:00:12. > :00:22.You are watching and BBC World News. We are bringing new special
:00:22. > :00:23.
:00:23. > :00:28.coverage today or George Entwistle the. He is being questioned about
:00:28. > :00:38.the decision to drop Newsnight, an investigation last year, and we
:00:38. > :00:54.
:00:54. > :00:59.their editor if they want to. is the point of the director-
:01:00. > :01:04.general being editor-in-chief if he does not have editorial control?
:01:04. > :01:10.The director-general has editorial accountability and responsibility
:01:10. > :01:15.but it does not have direct editorial control. The BBC is a big
:01:15. > :01:21.organisation, there are many strains of journalism, and
:01:21. > :01:25.responsibility for journalism is devolved down to them. But would a
:01:25. > :01:31.programme bringing forward serious criminal allegations about somebody
:01:31. > :01:37.who was an icon in this country, created as an icon by the BBC, for
:01:37. > :01:40.very vulnerable people as a result of his BBC celebrity status, would
:01:40. > :01:48.the preparations for broadcast of a programme like that not routinely
:01:48. > :01:53.have gone to the editor in chief? No. I would have expected it to be
:01:53. > :01:59.referred to the line manager, which I understand it was, and I might
:01:59. > :02:03.have expected it to be made to the Divisional Director, which it was,
:02:03. > :02:07.but not necessary to the editor in chief. David would be able to
:02:07. > :02:12.provide a perspective on this, but the editor in chief becomes
:02:12. > :02:22.involved in relatively few final editorial decisions. I can
:02:22. > :02:22.
:02:22. > :02:31.understand that but if this doesn't qualify, I wonder what the Bar is?
:02:31. > :02:34.It would certainly have got to divisional director level. Had the
:02:34. > :02:39.investigation proceeded to where it would be transmitted, at that point
:02:39. > :02:44.it would be referred upwards. does that kick in? We know the
:02:44. > :02:49.editor had asked his team to prepare for transmissions. The BBC
:02:50. > :02:56.press office had been briefed. Does it go 10 minutes before
:02:56. > :03:00.transmission? Had it been commissioned, and were it to
:03:00. > :03:05.proceed to transmission in the way the editor had original planned, it
:03:05. > :03:09.probably would have been referred to senior management. The most
:03:09. > :03:13.sensitive and delicate investigations, some of the biggest
:03:13. > :03:19.ones I have been involved in, eventually get up to director level
:03:19. > :03:22.and sometimes even director-general level. I was in charge of the
:03:22. > :03:29.investigation into Robert Maxwell when I was at Panorama, and that
:03:29. > :03:33.went to the director-general at the time. Some of the most potentially
:03:33. > :03:39.defamatory investigations would get to that point but only if you were
:03:39. > :03:45.intending to proceed with them. A lot of investigations are not
:03:45. > :03:48.proceeded with... Newsnight was preparing for broadcast within a
:03:48. > :03:53.matter of weeks and so it would have been late in the day, it may
:03:53. > :03:59.have been totally proper for this never to have gone to the director-
:03:59. > :04:05.general before it went to air from what you say? Rather than having
:04:05. > :04:08.individual slots for documentaries on Newsnight, you own a chunk on
:04:08. > :04:12.BBC to see you have enormous flexibility about what to put in
:04:12. > :04:16.there so it is rarely the case that an editor for Newsnight would say,
:04:16. > :04:25.I am intending such and such definitely for that date. It would
:04:25. > :04:31.be intended for a certain week, for example. I am inferring from what I
:04:31. > :04:34.saw on Panorama last night, it seems that Peter Rippon's
:04:34. > :04:41.enthusiasm for the idea was higher and then became low, and therefore
:04:41. > :04:45.I would not expect him... We need to know why. Absolutely but I would
:04:45. > :04:50.not have expected him to be committed to a date and a
:04:50. > :04:55.particular timescale. One of the things I think that some of the
:04:55. > :04:59.contributions that Panorama from last night thought this was
:05:00. > :05:03.strange... It sounds strange that not only was the programme not
:05:03. > :05:07.considered ready for broadcast but that the investigation was dropped
:05:07. > :05:11.altogether and that nothing was done as a result of the
:05:11. > :05:17.investigation that had taken place. Is that not stray inch? On the
:05:17. > :05:24.basis of what I now know, I am surprised nothing further happened.
