this is bbc news — these are the latest headlines in the uk and around the world. downing street says the prime minister is determined lockdown restrictions in england will end on the 19th ofjuly, as business groups demand more support for firms hit by the delay in easing. this morning, we'd like to hear how the delay to lifting restrictions is affecting you. you can reach me on twitter @annita?mcveigh, or using the hashtag #bbcyourquestions. the uk and australia agree the broad terms of a free trade agreement. it's the first deal of its kind negotiated from scratch after brexit. former bbc bosses tony hall and john birt — and the current director—general tim davie — will give evidence to mps shortly about events leading up to panorama s interview

with the late diana, princess of wales, and the broadcaster s handling of investigations into how martin bashir obtained it. a bbc investigation has found that the uk's police forces received more than 800 allegations of domestic abuse against their officers and staff in the past five years. just 43 cases were prosecuted. a long—awaited report into the unsolved murder of a private investigator 3a years ago will finally be published today. the us model chrissy teigen has broken a month—long social media silence to apologise for bullying several people on twitter. and coming up this hour... we'll be looking into how biologists have uncovered the genetic secrets of the world's smallest diving mammals — water shrews.

ministers say they are confident the government can stick to its new plan of removing covid restrictions in england by mid—july, after announcing a one month delay. borisjohnson says he's "determined" that the 19th ofjuly will be the "terminus date" for the remaining restrictions on social contact to finally be lifted. scientists had warned of a "significant resurgance" in the virus and say the delay means the peak in hospital admissions will be reduced by between a third we are going to do much more on that story today. but let's cross live to westminster where former director of the bbc tony hall is giving evidence to mps about a group of events leading up to the panorama interview with diana, princess of wales. lard with diana, princess of wales. lord hall, with diana, princess of wales. lord hall. welcome _ with diana, princess of wales. lord

hall, welcome back. _ with diana, princess of wales. ii_;r'7"i hall, welcome back. good morning. it has not been too long since your last appearance before us. i wonder whether or not, without the benefit of hindsight if you like, but considering what you knew at the time, why did you report to the bbc board of governors that you believe that mr b share was honest and honourable. let that mr b share was honest and honourable.— honourable. let me start by acknowledging _ honourable. let me start by acknowledging how - honourable. let me start by acknowledging how hard - honourable. let me start by| acknowledging how hard this honourable. let me start by - acknowledging how hard this has been, the lord dyson investigation, for the royal family on the two princes, and i sorry for the hurt caused. at its core, i trusted a journalist, i gave him a second chance, we, the team, gave him a second chance, that trust was abused and misplaced. let me say i do not think the words on a stand honourable 25 years on look appropriate at all, but let me give you some context. uttermost in our

minds than was happy interview with princess diana, the decision that she may to be interviewed, deanjohn fairly or not? that was uppermost in our mind. ourfirst investigation before christmas talked to all people concerned and produced a letter where she said very clearly she had been shown no documents by martin bashir, she was not made aware of a thing by martin bashir she did not already know and she had no regrets in her mind about the interview. it is interesting that lord dyson himself says an interview of some sort would probably have taken place anyway, so at that point in our investigations we came to an end, there was no case to answer. the second investigation was not

therefore into had to princess diana been misled into agreeing to the interview that was a second issue of whether producer guidelines had been breached, particularly on straight dealing. that investigation was under a separate team, that was negotiated with tim souter and another person who had had a very distinguished career in radio current affairs, to look at all the arguments again. i took what i thought was an unusual step in saying i would take part in the investigation and interview bashir myself, because i had to establish whether i believed bashir, whether i should give him a yellow card jorja smith him, that is what i was trying to work through. in the end, we came

to work through. in the end, we came to a judgment about his lack of experience, that he was out of his depth, that he was contrite, and we gave him a second chance, we trusted him, and it turns out we couldn't, so i understand why i was using words that, when you look at them now, they seem wrong, but it was me trying to work out whether i could trust this man or not. you trying to work out whether i could trust this man or not.— trust this man or not. you very cuickl trust this man or not. you very quickly went — trust this man or not. you very quickly went through _ trust this man or not. you very quickly went through the - trust this man or not. you very quickly went through the first i quickly went through the first investigation, as head of programming, as i understand, the person who did that investigation wrote in his own handwriting a description of what mr bashir had done, including creating fake documents, which was then sent to your office. what did you do subsequent to that? surely that is enough evidence and really, to be honest, why on earth did you either

