins: Let us say, for example, the what was discussed at this event? I believe it was Newsnight investigation had continued, reported as having been at a BBC drinks party in the hypothetically. They decided not to air before run-up to Christmas. Is that correct? Christmas but it took another month or so and it was George Entwistle: No. It was not at a BBC drinks aired in January. You would have felt, I would party. To the best of my recollection, it took place at imagine, quite put out if this programme had aired a lunch, which was the Women in Film and Television within a matter of weeks after you had broadcast a lunch on 2 December, I think I am right in saying. I massive tribute programme to Jimmy Savile. saw that Panorama last night said that it was a 10- George Entwistle: What I left the conversation with second conversation. I would find it very difficult to was an expectation that I would be updated on tell you how long the conversation was. whether or not the whole thing was going to happen. The substance of the conversation was that Helen said At that point, if somebody had said to me, “We are to me—and this is to the best of my recollection, because this is a conversation a long time ago—“I happy with this. This is ready to broadcast”, then at wanted to tell you that Newsnight are looking at that stage I would have expected to engage fully with Jimmy Savile” or “investigating Jimmy Savile, and if the consequences of it. As a former editor of it comes off, if it stands up”—words to that effect— Newsnight, the notion that an investigation might be “it may have an impact on your Christmas schedule”. under way but might not proceed to transmission was I said, “Thanks for letting me know. Please update one I was entirely familiar with. The critical thing for me”. What I meant by that was on whether or not it me was “if it stands up; if it goes ahead”. would be going ahead. Q146 Damian Collins: But this was not any other Q141 Damian Collins: Is it normal for Helen story, was it? As I said before, it is someone who is a Boaden to discuss Newsnight investigations with you? BBC icon, not long dead, about whom you had George Entwistle: No, relatively rare. commissioned and prepared a massive tribute programme, as one of the key items in the Christmas Q142 Damian Collins: What seriousness did you schedule, and you were being warned that not only attach to what she said? was he being investigated by Newsnight, but the George Entwistle: I was grateful to her for giving me impact of that story could be so significant that you the heads up, but the key message I took away from would have to pull the programme. the conversation was that it was not yet clear to Helen George Entwistle: No; allegations about very famous whether it was going to stand up or not, whether it and prominent people get made, and in my— was going to happen or not, and that was the key message I took away: if it stands up or if it goes Q147 Damian Collins: You yourself said it was very ahead. That was the key burden of the conversation I rare for Helen Boaden to bring up something like a took away. Newsnight investigation with you. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o001_th_121023 BBC JS corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 17

23 October 2012 George Entwistle and David Jordan

George Entwistle: I agree with that, but I thought she a desire to protect the Jimmy Savile programmes, and was being a considerate colleague in giving me the I have been accused of not having shown enough chance to start to reflect on what the technical interest in the Jimmy Savile programmes. I was trying implication of the schedule change might be. to find the right place on that line. The key thing I needed to know was: did they have something that Q148 Damian Collins: Obviously you did not hear they intended to proceed with, that they thought was back, but was there any question in your mind about good enough to proceed with? whether you should go ahead with the Jimmy Savile tribute? Q154 Damian Collins: In terms of the right place on George Entwistle: No. My assumption was that if the line, you failed. there was anything I needed to know, I would have George Entwistle: I do not believe I did fail, but I been told it. believe the system, as a whole, seems not to have got this right. Q149 Damian Collins: You never sought further information about the nature of the inquiry, why it had Q155 Damian Collins: You are quite a key part in been dropped, whether it would come back, or that system. This conversation you had with Helen whether the investigation would continue into the Boaden, it is not like two producers having a chat over new year? the water cooler; you are two of the most senior George Entwistle: I did not seek further information. people in the organisation talking about a Newsnight Obviously this is something I have reflected on a lot. investigation into one of the most senior television The reason I did not seek further information, and in personalities in the history of the BBC. a sense I think it has been made plain by some of the George Entwistle: For me, it had the quality of a events of recent weeks, is this absolute determination preliminary conversation. It needed the next stage. If I had, and I have—well, I had as Director of I had been told that they intended to proceed to Television—to observe the separate organisation of transmission on such and such a date, I would have News and Television. It is an absolute priority that, as made sure I understood all the implications of it and a director in television, you do not do anything that acted accordingly, and that stage never came. could be seen to be putting unreasonable pressure on the investigation. I think that is what was in my mind. Q156 Damian Collins: Reflecting on the answers to these questions and some of the ones you have given Q150 Damian Collins: Is that not a blind spot within to my colleagues, my concern about the BBC the organisation, because what happens when News is management structure is that it is a management by investigating Television? structure and process, rather than by people seeking George Entwistle: It is not a blind spot in the information and making decisions. I think that is a organisation, because if anything of any great concern for the organisation, moving forward, and seriousness is going on in any of the divisions of the may be a reason why this series of incidents was dealt organisation, then they should move up the with so poorly. organisation to the point where the person who brings the whole thing together, the Director-General, is able George Entwistle: I genuinely think that the system to take a view on what might affect other divisions of referral up normally copes fantastically well with and pass that information down again. That is how the the challenges that it throws at the system. The fact structure would deal with that. that all those different divisional lines converge on the Director-General normally works extraordinarily well. Q151 Damian Collins: It seems extraordinary you As I say, I concede that there are real questions for were so relaxed about what potentially was such a the Pollard review about what happened in this case. serious situation, and transpired to be. George Entwistle: I was not relaxed about it, but I Q157 Damian Collins: Does there need to be a was critically waiting for the vital piece of process whereby people at the top can challenge down information: “Do they have something they intend to as well more frequently, or are better informed about go ahead with?”. what is going on if there are likely to be problems? George Entwistle: No. The right and power of people Q152 Damian Collins: Do you now regret the to challenge down the system is absolute, but it is broadcasting of the Jimmy Savile tribute programme? based on what they know. It is based on what is George Entwistle: In the light of what has happened, referred to them. They— of course I do. Q158 Damian Collins: You sound a bit like James Q153 Damian Collins: If you had asked more Murdoch now. questions at the time, maybe it never would have gone George Entwistle: No, I do not believe it is like that. to air. There is no question here of anybody trying to turn a George Entwistle: That is the question I have asked blind eye. What you know in detail is what informs myself, and I was trying to find the right balance. For the way you act. me, this has been an issue in terms of accusations against me personally that have been at both extremes Q159 Chair: When Helen Boaden said to you, of the same range. I have been accused of intervening, “Newsnight is looking into Jimmy Savile”, what did of getting the Newsnight investigation stopped out of you think they were investigating? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o001_th_121023 BBC JS corrected.xml

Ev 18 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

23 October 2012 George Entwistle and David Jordan

George Entwistle: I do not remember reflecting on it. are all sorts of reasons why an investigation might not This was a busy lunch, and I— have come to something. I was waiting to hear if I needed to do any more. Q160 Chair: You are told that one of the flagship investigative programmes on the BBC is looking into Q166 Philip Davies: I find this absolutely one of the most iconic figures, whom you are about astonishing. There is a big difference between a to commission huge tributes to, and you do not want programme that can be stood up legally—you must to know what it is. appreciate this—and something where there is enough George Entwistle: It was not that I did not want to evidence that actually we do not want to be giving a know. What was in my mind was this determination tribute programme to this person. Surely you can see not to show undue interest. that, even though you might not have enough to stand up a programme legally, it may still apply that it Q161 Chair: But you could have just said, “Thanks, would not be appropriate to start showing tribute Helen. What are you looking at?”. Why did she tell programmes about somebody. Can you see that? you if you were determined not to ask what it was George Entwistle: I think that our systems need to be about? Presumably, she thought you should know and, more carefully calibrated to dealing with the outcome therefore, would have expected you at least to say, of investigations that do not proceed to broadcast. The “Really? That is interesting. What is it about?” thing that was in my mind was that if they had serious George Entwistle: I assumed she was preparing me— allegations that were supportable, it would end in as indeed she was—for the possibility that I would broadcast, and I would be told about it, and I would need to think about changing the schedule. It was that act accordingly. I recognise that we need to reflect on information I took from the conversation. making sure that we have a culture that does not run the risk of what happened happening. Q162 Chair: You knew that she was telling you that it was sufficiently serious that you might have to think Q167 Philip Davies: If I could just tie up a few other about changing the schedule, which is quite a loose ends on that, you talked earlier about a chain of significant thing to do, and you did not even say to command at the BBC, which in itself was quite her, “What is it about?”. revealing, and showed a troubling culture. If you George Entwistle: I have no recollection of asking her wanted to find out something about anything, I think what it was about. you said that you would go to one of the divisional directors, and that that was pretty normal in big Q163 Chair: That is an extraordinary lack of companies. I find that extraordinary in any size of curiosity, apart from anything else. company, to be perfectly honest. To bring in one of George Entwistle: As I say, what was informing my your competitors at ITV, Archie Norman, who I used judgment—and I think this was emphasised by the to work with for many years at ASDA, if he wanted fact that I had come from News and Current Affairs— to find out what was going on in one of our stores, he was that I absolutely did not want to do anything that did not go to the divisional director; he used to go to was construed as showing an excessive interest. somebody who worked on the shop floor and ask them, “How are things going in the store?” because Q164 Chair: You think that just saying, “Thanks, actually the people who know best tend to be the Helen. Just what area are you looking at?” would be people who are doing it every day of their lives, and interpreted as somehow interfering in an who have actually got their finger on the pulse. Why investigation? do we have this culture where you think that—you George Entwistle: I genuinely worry that all sorts of are the Director-General—it is inappropriate to talk to things that people say and do inside the BBC are people on the shop floor? potentially construable as doing that. Perhaps I was George Entwistle: It is not that I think it is being oversensitive but I was being very sensitive to inappropriate to talk to people on the shop floor, and that point. I often do talk to people on the shop floor. The key thing on any question where you need to ensure the Q165 Philip Davies: It seems from today’s division in question has a serious understanding of performance that your determination not to show an what is going on is that the right way to get that undue interest applies to everything at the BBC, not understanding is to ask that division to find out what just that particular programme. On this point, it is not is going on and report back. It is very risky to run the just a lack of curiosity, although it certainly is that for possibility of information that the division as a whole somebody who has been a journalist. Given that you should have coming out of that division, and ending are actually putting on these programmes, surely you up in another’s hands, and leaving the managers of must have wanted to ask, “Is it still appropriate for that division unaware of what is going on. The right me to put these programmes on? Whether you can way to find out what is going on is to ask a division stand up a programme or not on Newsnight, is it still to get into the facts itself and explain it. appropriate for the BBC to be putting on tribute programmes for this person?” Surely you must have Q168 Philip Davies: When Thérèse Coffey talked to asked that question. you about the e-mail saying, “We had just the George Entwistle: I did not ask that question. The women”, you said that you thought that there was possibility that was in my mind was that the something not right with the culture within the BBC, investigation would not come to anything, and there still. It had moved on, but it still was not as good as cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o001_th_121023 BBC JS corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 19

23 October 2012 George Entwistle and David Jordan it should be. You have been at the BBC for 23 years, Q175 Philip Davies: Do you think that these are I think it may be. Given that you are so adamant that things that the BBC Trust should have been told the culture is not right, what have you done about it about? in the past? George Entwistle: I think the BBC Trust should be George Entwistle: As a manager, I have always kept apprised of anything important to the striven to be absolutely even-handed, and as sensitive organisation, insofar as the organisation understands as I could possibly be, to both sexes and making sure what it is and is dealing with it as it should, yes. that the working circumstances and the culture in which they work was appropriate. That is what I have Q176 Philip Davies: It should have been told about striven to do, and I think— this? George Entwistle: I do not think the BBC Trust should have been told about a Newsnight investigation Q169 Philip Davies: Did you say to Mark in its early stages. If the significance of what Thompson, as a Director-General, “Mark, the culture Newsnight had found had been recognised, and is not right within the BBC. You should be doing properly dealt with by the organisation as a whole, it something about this. You’re not—” may well have been that the Trust would have been George Entwistle: This is something we discussed at informed about it. the most senior levels of the BBC. We discussed issues. Q177 Philip Davies: It should have known that there were people making allegations about inappropriate Q170 Philip Davies: But nothing ever happened? behaviour at the BBC, about— George Entwistle: I think the answer is we have made George Entwistle: No. I do not think it should some progress, but what I am saying is I think there necessarily be told that. I think it should be told when is more progress to make. There is no question about allegations are substantiated. There has to be a that in my mind. difference between allegations that are being investigated and allegations that have been Q171 Philip Davies: In answer to Paul Farrelly, you substantiated. said that there was no management pressure about the team pulling down the Newsnight programme. Then Q178 Philip Davies: We talked about the impact that you very rapidly changed it to, “Inappropriate the Newsnight programme could have had on your management pressure”. It was very noticeable how Christmas schedule. Were there any plans afoot to have a more permanent, new Jim’ll Fix It series with you said there was no management pressure and then a different presenter? Was that something that the quickly changed and said, “Well, no inappropriate BBC were actively working on at the time? management”. Does that mean there was some George Entwistle: I knew there was a possibility after pressure but you considered it was appropriate? the Christmas special that a version of that show George Entwistle: No. What I wanted to distinguish might be commissioned, but I do not know what between there is managerial pressure that is became of that. appropriate to make sure that journalistic investigations are carried out properly. That is Q179 Philip Davies: Had the BBC spent much appropriate managerial pressure. money on that? George Entwistle: I do not know beyond the Q172 Philip Davies: That is what you were referring Christmas special. to in this particular case? George Entwistle: That is what I was referring to. Q180 Philip Davies: If the BBC were considering a longer-term Jim’ll Fix It replacement, why did that Q173 Philip Davies: Can I ask about the BBC Trust? not go ahead? If the tribute programmes went ahead, It seems to me that they appear to have had a distinct why did the series that you were contemplating, as an lack of curiosity about many of these things, too. organisation, not go ahead? When did Chris Patten, and people on the Trust, know George Entwistle: I do not know the answer to that question. anything to do with Jimmy Savile, the Newsnight investigation or any of these other issues that we have Q181 Philip Davies: Have you not asked that discussed today? Was anybody at the Trust made question? aware of these things? George Entwistle: No, I have not asked that question. George Entwistle: I started to make the Trust aware as soon as I began conversations with the police on Q182 Philip Davies: Are you going to ask that 2 October. question? George Entwistle: Yes, I will. Q174 Philip Davies: Even though there were Philip Davies: Are there any other questions that you allegations about Jimmy Savile that the BBC knew would like us to prompt you to ask that you had not about last November— thought about asking yourself? George Entwistle: I do not know what happened in respect of the Trust then, because I was Director of Q183 Paul Farrelly: Just for my simple mind, I have Television at that point. seen various versions of this conversation with Helen cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o001_th_121023 BBC JS corrected.xml

Ev 20 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

23 October 2012 George Entwistle and David Jordan

Boaden. It has been reported that it happened on 2 George Entwistle: No, at the time what was in my December. Is that the correct date? mind was this conviction I have that you have to be George Entwistle: That is when I believed it very careful about showing interest that might be happened, yes, to the best of my recollection. construed as pressure. I felt I had taken everything I needed to know from that conversation. I knew what Q184 Paul Farrelly: It has been reported that it was the subject of the investigation— at a party or over a water cooler, but you said it was at a lunch. Q194 Paul Farrelly: Then to do nothing about it? George Entwistle: It was at a lunch, yes. George Entwistle: To do nothing about it, waiting to hear from her whether or not we should do something Q185 Paul Farrelly: At a lunch, and it has been about it. reported that it was 10 seconds long. George Entwistle: I do not know where that report Q195 Paul Farrelly: You knew that Jimmy Savile comes from. I would find it very hard to say how long was the subject, but you did not know what— it was. George Entwistle: I did not ask for any details on what the investigation was. Q186 Paul Farrelly: What did she say to you precisely? Q196 Paul Farrelly: I just want to be absolutely George Entwistle: I cannot pretend to recall precisely clear, because it is very hard to understand the lack of what she said to me, but it was words to this effect: curiosity. You said yourself you wished they had not “Newsnight is looking at Jimmy Savile. When it is dropped it, and that they had resurrected it. As clear whether it is going to go ahead or not, or if it Damian has said, by that stage, you would have run stands up, it may have implications for your the tributes, and looked absolutely—well, I do not schedule”. need to describe how you would have looked if you had run the tributes and then they had done the Q187 Paul Farrelly: “Implications for the schedule.” programme. So she did not, as far as you recall, say, “You may George Entwistle: If they had reached the point where have to pull the tributes”? they had stood the story up, which was the key issue George Entwistle: No, she did not. Not as far as I and the key burden of the conversation I took away. I recall. genuinely feel that in this situation my background as a journalist made me pay particular attention to the Q188 Paul Farrelly: Did you take that implication notion of whether it was stood up or not, whether it away? was going to go ahead, because as a journalist I had been involved in an awful lot of investigations that George Entwistle: I assumed it must be the planned had not been stood up. In my career I had seen programming for Savile that she was referring to, yes. accusations made about important people that looked plausible initially and then faded away. There seemed Q189 Paul Farrelly: You took the implication away to be a distinct possibility that that is what might that you might have to pull the tributes, even though happen. it was not said to you in so many words? George Entwistle: Yes. Q197 Paul Farrelly: But you did know what the “it” was. Q190 Paul Farrelly: How long did the conversation George Entwistle: No, but as a journalist you are last, do you recall? privy to allegations of a great many kinds, and some George Entwistle: I do not recall. of them work out and some of them do not. Some of them turn out to be true, and some of them do not. Q191 Paul Farrelly: You did not ask any further question. Is that is correct that you did not ask any Q198 Paul Farrelly: Three short final questions. further questions? Meirion Jones and Liz McKean—are they carrying on George Entwistle: I did not ask. I have no recollection working for Newsnight? of asking any further questions. George Entwistle: I understand Meirion Jones is currently attached to Panorama and will be working Q192 Paul Farrelly: Nobody else said anything to on other Panoramas from now on, and Liz is still at you about it afterwards? Newsnight, as I understand it. George Entwistle: No, I do not recall anything else being said to me afterwards. Q199 Paul Farrelly: Not stepping aside to co- operate with the Pollard review, like Peter Rippon? Q193 Paul Farrelly: You said you were trying to George Entwistle: No, but Peter Rippon is right at the weigh it up in your mind to get the right balance, and centre of this. I have asked Peter Rippon to step aside you did not want to seem to show excessive interest, because of my disappointment in the nature of the so it seems to have caused you some pause for blog, and the inaccuracies in the blog. What he is thought. going to do, now that he has stepped aside, is George Entwistle: Of course it has given me pause concentrate on preparing for the Pollard review. Can for thought subsequently. I just be clear that he has not stepped aside to prepare? Paul Farrelly: No, at the time. He has stepped aside because— cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o001_th_121023 BBC JS corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 21

23 October 2012 George Entwistle and David Jordan

Q200 Chair: Do you expect him to come back after George Entwistle: I could only— the Pollard review? George Entwistle: In all fairness, I have to allow him Q207 Steve Rotheram: It was not vigorous, was it? to go to the Pollard review with the best possible George Entwistle: I believe the investigation carried chance of being able to make his case and of being out by the two journalists in respect of Newsnight was. vindicated on his case. That is the only fair thing to Looking at the BBC more broadly, I could only guess do in respect of the Pollard review. I do not want to about what people had done in the past unbeknownst say anything else that might prejudice his prospects in to me, and what their motivation was in respect of that regard. But I asked him to step aside because of investigating. We did not do one, of course, but my disappointment with the blog. neither did anybody else.