:05:24. > :05:30.-- is that not strange? The editor was not ready to proceed with the
:05:30. > :05:37.idea, but there were clearly some good journalistic material, and
:05:37. > :05:40.even if it was not a prospect for immediate transmission, a continued
:05:40. > :05:48.investigation my tap been appropriate. There were eyewitness
:05:48. > :05:54.statements about a criminal offence. -- might have been appropriate. Two
:05:54. > :05:58.separate points. Journalistically, it is important to say one of the
:05:58. > :06:02.questions that is important for the Pollard review is why the
:06:02. > :06:07.investigation was stopped rather than continuing, and then the
:06:07. > :06:11.question of what should have happened court replete with the
:06:11. > :06:14.information the investigation had discovered -- what should have
:06:14. > :06:18.happened in the corporation? I understand this will be included,
:06:19. > :06:26.the management of the Newsnight investigation covers the aftermath
:06:26. > :06:31.of the Newsnight investigation as well. So it will cover the whole
:06:31. > :06:39.period? We have made it clear to Nick Pollard that he is allowed to
:06:39. > :06:42.go wherever his investigation takes him, so, yes. I have a statement
:06:42. > :06:48.issued by BBC News and current affairs, a publicist to a
:06:48. > :06:54.journalist making inquiries on October 13th, which says "the
:06:54. > :06:57.independent review will not revisit the Newsnight editor's decision".
:06:57. > :07:03.The at is absolutely not true. We have said that Nick Pollard is
:07:03. > :07:09.entitled to look at anything he wants to look at. So at the news
:07:09. > :07:14.department it was wrong? I don't think that is right. OK. There may
:07:14. > :07:18.not have been an escalation and awareness of the case against Jimmy
:07:18. > :07:27.Savile, ween may not have been sitting in this room is... I accept
:07:27. > :07:32.that. It is a matter of great regret to me. I remember reading
:07:32. > :07:38.the blog about three weeks ago before I was asked to do an
:07:38. > :07:43.interview on BBC Radio Kewstoke and the blog was clearly written to try
:07:43. > :07:47.to shoot down some of the allegations that it was expected
:07:47. > :07:52.that ITV might level against the BBC, in particular regarding an
:07:52. > :07:57.alleged cover-up, but she did not have to be a member of the National
:07:57. > :08:02.Union of Journalists to realise that the blog baked more questions
:08:02. > :08:08.than it answered, for the very simple journalistic fact that the
:08:08. > :08:13.main story about Jimmy Savile being a paedophile had not been aired.
:08:13. > :08:18.Not an angle regarding whether the CPS or the police had decided to
:08:18. > :08:26.pursue a prosecution or the reasons for dropping them. That central
:08:26. > :08:32.journalistic fact does not seem to have got to journalists at the BBC
:08:32. > :08:35.about asking more questions. Peter Rippon, with a full understanding
:08:35. > :08:40.of everything that had been available, made the decision he
:08:40. > :08:46.made about the investigation not proceeding. The principal purpose
:08:46. > :08:50.of the blog was to address the particularly prevalent allegation
:08:50. > :08:56.at that stage, was that he had come under unreasonable managerial
:08:56. > :09:01.pressure to drop the investigation, and Peter Rippon was clear in that
:09:01. > :09:06.blog and stands by that that he did not come under managerial pressure,
:09:06. > :09:13.in appropriate managerial pressure. But the blog raised questions that
:09:13. > :09:18.did not seem to be answered. you spell out what you mean? I have
:09:18. > :09:23.just... I have just... I have just given you an example. The central
:09:23. > :09:30.question, what the investigation was about, which was about Jimmy
:09:30. > :09:34.Savile being a paedophile. That became the substance of all our
:09:34. > :09:39.efforts of the inquiry the following week. Declaring question
:09:39. > :09:44.was obvious as soon as you read the blog -- and the glaring question.