need a second one? if the answer to, did you fake documents, is yes, then surely you should get out? the re ort surely you should get out? the report also _ surely you should get out? the report also life _ surely you should get out? the report also life that reports before he went to channel 4, at that point i set up a fresh inquiry into what martin bashir had in with the documents —— the author of the report left that reports before he went to channel 4.— report left that reports before he went to channel 4. went to channello. sorry, lord hall, were ou went to channellt. sorry, lord hall, were you aware _ went to channellt. sorry, lord hall, were you aware at _ went to channellt. sorry, lord hall, were you aware at that _ went to channellt. sorry, lord hall, were you aware at that point - went to channellt. sorry, lord hall, were you aware at that point he - went to channellt. sorry, lord hall, were you aware at that point he had| were you aware at that point he had faked the documents? yes. were you aware at that point he had faked the documents?— were you aware at that point he had faked the documents? yes. we knew in december that — faked the documents? yes. we knew in december that he _ faked the documents? yes. we knew in december that he had _ faked the documents? yes. we knew in december that he had faked _ december that he had faked documents, the difference between the inquiry... documents, the difference between the inquiry-"— documents, the difference between the inquiry... how many documents bein: the inquiry... how many documents being faked — the inquiry... how many documents being faked is _ the inquiry... how many documents being faked is acceptable? - the inquiry... how many documents being faked is acceptable? just - the inquiry... how many documents being faked is acceptable? just one | being faked is acceptable? just one or multiple? as a former bbc journalist myself back in the mists of time, i am almost speechless at the idea that anyone at the bbc

could be found to have faked documents by a senior manager, information passed on to yourself, and not face instant dismissal. it is absolutely crazed and completely against the ethos of the bbc. in the second inquiry _ against the ethos of the bbc. in the second inquiry we _ against the ethos of the bbc. in the second inquiry we examined - against the ethos of the bbc. in the second inquiry we examined why . against the ethos of the bbc. in the second inquiry we examined why he had faked those documents and where they had been used, and his evidence for those documents, and at the time he told us they were a collation of information he was cleaning, we told him, having had at least an hour and a half with him where he ended up contrite and it tears, he understood he had made a mistake, he said. we decided at that point that it was a clear breach of editorial guidelines and straight dealing with perspective candidates for a programme —— with prospective candidates. at what he had done had not gone anywhere in the air, if it

had, it would have been extremely serious. we decided we would give him a second chance because he was so contrite and because the guidelines on straight dealing, he understood his mistake. i went from there to ensure that as new guidelines were being drawn up by the bbc, that the new guidelines drawn up by the bbc had a very clear line on the production of fake documents. those fake documents came out in the guidelines as being forbidden, those were not in the guidelines at that time when they needed to be and i made sure they were. ., , ,., , needed to be and i made sure they were. ., , , ., . needed to be and i made sure they were. ., , ., . ., were. your response, once you found out he had — were. your response, once you found out he had faked _ were. your response, once you found out he had faked documents, - were. your response, once you found out he had faked documents, was - were. your response, once you found out he had faked documents, was to | out he had faked documents, was to set up another inquiry into the extent of the faking of documents which, by the way, how to

effectively trick a mentally vulnerable woman into getting a tv interview, you can debate whether or not that had further consequences but that is the upshot of that. and your other response was to effectively blackball the person who faked up the documents and said they had done so and come clean about it. where is the morality in this? imilieu where is the morality in this? when i look back where is the morality in this? when i look back in _ where is the morality in this? when i look back in hindsight... _ where is the morality in this? when i look back in hindsight... it - where is the morality in this? when i look back in hindsight... it does i i look back in hindsight... it does not have to _ i look back in hindsight... it does not have to be _ i look back in hindsight... it does not have to be hindsight, - i look back in hindsight... it does not have to be hindsight, to - not have to be hindsight, to blackball somebody because effectively they have undertaken work that they then fight out has been used for nefarious purposes, to have tea and sympathy with the person who has perpetrated all this, this is notjust a failure of management, it is a failure of morality. it management, it is a failure of morali . . . management, it is a failure of morality-— management, it is a failure of morali . ., ., , , ., ., morality. it was absolutely no tea and sympathy _ morality. it was absolutely no tea and sympathy with _ morality. it was absolutely no tea