Q201 Paul Farrelly: The second of three final Q208 Steve Rotheram: They did on ITV. questions is this. As far as you are aware, did both George Entwistle: Yes, they did on ITV on 3 October. Meirion Jones and Liz McKean carry on working with For all the many years that people say they heard Peter Rippon after Newsnight—after he—took this rumours and allegations, no newspaper landed an decision that they disagreed with? investigation of Jimmy Savile, that I am aware of, and George Entwistle: Yes, they did. no other broadcaster did. It is not like there was a period of immense vigour from lots of other people Q202 Paul Farrelly: As far as you are aware, they and not from the BBC. carried on working until the ITV programme aired? George Entwistle: Yes. That is absolutely my Q209 Steve Rotheram: This was on your doorstep. understanding. This was an opportunity for you, as an organisation, with the rumours that abounded within your own Q203 Paul Farrelly: This is the third question. The corporation, to have done something. one thing that is really unresolved in this is why Peter George Entwistle: No, but we now understand he was Rippon had a sudden change of mind. The question a very skilful and successful sexual predator who that is unresolved is: who sat on him, who helped covered his tracks. Last night the Panorama change his mind? Have you come to any conclusions? programme interviewed a number of people who said Was it the Director of News? that they worked closely with him and saw nothing George Entwistle: Is it not possible that he changed that gave them any rise for suspicion. Then, of course, his mind? it had the account of the group of people around Radio 1 who did ask him questions, but were reassured, by Q204 Paul Farrelly: But what do you think? what he told them, that the thing they were asking George Entwistle: From what I can see, he became about was not true. more and more seized of the importance of the Surrey police investigation and the reasons for the police and Q210 Mr Bradshaw: Mr Entwistle, you were the the CPS not proceeding on the basis of the editor of Newsnight at the time of the Gilligan information they had. He became convinced that, scandal, which probably actually was the biggest without that, he did not have what he needed to make crisis the BBC has had in the last 50 years. You will the story. As far as I am concerned, it does not need recall that at the time, the BBC boss class stuck to any external agency in this story for Peter Rippon to Gilligan’s argument and ignored the evidence of your have changed his mind. But in the end this goes to own very distinguished science correspondent, Susan this question of: how do you assess and understand Watts, so you have some experience of how the BBC what is in an editor’s mind in the process of making handles these things. Does it not seem to you—going a decision like that? I think the best shot we all have back to what Mr Davies has just asked—that there is at understanding this is hearing what he has to say to still a problem with the culture of management at the the Pollard review. BBC, given what we know now? Still, and for far too long, the BBC boss class has stuck to this erroneous Q205 Steve Rotheram: Mr Entwistle, for an defence and has not listened to people at the bottom, organisation, for a broadcaster and a corporation at the grass roots. renowned for its investigative journalism, and George Entwistle: The key distinction between what following on from questions regarding the BBC’s lack happened over Hutton, or one of the key distinctions of curiosity and impartiality, do you think the BBC with what happened over the Kelly affair and what would have pursued such a case more vigorously if it has happened in this case, is that I have set up an involved a different celebrity and a rival broadcaster? independent external inquiry into what happened George Entwistle: No. I believe that the producer and within a matter of days of the problem, and the scale the reporter involved in this piece pursued it with of the problem, becoming clear. I regard that as a every bit as much vigour as they would have done if completely different thing. There was no such process, it had been a celebrity from another place. as far as I am aware, in the case of what happened around David Kelly. Q206 Steve Rotheram: If they did, how come we Mr Bradshaw: No, there certainly was not. now know that there are probably 100 people involved in this? If they had pursued it, if they had dug down Q211 Dr Coffey: Building on what Mr Bradshaw has and scratched beneath the surface, why did that not just said, is there an issue now that the BBC is so risk- come out? averse that basically you have to have enough cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o001_th_121023 BBC JS corrected.xml

Ev 22 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

23 October 2012 George Entwistle and David Jordan evidence to stand up in court in order to do that? Is police and what the police need to get and so on. It is that damaging for the BBC news culture? something I intend to look at. George Entwistle: Of course, risk aversion is Dr Coffey: Thank you. damaging to any news or investigative journalistic Chair: We need to wrap up. culture. One of the things I have made clear to the staff of the BBC, since I became DG, is that I want to Q214 Paul Farrelly: Let me say this for balance, see real creative adventure and real journalistic because I think it is unfair, until you have completed adventure characterise everything we are about. It is your investigations, to hang individuals out to dry. I important to recognise, during a time like this, that rehearsed some of my concerns about the Panorama 95% plus of what the BBC does is going on, and it is programme last night. You just said that Peter Rippon being in its many ways as magnificent as it always is. made that decision on his own account, and you have We have a very, very grave and serious issue here to get to the bottom of what was going through his that has to be dealt with, but the imperative for the mind. You do not know whether that is true or not organisation to be journalistically adventurous and until you have investigated it. creatively adventurous is incredibly strong. It is George Entwistle: No. To the best of my knowledge, something I intend to devote a great deal of time and and on the basis of the information I have so far, that focus to—to trying to eliminate creative risk aversion is what I believe to be the case. Of course, if the and journalistic risk aversion, if I find it, and ensuring Pollard review finds something different, then it will that we are absolutely as bold as we should be. find something different, and we will all stand by what it finds, of course. I have striven today with the Q212 Dr Coffey: I suppose one of the challenges that Committee to try to answer these questions as fully as people are left with is that you almost have an either/ I can, without endlessly simply saying, “That’s a or situation: either “Peter was so risk-averse” or “I do matter for the review”, but of course that is a matter not know if he took legal advice on it or not”. The for the review. investigation or the whole commissioning of the work stopped so suddenly that either “It was not on my Q215 Chair: Can we just look very quickly, watch and I cannot possibly lose my job over this” or therefore, at the review? You said it is going to report there was very direct pressure from above to say, “Are as a matter of urgency. Would you like to say when you really sure this is what you want to do?”. you expect to receive the report? George Entwistle: I have been able to find no George Entwistle: One of the key things to stress here evidence whatsoever in the conversations I have had to the Committee is that, in respect of these reviews, and in the documents we have now pulled together I am not chairing the executive board. The executive that any kind of managerial pressure to drop the board is chaired by the senior independent director investigation was applied. The decision was made by elect, Dame Fiona Reynolds. Again, that has been Peter Rippon on his own account. What was going on done to ensure that the process for commissioning the in his mind at the time is something that we have to reviews, setting their terms of reference and taking rely on the Pollard review to interrogate as best it can. delivery of their reports is done without any question that I might have an undue influence over that. Q213 Dr Coffey: Given what has happened, and how your lack of curiosity was there to preserve Chinese Q216 Chair: You believe it is essential to do this walls within the BBC, do you think you will quickly? encourage your directors to be a bit more curious, so George Entwistle: I believe it is essential that this is that frankly, instead of thinking about what might done as quickly as possible. happen in the next few weeks, or a big tribute programme, the question might be asked, “Is this what Q217 Chair: When would you hope to have a report? we should be doing?”? George Entwistle: Realistically, I would be surprised, George Entwistle: This goes to the point I made given the amount of documentation and the number earlier about us needing to think in a new way about of people that Nick Pollard will need to talk to, if it what flows from an investigation if it does not end up can be done in much under four or five or six weeks, on television. The consequences of an investigation but as soon as possible. going out on television or radio are plain to everybody, of course. You deal with them. They are Q218 Mr Bradshaw: You cannot let this drag on till there. Everybody deals with the consequences. I do December. That is absurd. not believe for a second the BBC would have had any George Entwistle: I want it to happen absolutely as difficulty whatever in reforming the Christmas fast as it can. I will do everything inside the BBC that schedule in the light of a Newsnight investigation if it I can do to ensure that it happens as fast as possible. had gone ahead. We would have been absolutely at I am not in control of the time period it takes, but I pains to do so, and of course would have regarded it have made it clear to you that my view is that the as the right thing to do. I do think, and I have faster it happens, the better. acknowledged, that we need to address this question of what comes of journalism that does not necessarily Q219 Mr Bradshaw: Does that not make it all the result in output, yet which contains still important more important that you assemble the facts yourself information for the corporation to absorb, either as Director-General, and act on those facts decisively corporately or in respect of a relationship with the before this report comes out, if necessary? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o001_th_121023 BBC JS corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 23

23 October 2012 George Entwistle and David Jordan

George Entwistle: We are assembling the facts and, George Entwistle: Yes. Chairman, can I just make one of course, as we do that, my understanding of what extra point? For the avoidance of doubt, we expanded happened will grow. We have set up a review that we the terms of the Pollard review yesterday to confirm have charged with finding out and, really, it is only that the circumstances of the blog containing what it fair to everybody who is going to take part in that contained and the correction are also available. review that the outcome of it be left to that properly constituted, independently appointed review. Q223 Chair: You said it would be fully published. Do you expect that all the relevant documentation will Q220 Chair: You must accept that every day this be fully published as well? goes on without anyone reporting, the BBC is George Entwistle: I would expect that as much of it incurring further damage? as can be after legal advice will be. George Entwistle: I do not know how much further I can go than to say I agree it should happen absolutely Q224 Chair: Right. So you would expect everything as fast as possible, and I will make sure that to be published except that which the lawyers everybody understands that is my position on it. specifically say should not be published? George Entwistle: Yes, I would. Q221 Chair: Is it going to have access to all the Chair: Thank you. The Committee has just about relevant documents? completed its questioning for this morning. I thank George Entwistle: Yes. you both very much. We shall await the outcome of the reviews, and obviously we may wish to return to Q222 Chair: Wherever it wishes to go? this if we still think there are questions to ask. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SE] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o002_mark_121127 BBC JS corrected.xml

Ev 24 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Tuesday 27 November 2012

Members present: Mr John Whittingdale (Chair)

Mr Ben Bradshaw Philip Davies Angie Bray Paul Farrelly Conor Burns Mr Adrian Sanders Tracey Crouch Mr Gerry Sutcliffe ______

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Lord Patten, Chairman, BBC Trust, and Tim Davie, Acting Director-General, BBC, gave evidence.

Chair: Good morning. This is a further session of the since those allegations were made. We have gone Committee’s examination of the BBC’s response to about things in exactly the right way and I am afraid the Jimmy Savile revelations, and our inquiry has that we must bear the costs however much they are. been extended to take in subsequent events as well. I would like to welcome the Chairman of the BBC Q228 Philip Davies: You have no estimate of the Trust, Lord Patten, and the Acting Director-General, cost? Tim Davie. Lord Patten: I do not think I could conceivably put an accurate estimate on the cost without appearing to Q225 Philip Davies: Lord Patten, when do you limit the work of the inquiries. expect the two independent reviews on the Savile case to report? Q229 Philip Davies: Will the costs be published? Lord Patten: We are expecting the Pollard report next Lord Patten: Yes, of course. month, although you will appreciate that we have kept our distance from those inquiries. They are entirely Q230 Philip Davies: Where is the money coming independent. We have some contact through our from to pay for them? lawyers and their lawyers, but I would expect them to Lord Patten: The money is coming from the licence report certainly before Christmas. Originally we were fee. thinking that they would be in November, but I think that has slipped, partly because of the very thorough Q231 Philip Davies: Will every submission to the way in which they are going about their work. The Pollard review be published? second report by Dame Janet Smith will take longer. Lord Patten: Let me be absolutely clear, we will I cannot give you a time scale for that. Originally the publish everything the Pollard review reports. So, we intention was that it should be done in about six will not seek to bowdlerise the Pollard report. If Mr months, but it may take longer than that because there Pollard wishes to include in his report transcripts of is a huge e-mail trawl, among other things, to go some of the evidence, if he wishes to include other through. evidence that has been given to him, then we will publish it all unless there are necessary—terrible Q226 Philip Davies: How much are these inquiries word—redactions for legal reasons, but otherwise it is costing? my intention that everything should be published. Lord Patten: We do not yet know but they will clearly be expensive partly because of the number of lawyers Q232 Philip Davies: What dates is the Pollard involved. The Pollard inquiry has a QC who does the review covering? questioning at each session, and I am told that QCs Lord Patten: The Pollard review is covering the do not come cheap. Savile programme on Newsnight. That means that it will cover whether or not the film was pulled for Q227 Philip Davies: Yes, but how expensive is it? reasons of the corporate self-interest of the BBC, Have you just given a blank cost to say, “You can whether it was pulled for other than editorial reasons, spend as much money as you like on these inquiries”? why it was pulled, whether people from senior parts Have you not set down a cost for them? of the BBC interfered with the editor’s programming Lord Patten: I do not see how we could conceivably decisions, whether it was appropriate to produce and set down a capped cost without seeming to cap the broadcast a tribute programme to Savile over the work of the inquiries. In particular, the second inquiry Christmas period—and two were produced—and it by Dame Janet Smith, which is ranging very wide will also undoubtedly look at the reasons given in the over the history of light entertainment in the BBC and, editor’s blog for the dropping of the film. indeed, the institution and culture of the BBC, will be quite a big job and it would be a matter for Q233 Philip Davies: Will it cover who knew what considerable criticism if there was not a big job being and when? done. It is worth noting that, as I understand it, other Lord Patten: Yes. institutions that also allowed Jimmy Savile to work Philip Davies: Right through to October this year and operate in them have not yet agreed inquiries into when people claimed they did not know anything what happened even though it is a couple of months about it, or right through to the present day? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o002_mark_121127 BBC JS corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 25

27 November 2012 Lord Patten and Tim Davie

Lord Patten: Of course. Can I just make one point editorial judgment. I think that the journalism about that, Mr Davies? You are quite right to press on involved was—to be polite—shoddy, and the tragedy the costs of the inquiry. It would not be worth our is that for the third time in 25 years a Director-General while to produce an inquiry that did not answer all the has been swept away by a terrible failure of points that you are making. journalism. Tim Davie can tell you this; we are now in the middle of disciplinary hearings about that second Q234 Philip Davies: On the costs, when you said the Newsnight programme, which was appalling. money is coming from the licence fee, we all knew it Tim Davie: The 2 November issue is a fairly simple was going to be coming from the licence fee. That story. It is one of a bad editorial mistake, and there was not really an earth shattering revelation. I was will be consequences for that. But it is a fair question, trying to get more from you about where. The money because I have had the same thoughts, but you have a presumably is allocated for something from the limited cast of characters and you can quickly get to licence fee, so what— a reasonable and fair assessment of events. In terms Lord Patten: It will come from the central budget that of Pollard, it is a much more complex situation. You would otherwise go— have the linkage back to Savile, the various kind of Tim Davie: The challenge I have made to the corporate tangles in there that we need to get through. organisation is that with a £3.5 billion-plus revenue, That is why. we would have a contingency of 1% maybe, which is Chair: We will be coming on to looking in closer quite low in corporate terms. None of the costs, as I detail at the MacQuarrie report. foresee it, would get anywhere close to that. So we would make provisions within the corporate Q238 Mr Bradshaw: Could you just confirm what contingency. One of the things I feel very strongly George Entwistle assured us when he was here a few about is this should not impact in any way on weeks ago, that Pollard is being allowed to go programme making areas. So, that is the challenge I wherever he needs to and wants to? have set for the management. Lord Patten: Yes, and Nick Pollard is on the record as saying that he has good co-operation from the BBC. Q235 Philip Davies: What does the contingency normally get spent on? Q239 Mr Bradshaw: Do the costs that you have just Tim Davie: Any unforeseen events from funerals to been talking about include the costs of lawyers for any— some of those people who may find themselves being Philip Davies: Funerals? State funerals? criticised by Pollard? Mr Bradshaw: The Queen Mother. Lord Patten: Yes, because one of the things that we Tim Davie: Yes. Any state funerals. I try to cheer are obliged to do—duty of care and so on—is to give proceedings up but yes, it could be special coverage people legal advice when they are presented, as has of events. It could be an extreme case in terms of happened with Leveson, with an initial statement of news coverage. We could be discussing just having a what you think has happened. meeting on the 2014 Commonwealth Games, so we may decide to invest a bit more in a project like that. Q240 Mr Bradshaw: Is there not a danger that this Clearly I want to be in a position where I can deliver becomes a horrendous tangle of lawyers negotiating an annual budget. Having run many corporate drafts of Pollard and challenging them and so forth? budgets, I would not advise going to a contingency Lord Patten: Before Tim comes in, we know how below 1%. long Lord Leveson’s report has taken but, on these issues, we are on a hiding to nothing. Unless you go Q236 Philip Davies: You would not advise any state through all the procedures and give everybody legal funerals this year either, by the sounds of it, or else rights and pay for these legal costs, then you are we are going to be rather poorly covered if all the accused of doing a shoddy piece of work. contingency for that is going on this. Tim Davie: Just to be clear, this is Pollard’s business, Tim Davie: I am very aware of what I can and cannot so we do not want to get in the way of any of that. control, Mr Davies, and state funerals is not one of From an executive point of view, I want to support it them. as much as I can. In terms of reasonable legal costs, because there is concern and you are right to raise it, Q237 Chair: The Pollard inquiry is going to last four and I have asked the same question. What are or five weeks. It is going to trawl through hundreds reasonable costs for the individuals? We have made of e-mails. It is going to have QCs employed. Yet the the decision to provide those legal costs; the reason inquiry into what went wrong in the second Newsnight being, by the way, that it is critical that we get the programme, which, in many ways, was just as serious inquiry on a level playing field so everyone if not more serious failing a of journalism, lasted participates. To answer your point, we want to three days. minimise the amount of legal fuss and get on with the Tim Davie: More serious. evidence. We do have provision for when legal costs Chair: So why is a similar in-depth inquiry not being get above certain thresholds. We want, from the mounted into that? licence fee payer’s perspective, very clear evidence of Lord Patten: I am sure that you will also want to hear the work plan and all those things. So we have very from Tim Davie, because the issues involved in the experienced lawyers on our side making sure that second inquiry are more simple and straightforward. these legal costs do not run too high. But this is an They are questions of, in my judgment, appalling independent inquiry. When the costs come out they cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o002_mark_121127 BBC JS corrected.xml