:09:45. > :09:52.That story had never been run. agree but it was one the following
:09:52. > :09:57.day by ITV. I see from Panorama last night that you what e-mails on
:09:57. > :10:01.November fifth by Meirion Jones to say that the explanation you were
:10:01. > :10:07.giving was wrong and you explained what she went through to come to
:10:07. > :10:11.the changes that you made yesterday. In essence, what you have done over
:10:11. > :10:15.the past three weeks is do the basic journalism in fact checking
:10:15. > :10:20.that you should have done before you make statements in the first
:10:20. > :10:24.place. Is that correct? What we have done is try to get to the
:10:24. > :10:28.bottom of why there was the significant disagreement inside
:10:28. > :10:33.Newsnight on what the purpose of the investigation had been, and it
:10:33. > :10:41.is not a situation I have ever encountered before, that there
:10:41. > :10:44.should be a dispute inside a programme of such virulence.
:10:44. > :10:49.Normally we would expect a programme team and their editors to
:10:49. > :10:53.reach an understanding of what the programme was going to investigate
:10:53. > :10:59.and our concern came to be to insure that rather listening to
:10:59. > :11:03.individual accounts that may have been sold but apparently clearly
:11:03. > :11:08.contradicted each other, was to get reliance on other documentary
:11:08. > :11:11.evidence to ensure we had an accurate overall picture before
:11:12. > :11:21.week published anything again. already made statements on the
:11:21. > :11:26.basis of a blog that ask questions even to a one-eyed Albanians. Do
:11:26. > :11:32.you not feel it is rather strange that the BBC makes public
:11:32. > :11:39.statements, which are broadcast to the public and the world, without
:11:39. > :11:43.going through the same processes of checking that it would do in
:11:43. > :11:49.broadcasting something like Newsnight? Will you change that in
:11:49. > :11:53.the future? As I have explained, I would absolutely to have expected
:11:53. > :11:57.that the editor of a programme would give a definitive and
:11:57. > :12:06.accurate account of what had taken place on a programme. The lesson
:12:06. > :12:10.for everybody, those who opposed to write a blog in the future, that
:12:10. > :12:16.they need to recognise that a publication on behalf of the BBC
:12:16. > :12:21.must be honest, accurate, and clearly that is not what happened
:12:21. > :12:25.on this occasion, which is a matter of regret and something we have had
:12:25. > :12:34.to put right. Or we will move on shortly to conversations you had
:12:34. > :12:41.about the tributes. In terms of your recollection of what happened
:12:41. > :12:47.in the editorial chain, have you, since the affair broke, asked
:12:47. > :12:57.people such as Helen Boaden and Stephen Mitchell what they knew
:12:57. > :13:02.about the Newsnight programme and who they can they get to? -- who
:13:02. > :13:08.they spoke about that too? Helen Boaden's understand was conveyed to
:13:08. > :13:13.her by the editor of the programme, which is consistent with what was
:13:13. > :13:18.put in the blog. In terms of the central allegations that Newsnight
:13:18. > :13:26.was going to make, which is about Jimmy Savile being involved in
:13:26. > :13:28.sexual activity with under-aged girls. Did she know that was the
:13:28. > :13:32.content of the programme? I do not know the full extent of the detail
:13:32. > :13:36.of her knowledge of the investigation but I do know that
:13:36. > :13:44.she had at least one conversation with Peter Rippon, where she came
:13:44. > :13:48.to understand what the nature of his reluctance to go ahead was.
:13:48. > :13:52.do you not know exactly? Because by that time it became clear to me
:13:52. > :13:56.that I needed to know, I had already decided I needed to set up
:13:56. > :14:01.an external review and I did not feel it was appropriate for me to
:14:01. > :14:08.prejudice that reviewed by effectively launching my own set of
:14:08. > :14:15.inquiries inside the BBC alongside batch. One of the e-mails, when
:14:15. > :14:21.Peter Rippon seemed to go cold on the story, it was copied to Stephen
:14:21. > :14:25.Mitchell. I don't know if that was routine. Do you know from what
:14:25. > :14:29.stage Stephen Mitchell was in touch with Peter Rippon and Helen Boaden
:14:29. > :14:36.and whether those conversations went further two Mark Thompson?
