Examination of Witnesses (Questions 90-99)
SIR MICHAEL
LYONS AND
MR MARK
THOMPSON
18 NOVEMBER 2008
Q90 Chairman: Good morning, everybody.
This is the second session of the Committee's inquiry into the
BBC's commercial operations, and we are delighted to welcome Sir
Michael Lyons and Mark Thompson to give evidence. Since the announcement
of the inquiry, there has been a little publicity about other
matters affecting the BBC and we thought that the Director General
and the Chairman would not want this opportunity to pass without
having the opportunity to address some of the questions raised
by the Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross broadcast and subsequent
matters raised to that. If I might begin, when the story first
broke about the Ross/Brand telephone call on Andrew Sachs's answering
machine, it was suggested by the BBC that this had only led to
two complaints and, therefore, it was not a matter of great importance,
and indeed, even since then, there have been suggestions by some
that actually this was a hysteria which was largely whipped up
by The Daily Mail and other newspapers. Do you think that
the reaction was disproportionate?
Sir Michael Lyons: I am going
to answer that question, Chairman, but I just want to start by
underlining the basis on which we answer your questions today.
This is still not complete in terms of the Trust's inquiries and
we are receiving a full written report at our board meeting this
week, and that will inevitably mean that there are some areas
of information that we are not able to share with you this morning,
but that will all be made public once the Trust has reached its
final conclusions on this matter. Let me turn to the specific
question though of these events and preface anything that I might
say about the handling of it or the decisions made with a very
clear statement, and it is not for the first time made both by
the Director General and myself, as Chair of the BBC Trust, that
the events reflected in that programme should not have taken place,
they should not have been recorded and, most important of all,
they should not have been broadcast. There is no question of the
BBC saying anything other than that the contents of that programme
lie beyond the boundary of what is acceptable for the BBC to broadcast
and lie beyond its editorial standards, and it is important that
I underline that to begin with. Now, let us talk about the handling
of it. It is a matter of fact that, when this was broadcast on
the 18th to an audience of almost 400,000 people with an average
age of 55, there were only two complaints and those two complaints
do not even approach the most offensive issues raised by the programme.
A week later, after a further roughly 50% extra people had listened
to the programme either by podcast or through the iPlayer, there
were still only five complaints. Only after the publication of
an article in a Sunday newspaper did steadily the number of complaints
begin to grow, many of them prefaced with the comment, "I
haven't listened to this, but I am offended". Now, here is
the challenge, and again let me say again that this material was
unacceptable, should never have been broadcast and should never
have been recorded, but there is a dilemma here about how you
read a situation where the audience concerned, and we will not
know if they enjoyed it, but they do not appear to have been offended
by it, but actually another part of the licence fee public clearly
was offended. Now, my view is very clear on this, that the BBC
needs to certainly take account of the views of licence fee-payers
more generally, but the most important issue here though was that
this lay beyond the boundary of what the BBC believes it should
broadcast.
Mr Thompson: Perhaps I can just
say, on my own behalf as Director General, that I am in no doubt
that this was a very serious editorial lapse. There is a debate,
and I think it is an interesting and important debate, about the
boundaries of taste and how the BBC and other broadcasters should
strike the right balance between creative freedom for given programmes
and the reasonable expectations of different audience groups in
terms of content, and we know, and the Committee will know from
other work you have done, that there are very different expectations
from different audience groups, so there is that broader debate,
and, if you want to ask questions about that, we of course can
tackle them. This is, it seems to me, an example of a really serious
editorial lapse which is not close to some boundary where you
can debate it. It is absolutely the wrong side of the line in
terms of invasion of privacy and in terms of a lapse, effectively,
of a duty of care to some of the individuals, Andrew Sachs and
his granddaughter being the central figures there, and I would
not say that the press comment about this was illegitimate, therefore.
I think it was a serious editorial lapse and it was entirely appropriate,
bluntly, that the rest of the media should point to that. In answer
to your question, and, as Sir Michael says, it is an ongoing process
and he had a meeting this week, do I think that the actions so
far, namely the actions announced by the Trust and also the actions
which I announced and indeed the consequences for some of the
people who were responsible for the broadcast, do I think they
were disproportionate? No, I do not. The senior management knew
about this programme on Sunday 26 October and, by the following
Thursday, we had been able to prepare an interim report for the
BBC Trust and to make recommendations for pretty strong, but,
what I believe was, proportionate action, and I believe that the
actions we have taken were an appropriate response to what was
a serious editorial lapse. I accept that there are some licence-payers,
and some of them have written to me, who believe it is an overreaction.
I believe that what we have done is proportionate, given the seriousness
of what happened.