Ev 26 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

27 November 2012 Lord Patten and Tim Davie will be limited, but this is not going to be a cheap I did the following day, having seen the programme, business. However, it is right for us to do it properly. seek the Director-General’s confirmation that Newsnight was being properly managed and that there Q241 Chair: How many individuals are you paying was in place a management structure for the the legal costs of? programme. It was obviously affected by the extent to Tim Davie: In terms of the initial interviews, about 40 which, and this is undoubtedly one of the lessons we people were put through Pollard. It is around 40. The will learn, senior management figures—an awful bit legal costs to date are around £200,000 and my of legalese is coming up—were recused from estimate—I will have to come back to you with the responsibilities relating to anything regarding Savile exact number—is that you are talking around £10,000 or paedophilia. But I was assured that Saturday that on individuals. So, of the 40, not all have legal things were being properly managed, that temporary support. I do not have the exact number on hand of controls had been put in place. That answers your who we have handed legal fees to at this point but I point about the distinction between the roles of the can come back to you on that number. Trust and the Executive. If I can just add one point, I am not sure it would Q242 Chair: But you would be paying the legal costs have been any different in the old days with the BBC of Peter Rippon, Helen Boaden, Stephen Mitchell? governors, because the BBC governors did not seek to intervene even so. Tim Davie: Yes, up to the threshold, with a work plan. Mr Sanders: To be clear, you were assured by the then Director-General? Q243 Chair: You have set a cap on that? Lord Patten: Yes. Tim Davie: Yes, currently we are nowhere close to the cap but our cap at this point is—in extreme Q246 Mr Sanders: Why did the risk management circumstances—as high as £50,000. mechanisms of the BBC not identify the problems Lord Patten: But that is in line with what would that emerged? happen with the Civil Service if civil servants were Lord Patten: Well, we do have regular discussions involved in an inquiry. of risk management, usually beginning in the Finance Tim Davie: Yes, just to be clear I would not go to Committee of the Trust, and it is fair to say nobody £50,000 unless I had a very clear work plan through has ever suggested in the past that a risk that we might the general counsel over £10,000 or £25,000. We are face is the discovery that a former popular BBC star not just handing money out. was a serial paedophile. There are some risks about which it is difficult to make a calculation. I am sure Q244 Mr Sanders: Is it the Trust or the Executive that as a result of this third self-destructive piece of Board that is responsible for enforcing editorial journalism in 25 years, we will want to look at how standards, and who is in charge of risk management? you can ensure that there is a belt-and-braces Lord Patten: It is, in some respects, a shared approach to the coverage of the news without responsibility. According to the Charter, the Executive abandoning or resiling from investigative journalism. is responsible for editorial decisions and agrees I think that is a really tough issue for any newspaper editorial guidelines with us. We are responsible for editor or a broadcaster. It is imperative that you still trying to ensure that the Executive meets those do investigative journalism, which may have risks standards and complies with other regulations as well, associated with it, but it is imperative that your including those of Ofcom. It is a shared responsibility journalistic standards are even higher for investigative but certainly as far as editorial content is concerned, journalism than they are for covering anything else. the Executive is responsible. A very easy way of defining it is that the Executive is responsible for what Q247 Mr Sanders: Final question: how many days a happens up to the transmission of a programme and week are you devoting to chairing the Trust? we can then have responsibilities afterwards if things Lord Patten: How many days a week? At the go wrong. moment, about eight. There was an FOI request put down in the interests of the public weal by Guido Q245 Mr Sanders: In what way would or should the Fawkes that indicated that I had been in my office, or Trust have ensured that the BBC lived up to its in the BBC, for three days a week for the first six editorial standards in the Newsnight cases? months of the year. In the last two or three months, it Lord Patten: For Newsnight, if I can take the second has been four days a week, but that suggests that I am Newsnight case, and perhaps I should not make this not working on the BBC when I am not in the office. judgment, but in my opinion was a much more serious In fact, I would guess that one or two other days a error, it would have been inappropriate for me, when week I am doing BBC work, either doing papers or the tweets on that Friday were reported to me, to have emails or letters. So, if anybody was to ask if being intervened, and said, “What are you doing with this Chairman of the BBC Trust was a three or four day a programme?” The last time, with a different system week occupation, I would be hard pressed to say it of governance, the Board and Chairman of the BBC was not more than that. tried to interfere with a programme was in the case of Real Lives, and the BBC went on strike and most of Q248 Angie Bray: I just want to pick up on the point the media went into meltdown about how appallingly about what was or was not identified as the problem the governors had behaved. So, it was not right for with the particular piece of journalism in Newsnight. me to interfere when I heard about the tweets. It is not just a matter surely of looking how far up the cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o002_mark_121127 BBC JS corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 27

27 November 2012 Lord Patten and Tim Davie structure might not have been working. What that you needed a regulator who was slightly happened in that piece about north Wales was just distanced from the BBC Executive. very careless journalism right from the bottom. I took the trouble to read the reports of the debates on Lord Patten: Yes, absolutely right. that system of governance, both the White Paper and Angie Bray: It seems to me, as somebody who has the Royal Charter, and read some of the contributions been a journalist, that it is elementary, and certain that members of the Committee made. It is quite checks were not made. It seems to me that you also interesting to compare those now with what has need to be looking far down to see what training is happened. We will, of course, go through those taking place for some of the journalists who are intellectual tortures of the damned again in the run-up working on programmes like that, and that might also to the next Charter renewal. But I just do not think, include your relationship with the Bureau of hand on heart, I can see how a single board or Ofcom Investigative Journalism. with greater powers would have prevented either the Lord Patten: Yes. Can I just say something about first or the second of those programmes going out. that? We have a College of Journalism that trains people for the industry that has a very high reputation. Q251 Chair: The Trust is responsible, essentially, for It is inconceivable that anybody could come out of a the oversight of the management, the senior seminar or a class from the College of Journalism and management of the BBC. make the sort of errors that occurred in that case. Lord Patten: Yes. Tim Davie: It is worth saying I have been overwhelmed by journalists in the BBC who are Q252 Chair: You ended up with a position where aghast at the basic error that was made. As I look Caroline Thomson had gone, Zarin Patel is going, at the MacQuarrie report, when we go through the John Smith is going and there was a vacancy caused disciplinaries, it is really clear that yes, there are by the elevation of George Entwistle. There was then questions around news line recusals. This is just a basic journalistic failing, it is as simple as that. In another vacancy when Tim was elevated to take over some ways, I do not want to dismiss it in any way. from George Entwistle after George Entwistle had gone. Essentially, the entire senior management of the Angie Bray: No, it should not be dismissed. It seems to me that is very worrying, then. BBC disappeared in the space of a few weeks. Was that just incredibly bad luck or was that a failure of Tim Davie: It was very, very serious. oversight? Lord Patten: No, it was mostly bad luck. The decision Q249 Mr Bradshaw: Has your experience of this about Caroline Thomson was made by Mr Entwistle crisis, Lord Patten, led you to question whether the and Caroline Thomson, because he did not think there whole governance and regulatory structure of the BBC was a post of Chief Operating Officer that was is a sensible one? needed anymore. Lord Patten: No, there may be other reasons. I know that you have views on it and I know that in due course, in the run-up to Charter renewal or non- Q253 Chair: Do you think that he is still right in the renewal, we will be talking about governance again. light of what has ultimately happened? But I honestly think that what happened in this case— Lord Patten: I do not think it would have made very not least for the reasons that Ms Bray mentioned just much difference. It might have done. She is a very now—would not have been affected whatever the competent woman. It might have made a difference if governance, if Ofcom had been responsible or if you she had been there but I cannot quite see how it would had had the old Board of Governors. This was a have affected, for example, the second Newsnight terrible elementary journalistic failure, and the easiest programme. Nowadays people say that the big thing is for some people to reach for governance. A mistake was not letting Caroline Thomson go but, lot of people get their thrills by discussions about before my time, letting Mark Byford go who was a governance. It has always slightly passed me by. very safe pair of hands and looked in detail at every bit of journalism and every bit of current affairs. I just Q250 Mr Bradshaw: I was not referring to the do not know. It is quite easy to be wise after the event specific second Newsnight issue, I was referring to the on this but it is obviously, to understate the point, less BBC’s ability to manage crisis. Would your job not than desirable to have almost everybody in a senior have been easier if you had either been a more position in the BBC in an acting role, which is why— traditional Chairman of the Board who could have we will come to this, I am sure—I was very keen to been more hands on and intervened more forcefully appoint a new Director-General as quickly as possible. earlier or a regulator, someone who is there to challenge the management, but not both, which is the Q254 Chair: It did give the outside world the role that you have at the moment? impression that the BBC was in complete meltdown. Lord Patten: I am not absolutely convinced how Lord Patten: Yes. much difference there would have been if I had been Chair: Are you confident that that now could not a traditional Chairman of Governors of the BBC. happen again, that you are going to learn lessons from After all, the last change in governance was put in this and put in place contingency plans? place precisely because the last great crisis, over the Lord Patten: Yes, we have been incredibly grateful Hutton inquiry, led to the departure both of the Chief for the way in which Tim Davie has already started to Executive—the Director-General—and of the get things back on to an even keel. He has done a Chairman of the BBC. So it was decided at that time terrific job and I am sure that he, with Tony Hall, will cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o002_mark_121127 BBC JS corrected.xml

Ev 28 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

27 November 2012 Lord Patten and Tim Davie be helping to choose and build a team to move the That is not for a minute minimising the severity of BBC forward in the coming weeks and months. what we have to deal with here. It is serious, and we If I may say so, one of the problems that the last have a lot of work to do. I was just trying to set the Director-General faced was to be hit within two weeks context of what is happening both journalistically and by a crisis in which he was implicated or involved across the BBC, but I take your point. because part of the accusation—Mr Pollard is looking at this—was that he had known, or should have Q256 Paul Farrelly: Mr Davie, you have just known, about the Newsnight investigation being mentioned Panorama. When George Entwistle made pulled, and therefore since he should have known his very ill advised appearance before us a few weeks about the investigation, he should not have allowed ago, with no preparedness that we could see, he two tribute programmes to Jimmy Savile to be played extolled the virtues of the Panorama programme that over the Christmas period. The Committee invigilated went out attacking Newsnight. But I asked him a him about this, asked him questions about this. That question, “Who’s in charge of the BBC? You’ve set really did bowl him over, the fact that he was sort of up reviews, you’ve had to back-track and change involved in the crisis himself. Unfortunately it had things, but the reviews are in place. Then suddenly further consequences. Panorama comes up as a vehicle used by a producer Tim Davie: Clearly this is a major crisis at the BBC, and a journalist to attack, hang, draw and quarter an and there are valid questions around the strength of editor who may have made mistakes but who was debates, as the Chairman has outlined, about whether being investigated.”. Would you sanction that? more experience here or there would have made a Tim Davie: You are talking to the right man because difference. I understand the public perception— I agree with Panorama. meltdown, chaos. Within the BBC—you are more Lord Patten: Tim was in charge of the coverage. than welcome to come and walk the corridors, as I Look, it is one of the strengths, one of the virtues of have done, and walk the floor, if you get the top 100 the BBC that it tries to tell the truth about itself even leaders of the BBC in a room at this point in time, when the truth is appalling. People are talking not Panorama there is not chaos. They are delivering their output. only about that but about John Humphrys’ interview with George Entwistle that was—how to be They are aghast at what has happened but they are polite?—a bruising encounter. But John Humphrys very good and they are delivering. So that is why one does that with Chancellors of the Exchequer and of my key focuses has been business as usual, Prime Ministers, so it is absolutely right that he should delivering Children in Need, delivering the do the same in spades with his boss. It is an indication investigative journalism we saw last night on of the importance of the BBC as a pluralistic Panorama. This is not an organisation that is falling journalistic organisation that it behaves like that. I am apart internally. It has major challenges in terms of its not sure that newspapers always do, although I am senior team, in terms of establishing the right people sure all those that are represented in this room behave for the long term in those jobs with the right entirely like that. experience. But we have a lot of experience in the BBC and it is not chaos. I would be more than happy Q257 Paul Farrelly: You shifted the grounds with for people to join me and walk the floors of the BBC John Humphrys. The question that I asked— and talk to the staff about it. They have real concerns Lord Patten: Let Tim talk about Panorama. about what has happened and, particularly, obviously Tim Davie: Just to be clear, Panorama passed muster. concerns in the history of the BBC and what happened I do not agree with the analysis that anyone was hung, with Savile, but also they are aghast at some of the drawn and quartered in that programme, and we will journalistic failing we have seen. Of course they are. probably beg to differ on that. It is utterly clear from They take it personally. I take it personally. But that my point of view that we go into Pollard without any does not mean the BBC, in itself, is in meltdown on blame attached to individuals at this point. We need the floor. That is not what is happening. Pollard to do his work. Now, there was a clear right of reply—in the weird world of the BBC—for the Q255 Mr Sutcliffe: There is a lack of confidence. BBC. They gave a right of reply. That is how the If you speak to the regional people in Yorkshire, for programme works. I stand by that. instance, there is a lack of confidence in the senior Paul Farrelly: I am sorry, I cannot conceive of any management. Not you, but over what has happened. other organisation that would allow one— Tim Davie: If you have been through the situation that Tim Davie: Isn’t that one of the wonderful things that we have been through over the last few weeks—I say the BBC does? with some irony that morale in the BBC is often quoted as being at an all-time low—there has, without Q258 Paul Farrelly: If you take the view that the a doubt, been a knock to confidence in senior Panorama programme was full of remarkable management. I take that. But what they will see under journalism, because there was a bit of shoddy the leadership we currently have, and I am sure under journalism in that programme as well where the Tony Hall’s leadership, is a real commitment to earn interviewer allowed the producer, who was using it as back that trust. That is work that is happening quite a vehicle to attack his former editor, to avoid the rapidly. You saw some really, frankly, tragic events question of what he did with the evidence that they over the couple of days regarding George Entwistle had amassed over so many months over Savile. and what happened, but quite quickly the BBC got Tim Davie: We are into the specifics of an individual back to calmly delivering output. interview, which I am quite happy to go into but we cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o002_mark_121127 BBC JS corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 29

27 November 2012 Lord Patten and Tim Davie had many voices in the programme; so you had Kevin Q261 Philip Davies: It was striking that you did not Marsh, you had others talking about the various go on Sunday Politics to be interviewed by Andrew perspectives on the affair. No-one was hung, drawn Neil, for example. Why was that? and quartered in that programme, but it was a very Lord Patten: Well, I have too much regard for the important programme for us to make and I stand by it. boredom threshold of the British public. I don’t want to go everywhere. Q259 Paul Farrelly: It just begs the question of who Philip Davies: Were you asked to go on Sunday is running the BBC. Politics to be interviewed by Andrew Neil? Tim Davie: Well no, it was very clear at that point. Lord Patten: Not so far as I know. Paul Farrelly: Who is in charge of the BBC? Philip Davies: You were not asked to go on? Tim Davie: No. To be fair, in that case it was utterly Lord Patten: I do not believe so. clear who was in charge. There was no doubt who Philip Davies: Are you absolutely sure about that? was in charge—Peter Horrocks running news and I Lord Patten: No, I am not absolutely sure about that was editor-in-chief for coverage of Savile. There was because I do not— not an ounce of complexity in that. Philip Davies: So you do not know who asked you Lord Patten: I totally agree with that, but of course go on and why? it is sometimes inconvenient that this happens. The Lord Patten: I do normally know who asks me to go toughest interview I have had for a very long time on what, but sometimes—to the immense surprise of was with Eddie Mair on the PM programme about a my wife and family—large numbers of people want week or 10 days ago. Do I feel after that, “Why is he to interview me. working for us?” To be honest, part of me does, but Philip Davies: You do not know whether Andrew on the other hand that is the glory of the BBC—that Neil asked you, whether you were asked to go on the you get savaged by your own people. Sunday Politics and be interviewed by Andrew Neil Tim Davie: Can I make a point that probably helps a on that day? little bit? When I took over as Acting Director- Lord Patten: No. General, one of the things to your point that I thought Philip Davies: Would you have gone on if you had would reach the point that was not ideal was to have been asked? two lines of news management. In other words, we Lord Patten: Probably not because I would have had a situation where we had a line of people who taken the view that one interview on Sunday was were recused from Savile stories and we had another enough. line of management. That is why we had to set up Philip Davies: Or that he might give you a tougher people like myself in an editorial role through a ride than Andrew Marr? different chain. One of the first actions I took, and it Lord Patten: No, although I have great respect for was a situation where having someone running the Andrew Neil as an interviewer, and as a former BBC who was not subject to the Pollard inquiry could journalist, I would have probably taken the view that do immediately, and that was get back to one line of I should go on the programme with the larger news control. Now, I agree that having two editorial audience and that is Andrew Marr, isn’t it? I would chains in the BBC is by no means an ideal situation have taken the view that having done one programme and that was one of the first actions I took. So, I do was probably as much as the market would bear for a take the point that there was increased complexity quiet Sunday. versus the ideal. I take that point. Philip Davies: Well, with the Chairman’s indulgence, I would like to come back to you a bit later. Q260 Philip Davies: Lord Patten, when you went on Lord Patten: Good. the Andrew Marr programme and you were discussing the John Humphrys interview, you said, “Well, you don’t go on an interview with John Humphrys and Q262 Philip Davies: But for now, can I ask you expect the bowling to be slow full tosses” was what about Mark Thompson whose praises you were you said. Now, you do expect slow full tosses when singing when he left the BBC? What do you think of Andrew Marr interviews you. So, can you explain to Mark Thompson’s explanation of what he knew about us why you decided to go on the Andrew Marr Jimmy Savile and Newsnight and all that kind of programme straight after the dismissal, or resignation, stuff? What do you think of his explanation of what of George Entwistle, whichever it was? Did you he knew and when he knew it? choose that because you wanted some slow full Lord Patten: I will be better able to comment on that tosses? after Pollard has replied. Lord Patten: I am not sure that I would analyse or Philip Davies: As the Chairman of the BBC Trust describe Andrew Marr’s technique as an interviewer you have no opinion? as slow full tosses. You should have been on some of Lord Patten: The reason why we set up the Pollard the programmes I have been on. I remember being inquiry was so that it could ask those questions. interviewed on Singapore television and going to Philip Davies: Have you not asked those questions? sleep during one of my own answers. Actually, slow Lord Patten: I am waiting for Mr Pollard’s inquiry to full tosses are very often when you make mistakes as report before I comment on the position of those that an interviewee. I had agreed to do the Andrew Marr he is interviewing himself. programme before the decisions taken on the Saturday night on George Entwistle—I think that is true but I Q263 Philip Davies: When did you last speak to can give you the exact time when I check. Mark Thompson about all of this? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o002_mark_121127 BBC JS corrected.xml