and sympathy with martin - morality. it was absolutely no tea and sympathy with martin bashir, morality. it was absolutely no tea l and sympathy with martin bashir, it was a very tough interview. the other person was a freelance graphic designer, we were dealing with a very difficult and unhealthy programme culture, the editor of the programme, who i trusted and still trust to manage the programme made that absolutely clear. we had had two inquiries into all of the evidence around martin bashir when everybody had been spoken to, and in the heat of all that of course i regret the language that was used and i think we could have managed that better. allen it is putting someone's career on ice for doing the right thing —— someone's career on ice for doing the right thing —- it someone's career on ice for doing the right thing —— it is someone's career on ice for doing the right thing "— the right thing -- it is putting someone _ the right thing -- it is putting someone because _ the right thing -- it is putting someone because my - the right thing -- it is putting someone because my careerl the right thing -- it is putting l someone because my career on the right thing -- it is putting - someone because my career on ice for doing the right thing.—

someone because my career on ice for doing the right thing._ i - doing the right thing. stephen? i was once a _ doing the right thing. stephen? i was once a very _ doing the right thing. stephen? i was once a veryjunior_ doing the right thing. stephen? i was once a veryjunior reporter. doing the right thing. stephen? i| was once a veryjunior reporter at the bbc, — was once a veryjunior reporter at the bbc, i— was once a veryjunior reporter at the bbc, i left before i became anything — the bbc, i left before i became anything more, but immediately after this interview questions were raised about— this interview questions were raised about the _ this interview questions were raised about the way in which martin bashir had secured the interview, did it not raise — had secured the interview, did it not raise any alarm bells when the scope _ not raise any alarm bells when the scope of— not raise any alarm bells when the scope of the century, which this undoubtedly was, was granted to a veryjunior— undoubtedly was, was granted to a veryjunior reporter at the time? i can't _ veryjunior reporter at the time? i can't imagine that when i was working — can't imagine that when i was working for bbc radio seri as a young — working for bbc radio seri as a young man, a junior reporter, working for bbc radio seri as a young man, ajunior reporter, i would — young man, ajunior reporter, i would have _ young man, ajunior reporter, i would have scooped an interview like this at— would have scooped an interview like this at bbc_ would have scooped an interview like this at bbc management would have said, this at bbc management would have said. good _ this at bbc management would have said, good for steve? did it not raise _ said, good for steve? did it not raise alarm _ said, good for steve? did it not raise alarm bells as to how she —— how— raise alarm bells as to how she —— how he _ raise alarm bells as to how she —— how he managed to secure this interview? it seems incredible not. i interview? it seems incredible not. i knew_ interview? it seems incredible not. i knew about the interview about a fortnight before it took place.

martin bashir was being managed by steve hewlett, the programme editor, who i trusted enormously and it was also being looked after by the controller of editorial and the head of current affairs. by its very nature news is devolved, we have hours and hours of coverage each day and you trust the teams that are putting together programmes or in this case this interview, that trust must be very strong. i trusted steve hewlett, the editor of the programme, to manage martin bashir at the interview properly, as i did the controller of editorial policy. it is based on trust. i went through the questions not with martin but with the team and i briefed the director—general about this because there was an issue around whether or

not the chairman should be brief, given he was married to a lady in waiting for the queen. on this although was a very close relationship between the director—general right the way down to the programme editor, and that trust in each other �*s judgment and honesty is how build programmes, in this case how you win an interview and make sure it is properly done. i think we all understand that, but you either— think we all understand that, but you either very close to it or it was _ you either very close to it or it wasjust— you either very close to it or it wasjust devolved. which you either very close to it or it was just devolved. which was you either very close to it or it wasjust devolved. which was it? are you saying _ wasjust devolved. which was it? are you saying that an interview was granted — you saying that an interview was granted to a junior reporter with the wife — granted to a junior reporter with the wife of the heir to the throne and nobody questioned how it happened? gf and nobody questioned how it happened?— and nobody questioned how it hauened? , and nobody questioned how it ha ened? _, , ., ., happened? of course we asked how it had come about, _