:14:36. > :14:40.do not know whether they went further. My understanding is that
:14:40. > :14:43.conversations with Stephen Mitchell took place, I would not know
:14:43. > :14:47.exactly when they first took place but there were a number of
:14:47. > :14:52.conversations during the production of that item, but all the detail we
:14:52. > :14:57.are gathering we are making available. There are relatively few
:14:57. > :15:02.individuals, just like the blog not raising any questions that seemed
:15:02. > :15:06.obvious, this seems to be another example of an amazing lack of
:15:06. > :15:12.curiosity on behalf of the journalist? On behalf of which
:15:12. > :15:15.journalist? You as a journalist and the BBC, full of journalists.
:15:15. > :15:20.approach was to recognise that if this was to have proper justice
:15:20. > :15:30.done to it, it would not be appropriate for me to run an
:15:30. > :15:40.
:15:40. > :15:44.inquiry alongside the independent At the same time, you have set up a
:15:44. > :15:49.process, you have set up inquiries, they have changed as time has gone
:15:49. > :15:55.on, but then, Panorama decides to wade in - this begs the question of
:15:55. > :15:59.who is in control at the BBC, doesn't it? Panorama's right to
:15:59. > :16:03.decide what it investigates is its own right. It is appropriate that
:16:03. > :16:06.Panorama should never take a broader, corporate picture, it has
:16:06. > :16:13.to make its own mind up about what to do. That is something I am proud
:16:13. > :16:18.of, not something I'm his arc -- regard as chaotic. Panorama is
:16:18. > :16:22.editorially independent. It never seemed to me anything other than
:16:22. > :16:27.entirely appropriate for them to decide what they wanted to
:16:27. > :16:33.investigate. Would you agree that having looked at Panorama last
:16:33. > :16:37.night, it might seem to the outside world as the BBC at war? You have
:16:37. > :16:44.got a producer, reporter and presenter against an editor, who
:16:44. > :16:48.chose not to appear, but it seemed to be moderated by Kevin Marsh, the
:16:48. > :16:53.former editor of the Today Programme, it looked like the BBC
:16:54. > :16:57.at war. There is no question in my mind that there was a significant
:16:57. > :17:04.breakdown in communication on Newsnight, on the subject of this
:17:04. > :17:06.investigation. It seems the editor and a two lead journalists were not
:17:06. > :17:11.reconciled in their understanding of what had happened, and I think
:17:11. > :17:17.that is what you saw in Panorama. You watched the programme last
:17:17. > :17:23.night? Yes, I did. I thought it was a strong programme. Editorially,
:17:23. > :17:28.did you think it had any defects? No, I thought it was a good edition
:17:28. > :17:33.of Panorama. Can I run one past you? When it came to one of the
:17:34. > :17:39.points on which the blog was convicted, which was the issue of
:17:39. > :17:48.whether Newsnight had got evidence that would have provided fresh
:17:48. > :17:55.details for the police, when that question was asked by the Panorama
:17:55. > :17:58.presenter of the Newsnight producer, it rather skipped from the question
:17:58. > :18:03.of evidence generally to evidence about a new person, rather than
:18:03. > :18:06.Jimmy Savile. It skip to Gary Glitter, and the argument was made
:18:06. > :18:15.by the producer that it would have been difficult to do anything with
:18:15. > :18:19.that, because Gary Glitter was alive, and secondly, nobody could
:18:19. > :18:25.identify the girl with whom he allegedly had sex in Jimmy Savile's
:18:25. > :18:29.room. That was a sleight of hand, or sleight of vision, to me, as a
:18:29. > :18:34.viewer, because the issue really was evidence in general, including
:18:34. > :18:38.evidence about Jimmy Savile, and clearly we know now that the Karin
:18:38. > :18:42.Ward interview was not known to the police. Other people have come
:18:42. > :18:47.forward who were not known to the police, and yet the presenter of
:18:47. > :18:52.Panorama did not give the producer of Newsnight any challenging
:18:52. > :18:57.questions over why that evidence was not provided by them to the
:18:57. > :19:04.police. They sort of Gloucester over it. I thought the reporter did
:19:04. > :19:08.pressed to a degree. I accept your point. It has been a matter of
:19:08. > :19:11.absolute importance, in my view, for the Pollard review, to look at
:19:11. > :19:15.the question of what should have happened to the evidence which
:19:15. > :19:19.Newsnight had after they had decided not to proceed, in respect
:19:19. > :19:22.of the police. You will recognise that there was a question, not only
:19:22. > :19:27.about what the presenter and producer may have done, but also