Ev 30 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

27 November 2012 Lord Patten and Tim Davie

Lord Patten: I last spoke to him about a month ago. role as Chairman of the Trust. Were you not aware of I went to a lecture that he gave in Oxford on rhetoric. this letter that Mark Thompson sent to The Sunday It was before he took his job at The New York Times Times threatening to sue them if they ran a story and we had a brief conversation about the issues implicating him? surrounding Savile and the inquiries. Lord Patten: No. Philip Davies: You did not know about that? Q264 Philip Davies: How many times have you Lord Patten: No. spoken to him about the Savile and Newsnight situation? Q268 Philip Davies: So, on 7 September, ITV sent a Lord Patten: How many times since when? letter to the BBC to say that they were going to run a Philip Davies: Since you found out about it. You programme about Jimmy Savile. Are you happy that could not speak to him before you found about it, so Mark Thompson did not know anything? He did not how many times have you spoken to him since you know anything about the legal letter that was sent on found out about it? his behalf, apparently. Are you also happy he did not Lord Patten: On that occasion—I have only seen know anything about that letter? him about— Lord Patten: No, I did not know about the letter on Philip Davies: There are telephones. 7 September and I just wonder, as this questioning Lord Patten: Yes, but you do not set up an inquiry, an expensive inquiry and then bark yourself. proceeds, whether you have ever read the Charter. Philip Davies: Did you not speak to him before you Philip Davies: 8 September— set up the inquiry? Lord Patten: Sorry, what was the answer to that Lord Patten: No. question? Philip Davies: Why not? Philip Davies: I am not getting an answer to my Lord Patten: Because he was no longer Director- question. I have the Charter here. We will come back General of the BBC. on to your role later. As I have said, I am asking about Philip Davies: But he was at the time. On something Mark Thompson at the moment. On 8 September, both that is a big crisis for the BBC, did you not think it you and Mark Thompson hosted a party at the last was worthwhile speaking to the person who was the night of the Proms. So, the day before that, the BBC Director-General at the time? had received a letter from ITV to say that they were Lord Patten: I thought that was probably something going to run a programme about Jimmy Savile; the that Pollard should do rather than myself. day before that, Mark Thompson, the Director- General, got lawyers to write to The Sunday Times to Q265 Philip Davies: What do you get paid to do, tell them to stop a story or else he would sue them, Lord Patten? and on 8 September this was never even mentioned. Lord Patten: What I get paid to do is to chair the The Director-General did not even say to you, “By the BBC Trust. way, there’s something that’s happened. I need to have Philip Davies: Quite. a chat with you about this”. Nothing at all was Lord Patten: You are probably aware of the mentioned about it. responsibilities of the BBC Trust. Lord Patten: No. Philip Davies: So, he never said, “I want to speak to Q266 Philip Davies: Mark Thompson, for the record, you about something important”? seemed to say, as far as I recall from what I have Lord Patten: No. heard, that he never heard any allegation about Jimmy Savile while he was the Director-General. He left the Q269 Philip Davies: What do you think it says about BBC on 16 September. On 6 September, 10 days you, as the Chairman of the Trust? Are you seen as before he left, Mark Thompson got BBC lawyers to some kind of patsy for the Executive of the BBC; that write to The Sunday Times to tell them to stop a story there are very serious issues that are coming up and alleging he did know about what had happened and you do not even need to know about them as the threatened to sue them if they ran the story. So, what Chairman of the Trust? do you make of that? Lord Patten: If I were you, I would renew your Lord Patten: You know perfectly well that I am not acquaintance with the Charter— going to reply to questions that are being looked at by Philip Davies: No, I am trying to get some answers Nick Pollard’s inquiry. You know that perfectly well, from you, Lord Patten. so you can go on asking those questions but you are Lord Patten: I have given you answers. going to get the same answer. Philip Davies: But the point is, Lord Patten, it does Philip Davies: You did not know what was going on? not relate to you because you said that you did not Lord Patten: I was not told about that letter. know anything about this until 28 September, I think it was. Q270 Philip Davies: What do you think about Mark Lord Patten: Yes, the weekend when the Standard Thompson and his role in all this? Do you not have broke the story. an opinion? Lord Patten: I will have a better informed opinion Q267 Philip Davies: You cannot just let the ball go after Nick Pollard produces his report. through to the wicket keeper all the time. You have to Philip Davies: So, is your opinion only going to be play at some of these. They relate to your particular the same as Pollard’s? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o002_mark_121127 BBC JS corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 31

27 November 2012 Lord Patten and Tim Davie

Lord Patten: No, my opinion will be coloured by Mr Just to be clear, there was no implication of blame at Pollard’s and if it was not going to be, what would be that point and there should not be. We absolutely the point of having the Pollard inquiry? wanted a fair process and one of the things that I want Philip Davies: Apart from to save you having to to go on record with is that we must ensure a fair answer any difficult questions. process through Pollard, look at the evidence and do Lord Patten: That is extremely unfair—I would justice to individuals who are in no way implicated at almost say unworthy but I am not sure that I would this point. This is why we are sensitive to the make that additional point. It is an extremely unfair questioning, because that is the minimum we owe question, because you know perfectly well that when everyone involved in this affair. That was the George Entwistle came before this Committee on 23 decision-making process we went through. October, I volunteered to come at that time and the On the Chairman’s point, the learnings here are that Committee, probably very sensibly, decided it did not by and large we have done the right thing, but it took want me. I am always prepared to come and answer us too long to clock it at times, and with those few questions from this Committee, not least because it days it took a bit of time. I have to say in the heat of renews my acquaintance with you. battle these calls are often made. With hindsight, yes, Philip Davies: I will come back to you later, Lord we could have moved a bit quicker. Personally, I am Patten. a fan of doing the right thing more than anything. So, Lord Patten: That is something I look forward to. you could look at a few days here or there in that period. This is not unnatural in corporations, but it Q271 Tracey Crouch: After the original Savile affair does not make it excusable. broke, both the BBC management and the Trust seemed totally paralysed. In light of some of the Q273 Tracey Crouch: But you are suggesting that answers to my colleagues’ questions, are you satisfied the McAlpine, the Newsnight 2, was related to Savile, that both responded appropriately to the crisis? when MacQuarrie quite clearly said it was different? Lord Patten: Arguably, we could have been a bit Tim Davie: With respect, it is not related to Savile. I quicker in establishing the inquiry—in effect, in suppose you could argue because it went up the Savile establishing two. I just refer again to the fact that line of reporting in news, this alternative line— some of the other institutions where Mr Savile apparently behaved exceptionally appallingly have not Q274 Tracey Crouch: So it was failure of judgment yet established inquiries. We spent a few days talking within the reporting line? to the police, who were incredibly helpful, and the Tim Davie: No, with McAlpine I am very clear that police took the view that we should not set up our the primary issue was the one we talked about earlier, own inquiry until they were satisfied that they had which is a basic journalistic failing. The people on the their own investigations in hand. Maybe we should have questioned that a bit more strongly. But it is still ground will tell you that although there was the case that the ITV Exposure broadcast went out on complexity over the two news lines, it was not the key 3 October and we announced an inquiry on the 8th, issue of the day. The key issue of the day, in that and the following week were able to name the people report, was a journalistic mistake, a significant conducting both the inquiries and give the terms of journalistic mistake. I know that joining the dots is reference. Although it is fair to say that we were slow sometimes a little complex, but I then came in and to accept that there should be a separate inquiry on said that looking at the span of issues we had, and Newsnight in addition to the inquiry on the culture of given the fact that my personal position was not the BBC, which is again a lesson to be learned. So compromised, I could now move back to a single could we and should we have been a bit faster? Yes, news line in the editorial chain, and that was what I we should have been. implemented. I stand by the decision. I think it was absolutely the right decision at that point and I have Q272 Tracey Crouch: Part of the response from the hopefully made clear to the Committee the rationale BBC to the Jimmy Savile exposé was to remove behind that. Helen Boaden and Stephen Mitchell from their decision making role. Do you think in hindsight, given Q275 Tracey Crouch: Lord Patten, you said on The what happened with McAlpine on Newsnight, that that Andrew Marr Show that when you came to the BBC was a mistake? there were more senior leaders in the BBC than there Lord Patten: I do not think it was a mistake but it had were in the Chinese Communist Party, that you had to consequences that are being addressed at the moment devolve decision making as much as possible and with by Tim Davie. devolved decision making comes people’s Tim Davie: When you say “remove” what happened preparedness to take responsibility. Clearly, there were was Helen and Stephen remained in their roles but not enough people to supervise those who were they were, as we talked about earlier—I am trying not making journalistic decisions. Could it not be argued to use the word “recuse”—but they were recused from that there are perhaps not enough supervising Savile stories. managers within the BBC? Now, what happened was when I came in that Lord Patten: I would have difficulty sustaining that weekend after the departure of George, I decided—I argument in the BBC and indeed outside. Yesterday I will be repeating myself here—to establish one news was speaking to an organisation called the Voice of line. At that point, we decided that Helen and Steve the Listener and Viewer and they would have had should step aside while the Pollard inquiry progresses. some difficulty accepting that. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o002_mark_121127 BBC JS corrected.xml

Ev 32 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

27 November 2012 Lord Patten and Tim Davie

Q276 Tracey Crouch: Somebody made a journalistic pay to median earnings and to guarantee to bring that error within the BBC. You referred to it as a terrible cap down. elementary journalistic failure. If you had a manager who had the editorial judgment to understand the Q278 Tracey Crouch: I was looking at your annual standards and the guidelines, they would recognise report on the senior manager headcount by salary that failure. band. I was interested to see that of those earning from Tim Davie: With respect, it was not about the number £70,000 to £220,000, the head count has reduced from of people involved. We had an acting editor in there, 483 to 423. For those earning between £220,000 and we had someone responsible for the news division and £400,000, the head count has increased, admittedly by we had someone from the management board. I get only one, but it has increased. I just wondered what the point. There is a bit of delicious irony about this, you are going to do with these overpaid managers at which is that one of the pressures on us now is to, in the top. some ways, add more news management, whereas we Lord Patten: Well, what we have been doing is are on a path to reduce the number of management in reducing the number, as I said. the BBC. I do not think in any of these cases you can Tracey Crouch: But it is really more of the junior look at it and say there were not enough people ranks of senior management. involved in the decision. Lord Patten: No. Lord Patten: Can I just add a point to that? It is ironic, Tim Davie: I suppose it depends what you— perhaps, that George Entwistle addressed these issues Tracey Crouch: Perhaps those that might be able to in his very first statement as Director-General. The take decisions. senior leadership group had undoubtedly become too Tim Davie: In my point of view, by the way, anyone large. It has been reduced by 150 or so in the last earning over £70,000 should have senior authority couple of years. I said that it should come down, in because we are getting into senior ranks at that point. my view, from about 3% of the BBC’s staff to 1% and There is a real appetite in the BBC to aggressively that is continuing. I used to make my point sometimes pursue this issue. The Chairman made the point about about reading the job advertisements from Ariel 150 over two years, and we have taken down the magazine, which some of you will know are written number of senior managers by nearly 200 over five in “automatic beaker disposal unit” prose. At the same years. We still have room to go. My personal view, as time as taking out senior management slots, you have someone who has worked in many what might be to encourage everybody to feel that they have a share called leaner corporations, is that having 1.5% or 1% in management. If you are the editor or a producer of senior management is a really good target for us. It a programme, you have management responsibilities would benchmark us against any media organisation and if we are going, as we should, to push down in the world. We are moving towards that. financial authority and budgetary authority to that sort It is an interesting point you make, because often it is of level, which I think is essential in order to get the the controllers and the controller-level individuals best value for the BBC, then people are going to who have huge editorial jobs, and we do have to compete in the market. There is a balance here accept that everybody has to share in management and because working for the BBC is a privilege, but we management is not them and us. do have to compete for them. Those big editorial jobs are often the ones that command slightly bigger Q277 Tracey Crouch: You are reported today in the salaries. In my personal view, it is that very layer you papers as saying that there are too many overpaid are talking about that we need to keep the magnifying BBC managers. I wonder could you just define to me glass on and get the numbers further down, rather than what an overpaid BBC manager is? stripping out the big editorial figures who are Lord Patten: Yes, an overpaid BBC manager is essential. somebody who is not necessary to making fantastic If you look at my last job in radio, it was the BBC programmes or the support for making fantastic controllers running Radio 4 and Radio 2—they are the BBC programmes and who is paid by less of a big jobs. I had to compete in the market, particularly discount to the rest of the market than most people in for Radio 2 and Radio 1. There is a small pool of the BBC are. people who are editorially capable of doing that. We We are going to talk, I am sure, about pay and other can all debate whether we would like to get them issues later. The BBC operates at a 70% discount to cheaper—of course we would. I do not want to spend the market and that discount will probably increase. It the licence fee unnecessarily, but those jobs are cannot increase indefinitely, otherwise you would critical to the BBC. One of the reasons we see that have nobody wanting to work for the BBC despite trust has held up in the BBC is because editorially its reputation. So, partly because of the very proper those people deliver, and we are an operation that pressures from this Committee, we have borne down relies on human control of the editorial process, not on both numbers and pay levels and cut them both by just fixed processes. That is pretty critical. at least 30%. The figure is higher now, isn’t it? Tim Davie: Over the last three years we are down by Q279 Tracey Crouch: With a few mistakes being about 40% in salary bill. made by a handful of managers at the top, Mr Davie, Lord Patten: As well as doing something else that is how do you think morale is within the BBC? important, and is the only public sector body that has Tim Davie: It has taken a real knock because people done it, which is to implement Will Hutton’s proposal in the BBC are deeply passionate about the for capping the top pay or the average executive board organisation. They love the BBC. I do. The BBC is a cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o002_mark_121127 BBC JS corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 33

27 November 2012 Lord Patten and Tim Davie wonderful place. It is a wonderful institution, and they Chair: That will be very helpful. take this personally. That is what I would say. On the Lord Patten: What is absolutely true is the overall earlier points, there is also a job to do for the senior numbers have been coming down and will continue to leaders. We are not stupid, so we know that. We have come down. I want to make the point again that there to rebuild trust with the staff. But if you went, as I is a limit beyond which it is difficult to go. did last week, and spent a lot of time on the shop floor going around programme teams, look at what is Q283 Angie Bray: Can I just ask you about Helen coming out the end of the pipe—Children in Need, Boaden and Steve Mitchell, who have “stepped like I mentioned, and the daily programmes that we aside”, as you say, while these inquiries take place? Is are putting together—you would see that most people it their expectation, and is it your expectation, that are getting on with the job. They are not broken. They they will return to their original posts once these are not in chaos. They are doing their work. inquiries are completed? So there are morale issues based on the trauma of the Tim Davie: As I said, there is absolutely no indication last few weeks. There are questions about the senior that this is anything but a temporary stepping aside management being on their game, but overall the BBC until we have the evidence from Pollard, then we will remains a place where people enjoy their work and review the outcomes. are getting on with it. Angie Bray: But therefore the likelihood is that they then return to their old positions, as was. Q280 Tracey Crouch: Lord Patten, the appointment Tim Davie: I have made my position clear, which is of Tony Hall last week was announced on the Internet. they are going through Pollard like for like. Everyone We got an e-mail from you pretty soon afterwards. In going through Pollard. They have only been asked to fact, we got an e-mail before your own members of temporarily step aside, so the assumption is, if there staff. Do you think that the BBC, supposed to be the is no issue in Pollard—and we must let Pollard do a greatest communications company in the world, is any fair, independent process—then they are back in their good at communications? jobs. That is how it works. I could not be clearer in Lord Patten: It is pretty good. I am slightly surprised terms of the process I have set up. It is worth at that because I thought the e-mails went out at the registering the points I have made, because obviously same time and I am sorry if they did not. But if you it is a tough time for those involved in those inquiries are saying that I, or whoever was responsible for and they need to be supported and treated fairly. pressing the button that sent the email, should have given priority to BBC staff rather than the Select Q284 Conor Burns: Can I return to the question of Committee, I would say the BBC staff should have Newsnight and what I think is now accepted—that received the e-mail before you. Newsnight, in the first failure, failed to broadcast Tracey Crouch: I would agree, they are your allegations that could stand up on Savile and, in the greatest asset. case of McAlpine, did broadcast allegations that it Lord Patten: But I think it can only have been either turned out could not stand up? The first decision not to a mistake or a matter of minutes, but it is a fair point. broadcast seems to have been a considered decision, a reflective decision. In the second case, what was the Q281 Chair: Can I follow up one of Tracey’s rush? This programme was commissioned on a questions about senior managers on top salaries? You Sunday and broadcast the following Friday. Why did said there has been a downward trend. The BBC they rush the McAlpine story so quickly? annual report of 31 March 2010 said the number of Tim Davie: This is not offered as an excuse, it is senior managers being paid over £100,000 was 324. offered as context from the MacQuarrie work that I The annual report 2011 said it was 280. The annual have been assessing. Their assessment was that stories report 2012 said it was 255. So there has been a steady were going to come out anyway around this. I do not downward trend according to the annual report. Can think, in their own minds, they were inappropriately you therefore explain why, in response to a freedom rushing, but they did feel the need to get the story out; of information request on 31 May 2011, the BBC said they wanted to get the story out. It is simple—every there were 348 full-time staff being paid over journalist wants to break a story. £100,000? With hindsight, could they have spent a lot more time Lord Patten: No. asking the right questions? I say a lot more time, but Tim Davie: No. I think it is really whether they could have asked the Lord Patten: But we can respond to the Committee. questions in the window they had. Yes. The truth is, I Tim Davie: Yes, it is who is in or out, I suspect, in am not even sure two or three days would have sorted terms of permanent employees versus— this error. The fact is there were questions, there was advice given and they did not get to it. Q282 Chair: This was full-time staff. It does slightly suggest that senior managers may have been reduced Q285 Conor Burns: I have here a copy of the BBC’s because people’s job titles have been shifted so they editorial guidelines and the first sentence says, “The no longer fall within the category of senior managers. Editorial Guidelines are one of the most important Tim Davie: Well, we can double-check that. That is documents the BBC publishes” and one would not our intent. imagine that most journalists working on Newsnight Lord Patten: I do not think that has happened but I would be very familiar with these guidelines. understand the suspicion and we will try to respond Tim Davie: More than that, they have signed up very quickly. against them. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o002_mark_121127 BBC JS corrected.xml