happened? of course we asked how it had come about, but _ happened? of course we asked how it had come about, but you _ happened? of course we asked how it had come about, but you trust - happened? of course we asked how it had come about, but you trust the - had come about, but you trust the team of the head of programmes for current affairs, the editorial policy controller and the editor, who is, sadly, no longer with us, because i am sure he would have a lot to say about this. he nature the interview was properly done, as indeed it was. —— he would make sure the interview was properly done. lord dyson is very, very clear in his report, quite high up in his report, that an interview would have happened anyway. he mentions the fact that i think the princess was going to meet with nick rachel at the end of august, that never took place because steve yielded said we would go down the route of martin bashir —— the princess was going to meet with nicholas witchell. according to lord dyson, an interview was very likely under this

sense martin bashir got it first. thank you, steve. turning to more recent matters and a bit more concerning to me, the rehiring under your watch of mr bashir. i read the report produced on this and it raises more questions to me than it answers. at what point were you personally aware that mr bashir had been rehired by the bbc and, given his history, what did you think? i knew after the appointment had been made. i think what was said at the report yesterday was that bashir was not rehired because of a cover—up, but was entirely unfounded, he said there was absolutely no evidence of me being involved, which i was not, prior to the appointment. that me being involved, which i was not, prior to the appointment.— prior to the appointment. that is exactly the _

prior to the appointment. that is exactly the case. _ prior to the appointment. that is exactly the case. putting - prior to the appointment. that is exactly the case. putting aside i prior to the appointment. that is i exactly the case. putting aside the position that is entirely unfounded, that mr bashir was rehired in order to effectively keep him quiet, as the man in charge, i wonder if you could comment on the process of rehiring, which i must say i find it utterly extraordinary, that three internal candidates were interviewed for the post and deemed unsuitable, thejob for the post and deemed unsuitable, the job was advertised externally, 18 cvs were received but only mr bashir�*s was selected from these external candidates. i had spoken to people at the bbc and they have never heard of such a situation where only one candidate is selected in a very expensive process in advertising externally. can you shed any light as to why only one candidate from 18 was interviewed, and that candidate was mr bashir? i

can't, because when you are running an organisation is big and as complex as the bbc... [30 an organisation is big and as complex as the bbc... do you think it is riaht complex as the bbc... do you think it is right that _ complex as the bbc... do you think it is right that it — complex as the bbc... do you think it is right that it was _ complex as the bbc... do you think it is right that it was the _ complex as the bbc... do you think it is right that it was the case, - complex as the bbc... do you think it is right that it was the case, 18 i it is right that it was the case, 18 cvs were received, but only one... presumably these would be pretty serious people applying and only one person granted an interview. i really cannot comment, i think the person in charge of this isjohnson munro, head of newsgathering then and now deputy head of news, he could amplify the process. i go back, i was running the organisation of 20,000 plus people, you can't be across every detail. this of 20,000 plus people, you can't be across every detail.— across every detail. this man is a known liar _ across every detail. this man is a known liar who _ across every detail. this man is a known liar who has _ across every detail. this man is a known liar who has come - across every detail. this man is a known liar who has come back. across every detail. this man is a - known liar who has come back through your door, and even if you found out afterwards he did not even think about inquiring how the process occurred? —— you did not even think about? it occurred? -- you did not even think about? . occurred? -- you did not even think about? , ., , ., about? it is not funny to second-guess _ about? it is not funny to second-guess directors| about? it is not funny to i second-guess directors or about? it is not funny to - second-guess directors or people

