Conclusions and recommendations
1. We believe it is a significant failing of the BBC Executive to have sidestepped the question of reach targets, and for the BBC Trust not to have commented on, let alone rectified, this deficiency.
(Paragraph 13)
2. We find it difficult to reconcile the BBC Trust's claim to have given only limited authorisation for the Executive to "talk to other players in the industry" with information on the subsequent development of Kangaroo and statements in the provisional findings of the Competition Commission. It is apparent that the Trust reviewed proposals for the joint venture at a number of stages, including a detailed review on 19 June 2008, in advance of our oral evidence session. The statements by the BBC Trust Chairman to the Committee therefore appear, at best, incomplete and, as a result, potentially misleading. (Paragraph
18)
3. We believe that
it would have been more appropriate, in the first instance, for
the BBC Trust to have given further consideration to the Kangaroo
proposal and a preliminary indication of its approval or rejection
of fundamental aspects in principle—subject to amendment
and compliance with competition law as appropriate—before
the launch of a full scale investigation by the competition authorities.
(Paragraph 19)
4. We welcome the
efforts made by the BBC to increase transparency through the publication
of the numbers of senior management in various different salary
bands. However, we continue to believe that the same requirement should be applied to BBC "talent", whether they are employed directly or under contract. We welcome the undertaking by the Chairman of the Trust to give this further consideration.
(Paragraph 23)
5. We are pleased that the BBC Trust has acknowledged this error but remain concerned that a material figure in the Annual Report and Accounts was misrepresented, despite proof reading by both the BBC Trust and its external auditors. Nor is it clear that this error was identified until the Committee brought it to the BBC's attention.
(Paragraph 25)
6. The deficiencies outlined in this report should not detract from the overall improvement in the BBC's response compared to its approach in the previous year. While there remains room for further improvement, we are generally satisfied with the quality and detail of the responses received this year. We hope that in future years the BBC will continue to strive to provide accurate and thorough responses to our scrutiny.
(Paragraph 26)
7. The broadcast of The Russell Brand Show on 18 October was a serious editorial lapse which exposed major failings in the BBC's system of editorial control. These failings must be addressed and such a lapse must not be repeated. The broadcast of the show was bad enough, but the BBC's failure to respond quickly exacerbated the situation. It seems extraordinary that BBC senior management were not aware of the broadcast until some eight days after it went on air. We find it inexplicable that an apology was not issued until 27 October. Even then, the BBC failed to check the wording of its apology with the main victim of the broadcast, Andrew Sachs.
(Paragraph 31)
8. The decision by the BBC to announce on Radio 2 that Jonathan Ross would be back on air immediately after his three month suspension, despite the fact that the Trust had yet to approve the BBC's action, was premature and wholly inappropriate. It suggests to us an arrogance on the part of the BBC in apparently assuming that the Trust would not seek to alter the BBC's ruling. As the Chairman of the Trust himself accepted, the announcement should not have been made until after the Trust had approved the action. We also find it bizarre that the Trust should then issue its own statement suggesting that Jonathan Ross would face no further sanction ahead of its own meeting to consider the matter. This was the last in a series of major errors of judgement from the BBC relating to this matter, which started with the broadcast itself and was compounded by the unacceptable delay in acknowledging its inappropriateness and issuing apologies. We trust that all concerned will learn the appropriate lessons and that the Trust Chairman's declared intention to make sure that there is no recurrence is fulfilled.
(Paragraph 33)
| 