Ev 34 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

27 November 2012 Lord Patten and Tim Davie

Conor Burns: Are you familiar with what they say made and shown? Absolutely, 110%. Do I deeply about stories that rely upon a single source? resent the suggestion that somehow it was made Tim Davie: Yes. because of differences of opinion I had had 20 years Conor Burns: “We should talk to first hand sources” ago with Lord McAlpine? Yes, understandably, I do, and “we should be reluctant to rely on a single but, as we know, part of the price we all pay for a free source.” The entire Newsnight platform relied on a press is that sort of thing happening. Am I horrified single source and, it turns out, a very unreliable one. by some of what one reads in the blogosphere and It then says, “Any proposal to broadcast a serious tweets? Absolutely. allegation resulting from our own journalism without That weekend, I went into tweets and the blogosphere giving those concerned an opportunity to reply”, about those sorts of stories, and read some of the which McAlpine was not given, “must be referred to crazed conspiracy theory stuff about a number of a senior editorial figure or, for independence, to the characters. I dare say, if I looked myself up, I would commissioning editor. Referral must also be made to find all sorts of equally awful stuff, but I do not read the Director, Editorial Policy and Standards”. Did tweets about myself and I do not tweet and I do not that happen? do a blog. Tim Davie: It was definitely referred to Editorial Conor Burns: For the record, I was not for a moment Standards. On your point, we could not be clearer that suggesting that about your relationship with Lord there has been a very bad mistake. In terms of the McAlpine—nor would I ever. source, there are nuances within this story because Lord Patten: No, I know. But others did do that. obviously the team believed there was a second source, which was the 5 Live interview from 2000, of Q287 Conor Burns: We are in the Thatcher Room. I which they played a bit of audio. By the way, none of do not know if you saw the comment of one of the this excuses what has happened, and I say again that outgoing editors of the World Service in Africa, who, people across the BBC are aghast at this error. They on his departing day, said that he agreed with Aneurin sign up against these editorial guidelines. It is what Bevan that Tories today were still “lower than we live for. So this is a very important and very big vermin”. What would you say to the allegation that issue. With hindsight, you go through this and you can some on the right have made, that some within the see the errors of that day, but they believed there was BBC simply could not believe their luck that they a second source. They did have a debate about the could organise the words “paedophile”, “Thatcher”, right to reply and they believed that there would not “senior politician” and put them all into the same be identification. They made a very bad error in that. story, and it was that desire that was the rush that led I cannot put my hands up higher from a BBC point of to some of the inaccuracies, that led to the impugning view—we have been let down by a bad journalistic of Lord McAlpine’s reputation? error that clearly infringes on the policies you are Lord Patten: I doubt whether that was the reason for talking about. the story, and certainly, when I look at the Cabinet or the ranks of Government advisers, I do not buy the Q286 Conor Burns: Yes. I agree with what Lord story that the BBC is a hotbed of Trots, but I can Patten said earlier. I regard the second Newsnight understand why you put that point, and it increases failure as much more significant than the first, because the concern about the story being wrong. it threw an allegation at a fundamentally very decent man and has had a profoundly tragic impact on his Q288 Conor Burns: My final question is on the life. When you look at what the BBC says about the future of Newsnight itself. There has been some naming of convicted paedophiles and sex offenders, speculation that the BBC is reviewing whether the they are given more protection than Alistair McAlpine programme itself has a future. Looking in from was given by the Newsnight team. Lord Patten outside, you have held your hands up and said referred earlier to the fact that the tweets were out fundamental, significant journalistic mistakes were there, and you also referred, Lord Patten, to the “old made and people have to take responsibility for that. days” of the BBC board. With new media, we are not Would it not be an overreaction to kill off a flagship in the old days, so these tweets were all out there. news programme that has had such a durable brand People, including prominent people who live in this as Newsnight? building, were hinting that the person to be named Tim Davie: In my view, it would be an overreaction, was Alistair McAlpine. yes. Tim Davie: Yes. Conor Burns: Good. Conor Burns: Do you, in retrospect, regret, when your attention was drawn to those tweets, that you did Q289 Chair: We talked earlier about the Pollard not speak to the Director-General and ask him, not report and the transparency attached to that, and your to intervene editorially, but to look at the Newsnight promise that it would be published. We have had programme prior to broadcast? almost no details from the MacQuarrie report at all. It Lord Patten: If you want a different governance body, has talked about where the failures occurred, but what both different from both the BBC governors and it did not do was identify who was responsible. Can different from the trust, if you want a system in which you tell us who the most senior person was to agree the Chairman is encouraged or allowed to intervene that the Newsnight programme should be transmitted? before programmes in editorial judgments, then so be Tim Davie: Yes. The editorial chain of command was it, but I think it would cause quite a lot of concern that Peter Johnston, who is the management board and upset. Do I wish that the programme had not been person, who is the Director of Northern Ireland but cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o002_mark_121127 BBC JS corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 35

27 November 2012 Lord Patten and Tim Davie also editor-in-chief of Savile coverage, was informed the BBC reviewing its relationship with the Bureau of it was going; Adrian Van Klaveren, who is the Investigative Journalism? Director of News Coverage; through to Liz Gibbons, Tim Davie: Yes, we will review it. I have to say, from the editor. That was the chain of command. my point of view, this is primarily a BBC error. Regardless of whatever source it comes from—I Q290 Chair: All three of those individuals saw the thought Panorama was good last night, and the programme and approved it? Washington-based International Consortium of Tim Davie: Not all three saw it. Remember, we are Investigative Journalists took part in that—I think it talking about a report, rather than a whole programme. would be the wrong call if we said the BBC could My understanding is that Liz saw it, or the editor of never partner with outside organisations and get other Newsnight, and then had discussions with the line sources. The issue is, and this absolutely relates to management. Mr Burns’ point about the editorial guidelines, that Chair: All right. The most senior person on the BBC anything that comes on the BBC has to pass muster staff was Peter Johnston? through the BBC process. I would not outsource Tim Davie: Yes, he was in the chain of command, but blame as such. The BBC needs to own the mistake really, just to be clear, immediately after I have got and sort it. To answer your question, we have through the disciplinaries, we will make a full report suspended activity with the BIJ. I want to look at the available so people can read through it, and you will reports we have done with them and make sure they see this in all its glory in terms of exactly what all pass muster, and we are going through that happened. My only reluctance is simply that I want process now. people to be treated fairly. What I have just said, by the way, we need to get into specifics for those Q294 Angie Bray: The Times, in quite a strong individuals and the other people who are involved. leader, just a day or so later, made the point that, in The MacQuarrie report interviewed 12 people who are doing what you did, the BBC had pretty much involved in the whole affair, and I am absolutely outsourced its reputation to an outsider. committed to get to the right outcome. I do not want Tim Davie: I do not think the facts bear that out. I to pre-empt that in any way, shape or form, because I think someone came to the BBC with an idea for a report. This is on the BBC’s flagship news programme think it is just absolutely the wrong the thing to do. in terms of analysis and reporting. It is not good enough for me, I am not going to sit here and say, Q291 Mr Bradshaw: How long is this going to take? “Sorry, that was someone else bringing the report”. It Tim Davie: It shouldn’t take too long, because we are is ours, and I feel very strongly about this. At the BIJ, hearing disciplinaries now. They could go to appeal, we have had someone resign, we have had them issue so I am hoping within two weeks. Again, I want to do apologies. That is secondary in some ways, to me, in the right thing for the individuals, so if they want to leading the BBC. I want to make sure the BBC appeal—we have talked a lot about “rush” in the last processes are in place and it passes muster for the hour, and I am trying to restore some calm to the BBC. BBC. That does not lead to the proper actions and firm outcomes being taken, but it needs to be done in Q295 Angie Bray: Of course, it was the tweet from the right way. Mr Overton that put the whole piece together. Without Chair: Are you having to pay for lawyers for them the tweet, I do not think we would have had the as well? automatic link to Lord McAlpine. Tim Davie: No, I do not believe so, at this point, Tim Davie: It was not helpful, but I think it is although we may have some costs for the generous to say that, frankly. At the heart of it was a disciplinaries if they bring in lawyers, but they will report on Newsnight that did not stack up, regardless be minor. of any tweet. Chair: They will be entitled to have legal advice, Angie Bray: Exactly. That is what put Lord which will be financed by licence fee payer. McAlpine’s name into the frame. Tim Davie: Indeed. If they are part of disciplinary Tim Davie: We could second-guess what gets you to action brought by the BBC, I think that is the case. a jigsaw identification, but my view is, regardless of all of that, the issue was that a report on Newsnight Q292 Angie Bray: Can I just ask you about the was not good enough, and that is euphemistic. It did relationship with the Bureau of Investigative not pass muster against our editorial guidelines. That Journalism, who were obviously part of this is a very serious issue. Reputationally, if you think programme? Was it their idea that they brought to you about all the things we are facing, it is one of the to do this programme? Was it originally their idea? most serious things we face at this point in time. I Tim Davie: My understanding is that a reporter who totally agree. was on their books came to the BBC with the desire to make it. Q296 Paul Farrelly: I know we are going to get on Angie Bray: Were they the ones that initiated this to Mr Entwistle’s departure, but could I just follow up whole thing? my question on that Newsnight report? You were Tim Davie: The reporter did, yes. saying, Mr Davie, that there was a rush and an understandable enthusiasm to break a news story, but Q293 Angie Bray: In the light of what happened and the most remarkable thing about that is it was an old the appalling breakdown in journalistic standards, is story, it was a re-heated story that had been around cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o002_mark_121127 BBC JS corrected.xml

Ev 36 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

27 November 2012 Lord Patten and Tim Davie before. There were plenty of old hands in Fleet Street that we can doubtless come to, or the situation would who remembered it from the news coverage drift on and we would find ourselves with a afterwards, and Betty Williams, our former colleague constructive dismissal case and probably an unfair from Colwyn Bay, as the MP, probably remembers it dismissal case on top of that, and the issue would herself. She is here to listen on the question of abuse now—certainly if there was an unfair dismissal case in North Wales. It begs the question, do BBC reporters as well—heading towards the tribunal. and editors only do their research on Google? £450,000 is one hell of a lot of money. The idea that Tim Davie: No, they don’t. I did not understand how politically difficult it would Paul Farrelly: Do you understand the point I am be suggests a degree of political innocence on my part making? that, I have to tell you, does not exist. The options I Tim Davie: My understanding is a reporter very had were absolutely clear. We either had to deal with clearly came to the Newsnight programme and said, it quickly there and then, broadly speaking, on the “We have a witness that will go on record, and this is terms of 12 months, though that was less than we were new”. They were old allegations. They go back to the asked for, or we had to go to constructive dismissal. year 2000 on 5 Live. We know that, but, as per any Constructive dismissal would have landed us with journalistic process—not driven by Google, by the exactly the same amount of money, plus almost way—they came and said they had someone on record certainly another £80,000 for unfair dismissal. At who would be filmed talking about this. Again, we every stage in these proceedings I had advice from can only go over this ground so many times. We know Baker & McKenzie, and I am very happy to share the checks that should have been made and the rights it with the Committee, on what the costs of various of reply that should have been offered, all the various options were. things that should have happened, but that is what I discussed it with Baker & McKenzie, among other prompted this report. It is fairly standard journalistic things, on this basis: when I have to defend this in practice. The issue was it was not robust. front of the PAC, is it defensible? Their argument was not only that it was defensible, but it was better than Q297 Paul Farrelly: Lord Patten, can I ask you any alternative course of action, unless we wanted the when and why you so lost confidence in Mr Entwistle BBC to drift on without somebody at the top. On that that you were not only willing to consider his basis, I consulted the members of the Trust’s resignation, but also, had he not offered it, you would Remuneration Committee and then consulted the have had to, as you said, speak to the trustees about whole Trust, and we all came to the same conclusion. the option of termination? There are three or four other items that we can perhaps Lord Patten: Shall I run through what happened after come to. the Newsnight programme on the 9th, which owned Paul Farrelly: Do you want to come to them up to having made such an appalling error? The anyway? following morning, as you know, George Entwistle Lord Patten: Yes, I will come to them anyway. was on the Today programme. That afternoon, we had Perhaps I can go through them. There were four items. a Trust conference with him, at which we expressed The first was a continuation of Mr Entwistle’s medical our considerable concern about what had happened coverage for a year. The second was that we would and our concern that the Executive’s response should pay his legal costs of contracting out of his be adequate to the damage done. George Entwistle employment rights. I now know more about then left the teleconference and I discussed his employment legislation than I ever thought I would position with other trustees, who were extremely know, and under section 203 of the Employment concerned about whether we could allow things to Protection Act 1996, if somebody contracts out of continue to drift. George Entwistle phoned me up after their own rights, then any deal they agree to has to be that meeting, and said to me, “Are you urging me to agreed by an independent legal advisor, so we were go?” I responded, “We are not urging you to go, but paying for something we were obliged to pay to reach we are not urging you to stay”. a consensual agreement. I then got a call that evening1 from him and from The third element in the package was that we accepted the Head of Human Resources, saying that he wanted that we would pay for Mr Entwistle’s legal fees, as to go, and wanted to go with 12 months and more. I we would have done anyway for appearing in front of went straight into New Broadcasting House and was inquiries. Perhaps I can just add one thing about the told that he was prepared to go with a consensual health costs. One of the first things I did when I termination of his contract, plus. We then spent an became Chairman of the Trust was to stop the hour or so negotiating back and forth with his lawyer, provision of private health insurance for new members and he would not accept departure on six months, he of the senior management team—I cannot do anything wanted to go on 12 months and more. retrospectively—for the very simple reason that I do I checked with our lawyers throughout this process on not think it is right that senior managers at the BBC what the position was. The options seemed pretty should have private health cover and the rest of the clear. We did not have grounds for dismissal. We staff do not. could either accept a deal, a consensual termination of The fourth element is that we agreed to provide, with contract at 12 months, plus one or two other things some conditions, assistance for dealing with the media for up to three months, but only after we had agreed 1 The witness later clarified that he believes he was told that any particular item, and it was capped, but we have evening that George Entwistle wanted to speak to him, but actually the second call was from Lucy Adams, HR Director, not yet been asked for any assistance under that BBC. heading, and that assistance stops after three cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o002_mark_121127 BBC JS corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 37

27 November 2012 Lord Patten and Tim Davie months.2 We could not have done the deal, given expected, I guess, to work for another eight years, and some concerns about the media, if we had not you should set those sums against what has happened. accepted that. Do I wish, though it would still have caused concern, What did we get in return? First of all, we got a that his lawyers had counselled him strongly to accept settlement that was less than we would have got if we £225,000? Of course I do. I think he does not deserve had gone through constructive dismissal. Secondly, the reputational damage that this will have done to we got, which I think is worth having, a warranty from him, because he is a decent man who was Mr Entwistle that if Pollard or anything else finds that overwhelmed by a difficult job. he has done anything that is in breach of his contract or the BBC’s disciplinary guidelines, we can claw Q301 Paul Farrelly: I mentioned the Caroline back some of the reimbursement, the money that has Thomson pay-off, and that was in entirely different been paid. circumstances. Having set your store by reducing the perception that the BBC is full of overpaid managers, Q298 Paul Farrelly: Have you kept any of it back, do you not think that with some of these settlements like you might do in paying a builder, for example? you are in danger of creating precedents, that people Lord Patten: We have not paid it yet. We pay it in will say, “I am only going to go for an Entwistle”, or, December. I am very happy to give the Committee “If I go, it is going to cost you a Thomson”, or, “I and the PAC 11 pages of the legal advice that we have will need a Byford if you want to get rid of me”? had, I am very happy to give you a timeline of what Lord Patten: One of the things that I hope we will be happened that evening, and I am very happy to give able to persuade the NAO to do—the NAO may well you the heads of agreement of the deal that we did want to look at this settlement, and it would help us with Mr Entwistle. I just want you to know that, when if they would do—is look for us at the severance terms we were doing that deal on Saturday night in difficult that we are contractually obliged at the moment to go circumstances, I was not unaware of the fact that I through. I know there are proposals in Government would have to explain it very carefully to Committees for capping the amount of settlement that people can like this in the future, because licence fee payers walk away with, and I think it is an issue that we do would inevitably be exceptionally concerned about it. need to look at, but can I just add to a point that I made earlier? We, quite properly—because of the fact Q299 Paul Farrelly: I am sure, Lord Patten, many that the BBC is paid by the licence fee—work at a people will understand the pragmatism. A lot of discount to our competitors in the rest of the sector, people have themselves paid for problems to go away. and I think most people who work for the BBC You have just used the phrase “and more” twice now, understand why it is that the Director-General gets a teasing us. Did George Entwistle ask for a Thomson? sixth of what he would be getting, or a quarter of Did he ask for two years? what he would be getting, if he worked at one of our Lord Patten: No, he did not ask for two years, but competitors. It is understandable that we take that he did ask for more. I think that is for him and his discount and that there is an honour and a pride in lawyers to— working for the BBC, but there will come a time when Paul Farrelly: Did he ask for three-quarters of a somebody is going to have to sit in front of this Thomson? Committee and explain why we have had to pay more Lord Patten: No. for this or that job. I am sorry that a real effort to Paul Farrelly: Eighteen months? reduce salaries in relation to the outside world has Lord Patten: No. I would not like to define anything also hit these two particular cases that you mention. as a Thomson, but he did not ask for that much. Q302 Paul Farrelly: Unlike other things that are in Q300 Paul Farrelly: You talked earlier on about how you have done what you set out at the start to do, to the news focus, this one has been discussed up and bear down on excessive pay and the divide between down the country at pubs and clubs, and one of my the workers and the bosses, but with the Entwistle constituents said to me, “Mr Farrelly, you are on the settlement, notwithstanding pragmatism, and also the Media Committee”. Having heard about the bells and Caroline Thomson settlement of two years, it also whistles attached to George Entwistle’s package, he seems, in the public mind, you have destroyed the said to me, “If that is honourable, I am a banana”. Do impression that you are bearing down on it. you think the word “honourable” was the appropriate Lord Patten: Can I just say something about George term that you should have used? Entwistle? These are large sums of money. In his Lord Patten: The easiest thing, and I made this point previous job, when he accepted it, he took a huge cut yesterday, is to join in the general trashing of a decent on what his predecessor had been getting, and when man, and I am not going to do that. He worked with he took the job as Director-General he took it on a considerable professionalism and ability for the BBC discount of £200,000 plus to what his predecessor had for a number of years. One of the extraordinary been getting, and a much bigger discount on what his paradoxes about what has happened is that he was predecessor had originally been getting. This is a man an extremely distinguished editor of Newsnight, and who had worked 22 or 23 years for the BBC, and had indeed was the editor of Newsnight who stood up against huge political and corporate pressure not to 2 The witness later clarified that, at the time of speaking, name his sources in the case of David Kelly. He is a George Entwistle had not yet asked for any assistance in dealing with the media but by lunchtime a request from decent man and he does not deserve to be bullied or George Entwistle’s lawyer had been received. to have his character demolished. I think what has cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o002_mark_121127 BBC JS corrected.xml