second—guess directors or people running large departments, you trust them to make all the judgments, running large departments, you trust them to make all thejudgments, i read in the report thatjonathan munro had spoken to steve hewlett, the former editor of panorama, someone whosejudgment the former editor of panorama, someone whose judgment you would trust, but they came to their own decision about the rehiring of martin bashir, and as i say, it is also clear that if we knew then what we know now then, of course, he would not have been rehired. taste we know now then, of course, he would not have been rehired. we will take our would not have been rehired. we will take your word _ would not have been rehired. we will take your word for _ would not have been rehired. we will take your word for that. _ would not have been rehired. we will take your word for that. 18 _ would not have been rehired. we will take your word for that. 18 cvs - take your word for that. 18 cvs received, that a further part of the rehiring process, as i understand it, internal candidate x was reintroduced to the process and joined by internal candidate z, they

later withdrew. so after the external advertising campaign, mr bashir only had to beat somebody who had already been deemed unsuitable for thejob. had already been deemed unsuitable forthejob. it had already been deemed unsuitable for thejob. it was had already been deemed unsuitable for the job. it was a complete sharavjoe newell watch. i sharav joe newell watch. i understand sharavjoe newell watch. i understand what you say about trusting people but they badly let you down by only interviewing one other person against bashir, a person already deemed unsuitable for thejob. i person already deemed unsuitable for the 'ob. . . person already deemed unsuitable for the 'ob. , ., ., the job. i understand that the then director of news _ the job. i understand that the then director of news james _ the job. i understand that the then director of news james harding - the job. i understand that the then director of news james harding did not want to see more than two people, that is his prerogative, but i will not second—guess the judgment. he was running news, jonathan munro was running newsgathering, theirjudgments about newsgathering, their judgments about the newsgathering, theirjudgments about the best person to fill that role was theirs. the best person to fill that role was theirs-— the best person to fill that role was theirs. ., , �* �* was theirs. people within the bbc have turned _ was theirs. people within the bbc have turned mr _ was theirs. people within the bbc have turned mr bashir _ was theirs. people within the bbc have turned mr bashir as - was theirs. people within the bbc have turned mr bashir as having l was theirs. people within the bbcj have turned mr bashir as having a series of cappuccino interviews both before the job was advertised

internally and externally and then during the hiring process, he was cheated along throughout —— he was chivvied along. a cynic would say that the process was constructed so that the process was constructed so that mr bashir would get the job. i can see no reason to say that it was a shoe in for mr bashir, reading the report they were looking for the right person to do what is a very importantjob in taking overfrom somebody who had done a stunning job as religious affairs correspondent. at the time we were under some external pressure to improve our religious and ethics coverage not just in news but right across the bbc, radio and television. james pernell was that the director of radio and diaster to write a report for me on how to improve the coverage. 50 for me on how to improve the

coverage-— for me on how to improve the coverage. so against having to imrove coverage. so against having to improve your _ coverage. so against having to improve your coverage - coverage. so against having to improve your coverage and - coverage. so against having to - improve your coverage and religious affairs, your answer was to employ a known liar?— affairs, your answer was to employ a known liar? that was not my answer. the answer — known liar? that was not my answer. the answer the _ known liar? that was not my answer. the answer the bbc _ known liar? that was not my answer. the answer the bbc team _ known liar? that was not my answer. the answer the bbc team gave - known liar? that was not my answer. the answer the bbc team gave was l known liar? that was not my answer. | the answer the bbc team gave was to employ a known liar?— employ a known liar? processes were one employ a known liar? processes were gone through — employ a known liar? processes were gone through and _ employ a known liar? processes were gone through and it _ employ a known liar? processes were gone through and it came _ employ a known liar? processes were gone through and it came to - employ a known liar? processes were gone through and it came to that - gone through and it came to that conclusion, i will not second—guess my director of news on that. (inaudible). | (inaudible). i cannot answer that. (inaudible). icannotanswerthat. g ., , (inaudible). icannotanswerthat. g . , , i cannot answer that. my answer is it is likely to _ i cannot answer that. my answer is it is likely to be _ i cannot answer that. my answer is it is likely to be between _ i cannot answer that. my answer is it is likely to be between £80,000 and £120,000, he was employed for three years so a conservative estimate of £250,000. what did he do for his money at that time? i estimate of £250,000. what did he do for his money at that time?— for his money at that time? i sorry to be unhelpful— for his money at that time? i sorry to be unhelpful but _ for his money at that time? i sorry to be unhelpful but i _ for his money at that time? i sorry

