Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80
- 99)
MONDAY 7 NOVEMBER 2005
BBC
Q80 Mr Bacon: So you are still working
up the numbers.
Mr Thompson: We are talking to
our Governors.
Mr Peat: We are still working
down the numbers rather than working up the numbers.
Q81 Mr Bacon: Is it correct that
the plan includes moving BBC Sport to Manchester?
Mr Thompson: Yes.
Q82 Mr Bacon: It does. Could you
just remind the Committee where the Olympics are taking place?
Mr Thompson: They are taking place
in 2008 in Beijing.
Q83 Mr Bacon: Right. After that?
Mr Thompson: We are not proposing
to move our sports department to Beijing. In 2012 they are taking
place in London.
Q84 Mr Bacon: I appreciate that when
you were covering the Olympics in Sydney or Los Angeles or Calgary
or wherever the Olympics have been you did not move the whole
BBC sports department there. However, it is odd, is it not, in
the same breath to be talking about moving BBC Sport within the
UK to Manchester at a time when the Olympics are going to be in
London?
Mr Thompson: The Olympics will
hopefully be a wonderful event; the BBC will be covering the Olympics.
They will last in the end for a few weeks in the summer of 2012.
We believe that it is important that the BBC invests and draws
on talent and is based across the United Kingdom in the nations,
but also in the various parts of England beyond London, the South
East and the M25. We believe that to achieve that, and in particular
to create a powerful and effective broadcasting centre in Manchester,
it is important that real broadcasting takes place and that major
BBC operations take place there. That is why not just Sport but
BBC Children will be joining our network programme makers in Manchester,
if the plan goes ahead.
Q85 Mr Bacon: Mr Peat, this is a
question for you, referring to what the Chairman was saying earlier
about Parliament. What is the objection to Sir John Bourn, as
Comptroller and Auditor General, auditing the BBC accounts in
the way that he does for other public money? Is it to do with
editorial independence, because that has been flagged up in the
past? Is that the objection, or if not, what?
Mr Thompson: The first point to
make is that the BBC is different from government departments
and therefore one has to think afresh of the appropriate relationship.
One of the key objectives is that the BBC has to be seen as remaining
utterly and totally politically independent.
Q86 Mr Bacon: So it is to do with
political independence. The National Audit Office is, of course,
not part of Government; it is completely independent of Government
too.
Mr Peat: We are aware of that
and we very much welcome the statements from the Chairman of this
Committee and from the Comptroller and Auditor General that they
would shy off from any investigation or any element of investigation
which came close to editorial issues. What I should say is that
as Chairman of the Audit Committee I should be very happy to discuss
any proposal for areas which the NAO would wish to study, but
I should wish to retain the right to consider whether there was
any risk of intervention or perception of intervention with editorial
issues; that is important, given the BBC's position that that
be retained.
Q87 Mr Bacon: Would you agree that
of all the parts of the BBC which contribute to its worldwide
reputation, probably the BBC World Service is at the pinnacle?
Mr Peat: Indeed.
Q88 Mr Bacon: So its editorial independence
is second to none. Would you agree with that?
Mr Peat: I agree entirely.
Q89 Mr Bacon: Do you accept that
the National Audit Office has audited the World Service for many
years?
Mr Peat: I am aware of that, but
of course the World Service is differently financed and there
has always been a closer relationship between Government and the
World Service.
Q90 Mr Bacon: It is differently financed,
in fact the connection between the financing of the World Service
and Government is still closer with Government than it is for
you, for the rest of the BBC, and yet there is still no suggestion
that because Sir John audits those accounts there is a problem,
is there?
Mr Peat: I am not aware of any
suggestion and I am not aware of any suggestion of problems in
any of the relationships with NAO.
Q91 Mr Bacon: So it is very hard
to come up with a sustainable argument that it would apply to
the BBC as a whole if Sir John were to audit the accounts of the
BBC as a whole.