Ev 38 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

27 November 2012 Lord Patten and Tim Davie happened is a small tragedy, which has been made would to deal with photographers and cameras at the rather larger by that money. bottom of his garden. Margaret Hodge said, as you or I probably would, the other day, “Well, if you have Q303 Chair: You say he is a decent man. It would cameras at the bottom of the garden, you send them be fair to say that when he appeared in front of this out cups of tea”. We maybe have thicker skins and Committee, his performance was not impressive, and more experience. you have also referred to his interview with John Humphrys on the Today programme, which I think Q305 Mr Bradshaw: You should be aware that not you have said was “bruising”. That seems to me all of us are critical of George Entwistle’s payoff or somewhat of an understatement. He may be a decent the way that you handled it, but I wanted to ask you man. Was he the right man to appoint as Director- something else about that Saturday. We know that General? conversations took place between you—or I think we Lord Patten: We did a huge search globally, and, as know that conversations took place—and Maria the Committee knows, we spent, as you do with an Miller. Can you give us a categorical assurance that executive search, about £186,000 on it. I interviewed no politician, at any stage, suggested to you or put people. The process began with me talking to what any pressure on you, or any of the other members of are rather disagreeably called stakeholders, former the Trust, that George should go? Chairmen and Directors-General, people who know Lord Patten: Absolutely, unequivocally. I had one about the industry and people who tell everybody they modest passage of arms with the Secretary of State, know about the industry even if they don’t. but otherwise she has been absolutely impeccable. We We then advertised. We had a long list of people. I had a disagreement about one issue and I do not want interviewed one in America. I interviewed one from to go into that again, but no pressure from any America here. We got down to a long shortlist of politician of any party, no pressure from any eight, and it was the unanimous view of the Trust, a Government official, except the perfectly reasonable pretty varied group that he was the best candidate. suggestion that we should be as open as we could be There were other very good candidates, but he was in choosing a successor—perhaps I can come back to the one who we thought would best reflect our that—and occasionally an implication that perhaps we concerns that the BBC should re-emphasise its should be more careful next time. creative functions and its distinctiveness, and who I spoke to the Secretary of State at 9 pm on that also had, based on 22 or 23 years of working at the Saturday night and told her what was happening, and BBC, a very clear idea of what some of the she simply expressed gratitude for being informed, but management failings were. Pretty well everybody at I did not speak to her at all previous to that about the time said it was a very good choice, and they George Entwistle’s position. welcomed his initial statement of managerial Mr Bradshaw: Sorry, who said that you should be objectives. more careful when choosing a successor? Then he was, I think, completely overwhelmed by Lord Patten: No, it was more implied. There were lots Savile and all that came after it. This Select of emails going around, and some people responded to Committee—let me try a bit of flattery—is not about those and said, “We think that the process should be “slow full tosses”, to borrow Mr Davies’s cricketing as open as you can be”. I felt there was an implication, metaphor, but it was not the first occasion on which which indeed we managed, that, “You should get it somebody had been monstered by a Select right this time”. Committee. I remember having difficulties in Mr Bradshaw: Was that from an official or from a defending the poll tax in front of a Select Committee. Minister? You have seen Ministers, you have seen bank chief Lord Patten: No, it was from others. It was a general executives—it happens. That is not necessarily the political sense I got. only criterion. Can he manage an hour, or two hours, or three hours in front of Mr Tyrie’s Committee or Mr Q306 Conor Burns: Lord Patten, I think every Whittingdale’s Committee? Member of Parliament who has been receiving letters Chair: It is not the only criterion, but surely it is a and emails from their constituents will welcome you criterion. publishing the legal advice that led you to take the Lord Patten: It is a criterion. decision you did, and anyone who, in their incarnation before coming here, had to take these decisions will Q304 Chair: You thought that he was up to that, and have great empathy with what you had to do, when able to deal with it? you often have to take a decision that is legally right, Lord Patten: Yes. Partly because of his political even though it may be embarrassing. experience, and there were quite a few politicians Can I take you back to the Saturday and the sequence from all political sides who had worked with him and of events? You mentioned that there was a Trust knew him and thought he was really terrific and teleconference with the Director-General. Was thought he would do a terrific job, as I did. I hope he resignation talked about by the Director-General will still be able to do a terrific job somewhere in during that conversation? the media. Lord Patten: No. Except, when I say no, I mean yes. I repeat what I said earlier. I am convinced in my own The Trust had made it clear that we expected very mind that he found it incredibly difficult to cope with decisive action to be taken about the Newsnight the crisis in which he had been initially involved. I programme, the sort of action that Tim Davie is taking think he found it much more difficult than any of you at the moment, or considering taking. George cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o002_mark_121127 BBC JS corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 39

27 November 2012 Lord Patten and Tim Davie

Entwistle then said he was not sure he would be able whichever way you cut it, would you not accept that to satisfy the Trust, and he said something like, “So it was 56 days of the most dismal failure, and, as we there are implications that I may have to talk to the have heard from you all the figures, the costs that have Chairman of the Trust about that, if I can’t do it”. totalled up have just been an extraordinarily That I took to be the suggestion that he might want expensive mistake? to resign. Lord Patten: I think it was after 11 days that it went Then, when he went off the conference call, I had the wrong, so it is probably 43 days of real difficulty. impression that some of my colleagues—and indeed, After all that, we set in place those two inquiries. We I think the Chairman of the Finance Committee appointed Dinah Rose. We have, alas, lost a Director- implied this the other day—thought that his position General. We have had an exceptionally good job done was becoming terminal. by our Acting Director-General, and have recruited another Director-General, who everybody says they Q307 Conor Burns: Had you taken legal advice think will be a great success in the job. about Mr Entwistle’s position and the BBC’s position Angie Bray: But very expensive. prior to that telephone conversation? Lord Patten: Yes, although if you tot all that up it Lord Patten: No. The legal advice we took was from is probably not as expensive as his predecessor was about 6 pm that evening. recruited at initially.

Q308 Conor Burns: I am really trying to get to the Q312 Mr Bradshaw: It was absolutely the right core of when Mr Entwistle first suggested, or his thing to set up the independent inquiries, but I got the lawyers first suggested, that he may have grounds for very strong impression, when George Entwistle came constructive dismissal. before us a few weeks ago, that he had this feeling, Lord Patten: It was implied in all our negotiations as he set up these independent inquiries, he did not with him that if we wanted him to go quickly and need to crisis-manage the crisis. What lessons have without a fuss in a way that was co-operative, then you both taken from this crisis in how the BBC those were the terms, and otherwise the employment manages crises? legislation would take effect. Lord Patten: I think that Tim has with him in place— and I am not saying there were not good people Q309 Conor Burns: Finally, may I ask you this? I around before—some very good people. It feels as apologise in advance for the tone of this. Was the though somebody is responsible. It feels as though possibility of a constructive dismissal claim in any somebody is in charge. It feels as though somebody is way related to the exchange you had with Mr there who knows what they are doing. Entwistle that you relayed to us earlier, where he Tim Davie: There are a number of considerations asked you, “Are you asking me to go?” and you here. One of the key learnings is that it is incredibly replied, “No, but nor are we asking you to stay”? difficult to be at the centre of a crisis and manage a Lord Patten: I imagine that he would have relayed crisis—and glorious hindsight is always a wonderful that to his lawyer, and his lawyer would have given thing, isn’t it?—but that puts pressure on individuals him the argument that that could amount to a and has shaped some of my decision making in terms constructive dismissal. The addition that we faced, of of who is doing what. I think that is an important course, was unfair dismissal on top of that, which consideration. would have piled rock on rock—or cheque on In terms of support systems for the job I am currently cheque—and would have made the whole thing even doing, I had to beef those up, and the ability to have more expensive. If we had simply decided to end our an active radar and proper conversations, and also not contract with him, that would of course have cost 12 to rush—if you talk to the wise people who have been months as well, plus a lot of other ongoing costs, and managing the BBC in the past, and hear their calls also probably an action in the tribunal for unfair around some of these big journalistic endeavours— dismissal. along with a degree of calm is essential. They are some of the learnings and that is what we have tried Q310 Conor Burns: Do you think if he had taken to put in place in these quiet few months that I have the decisive action that was taken on the Monday and been managing the BBC through. Tuesday following his departure, he might still be in his job? Q313 Tracey Crouch: Lord Patten, you have spoken Lord Patten: Maybe. You can read novels about this very generously of George Entwistle’s time at the sort of thing better than listening to me. I wondered, BBC and his achievements, and you also said that by the end, how much his heart was in it, as it were. perhaps a man should not be judged on just one Select I think he found the whole thing an appalling Committee appearance. Could you have, or should experience. you have, supported George Entwistle better in his role as DG, and do you think this is where the gap of Q311 Angie Bray: Just very quickly from me. It not having a deputy DG really shows? seems to me it has also just been a terribly appalling Lord Patten: On the second point, maybe. On the first mistake. I know that, rightly or wrongly, George point, look, when we appointed him, there was a Entwistle has always been seen as your man, your completely bizarre piece in, I think, The Sunday appointment, your preferred candidate, Lord Patten. Times, saying it was a “coup” by me so that I could You have made it clear that it was actually the run the BBC. The criticism initially was that I was unanimous decision among eight people, but trying to run the BBC. The criticism subsequently is cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o002_mark_121127 BBC JS corrected.xml

Ev 40 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

27 November 2012 Lord Patten and Tim Davie that I have not been running the BBC. Without being Lord Patten: Yes, but I must be one of the few people able to do the splits, I really cannot manage both sides who was asked to resign even before I had been of the street. I have been trying to operate within the appointed. That is what Mr Davies managed to do. clear Charter guidelines; not necessarily easy, but I think that is what I have been trying to do. He was Q317 Philip Davies: My judgment was better than the Trust’s candidate. Tony Hall is the Trust’s yours in appointing people. candidate, and I am greatly looking forward to Lord Patten: I am not sure about that. working with him. If I had tried, every time George Philip Davies: I think it was. Entwistle moved, to second-guess him or to tell him Lord Patten: Since you do not think the BBC should what to do, I would have been guilty of the “coup” of exist. which I was accused. Philip Davies: No, it should exist, but just with a subscription. Q314 Tracey Crouch: As a former Chairman of the Lord Patten: No, but I think, Mr Davies, unless Conservative Party, you will recognise that one of the somebody is forging letters, you have written to roles is to support your leader—in this case, it was the Ofcom, saying that the BBC is not a fit organisation Director-General of the BBC—as well as possible. I to hold a broadcasting licence. just sense from your response earlier that you did not Philip Davies: I did consider it. really want him to go, but you did not want him to Lord Patten: That seems to me like a way of saying stay, either. That was not really unequivocal support the BBC should not exist. Anyway, back to the for the Director-General. question. I think my job is to work with Tim and Tony Lord Patten: His departure was in his interests and Hall and others to try to rebuilt the reputation of the in the BBC’s, I’m afraid, and I say that with very BBC as the greatest broadcaster in the world. The considerable reluctance. I am not sure I ever saw my BBC has been one of the greatest national institutions relationship to the Prime Minister in quite the way that in this country. It is part of our national psyche, our you describe, but I am grateful to you for knowing a national culture and our national sense of civic bit about my obituary. I think that was the last time responsibility. We can be smug and complacent and, the Conservative Party won a general election. occasionally, as we see, disastrously inaccurate, but most of the time I think the BBC represents many of Q315 Mr Sutcliffe: Can we move on to the future of the best qualities in this country, and anybody who the BBC? I reflect that we perhaps should have been rubbishes the BBC should be forced to watch Italian talking about the celebration of the Olympics and the or French or American TV for a week or so. If you want Italian TV with “bunga bunga” and the Prime wonderful coverage that the BBC had done of the Minister deciding who should run it, so be it. Olympics, and we are in the sad state that we are. Two Tim Davie: quotes from the annual report strike me. One was Just to interject, I do want to make a point. I think we are very sensitive to the issue you are from Helen Boaden that said, “The public sees the talking about. We are concerned about trust, although BBC as the leading source of accurate, noteworthy you do not see a wholesale collapse; you see a knock and impartial news. That’s a prize we guard carefully at this point. Disaster territory for the BBC is a kind and never take for granted. We work hard to earn the of arrogance that it will automatically come back, and trust of the audiences every day”. the BBC, even if you look at the last few years, has Then you, Lord Patten, said, “When I became been remarkably good at building and securing trust Chairman last year, I said that at its best the BBC is when other public institutions have had significant a broadcasting organisation whose quality and issues. It is a global phenomenon, and the BBC has integrity are unique”. Trust has gone. The quality, done a remarkably good job of maintaining trust. Part perhaps, is still there, but the integrity has gone. How of it is the debate within ourselves that we see that is are you going to rebuild the BBC in terms of its often awkward but critical to us. relationship with the public? In terms of the approach for the organisation now, it Lord Patten: That is the biggest task we have. Trust is really straightforward. Very clear. Robust day-to- in the BBC has taken a knock. It is still the case, I day output, so deliver on the ground flawlessly and think, that the BBC is trusted more than any news make sure we do not make mistakes. Secondly, we organisation, but that is not a statement of need to build trust, which you touched on earlier with complacency, because we have shot ourselves in the regard to management. As an organisation, I think our foot. We have to rebuild that trust, with the instincts are slightly better than our reputation, but it encouragement even of some of the media. There is a is no good me sounding off on that. We need to be very good article by the editor of The Times today more transparent, slightly more humble, and show the about Leveson, and he refers to the quality of BBC British public what they are paying for and show that journalism and programmes in that. it is genuinely good value. We are absolutely committed to doing that, and we know we have a Q316 Mr Sutcliffe: Going a bit further, in the sense rather large mountain to climb in that regard, but if of you being a seasoned politician who has been you talk to the team, the top 100 individuals in the around for a long time and done fantastic work over BBC, with all the pressures they get as well, there is your career, was there any time during this whole absolute commitment to do that. process that you have thought about your own position, in terms of whether you are the right person Q318 Mr Sutcliffe: I agree with that, and I go back to be Chairman of the Trust? to this confidence thing, having a good relationship cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o002_mark_121127 BBC JS corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 41

27 November 2012 Lord Patten and Tim Davie with the BBC in Yorkshire and the people who significantly better than previous history, when we represent the BBC up there. You are going through a have almost gone entirely to any efficiencies and programme at the moment of reductions in district dealing with ongoing inefficiency. offices and things like that. In Bradford, which is the In my previous life in radio, we made a decision, fourth largest metropolitan district in the country, you which was instead of providing independent news are going to take the studio out of the National Media provision for Radio 1 and 1Xtra, we would halve that Museum, which will kill the National Media Museum, and just deliver one. That is a really tough call for 20 but also withdraw the BBC’s input into that museum. individuals and a deliberate reduction in scope. The How can that decision be taken, purely on cost Asian Network we have rescoped completely to focus savings, without an impact on the community? on doing less. Do I take your challenge that we should Tim Davie: I think we are looking at the impact very be making those types of decisions? Yes. Do I think sensitively. We have to find £700 million of savings, the balance of 65% to 35% is okay for now? Probably, so it is not a popularity contest. We are going to have but I would like to see it move more in the scope issues where we make choices, and I am aware of the direction and not see that further eroded, so I take the situation in Bradford. I know it is a very tough challenge. We have pretty good plans—I say pretty decision and cutting those district offices is difficult, good, it is more than that. We have utterly firm plans but I have to trust the English regional management in the divisions for the next three years. The final two to say, “Okay, if you are making savings”—that is the years of the three-year plan, as we go into the Charter, choice they have made. is an area where I need to bring more focus, and I will be running the budget meetings with that in mind as Q319 Mr Sutcliffe: This is a central decision, not a we go through the next few months. regional decision. This is a central decision taken on the closure of district offices for the understandable Q322 Mr Bradshaw: Is quality first? The language reason— has changed in the Audit Commission report, from Tim Davie: No, I understand. I meant at the top level “Putting quality first” to “Maintaining quality of the management of England, as opposed to a local wherever possible”. decision within Yorkshire, which I understand. I Tim Davie: By the way, one of the things I would like understand the point. to do, and I am sure Tony Hall agrees with me, is about the amount of jargon we are sinking in—it is Q320 Mr Bradshaw: Can I ask you about the unbelievable. Job titles and all of this, do not help balance of those savings? It has been suggested to us with the point I made earlier about the transparency by the National Union of Journalists that that has of the BBC. Bluntly, I don’t think we have done shifted from the original intention in Delivering ourselves any favours in this area. Whatever you call Quality First of 20% savings—10% in greater it, quality programmes come first, and we cannot be productivity, 8% in scope reductions and 2% in in a position where we are compromising that. We just increasing commercial revenue. Then, in the more can’t. I would rather do less and do it well than spread recent National Audit Office report into the BBC’s ourselves too thin. spending, it talks of 65% efficiencies and 35% scope reductions, so the implication is that you are looking Q323 Mr Bradshaw: You have talked twice now for more savings in efficiencies, i.e. cutting programme budgets, rather than reducing what you about transparency, and Lord Patten told the story of do. This goes back to the age-old problem of whether his encounter with Eddie Mair. One of the complaints you are trying to do too much and spread it too thinly, you often hear from BBC programmes, particularly and Newsnight’s budget has been pretty much halved when the BBC is in a hole or in a crisis, is the over the last seven or eight years. reluctance of the BBC itself to put anybody up to be Tim Davie: Newsnight has not been halved, to be fair. interviewed by their own programmes. Would you like Not quite. Newsnight has gone from about £11 million that to improve? to £8 million. I understand there is a fair debate being Tim Davie: I think we should be putting people up. had about the level of resources, but just so we are clear. Q324 Philip Davies: Lord Patten, how do you think you should be measured in your job as to whether you Q321 Mr Bradshaw: Yes, but can you address this are being successful or not? issue of the balance of reductions and whether that Lord Patten: I think I should be measured when has changed? people look at the period of my chairmanship of the Tim Davie: Yes, it is 65%-35%, and 10% and 8% in Trust and ask themselves whether the BBC is making terms of, productivity and scope. I think there is a real better programmes and delivering better value for appetite, as we go into the next round of budgeting money. and look at the last two years of the savings Philip Davies: How is it going? programme, for us to keep focused on scope as much Lord Patten: In terms of better programmes and value as efficiency. You are absolutely right to raise this. for money, with the exception of the recent pay-off, it Naturally, organisations of our type go to salami- has been going pretty well. When I sat in my office slicing. It is the route of least resistance. It is often in August and considered the Olympics, and when I easier in the short term and more painful in the long watched Parade’s End, when I watched last night the term for making choices. Our record, even at 65%- excellent programme on Hitler by Laurence Rees and 35%, which I know sounds somewhat pitiful, is Ian Kershaw, I thought, “This is a broadcaster of cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o002_mark_121127 BBC JS corrected.xml