to be unhelpful but i think- for his money at that time? i sorry to be unhelpful but i think these . to be unhelpful but i think these questions are better asked at the bbc, the people who run him at the bbc. �* , ., , , ., bbc. but you were the d6, and frankly you _ bbc. but you were the d6, and frankly you can't _ bbc. but you were the d6, and frankly you can't be _ bbc. but you were the d6, and frankly you can't be unaware i bbc. but you were the d6, and l frankly you can't be unaware that bbc. but you were the d6, and i frankly you can't be unaware that if you come to a select committee you will be asked these questions. he was employed for about three years, probably made about £250,000, we trawled through the bbc news website under bbc output and he appeared on air and on the website about half a dozen times during that time, about £40,000 a time, nice work if you can get it? £40,000 a time, nice work if you can et it? ., . £40,000 a time, nice work if you can et it? ., , ., £40,000 a time, nice work if you can ret it? ., , ., ., £40,000 a time, nice work if you can retit? ., , ., ., ' . £40,000 a time, nice work if you can etit? ., , ., ., ' . , get it? that is not an effective use ofthe get it? that is not an effective use of the correspondence, _ get it? that is not an effective use of the correspondence, i - get it? that is not an effective use of the correspondence, i would i of the correspondence, i would agree, that is not a good record but if you are telling me things —— but you are telling me things that i am afraid i do not know. do you are telling me things that i am afraid i do not know.— afraid i do not know. do you know that mr bashir _ afraid i do not know. do you know that mr bashir was _ afraid i do not know. do you know that mr bashir was not _ afraid i do not know. do you know that mr bashir was not put - afraid i do not know. do you know that mr bashir was not put onto . afraid i do not know. do you know that mr bashir was not put onto a| that mr bashir was not put onto a fixed contract, as recommended by news, he wasjust

fixed contract, as recommended by news, he was just given a job, this known liar? i news, he was 'ust given a “ob, this known limb known liar? i am really sorry to disappoint _ known liar? i am really sorry to disappoint you _ known liar? i am really sorry to disappoint you in _ known liar? i am really sorry to disappoint you in my _ known liar? i am really sorry to disappoint you in my answer i known liar? i am really sorry to| disappoint you in my answer is, known liar? i am really sorry to i disappoint you in my answer is, i really don't know. if you run an organisation as large as the bbc, going back to my point, you devolve responsibility for hiring, terms and conditions, rates of pay, the management of their output, you devolve that.— management of their output, you devolve that. , ., ., , ., devolve that. one thing you may not have devolved, _ devolve that. one thing you may not have devolved, i _ devolve that. one thing you may not have devolved, i found _ devolve that. one thing you may not have devolved, i found this - have devolved, i found this extraordinary, and i know this sort of thing goes to director—general level, that is basically why mr bashir was allowed to moonlight for itv while working as a bbc staff editor. freelancers are allowed to work outside, of course, that is the definition of freelance, but to have a major news editor working for a rival network in his spare time, and it seemed he had a lot of spare

time, isn't that an indication that frankly mr bashir was just about to come and go as he pleased, given this wonderful sinecure and that effectively allowed to earn money elsewhere, and as dg would you not be across the fact that a major news editor was working for the opposition on the quiet. not on the quiet, with permission? irlot quiet, with permission? not permission _ quiet, with permission? not permission from _ quiet, with permission? not permission from me, and these are judgments and issues you devolve to news management and you have to ask those questions to the people who were running martin bashir until recently. the notion that a decision about where martin bashir is deployed... about where martin bashir is deployed- - -_ about where martin bashir is delo ed... . ,., , deployed... that is a complete misrepresentation. _ deployed... that is a complete misrepresentation. it - deployed... that is a complete misrepresentation. it is - deployed... that is a complete misrepresentation. it is not i deployed... that is a complete i misrepresentation. it is not about deploying, you are not deploying him, he was moonlighting and he would have had to get permission to