Q91 Chairman: You have both talked
about how serious a breach this was. If it is obvious to you that
this was a very serious breach, and I think it is obvious to all
of us that this was a very serious breach, why, when it was drawn
to the attention of the BBC, did they not immediately say, "This
is a very serious breach", instead of, "Well, we've
only had two complaints"?
Sir Michael Lyons: Well, Chairman,
let us go to what the BBC actually did. On the Monday morning
at 11 o'clock, it published a full apology, making it very clear
that this was unacceptable. Now, I do not know what—
Q92 Chairman: But not on the morning
after the broadcast.
Sir Michael Lyons: No, let me
be very clear. The broadcast on Saturday 18th, there is a proper
issue to account for and the Trust is looking into this in some
detail and it already has a pretty good picture of the events
between the 18th and the coverage of this in a Sunday newspaper
just over a week later, and it is on the basis of that that you
have seen the actions reported, both those taken by the Director
General, the consequences for those who were directly responsible
for the actions over that period and the further request that
the Trust has made to investigate further and put precautions
in place for the future. Therefore, that period up until the publication
of the Sunday newspaper, following the publication of the Sunday
newspaper article, both the Trust and the senior management of
the BBC became aware of this lapse for the first time and the
apology was issued the very next morning.
Q93 Chairman: Is it not extraordinary
that you had to wait for The Mail on Sunday to tell you
about it?
Sir Michael Lyons: Well, Chairman,
that might be the case, and I am not trying to excuse the processes
within the BBC over that seven-day period, but indeed let us be
clear, that the real offences lie in allowing this programme to
go out on the 18th. That is where the real problems lie. Now,
is it right to expect the Director General or any other part of
the BBC's management team to be aware of every single programme
that is broadcast? No. They rely on other folks within the organisation
and those folks have been held to account and in a way, frankly,
that you do not see very often in any organisation in this country.
Within less than a week of the matter coming to our attention
you had not only the immediate apology, but also a series of actions
which demonstrate clearly that in the BBC there are consequences
for those people who let the public down.
Q94 Chairman: But it was not less
than a week from the programme, it was less than a week from a
Sunday newspaper.
Sir Michael Lyons: Chairman, I
absolutely understand that and I have conceded that point, but
what we have to focus on are the two separate charges: the failings
before management became aware of this, for which people have
been held to account in the most severe way; and the actions of
the BBC management and the Trust following publication of the
Sunday article.
Mr Thompson: I do not want to
prejudice the report that is yet to come to the BBC Trust, but
perhaps it is helpful if I say the following: that the nature
of the compliance failure was that the gatekeepers, the senior
editorial managers on Radio Two, who would have been expected
to address the issues raised and essentially to ensure that the
programme is not broadcast, made errors of judgment and believed
the programme was suitable for broadcast and, therefore, it was
broadcast, but also, in the aftermath of the programme being broadcast,
those people, as it were, whom we would normally have expected
to be monitoring the output and considering whether it was appropriate,
were the people who had decided that the programme was suitable
for broadcast. The audience of The Russell Brand
Show clearly also did not find the programme unexceptional,
and it is only at the weekend at the publication of The Mail
on Sunday that the detail of what was broadcast in this edition
of The Russell Brand Show became clear to the rest of the
senior management of the BBC, but the point I am making is that
the character of the compliance failure, that quite senior people
with a specific responsibility for editorial standards and compliance
made errors of judgment in relation to this programme, not only
had the effect of allowing the programme to go out, but it meant
it was days after the broadcast before the detail of what was
in the programme became clear to us as well.
Q95 Mr Evans: Before I start, can
I pay tribute to BBC News's coverage of this particular incident
which I thought was absolutely superb. Now, as you reflect back
on your own reactions to this story, how do you judge your own
reactions, both of you? Any regrets?
Sir Michael Lyons: Well, in these
circumstances there are always lessons to learn, are there not,
and the Trust, as I said in my opening comments, continues to
focus on what are the right lessons to learn. I will come to the
issue of personal reactions, but we are still examining the way
that the BBC handled this, the nature of the apology, whether
or not that should have been followed up by a stronger sort of
personalisation of that message in the first few days as well
as getting to the root of "How could you have had such a
serious editorial lapse that involved such senior and experienced
people within the BBC?" We are trying to do this in a way
which is more surgical. What we do not want is something which
assumes that this is a problem endemic across the whole of the
BBC. We have done considerable work, or, rather, we have commissioned
considerable work over the last year to tighten up on editorial
standards, and the examinations that we have commissioned again
seem to suggest that they have had their effect, so we need to
get to the bottom of that. Now, in terms of what might have been
done differently here, well, I certainly do not think we could
have got the apology out any earlier. Could that apology have
been worded differently? Well, it was clear that it was both an
apology to Andrew Sachs and that it underlined that the material
was unacceptable. Might it have embraced other people who were
offended, not least particularly Ms Baillie? Yes, it might have
done. Was there a case for the Head of Audio, Tim Davie, to be
out a little earlier on the airwaves? Yes, there was. What was
the Trust's role in this? I read The Mail on Sunday article.