Ev 42 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

27 November 2012 Lord Patten and Tim Davie which I can be proud”, and I want to go on supporting Q328 Philip Davies: What other meetings took place it as best I can. around that time with other people, with other trustees, when you found out? Q325 Philip Davies: You said earlier that you did not Lord Patten: We have had several trustees meetings become aware of the Jimmy Savile Newsnight issue in the last few weeks alone. We have had, I think, 12 until 28 September. Why was that? Why did you not in the last month, but I can send you a list of all the Trust meetings that we have had. become aware of it until then? It had been widely reported in the press back in January and February, so Q329 Philip Davies: why were you not aware of that? You said earlier that you spent at the beginning three days, and more latterly four Lord Patten: I think there were three reports that were days, a week working as the Chairman of the Trust. included in the great wad of press cuttings that we Lord Patten: I said working in BBC premises. receive every day, and I think I am right in saying that Philip Davies: Working in BBC premises. Can we at least two of those, though I have only reread them have a copy of your itinerary on a regular basis about recently, said that the reason for dropping the the work you do, how many hours you spend, where programme had been editorial. I think I am also right you are doing your work, because— in saying the ubiquitous freelance journalist, Miles Lord Patten: Certainly not. Goslett, says that he took the Jimmy Savile Philip Davies: Why not? programme to seven newspapers before he could find Lord Patten: Because I think it is a thoroughly The Oldie to actually report it, and most of our impertinent question. national papers did not report it at all. If I was not sufficiently minded to pursue it, neither were the Q330 Philip Davies: Do you not think licence fee majority of newspapers. payers are entitled to know how much specific time Philip Davies: With respect, it is your job to pursue you are spending working on their behalf? it. You are the Chairman of the BBC Trust. Those Lord Patten: I think you are entitled to know how newspapers are not the Chairman of the BBC Trust. It much time I am spending, I think you are entitled to was in the papers. put down Freedom of Information requests for how Lord Patten: You continually, and, I am sure with many days I spend in the office or how many days I some subtle objective in mind, confuse the role of the spend doing other thing, but if you think I am going Chairman of the BBC Trust with the job of Director- to do a diary for you in order to satisfy some populist General of the BBC. pursuit of somebody you did not want to run an Philip Davies: You are supposed to be the regulator organisation that you do not want to exist, you are of the BBC. kidding yourself. What is the role of it? Do you want Lord Patten: When the Director-General of the BBC to know my toilet habits? What else do you want to has an editorial matter of concern, he raises it in his know? weekly meetings with me. He equally comes to the Philip Davies: Lord Patten, I know it is difficult for you to refrain from being patronising. I think you monthly meetings of the Trust with his colleagues, described yourself as “smug and complacent” earlier. and I would have expected those stories, had he I wouldn’t have disagreed with that description either. thought them to be significant, to have been brought Lord Patten: I didn’t describe myself as that. to my attention then. Q331 Philip Davies: If you can just refrain from that Q326 Philip Davies: Did you read your press for a few moments and answer the questions that are cuttings that you refer to, that had it contained back put to you, it is a perfectly reasonable point. I do not in January and February? know how many other jobs you have. You have Lord Patten: I flicked through them. declared 10 on your declarations of interest. The Philip Davies: So you did not read them properly? If Guardian claims you have 13. I am not entirely sure you did, you would have known about it. You cannot if you would like to clarify exactly how many other say you did not know about it until 28 September if jobs you have, is it 10 or is it 13? Are you a member you had read about it in January and February. of the International Board of Overseers for Istanbul’s Lord Patten: Presumably, if I had noticed them at all, Sabanci University? Is that your job? Did The would have forgotten them, or treated them as, I Guardian make that up? repeat, the majority of newspaper editors appear to Lord Patten: No. If you look at the latest declaration. have treated them. Philip Davies: I have the latest from you here. There are 10 jobs here that you do. It is perfectly reasonable, given that you have been presiding over a shambles Q327 Philip Davies: What did you do when you of the BBC over the last few months—you might be found out about it? indifferent to anybody asking you any questions about Lord Patten: About the Jimmy Savile case? I your role. immediately got on to the Director-General and found Lord Patten: Iamnot.Iamin— out that he was consulting the police about how to pursue matters, and had also asked for an investigation Q332 Philip Davies: It is perfectly reasonable to say, of all the BBC’s internal documents to see if they have you been putting in the hours, putting in the could find any references to Savile’s alleged yards that you should have done as the Chairman of behaviour. the BBC Trust? You might think that is a ridiculous cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:21] Job: 024971 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o002_mark_121127 BBC JS corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 43

27 November 2012 Lord Patten and Tim Davie question. Many people are asking that question. It is Philip Davies: How has the trust in the BBC gone perfectly fair to ask, if you have been spending all of since you took over as Chairman of the Trust? this time—you said at the time when you came before Lord Patten: It has fallen because of the recent that you saw big jobs as seven-day-a-week jobs—how problems. much time you are spending there. It lists all these Philip Davies: Do you not believe you should take other jobs you have. Tell us how much time you spend responsibility for that? on all the other jobs so we can make an assessment Lord Patten: I think I should share the responsibility as to whether or not you are putting in enough time at for rebuilding that trust. the BBC. Lord Patten: All right. Jobs for which I am Q335 Philip Davies: You have spent a fortune remunerated involve 12 meetings a year, and even if recruiting somebody who was already under your it involves travel to some of them and reading papers, nose, but you did not mind spending a fortune to I would guess that is less than 20 days a year. In recruit that person. Then you have spent a fortune addition to that, I am Chairman of the British paying him off. He was your choice. Do you not take Council’s annual UK-Italy Conference, which takes any responsibility for that decision? place over a weekend and has one day preparatory in Lord Patten: I am not sure that this Socratic dialogue January every year. I was asked by the Government with you is getting us very far. I think I have answered to chair the UK-India Round Table, which meets at a all the questions. weekend and has one day preparatory to that. I am a member of The Tablet Trust, which meets on an Q336 Philip Davies: I want you to answer this one. evening in June or July, and I am afraid there is Do you take responsibility for spending a fortune occasionally a dinner afterwards. I am Chancellor of recruiting somebody who was already under your Oxford University, a post that was held by Harold nose, and then spending a fortune paying them off Macmillan when he was Prime Minister and by Roy because they were not up to the job? Are you not Jenkins when he was leader of his party in the House going to take responsibility for that? of Lords, and that does involve quite a lot of Lord Patten: The fact that George Entwistle was ceremonial duties principally in June and September, already a member of the BBC’s Executive and was and at other times of the year there are other recruited after we had looked at people from other responsibilities as well. organisations around the world does not mean that it was not reasonable to pay money for a search that is Q333 Philip Davies: You have given the impression regularly done, including by one or two newspapers to me today that you didn’t really know about what who have criticised us for doing exactly what they was going on, that you didn’t even think it was your have done recently. job to know what was going on. All the jobs where Philip Davies: Are you going to take responsibility everything has gone wrong were the Director- for all of that? General’s, nothing to do with you. When something Lord Patten: I take responsibility as Chairman of the was your responsibility, you have handed it over to Trust for those things for which the Trust is some other inquiry. It seems to me you have been responsible. I take responsibility for, for example, treating this as some kind of sinecure post—a grand working with local MPs to help save local radio. I take some responsibility for making sure that we title, which I am sure would have appealed to you, as invest more money in children’s broadcasting. I take Chairman of the Trust—which does not really involve responsibility for shifting more resources into World a great deal of work. Fortunately for you, the News so that there will be a more quality programme Government has just created another sinecure post you internationally. I take responsibility for bearing down might want to consider yourself for. It is called the on senior pay. I take responsibility for helping to drive Groceries Code Adjudicator. You might want to move the improvement of BBC Two. I take responsibility across to that one instead. It gives the impression that for those things and many more, but I also recognise you didn’t really want to put in the hard work. You my share of responsibility when things go wrong. thought this was something that you could get paid a decent amount of money and not do a lot of work for, Q337 Philip Davies: Given that trust in the BBC has and nothing that you have said today has changed my plummeted since you took over, given that you have perspective on that. wasted so much money, why do you not resign? Lord Patten: That doesn’t surprise me. Tim Davie: BBC trust has not plummeted, just so we Philip Davies: What do you say to that? are clear. We have seen a marginal decline in trust. Lord Patten: I don’t have anything else to add. What is the exact question on this about? Philip Davies: You do not recognise that description Philip Davies: It is about trust in BBC journalism. It at all? has halved. Lord Patten: No, I don’t. Tim Davie: I am asking for the exact question that I am responding to in terms of that survey you are Q334 Philip Davies: Do you think that the people’s waving at me. trust in the BBC is a key role of the Chairman of Lord Patten: Which is the survey? the Trust? Tim Davie: What is the question being asked? Lord Patten: It is very important, and I am delighted Philip Davies: The question is the percentage of that trust in the BBC, despite recent events, is greater voters who trust BBC news journalists. than trust in any other news organisation. Mr Bradshaw: It was in The Sun. It is halved. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:21] Job: 024971 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o002_mark_121127 BBC JS corrected.xml

Ev 44 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

27 November 2012 Lord Patten and Tim Davie

Tim Davie: In terms of trust, we are the overall trusted helped throughout that process by having such a very media provider, we are marginally down at 53%, and good and safe pair of hands as Acting Director- the next is ITV at 9%, and then it goes through a long General. tail. I do not want to be complacent. We have taken a hit on trust. Our overall trust levels at this point are Q340 Angie Bray: While you have two independent higher than they were in 2008, and we can provide reviews under way and the Executive Board has been those data. The situation is still pretty heart-breaking the one that commissioned the MacQuarrie review of for some of us who have been at it for a few years, Newsnight, what exactly has the Trust done? I think a really delivering—if you look at our radio services, if lot of people are confused. What is the Trust actually you look at the quality of our television programmes, doing? A lot of this goes back to the Executive Board. we are very proud of what we have delivered over the Lord Patten: I can run through— last few years—because we have taken a knock. There Angie Bray: Are you happy with this division, the is no assumption in my mind that we have an split? Looking forward, do you think there perhaps automatic, God-given right to get that trust back, but might be a better way of setting up a better the idea that trust has wholesale collapsed in the BBC, construction? frankly, is just not borne out by the facts. Newspaper Lord Patten: I am sure we will have a lot of surveys in the last two weeks have trust falling. Of opportunities for discussing BBC governance in the course it has. We know that will give you a high future. The Committee knows that, having spent five number. That is not the message we get, bringing it to years of my life in Brussels, I get a bit world-weary the public. about discussions on institutional issues and Philip Davies: This is annual, this is year by year. governance, but I am sure we will be involved in that Tim Davie: Let us have a look at the robustness of in the run-up to the next Charter renewal and licence the survey, and I am more than happy to respond to it. fee. I very much hope, and indeed I am confident, that by that time trust in the BBC and its journalism will Q338 Chair: We are going to have to stop at any have recovered substantially, and when that happens, moment, but I have one last question. though I am sure Mr Davies will want to give me the Lord Patten: Can I just add a point? It was raised by credit for it, I will insist that the credit belongs to the Ms Crouch earlier, and we are only ever as good as Executive of the BBC and the people who work for it. the people who provide us with this sort of information. I am told that all BBC staff got an e-mail Q341 Angie Bray: The key player going forward is confirming Tony Hall as Director-General, which was going to be your new Director-General, Tony Hall. sent at 12.05pm, and an e-mail to all Westminster MPs Just a few questions about that, if we may. He was sent at 12.24 pm, but it is possible that, because obviously failed to win the appointment on two of our esteem for members of the Committee, we sent previous occasions when he put his name forward for an e-mail to you a bit before. the job as Director-General, so what makes him the Chair: I have the e-mail I received, which is timed at right man now, when he wasn’t the right man then? 12.15 pm, which is after, therefore, the staff. Lord Patten: He was not appointed on one occasion Tim Davie: Chairman, if I may just deal with one of when Greg Dyke was appointed, which did not end my answers that, at the time, was a bit wobbly. It was well. on legal costs for disciplinaries. I have had Angie Bray: There was a previous occasion, was confirmation, looking into my files, that we will not there not, also when— pay legal costs on disciplinaries. We will pay for the Lord Patten: No. inquiries, but just to be clear, we will not pay for Angie Bray: I think there were two occasions. disciplinaries. Thank you. Lord Patten: I don’t think so. I think there was only one. When we began the process of looking for a new Q339 Angie Bray: On the Trust itself, it would seem Director-General, which led to the appointment of over the last few months that it has not really George Entwistle to follow Mark Thompson, he was successfully defended either the interests of the public one of the first people I talked to, and I tried to or the interests of the Corporation with a great deal of persuade him to apply for the job then. vigour. I think there will be some suggestions that in that sense it has been a failure. What would you say Q342 Angie Bray: George Entwistle was then your to that? second choice, to that extent? Lord Patten: I would say to that that we had coped Lord Patten: This is a real issue, when you ask with a crisis that was an inheritance of the past. somebody to apply for a job, and they are already Nobody is, I assume, accusing us of being responsible doing a job they really like, and they fear that the for Jimmy Savile’s behaviour from 1964 to 1994 or fact that they have applied will leak, and they worry, whatever. I would say that we had responded to that perhaps—I am not saying this was the case with with inquiries more rapidly than, for example, the him—about the reputational damage that does. It is National Health Service has responded to similar very difficult. The reasons he gave for not applying allegations. I would say that we unfortunately had to then were, first of all, he thought that it required a dispense with the services of one Director-General, younger generation, which is a point he made then, but had done so pretty expeditiously, and had recruited and secondly that he was greatly enjoying his job another, who is widely accepted as a very good running the Royal Opera House, and he was running choice, very rapidly. I do not think that is a bad way the Cultural Olympiad, which he did fantastically of having handled things, but we have been hugely well. When you are 68, 61 does not seem to be past cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:21] Job: 024971 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o002_mark_121127 BBC JS corrected.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 45

27 November 2012 Lord Patten and Tim Davie it, and I think he has concluded, I am delighted to say, and takes the rap, which is what has happened in that this time the BBC is so important to him that he George Entwistle’s case. is prepared to give up a job that he loves and has done very well in order to come and do it. I think he sees Q348 Angie Bray: He is starting in March next year? part of his job as to build a proper team around him Tim Davie: Yes. so that the next time that we have to find a Director- Lord Patten: He is starting at the beginning of March. General, we do not have some of the challenges that Angie Bray: Decisions in the meantime are being we had this time. taken by Mr Davie? Lord Patten: Indeed. Q343 Angie Bray: What is he going to bring to the Angie Bray: Those decisions will stand, regardless, job that George Entwistle was unable to bring to the or are you working with him already? job? Tim Davie: Of course. Common sense will apply, Lord Patten: Experience outside, and a combination won’t it? This is not beyond the normal in some ways, of experience as a very good and strong journalist. which is, I will run the organisation and I have There was an interesting piece about him by Steve executive authority until March. Any decisions that Hewlett in The Guardian yesterday, and Steve have a long-term implication, I will be getting the Hewlett’s experience working with him, his input of Tony Hall. We have already had a couple of experience of working within the BBC and in meetings. Tony and I know each other well. I think journalism, his experience in running one of our great that will work. We will just apply common sense. I cultural iconic organisations at the Royal Opera think it is fairly straightforward. House, and his experience in opening up the opera house to much younger audiences, to socially more Q349 Chair: In the case of the previous Director- diverse audiences, and of course his work on the General, who did carry the title editor-in-chief, as Cultural Olympiad. One of things that is always a indeed do you, the Newsnight programme was not challenge for the BBC is to manage both to encourage brought to his attention. It is hard to think what is reach and to continue to challenge people with quality, thought worthy of bringing to his attention if that was and to challenge people in the way that has been an not. Is there not certainly a suggestion that it is simply important part of this country’s cultural tradition, not possible for one man now to do both those jobs where there has been, happily, a belief that the average effectively? man and woman is a great deal better than the Tim Davie: I can answer on the practical side of this. average. It is what helped to produce the Third I absolutely think you need a team of people. Let’s Programme in the first place. It is what introduced face it, for many years, the BBC was successfully people to poetry and music for the first time. It is a run—we had our moments—with Mark Thompson as really important part of our intellectual history in this a clear editor-in-chief and Director-General, and with country, and I just hope we will not trash it. Mark Byford underneath him, who could begin to judge issues. This is a judgment, and it is an editorial Q344 Angie Bray: He is costing even more money organisation that is based on judgment. What is clear in terms of salary than George Entwistle, I understand. is the referral processes and those that are of corporate Lord Patten: He is going to get the same salary as importance need to come to the Director-General, and George Entwistle. one of the first things I have done, for instance, is clearly list the 15 or so things that are on the radar Q345 Angie Bray: He is on £530,000 because he is that I think have a corporate implication, and I have also continuing to take a pension from the BBC, even the system running. This is about clarity and simply though he is back working there again. I think some putting the right people in with a simple process. It is people might find that slightly strange; he is having a not impossible to deliver it. It requires the right pension with the very organisation he is working for. leaders and the right clarity. Unfortunately, in the haze Lord Patten: Look, you can’t run the BBC on the of the last few weeks, that was lost, and with fairly basis that people’s statutory employment and pension dire consequences. entitlements should not apply to them because they are working for an organisation that is funded by the Q350 Chair: You are confident that you are capable licence fee. He has contributed to his pension, for of fulfilling the functions of editor-in-chief, as well heaven’s sake. I could make comparisons with the as overseeing? political sector, but I will not. Tim Davie: Absolutely.