do that, and as a religious affairs editor that would have come across your desk or somebody very senior in the organisation, so why was he allowed to do so? irlot the organisation, so why was he allowed to do so?— the organisation, so why was he allowed to do so? not across my desk, allowed to do so? not across my desk. chair. _ allowed to do so? not across my desk, chair, and _ allowed to do so? not across my desk, chair, and that _ allowed to do so? not across my desk, chair, and that it's - allowed to do so? not across my desk, chair, and that it's a i desk, chair, and that it's a question for the then current management of bbc news. i simply can't answer back. i use the word deploy in its broadest sense, i do not mean in any way to suggest otherwise. how he was used, where he went to, what he did, that is a mannered —— matterfor newsgathering management had not the director—general. iie management had not the director-general. he would not imarine director-general. he would not imagine a _ director-general. he would not imagine a really _ director-general. he would not imagine a really fine _ director-general. he would not imagine a really fine journalistl imagine a really fine journalist like laura kuenssberg, for example, if she suddenly popped up on another network it would not be a matter for the director—general? i network it would not be a matter for the director-general?— the director-general? i can't imarine the director-general? i can't imagine for— the director-general? i can't imagine for one _ the director-general? i can't imagine for one moment i the director-general? i can't| imagine for one moment that the director-general? i can't i imagine for one moment that the newsgathering operation would allow laura kuenssberg...— laura kuenssberg... exactly, so why was the religious _ laura kuenssberg... exactly, so why was the religious affairs _

laura kuenssberg... exactly, so why was the religious affairs editor- was the religious affairs editor allowed, a senior position in the bbc? i allowed, a senior position in the bbc? ., , y ., bbc? i am very sorry, you will have to ask... that — bbc? i am very sorry, you will have to ask... that is _ bbc? i am very sorry, you will have to ask... that is fine, _ bbc? i am very sorry, you will have to ask... that is fine, we _ bbc? i am very sorry, you will have to ask... that is fine, we are i to ask... that is fine, we are rrettin to ask... that is fine, we are getting nowhere. _ to ask... that is fine, we are getting nowhere. lord i to ask... that is fine, we arej getting nowhere. lord dyson to ask... that is fine, we are i getting nowhere. lord dyson has surmised you _ getting nowhere. lord dyson has surmised you were _ getting nowhere. lord dyson has surmised you were not _ getting nowhere. lord dyson has surmised you were not entirely l surmised you were not entirely open—minded when you conducted your investigation into mart bashir in 1996. _ investigation into mart bashir in 1996, what do you make of that? -- into 1996, what do you make of that? into martin 1996, what do you make of that? » into martin bashir. if i recall, it goes on to say that i reported that the documents played no part in her decision to do the interview, she had written to us absolutely saying that, but let mejust had written to us absolutely saying that, but let me just go had written to us absolutely saying that, but let mejust go back, the second investigation that we did which was supervised by me and job all the lines again into martin bashir�*s behaviour. —— opened up all the mines. we would not do this investigation now, it was done

within the management line to work out what to do about martin bashir. normalfor out what to do about martin bashir. normal for people involved out what to do about martin bashir. normalfor people involved in out what to do about martin bashir. normal for people involved in that investigation were easy to either full or close minded —— none of the people involved in that investigation. none of us were close minded, we really weren't. one other bit of context, we had been brought into reform standards at the bbc, to bring order to bbc current affairs and news, we were not the sort of people he would be closed minded about things. john burton race, if he does not mind me saying so, i know he is on next, was unpopular because standards were being made. —— martin bashir himself. ——john

birt himself. i came back to the bbc in the savile crisis to sort out the bbc and its response to a really big crisis. i was open—minded, i wanted to get to the truth, my whole time as a public servant working for the bbc has been about integrity, i was open—minded. we had the letterfrom the princess, which we knew that the interview itself had not been got in a deceitful way, but we were not close minded about the rest of it. given that you were so willing to accept _ given that you were so willing to accept bashir's upskirt —— unsubstantiated claims, given he had lied three _ unsubstantiated claims, given he had lied three times already and you knew_ lied three times already and you knew that?— lied three times already and you knew that? . , , , , ., knew that? when pressed very hard, on the third — knew that? when pressed very hard, on the third time _ knew that? when pressed very hard, on the third time he _ knew that? when pressed very hard, on the third time he said _ knew that? when pressed very hard, on the third time he said he - knew that? when pressed very hard, on the third time he said he had i on the third time he said he had shown the documents to earl spencer