:19:27. > :19:32.the editor of the programme, and indeed, a Panorama programme not
:19:32. > :19:37.testing them on that. And to my mind, this casts some doubt about
:19:37. > :19:41.the objectivity of the Panorama programme, and it has looked to me
:19:41. > :19:45.to reinforce that it is BBC at war. I was pleased to see that the
:19:45. > :19:48.programme tackled the question of what should become of the evidence
:19:48. > :19:53.in respect of the police. I regard that as an important question for
:19:53. > :19:58.the Pollard review to address. one final question, and the real
:19:58. > :20:03.question here is, some leading groups will look at this and look
:20:03. > :20:08.at what happened with Panorama and think, this would never happen in
:20:08. > :20:12.our organisation. You say is his strength, but do you not grant, it
:20:12. > :20:17.begs the question of who is in control of the BBC, who is in
:20:17. > :20:22.charge? Are you an editor in chief, as would be understood at a
:20:22. > :20:26.newspaper, for example, or are you just a managing director, with lots
:20:26. > :20:32.of editors and editor-in-chief below you, who do not bring you
:20:32. > :20:35.problems? No, I am editor in chief, and in the end, I take
:20:35. > :20:39.responsibility for, and accountability for, all the BBC's
:20:39. > :20:43.journalism. But that is not the same as expecting every
:20:43. > :20:46.journalistic decision within the BBC to be referred to me. I regard
:20:46. > :20:50.the Independent right of the editor of Panorama to decide what he
:20:50. > :20:53.should investigate, even when that concerns the corporate affairs of
:20:54. > :21:03.the BBC, to be in a double. It is a really important thing that he is
:21:04. > :21:11.
:21:11. > :21:16.allowed to do. -- inalienable. Did Peter Rippon clear his blob with
:21:16. > :21:21.anybody before he published it? I understand it was cleared with Mr
:21:21. > :21:26.Mitchell. It was effectively a corporate production, involving our
:21:26. > :21:30.legal advisers and me and the Post Office. Has Peter Rippon agreed to
:21:30. > :21:36.that being published, did he challenge any of it? It was not up
:21:36. > :21:44.to Mr Ripon to agree to it, but it was shown to him. Did you watch the
:21:44. > :21:48.ITV documentary? Yes, I did. appreciate these things have to be
:21:48. > :21:50.done thoroughly, but there was still quite an element of time
:21:50. > :21:56.between the documentary and your announcement of inquiries, nine
:21:56. > :22:02.days later - why do you think your director generalship took so long
:22:02. > :22:05.to make that decision? The thing which was uppermost in my mind,
:22:05. > :22:15.from the day before the ITV documentary, because it was the day
:22:15. > :22:16.
:22:16. > :22:20.before that I contacted the police, was to make sure that any think of
:22:20. > :22:24.criminal significance was dealt with by the BBC, in an appropriate
:22:24. > :22:28.relationship with the police. If we were not careful, we might rush to
:22:28. > :22:31.set up an internal review process of some kind, which would find
:22:31. > :22:35.itself dealing with criminal allegations which it was not
:22:35. > :22:39.qualified to deal with, and not capable of preserving evidence
:22:39. > :22:42.properly and are not able to compel witnesses. So I gave my main
:22:42. > :22:46.attention to that business, of co- operating as fully as possible with
:22:46. > :22:51.the police. That involved a number of conversations between me and the
:22:51. > :22:55.police. I made sure the BBC investigations unit understood how
:22:55. > :22:59.it would relate with the police. We worked solidly on that for the
:22:59. > :23:05.first few days after the ITV documentary was said. By the
:23:05. > :23:09.following Monday, it was clear to me, and I agree, I should have made
:23:09. > :23:13.it more clear that I was always prepared to see an internal review,
:23:13. > :23:16.which is what I announced on the Monday morning, and that week, we
:23:16. > :23:20.worked to make sure the shape of those reviews was properly
:23:20. > :23:28.considered. We were able to announce those by the end of the
:23:28. > :23:33.week. If I take you back to your role previously, you word director
:23:33. > :23:38.of... Vision. And in the run-up to Christmas, this whole tribute was
:23:38. > :23:42.about to happen across not only television, but also covering his
:23:42. > :23:47.work that he did on Radio, I think what is still surprising, and it
:23:47. > :23:52.has been reflected already, is that if Helen Boaden had said to you, we
:23:52. > :23:59.are looking into Jimmy Savile... have not got on to that yet. I do
:23:59. > :24:04.not want to get into that. right, I will get back to that.