Q346 Mr Bradshaw: Have you decided not to split Q351 Chair: Would you consider an appointment of the roles of Director-General and editor-in-chief? a Mark Byford-type position as Deputy Director- Lord Patten: Yes. General? Tim Davie: I think that gets into the long term. The Q347 Mr Bradshaw: Why? BBC needs, just like any organisation, a small, Lord Patten: My view is that, while he will want to experienced, high-quality group of people where the think very hard about the team around him and about trust and the relationships are well developed—again, responsibility for our news and journalism, having this is not anything that is not normal among well-led two emperors, like the Roman Empire, east and west, organisations—with a clear leader. I will put that in I simply do not think would work, because ultimately place, and I will work with Tony. I am not going to there has to be one person who takes responsibility put anyone in place in these jobs without the backing cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:21] Job: 024971 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_o002_mark_121127 BBC JS corrected.xml

Ev 46 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

27 November 2012 Lord Patten and Tim Davie or input of Tony. It just doesn’t make any sense. It Lord Patten: Thank you very much, and of course, would be crazy. if you want our input after the Pollard report or any Chair: I think that has exhausted the Committee. Can subsequent developments, we would be delighted to I thank you, Lord Patten and Mr Davie, very much come. for your time? Chair: We will be in touch. Tim Davie: Thank you very much. Lord Patten: Thank you very much. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:20] Job: 024971 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_w007_JS 002 Supplementary written evidence from the BBC.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 47

Written evidence

Correspondence from Lord Patten, BBC Trust to the Chair of the Committee Alongside the rest of the Corporation, the BBC Trust shares the public revulsion at the allegations surrounding Jimmy Savile. We are collectively determined to ensure that all aspects of this issue as they relate to the BBC—in the past, currently and in terms of future conduct and practice—should be fully and independently examined. In advance of your discussion with the Director-General next week, I thought that it might be helpful to you and your committee if I were to set out for you how the independent inquiries into the allegations around Jimmy Savile will be overseen at the BBC, and the Trust’s role in this process. As you will be aware, the BBC Trust has a Charter-defined duty to perform its role in the public interest, particularly in the interest of licence fee payers; it must also ensure that the BBC acts transparently. Given the Executive Board’s explicit responsibility for ensuring compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, for creative and editorial output, and for all aspects of the operational management of the BBC (except that of the Trust), the Trust believes that it is appropriate for the Executive Board to commission the inquiries into this matter. Of course, the Trust’s supervisory functions require us to hold the Executive Board to account for the BBC’s compliance with its regulatory and legal obligations and I set out below how we are doing so in this instance. In line with our Charter duties, the Trust has taken responsibility for overseeing the establishment of the two independent inquiries which the Director-General announced on 16 October. On the recommendation of the Executive Board, the Trust approved the detailed terms of reference for each inquiry, and the appointment of Dame Janet Smith and Nick Pollard as leaders of the Savile and Newsnight inquiries respectively. I have spoken direct to each of them to reinforce the Trust’s expectation that they will conduct their work with the fullest rigour and act wholly independently of the BBC, and I need hardly add that each has confirmed that this was the case. The Trust has informed the Executive both that there must be resources available so that each inquiry is supported by an independent secretariat and that the Executive must provide access to all relevant BBC staff, information and records. With our agreement, in order to ensure no actual or perceived conflicts in the BBC’s engagement with the inquiries, Dame Fiona Reynolds rather than George Entwistle will act as Chair of the Executive Board for any relevant discussion; and George and any other Executive Directors conflicted will recuse themselves from relevant discussion and decisions. The inquiries will reach their conclusions independently of both the Trust and the BBC’s Executive Board. However, the Trust will keep in regular contact with the review teams, not least to ensure that the Executive is providing the resources and co-operation that is required. The reports of both inquiries will be presented initially to the Executive Board; and the Executive Board will consider them in the first instance against its Charter responsibilities for complying with legal and regulatory requirements, for editorial and other output issues and for operational management. The Executive Board will pass the inquiry reports to the Trust in full and without amendment, alongside its own assessment of the reports. At the final stage the Trust will consider each inquiry report and Executive assessment for itself, and will take its own independent professional advice as necessary. We will consider whether the Executive’s response is adequate or sufficient, and reach our own conclusions on any different or additional actions to be taken. When we have done this, we will publish each report, together with the Executive’s assessment and our own action plan. The Trust has also asked the Director-General to check that the BBC’s current child protection policies, processes, guidance and training are fit for purpose, alongside those on sexual harassment, bullying and whistle- blowing. Separately, the BBC Executive will conduct to assess all claims of sexual harassment from the 1970’s to the present day and to identify the lessons from any past mistakes. The Trust has agreed that this assessment should involve expert independent input, and that the outcomes will also be reported to the Trust. The Trust fully understands the public interest in this matter, and the Director-General’s offer to speak to your committee about the actions that are being taken by the Corporation is part of the BBC’s commitment to get to the bottom of these issues in a way that commands public support. As my office has made clear to the Committee Clerk, I am happy myself to give evidence on the Trust’s role in respect of these issues whenever helpful. In the meantime, and given the level of public interest, I would like this explanation of the Trust’s oversight to be made widely available; and my office will be in touch with the Clerk about appropriate arrangements to put this letter in the public domain. I hope that you can take confidence from this summary both as to the rigour and transparency of the process that we have established and to the Trust’s strategic leadership of the BBC’s response. 19 October 2012 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:21] Job: 024971 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_w007_JS 002 Supplementary written evidence from the BBC.xml

Ev 48 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Correspondence from David Jordan, Director of Editorial Policy and Standards, BBC At the Select Committee on 23 October Mr Bradshaw put to Mr Entwistle that I had spent a whole day “peddling the Rippon defence” after Mr Entwistle had received emails from Ms MacKean and Mr Jones. He also put to me that I must have been aware that Newsnight staff were unhappy about Mr Rippon’s version of events (most obviously, the blog). First, as I stated in the Committee, the Newswatch interview that I did was pre-recorded on 5 October prior to those emails being sent to Mr Entwistle. Secondly, I wish to clarify to the Committee that I had a confidential meeting with Mr Jones on 4 October. What was said in this confidential meeting however does not affect the substance of my oral evidence to the Committee, namely that initially I was not aware that there was a major dispute in Newsnight about Mr Rippon’s account of events in his blog. I was, of course, aware from the blog that there were some members of the Newsnight team who disagreed strongly with Mr Rippon’s decision not to broadcast. I would also add that it is for the Editor to define the terms and focus of a story. If a Producer disagrees with the direction an investigation takes, that does not make the Editor’s position incorrect. As we have subsequently stated, in this case, while the BBC has accepted that the Newsnight investigation did not start out as an investigation into Surrey police, the Newsnight Editor made it clear in his blog that he wanted to investigate whether any institutional failure could be established. That is why, in my capacity as a BBC spokesman, I relied upon the Editor’s description of the story angle he wanted to pursue in characterising what it was about. November 2012

Supplementary written evidence submitted by the BBC How many sexual harassment cases has the BBC had since 1960? Our Bullying and Harassment policy was introduced in 1995 but we have only held central data on individual cases since 2006 and therefore can’t provide details of harassment cases before that date. We have now reviewed cases held on the central data base. We’ve looked at all bullying and harassment cases and also disciplinary, grievance, inappropriate conduct and unacceptable behaviour cases and identified those that contain an element of sexual harassment or inappropriate behaviour of a sexual nature. Based on data as at Friday 2 November, we have identified 22 cases of sexual harassment since 2006, nine of which have resulted in termination of contract. These cases exclude allegations that have been made since the Jimmy Savile allegations at the beginning of October. These cases, (complaints raised under our bullying and harassment procedure, grievance or disciplinary procedures) do not include any informal complaints of sexual harassment that have been resolved locally (ie discussed and resolved with no requirement to make a formal complaint). We will continue to review and refine this case data in order to inform the Smith and Rose reviews and while we do not expect this number to change significantly there may be a small number of sexual harassment cases that are not currently logged on our central data base.

How many allegations of sexual harassment have we received since the JS allegations? George Entwistle was also asked at the select committee how many sexual harassment complaints the BBC has received since the Jimmy Savile allegations, to which he gave the reply; between eight and ten. There were nine named allegations against current staff or contributors at that time. Since 3 October 2012, and as at 2 November, we have now received specific allegations against a total of 19 current staff or contributors. In addition to these 19, there are allegations against a further 25 named individuals that are either insufficiently specific or are against people who have died or who no longer work for the BBC. All of these figures exclude allegations against Jimmy Savile. These numbers change on a daily basis and may increase and decrease as allegations are reviewed and investigated and as new allegations come to light.

If the BBC were considering a longer-term Jim’ll Fix It replacement, why did that not go ahead? Given the strong public response to the death of Jimmy Savile, which was reported across the media, and his prominence as a BBC personality for many years, it was decided that a way for the BBC to reflect this would be to commission a one-off tribute show using the Jim’ll Fix It format. The programme was always billed and commissioned as a one-off, although part of the thinking was that if it performed very well, the format may come back, eg Shane’ll Fix It. However, even though it was watched by an audience with a respectable size of more than four million, the audience was not big enough to merit bringing it back as a series. In addition, there is an agenda for fresh and new formats on BBC One, and we were conscious that the format was from the past. Commissioning a series cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:21] Job: 024971 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_w007_JS 002 Supplementary written evidence from the BBC.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 49

was explored in Entertainment Commissioning meetings, but ultimately it was decided to commission other programming, for example Richard Hammond’s Secret’ Service.

A further factor was the question of whether the proposed series would appeal enough to adults as well as children. This element of “crossover appeal” is something that is aimed for in BBC One programmes in the Saturday tea-time slot. November 2012

Correspondence from Lord Patten, BBC Trust to the Chair of the Committee

In view of the widespread public interest in the matter, I am writing to explain the terms that have been agreed for George Entwistle’s departure.

On the afternoon of Saturday 10 November, George Entwistle met with the BBC Trust to discuss recent developments linked to the Newsnight report of 2 November. The Trustees expressed serious concerns about the way in which this issue was being handled. Later in the day George approached me to ask if suitable terms could be agreed for his resignation.

Under the terms of George’s contract the notice period for resignation is six months. The notice period for termination by the BBC Trust is 12 months. Both with the right for the Trust to make payments in lieu of notice.

On Saturday evening we undertook discussions with George and his advisers. Those discussions led to a negotiated settlement of the terms for George’s resignation.

In agreeing to 12 months’ notice rather than six, we had in mind the following points. In the absence of George’s honourable offer to resign, I would have had to speak to the Trustees about the option of termination by us (which, fortunately, was not necessary). In these circumstances, George would have been entitled to 12 months’ notice. In circumstances where we needed to conclude matters quickly and required George’s ongoing co-operation in a number of very difficult and sensitive matters, including the Inquiries into issues associated with Savile, I concluded that a consensual resignation on these terms was clearly the better route.

I consulted my colleagues on the Trust’s Remuneration Committee and took legal advice. Our conclusion was that a settlement on these terms was justified and necessary. The alternative was long drawn-out discussions and continuing uncertainty at a time when the BBC needs all of its focus to be on resolving fundamental issues of trust in BBC journalism. I am putting this letter in the public domain. 12 November 2012

Correspondence from the Chair of the Committee to Mark Thompson

I am writing in connection with the Committee’s inquiry into the BBC’s response to the Jimmy Savile case. As you will know, this Committee held two evidence sessions on the Savile case towards the end of last year, just at the point when Nick Pollard’s review was getting underway. I expect the Committee will wish to consider the issues arising from the Pollard review in due course. Therefore, I would be grateful if you could clarify specifically when you first became aware that the Newsnight Savile investigation involved allegations of sexual abuse.

You may be aware that there is some confusion between two apparently contradictory accounts: the Pollard report states that whilst with the BBC you “did not learn any specifics of the investigation [into Savile], and remained ignorant of the fact that the investigation was into allegations of sexual abuse”; while in a recorded interview on 24 October 2012 with Ben Webster of The Times, you indicated that you may have formed an impression a few days after your conversation with Caroline Hawley [on 20 December 2011] that the Newsnight’s Savile investigation related to allegations of sexual abuse.

In addition, the Pollard Report refers to the letter sent by Solicitors acting for you to the Sunday Times on 6 September about the Newsnight investigation and suggests that you had approved this. There have also been reports of a number of enquiries made to your office about the programme between December 2011 and September 2012 by several journalists and by ITV, as well as The Sunday Times’ legal department.

Given the significance of this case, I would be grateful if you could clarify exactly when you first understood the nature of the investigation and, for any avoidance of doubt, the personal knowledge you had of the details of the enquiries to the BBC on the nature of the Savile allegations. 10 January 2013 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:21] Job: 024971 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_w007_JS 002 Supplementary written evidence from the BBC.xml

Ev 50 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Correspondence from Mark Thompson to the Chair of the Committee Thank you for your letter. Let me address the issues you raise about the Jimmy Savile affair. I learned of the existence of the Newsnight investigation not by being briefed or notified (for instance through the BBC’s “Managed Risk Programme List”), but in the course of a chance conversation at a drinks party in December 2011 which I subsequently followed up with BBC News. Neither Caroline Hawley (with whom I had the initial conversation) nor the leadership of BBC News (with whom I raised it) told me what the investigation had been about. I did learn from BBC News that the Editor of Newsnight had decided to abandon it on editorial grounds; I therefore concluded that the matter was closed and did not pursue it further. As a result, I only learned that Newsnight had been investigating allegations of sexual abuse by Jimmy Savile after I stepped down as Director General. When I indicated in an interview with The Times that I might have formed the impression at the time of my conversations with Caroline and Helen that the investigation related to allegations of sexual abuse, this was speculation on my part in October 2012 about an impression I might or might not have formed after a pair of brief conversations nearly a year earlier. Such an impression would have been based entirely on conjecture since, as I have noted above and have stated publicly on a number of occasions, no one had told me and I therefore had no knowledge of what the abandoned investigation had been about. It is worth adding that, as I have also made clear both publicly and to the Pollard Inquiry, I had never previously heard any rumours about Jimmy Savile and sexual abuse, and had no reason to connect the two. You also refer to a number of enquiries by journalists to the Director General’s office related to this matter. You will know that the Director General’s office deals with many enquiries and contacts each week, including numerous press enquiries, the overwhelming majority of which are passed directly on to the relevant BBC department or the press office without reference to the Director General. That is what happened in this case. I have subsequently learned that both BBC News and the BBC press office believed that the story of a conspiracy to suppress the Newsnight investigation was false and that they knew how to handle it without the need to draw it to my attention. As I have already stated publicly and to the Pollard Inquiry, they decided not to do so. You further refer to a letter which the BBC arranged for a firm of external solicitors to send to the Sunday Times on 6 September 2012. The practice of sending such letters—which the BBC’s own lawyers believed could be more effective than letters from the internal legal department—was not uncommon. In this case, the idea of sending such a letter was discussed and agreed by the BBC press and legal teams while I was out of the country on holiday. On my return, I was told that the Sunday Times were proposing to print a false allegation about a conspiracy by myself and others to suppress the Newsnight investigation and that the BBC press and legal teams believed that a letter from external solicitors should be sent to the Sunday Times to rebut it. As I have already said publicly, I knew the allegation was completely false and approved the sending of the letter on one of my last days in the office but did not read the letter itself in any detail. I had no contact with the firm of solicitors who were engaged to draft and send it. The Pollard Inquiry—which interviewed me and all other relevant witnesses and had access to all email and documentary evidence—examined the issue of what I knew about the Newsnight investigation during the whole period. In paragraph 54 of Part Two of his report (p 34, see also paragraph 23 of Part Five, p 122), Nick Pollard is explicit in his conclusion that, having heard all the evidence, he has no reason to doubt my testimony. Let me conclude by noting that, despite efforts by some to misrepresent my account of these matters to create a false impression of inconsistency, there has been none. My position has remained consistent from the start: I learned of the existence of the Newsnight investigation through a chance conversation rather than being briefed or notified, was not told either then or during the following months about the underlying allegations which that investigation had been examining, and learned of them only in the days leading up to the broadcast of the ITV programme on the same subject. This was some weeks after I had stepped down from my role as Director General. 21 January 2013

Further supplementary written evidence submitted by the BBC Question Q281 Chair: Can I follow up one of Tracey’s questions about senior managers on top salaries? You said there has been a downward trend. The BBC annual report of 31 March 2010 said the number of senior managers being paid over £100,000 was 324. The annual report 2011 said it was 280. The annual report 2012 said it was 255. So there has been a steady downward trend according to the annual report. Can you therefore explain why, in response to a freedom of information request on 31 May 2011, the BBC said there were 348 full-time staff being paid over £100,000? Lord Patten: No. Tim Davie: No. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [25-02-2013 15:21] Job: 024971 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024971/024971_w007_JS 002 Supplementary written evidence from the BBC.xml

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 51

Lord Patten: But we can respond to the Committee.

Response In our 2010 Annual Report and Accounts (ARA) we stated that we had 280 senior managers that earned more than £100k per annum. In our 2011 ARA we stated that this number had fallen to 255. The Committee has asked why a Freedom of Information response based on data as at 31 May 2011 stated that we had 348 full-time staff on more than £100k pa. In the ARA, the published table referred to the number of employees that have a senior management grade only. The Freedom of Information (FOI) referred to full-time staff across the BBC and included employees that earned £100k or more that did not have a senior management grade. This caused the significant difference between the ARA figures and the FOI figures. These are individuals that are not on senior manager grades and are predominantly senior specialists who possess a skillset that commands a higher market premium, or in some cases, senior contributors to BBC content who are on-air talent. These individuals enable the BBC to deliver high quality content for audiences but they are not senior managers who lead within the BBC. Our strategy to reduce the number of senior managers across all salary bands within the BBC has seen us reduce our senior manager headcount from 640 heads to 456 (down 28.8%) heads and paybill from £78.5 million per annum to £55.1 million (down 29.8%) per annum between August 2009 and August 2012. We have achieved these savings by recruiting on lower salaries and restructuring our senior management population to align with the changing needs of the BBC. We do not re-grade senior manager roles to lower grades. There have been instances where roles have been identified as being non-senior management positions through this process and in these situations we continue to include individuals in the total SM numbers we report even if they no longer have a senior manager grade. All our reductions are independently audited by KPMG LLP to ensure public confidence in our commitment to deliver these reductions. December 2012

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited 02/2013 024971 19585 Distributed by TSO (The Stationery Office) and available from:

Online www.tsoshop.co.uk

Mail, Telephone, Fax & E-mail TSO PO Box 29, Norwich NR3 1GN General enquiries 0870 600 5522 Order through the Parliamentary Hotline Lo-call 0845 7 023474 Fax orders: 0870 600 5533 Email: [email protected] Textphone: 0870 240 3701

The Houses of Parliament Shop 12 Bridge Street, Parliament Square London SW1A 2JX Telephone orders: 020 7219 3890/General enquiries: 020 7219 3890 Fax orders: 020 7219 3866 Email: [email protected] Internet: http://www.shop.parliament.uk TSO@Blackwell and other Accredited Agents

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2013 PEFC/16-33-622 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament Licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/