HC 1099 Responsibilities of the Director General of the BBC

Correspondence from Helen Boaden, Director of News, BBC to Chair of the Committee

Thank you for your letter of 26th March regarding the Jimmy Savile investigation by Newsnight during late 2011 and any conversation I may have had with the then DG, Mark Thompson. I am happy to help the Committee understand this episode better.

Before I move to the substance of my conversation with Mark, I would like to give some context.

I was first asked about whether and, if so, what I had told Mark Thompson by George Entwistle in his capacity as new Director General, after the ITV Exposure documentary had aired. My instant answer, which reflected my recollection at the time, was that I had not spoken to Mark about it while the investigation was live or after it had been terminated by the Editor, Peter Rippon. I later forwarded to George a copy of an email I had sent to my friend and colleague, Jonathan Dimbleby, about this. The Pollard transcripts record George's account of my conversation with him and a copy of my email to Jonathan. Through my lawyer, I submitted to the Pollard Review, as requested, a short summary and timeline of my involvement in relevant events as set out in the Review's terms of reference-it was not intended to be anything more than that.

Subsequently, someone in the DG’s office mentioned to me in passing that Mark Thompson had been in Salford just before Christmas 2011. This triggered my memory of a short phone call I had had from Mark about the Savile investigation nearly a year before. I informed my lawyer, Mr Louis Charalambous, about this. And I presume this was the call Mark Thompson has referred to when he has talked about discussing the case with "News leadership".

During the Pollard Review process, I was interviewed by the QC acting for Mr Pollard and by Mr Pollard himself. This issue was not raised by them. So when, just before the Pollard Review was published, I received a Salmon letter informing me of potential criticisms in the report-that I could have done more to alert BBC management about the Newsnight investigation-I thought it responsible to inform the Review about the call so they had a complete picture. Mr Charalambous, on my behalf, made reference to this call from Mark Thompson in my reply to the Salmon letter. The reply stated that I had informed Mark "of the nature of the Newsnight investigation".

To expand on that phrase: Mark had rung me during his visit to Salford. He asked me what I knew about an investigation by Newsnight into Jimmy Savile. It was not unusual for Mark to make contact with me over a story he had picked up on through an informal route, and as Editor in Chief he could be expected to take an interest in BBC News investigations.

My recollection is that I told Mark what I knew: that Newsnight had been investigating thirty year old allegations of sexual abuse of teenage girls by Jimmy Savile at an Approved School in Surrey. The Editor did not think the allegations stood up so had discontinued the investigation for legitimate editorial reasons. I added that the Surrey Police had looked at the case more recently and decided not to pursue it. Mark thanked me and rang off. We did not discuss it again.

More recently, Mr Pollard was asked by a member of your Committee to publish what had been put in my letter of reply to the Salmon Letter. Given this involved breaking the confidentiality of the Salmon letter and its reply, Mr Charalambous and I met with Mr Pollard and his lawyer, Richard Spafford. I outlined the detail of the call as I remembered it. Mr Pollard made clear that that the conclusions of his report would not have been affected by the information I had shared with him. He also made clear that he recognised that people often have different memories of the same conversation.

I hope this information is useful to you. I am copying this letter to Lord Hall and Nick Pollard.

22 April 2013