:24:04. > :24:07.couple of things that you have said - if I understood you correctly,
:24:07. > :24:12.you have confirmed today that the decision to drop the Newsnight
:24:12. > :24:16.investigation was referred up to Helen Boaden and Steve Mitchell, is
:24:16. > :24:20.that correct? I do not know that the decision to drop it was
:24:20. > :24:24.referred up, but there were definitely conversations about it.
:24:24. > :24:28.David Jordan said a few moments ago something which puzzled me, which
:24:28. > :24:32.was that this investigation, or the Newsnight programme, had not
:24:32. > :24:36.actually been commissioned, but as a understand it, it have a
:24:36. > :24:40.transmission date of 7th December, and was killed on 5th December, so
:24:40. > :24:44.it must have been commissioned. think what I meant was that it had
:24:44. > :24:49.not been given the final go-ahead to go to wear. There were obviously
:24:49. > :24:52.plans in process. If it made its target, if it was eventually OK, it
:24:52. > :24:56.could go to wear. So, you would like to correct your earlier
:24:56. > :25:02.evidence? Clearly, you have to go through those processes before it
:25:02. > :25:05.goes to wear. So, it had been commissioned? What I meant by
:25:05. > :25:11.commission was, it was not a final programme, there was never a final
:25:11. > :25:15.script, and therefore, it had not got the final go-ahead. Can you
:25:15. > :25:20.give this committee an assurance that the BBC will not do a deal
:25:20. > :25:27.with Peter Rippon, involving him going quietly and you not
:25:27. > :25:30.completely trashing his version of events? I think it is up to that a
:25:30. > :25:34.premature to talk about what will happen. Can you give us that
:25:34. > :25:38.assurance, that no deal will be made? Can I explain what will
:25:38. > :25:41.happen? Peter ripper will take part in the Pollard review. The findings
:25:41. > :25:46.of that review will be made available first to the BBC
:25:46. > :25:50.executive, before being passed to the trust. The task will then be to
:25:50. > :25:52.make an immediate decision about whether any disciplinary
:25:52. > :25:56.consequences should flow from the Pollard review. I do not think it
:25:56. > :26:00.would be fair to say anything else which would prejudice that process.
:26:00. > :26:04.You have preferred a lot to the Pollard review, but do you accept
:26:04. > :26:08.that the BBC cannot hide behind or wait for the Pollard review - you
:26:08. > :26:13.have to get a grip on the facts, establish the facts and act on
:26:13. > :26:16.those quickly and decisively for the sake of your organisation?
:26:16. > :26:20.agree that in the process of providing everything the Pollard
:26:20. > :26:26.review needs, we will go through that process and to our best to get
:26:26. > :26:31.a picture of what went on. George Entwistle, the boss of the BBC,
:26:31. > :26:35.facing questions from a cross-party group of MPs. He has said,
:26:35. > :26:39.significantly, that he does not believe necessarily that there was
:26:39. > :26:42.a cover-up. He said that Peter Rippon, the editor of Newsnight,
:26:42. > :26:46.has said that he was not put under any significant managerial pressure
:26:46. > :26:50.to drop the Newsnight investigation into the Jimmy Savile claims, but
:26:50. > :26:52.he has expressed a number of times disappointment in Peter Rippon's