Examination of Witnesses (Questions 300
- 311)
WEDNESDAY 13 JUNE 2007
MR GAVYN
DAVIES
Q300 Bishop of Manchester:
If we put the clock back to when you were appointed yourself,
would you have been deterred from applying, going forward for
the post, if you had known that following the nomination it would
have been subjected to additional Parliamentary scrutiny?
Mr Davies: No, I would have greatly welcomed
that. As I say, my appointment was somewhat controversial, not
as controversial as Greg Dyke's appointment as Director General,
but given that he was already in post, my appointment, I think,
became more controversial than it would otherwise have been and
I would have welcomed the opportunity to give public evidence
directly addressing the question of my own independence. An issue
would arise as to how and where that would be given. The natural
place would be one of the two select committees: presumably the
House of Commons Select Committee on the DCMS. I have to say,
I would not have welcomed giving evidence to that particular committee
under that particular Chairman, but I would have done so.
Q301 Bishop of Manchester:
Can you comment on your view about the actual process which led
to the appointment of the present Chair of the BBC Trust, in the
light of what you have just been saying?
Mr Davies: Bishop of Manchester, I do not think
I can really comment on it. I have not followed the appointment
process carefully much, so I think I should not comment except
to say that I am extremely confident that any accusations that
the new Chairman has which are similar to the ones that were levelled
at me will prove equally false.
Chairman: Let us go on to conditions
of service.
Q302 Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall:
Mr Davies, the idea of a non-compete clause is fairly commonplace
in certain kinds of business, with which you are no doubt very
familiar. When Michael Grade stepped down from the BBC, there
was a good deal of disquiet, I think it would be fair to say,
both about losing him at that moment but also about the fact that
he was going immediately to work for a competitor organisation.
Is it your view that there would be a public interest in any Chairman
of the BBC being barred for a limited period of time, let us say,
from working for a competitor organisation?
Mr Davies: I think there is a lot to be said
for that, yes. When I left the BBC I was very aware that I had
a good deal of knowledge about what the organisation was planning
to do, both in programming terms and in the nature of the services
that they were about to launch and what their strategic vision
was, which might have been helpful to a competitor. It never applied
to me because I came from outside the industry, but I do think
a period out of the business would be useful.
Q303 Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall:
If there had been such a clause in the terms and conditions that
applied when you were appointed, would you have regarded that
as any sort of deterrent to accepting the post?
Mr Davies: No, I would have regarded it as part
of the process, which made sense and which is exactly what happens
in the private sector.
Q304 Chairman:
A minimum notice period for a contract. Do you there is any point
in that?
Mr Davies: I think that once you have said you
are going to resign, power ebbs away from you very rapidly, so
it best that you leave fairly quickly, that the Vice Chairman
takes over, that the appointments process is quick and that you
sit it out for the necessary length of time on the beach.
Q305 Baroness Howe of Idlicote:
I would like to follow up on one aspect of what you have said.
If you accept that a non-compete clause would make sense in today's
world, I wonder, because it is a Privy Council appointment, whether
there is a case for changing, as it were, the structure in which
people accept these kinds of appointments so that there is with
all of them at this level something like a non-compete clause?
Mr Davies: Baroness, I do not have enough knowledge
of the way the senior Civil Service works now to make a general
comment of that type. The BBC, I think, is a slightly special
case because the BBC is both a public service and a business and,
in fact, that is why many of these issues about governance and
the Trust arise, because the BBC is both things. The fact that
it is a business, I think, makes it more important in the BBC's
case that it has a lock-out period similar to that which applies
in the business sector.
Q306 Chairman:
Looking back on your period as Chairman, do you have any regrets,
or do you feel actually now looking back rather vindicated?
Mr Davies: I was interested to read the Prime
Minister's speech yesterday about the press and the broadcasters.
I do have many regrets about things that we might have been able
to do better at the BBC. A lot of what the Prime Minister said
yesterday rang true to me, in the sense that I think he is right
that the relationship between broadcasting and the press on the
one side and government and politicians on the other side is somehow
headed in the wrong direction. When I was Chairman and Greg Dyke
was Director General we tried to improve the coverage of politics.
We tried to make it much more widely viewed and listened to by
our listeners and viewers and we tried to involve the political
process in that. We had remarkably little success in getting the
politicians to engage with us on how to increase news audiences
and how to increase serious interest in politics. I do regret
that, but the one area where I think I would definitely disagree
with the Prime Minister yesterday, apart from what he said about
Lord Hutton, which I disagree with, is that I think the press
and the broadcasting sector does provide a valuable check and
balance in our system. In 2003, under the pressure that we were
in then, we felt in dire need of a check and a balance in our
system, and I think we should not underestimate the value of that.
Q307 Chairman:
You feel governments (and I include any government) have an interest
in simply seeing their point of view or their policies put over,
as opposed to any particular interest in objective journalism?
Mr Davies: As I say, a lot of what the Prime
Minister said yesterday rang true to me, especially about the
way that the broadcasting industry is changing with 24-hour news
and blogging, which I think is a real problem. Much of that rang
true, but I do not think that we should leap to the other extreme
and say that the way to deal with that is through onerous regulation.
I think the BBC has an enormous role in dealing with that as being
a trusted purveyor of accurate and impartial news.
Q308 Lord Maxton:
Is there a reverse though, that as the political process throughout
all its areas has become more open and accountable in terms of
all the financial arrangements that politicians have, if the broadcasters
are to be such an important part of the political process, the
democratic process, should not they too be open and accountable
to public scrutiny in the way that politicians are? They are part
of the democratic process after all.
Mr Davies: I certainly think the BBC should
be open and accountable—I do not believe there can be any
debate about that—and that includes, I am afraid, the amount
that the senior Executive Board members get paid. I was never
happy with making that public, but I can now see that it is inevitable
and has to be done.
Q309 Lord Maxton:
What about senior journalists?
Mr Davies: I am less clear about either the
senior journalists in the BBC or elsewhere. On the whole my judgment
would be, as long as they are broadcasting and writing in line
with the Code of Ethics and the Code of Practice of the organisation,
that is good enough.
Q310 Bishop of Manchester:
You said a moment ago that you were disappointed about the way
in which the BBC in your time had been unable to emphasise the
use of news and attract more people to have an interest in politics.
Do you feel with the new structure of the BBC that the BBC is
in a better position to be able to pursue those kinds of objectives,
and if you do, could you briefly analyse what it is that may enable
the BBC to achieve it?
Mr Davies: I think it is very clear in the remit
that the Trust has and will give to BBC One and BBC Two that is
part of the responsibility of those channels. It was equally true,
actually we gave similar remits to the channels when we were there,
so I am not sure that there is a sea-change. The problem, I think,
is that people under 40, or even 45 now, do not find traditional
news and traditional politics very riveting, so they just watch
less of it than they did before. They are interested in public
issues, there is no question about that, but they are not as interested
in the political process as maybe my generation was. I think it
is the duty of the BBC to educate them about the political process
and to make the information available to them, even if they do
not take it up in large numbers. There may come a time when they
do take it up again.
Q311 Chairman:
I think we are now going into rather more general issues which
we are very interested in and may well be doing in the very near
future but not perhaps as part of this inquiry. Gavyn Davies,
can I thank you very much indeed. It is very courteous of you
to come back and give us the benefit of your experience. Thank
you very much.
Mr Davies: Thank you.
| 