The Trust was engaged with the BBC management from that point
onwards. We were clear that this was a serious matter, that it
needed to be investigated, and the inquiry started on the Monday,
and we were clear that this was a matter for our Editorial Standards
Committee to look at and I personally accelerated that process
on the Tuesday to make sure that we could deal with it at the
meeting planned for the Thursday. Are there lessons to learn?
Almost certainly, as there are from every one of these crises,
and of course they are always different in nature, are they not?
Mr Thompson: My story is that
I was away out of the country over the weekend and out of telephone
contact. I got a phone call on the evening of Monday 27 October,
this was the day after The Mail on Sunday
was published, and was told that there had been a serious editorial
breach on Radio Two, that the BBC had already, early that morning,
issued a comprehensive and unreserved apology, that an inquiry
into what had happened and how this breach had occurred had already
started and was likely to be able to produce interim findings
by as early as, I think at that point, maybe Thursday and that
there was likely to be a meeting of the Editorial Standards Committee
of the BBC Trust on that Thursday. I thought that those actions
sounded appropriate. If I had heard about that, as it were, as
I opened The Mail on Sunday on the
Sunday that those were the actions, given the moment some of the
transcript of the programme was read out to me on the phone and
it was quite clear to me that we were dealing with a serious editorial
lapse, then the immediate issue of an unreserved apology and an
immediate investigation, I have to say, I felt then and still
feel, were the right things to do. Although I absolutely appreciate,
and you might say it is ironic for the Head of a news organisation
to say this, that the news cycle is very demanding of comment
and faces, actually the idea that BBC senior management should
focus as quickly as possible on understanding exactly why this
programme had gone out and trying to weigh quite closely the respective
roles of the on-air broadcasters, the producer, the independent
production company and some of the senior figures on Radio Two
who are charged with maintaining editorial standards on Radio
Two, it meant talking to them, weighing evidence, exploring the
paperwork, the email and paper traffic so that, when we did act,
we would do it fairly and proportionately, knowing what had actually
happened.
Q96 Mr Evans: Do you accept though,
both of you, that you were lamentably slow in your reactions?
Sir Michael, you were duffed up on the Today programme
for being slow. Do you accept that?
Sir Michael Lyons: Well, it was
put to me. I do not regard myself as having been duffed up. I
was very clear that there was no lack of speed from the Sunday.
This is a mythology which I just do not accept. There was no lack
of speed following the publication, but much to account for in
the preceding week and indeed the failure to control this programme
properly, much to account for, and in the Trust, from the moment
when it became aware of this, on that job. I refute and reject
any suggestion that there were further actions that the Trust
should have taken over that period, as I did when John Humphrys
interviewed me that morning.
Q97 Mr Evans: Even Lord Carter himself
said that the BBC was lamentably slow, and, Mark, you only came
out of hiding when the guns started to train on you instead of
Ross and Brand. Do you not accept that you should have acted?
You say you received a phone call on the 27th. Is that not when
you should have made the statement, not on the 29th.
Sir Michael Lyons: To be clear,
Mr Evans, we had already made a statement of unreserved apology.
Q98 Mr Evans: No, you. You talk about
the gatekeepers and you are both gatekeepers of the BBC as well,
so do you not accept any blame at all for your lamentable slowness?
When you made the statement, Mark, it was a good statement, but
it was slow in coming.
Sir Michael Lyons: Mr Evans, this
might be a convenient story, it may even be one which has been
given wide circulation, but the problem is that it actually just
is not true. The failings that need to be focused on are those
that occurred before The Mail on Sunday
article and particularly those around the events of the recording
and broadcast of the programme on the 18th. We are here making
it very clear that both the Trust and the Director General accept
that that is an issue which we must be held to account for, and
the Trust is doing its job of holding the executive to account
for that and you will get a full report and it will be in the
public domain. One of the problems here of course is that it is
very difficult to criticise the fact that the BBC has demonstrably
taken action that has had consequences for those who were involved.
Now, that is so exceptional in our society that people have to
look for a different story to tell. I do not believe that we have
anything to account for in terms of speed of action either in
terms of the Trust or the senior management. There are lessons
to learn about how we might manage our public messages more effectively
in the future and we will learn those lessons.
Q99 Mr Evans: Do you not think they
were both guilty, Mark, of gross misconduct, Ross and Brand?
Mr Thompson: I do not think I
want to go any further than the public statements we have already
made about all of the parties. I made it very clear that I thought
the behaviour of the on-air broadcasters was unacceptable in this
case.
|