Mr Peat: But at the same time,
the risk of any perception of damage or putting that independence
at risk is so great that we reserve the right to consider whether
there is any risk in particular instances and therefore, while
happy to discuss any area for investigation by the NAO, we reserve
that right to make the judgment at the end of the day.
Q92 Mr Bacon: If Parliament told
you to, you would.
Mr Peat: We are subject to immense
consultations with Parliament and we welcome that.
Q93 Mr Bacon: That is not an answer
to my question. If Parliament told you to, you would.
Mr Peat: Yes, of course; that
is where we would sort something out.
Mr Thompson: Yes; of course.
Q94 Kitty Ussher: With the greatest
respect to the panel in front of us, could you perhaps give us
an example of where an NAO Report had been perceived as affecting
editorial independence?
Mr Peat: That is interesting.
In fact it is very difficult to see where that could be the case,
but it is so difficult to anticipate the exceptions. If one looked,
for example, at the location of BBC News bureaux internationally
and how that was working, would there be a risk that would be
perceived as in fact getting into questions of policy of the BBC
and independence, rather than in the efficiency of operating its
services? I agree with you entirely that it is very difficult
to envisage the circumstance where that risk applies, but given
the enormity of the risk, if any risk were perceived to that independence,
we do deem it important to reserve the right.
Q95 Kitty Ussher: For example, if
the NAO wanted to do an investigation into the location of offices
overseas, as you have just mentioned that example, purely on value
for money grounds, which is the only remit they have, and they
make certain recommendations and you say you cannot do that because
of the need to reserve your editorial independence, surely that
would be perfectly acceptable and everybody would understand.
Mr Peat: I should expect that
if the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff wished to
discuss that possibility we should talk about what would make
sense and what would not make sense and hope to come to an agreement
as to an appropriate remit.
Q96 Kitty Ussher: Have they ever
asked to investigate anything which you thought would be inappropriate?
Mr Peat: No; we have had no difficulties
in agreeing the programme.
Q97 Kitty Ussher: You have been able
to agree everything they have asked and you cannot think of any
particular examples where there would be a problem, yet you still
maintain that it is necessary to keep the right of veto.
Mr Peat: I do.
Mr Thompson: May I just say that
one can read the point the other way, which is that under the
present arrangements no suggestion that the NAO has made has been
rejected? There is no suggestion that the BBC under the present
arrangements has stopped the NAO from examining anything it wanted
to examine.
Q98 Kitty Ussher: Exactly. The point
which I am trying to make is that it seems fine. Where is the
risk? I do not understand where the risk actually is. Every single
thing which the NAO audits or does an investigation on obviously
has objectives which are not purely financial, which is why whatever
quango or government department exists in the first place, it
has a particular remit. Please correct me if I am wrong, Comptroller
and Auditor General, but what the NAO is trying to ensure is that
that remit is carried out with the best value for money for the
taxpayers and your remit is editorial independence and I cannot
see where any threat would come.
Mr Peat: This is an experimental
approach which has been under way for some time. As far as I am
aware, it is working to the satisfaction of the BBC and, as far
as I am aware, it has allowed the NAO to investigate the areas
they have suggested and we have discussed. The experiment is working
as agreed in the context of the Communications Act discussions
and I believe that it can further develop to the mutual benefit
of the NAO and informing the PAC and the BBC.
Q99 Kitty Ussher: May I unusually
address a question to the Comptroller and Auditor General? Would
you value a freer relationship where you could conduct your investigations
in the same way as you would for any other public body?
Sir John Bourn: I should like
to say first of all that I agree with what the Chairman of the
Audit Committee and other members of the BBC team have said about
the way the experiment has worked. They have accepted everything
I have suggested and I think that it has gone well. From the position
of an external auditor, there should be no limit on the freedom
of choice and to the extent that there is that limit on the freedom
of choice, I am not in the same position with the BBC as I am
with all the government departments and executive agencies and
the range of my responsibilities. I do not have the freedom to
choose things myself and that is the nub of the issue. Certainly
from my point of view the experiment has gone very well in the
terms in which it was set.
| 