when he was asked if he had shown them to anybody else. we quizzed him really, really hard for an hour and a half, at which point what i remember most vividly, he ended up in tears, we believed he had been introduced to the princess of wales by earl spencer, that the documents he had made were from information from the princess of wales under earl spencer, we know now that that was not the case, and these documents were for a later programme and he saw earl spencer after he had already... with the documents, after he had been introduced to the princess of wales and he was putting together a file, so he appeared to us. one of the difficulties looking back over 25 years is he appeared to us at the time that he was contrite, inexperienced and out of his depth.

that is why in the end, rather than sacking him, and i can see the reasons for that, we gave him a second chance. [30 reasons for that, we gave him a second chance.— reasons for that, we gave him a second chance. , ., ,, ., second chance. do you think it would have been different _ second chance. do you think it would have been different if _ second chance. do you think it would have been different if the _ second chance. do you think it would have been different if the process i have been different if the process had been — have been different if the process had been part of a formal disciplinary hearing? i think we took a judgment and working out really closely with the then director general, we worked very closely as a team, to look at this as a management issue, with a line, had the guidelines been broken or not, and the penalty for that. when you look back at how you manage these sorts of issues now, and remember, i came back into the bbc at thejimmy savile crisis until i got a raft of issues around this, you come to a very different way 25 years running this. you would take an issue like this and take it away

front line managers and have an outsider looking at it. i think you would involve human resources teams who now are much more used to develop these sorts of inquiries. i think you have a very strong role for editorial policy, the bbc has an excellent director of editorial policy, i think they would have a role in this as well. and now, there is an independent complaints procedure, procedure, independent of the line, earl spencer could then have raised an issue independently of management. i think the things that are now in place we could have, when you look back at it, you think maybe we could have done some more of that then but now, of course, the whole problem with this is looking back from 25 years distance at what you did and of course you think we could have done something better but nothing was done without us trying to get to the truth and determined to get to the truth and determined to be fair—minded. to get to the truth and determined to be fair-minded.— to get to the truth and determined to be fair-minded. thank you. you never answered _ to be fair-minded. thank you. you

never answered do _ to be fair-minded. thank you. you never answered do you _ to be fair-minded. thank you. you never answered do you agree i to be fair-minded. thank you. you never answered do you agree with | never answered do you agree with lord never answered do you agree with lord dyson — never answered do you agree with lord dyson and his computer that your investigation was woefully ineffective? | your investigation was woefully ineffective?— ineffective? i think the first investigation _ ineffective? i think the first investigation had _ ineffective? i think the first i investigation had established the princess was not deceived into doing the interview, lord dyson was very careful, i think, the interview, lord dyson was very careful, ithink, in his the interview, lord dyson was very careful, i think, in his report to say he doesn't question that, but he questions the way in which martin bashir got to the princess. the second investigation, we gave martin bashir a yellow card. we did not get to the bottom of the lies that he had told us, we weren't trying to conceal anything, had told us, we weren't trying to concealanything, i mean, i really don't want to kind of stressed out but we were lied to and our trust was displaced and blocky, bashir took us all from the director—general down to steve hewlett, someone we trust it

greatly. hewlett, someone we trust it rreatl . . �* ., hewlett, someone we trust it rreatl . , �* ., ., hewlett, someone we trust it rreatl. n ., ., greatly. isn't it fair to say you consciously — greatly. isn't it fair to say you consciously decided _ greatly. isn't it fair to say you consciously decided not i greatly. isn't it fair to say you consciously decided not to i greatly. isn't it fair to say you i consciously decided not to approach earl spencer for fear of what he might— earl spencer for fear of what he might say?— earl spencer for fear of what he mirhtsa ? ., �*, ., ., ., might say? no, it's not. i mean, our records show — might say? no, it's not. i mean, our records show earl— might say? no, it's not. i mean, our records show earl spencer _ might say? no, it's not. i mean, our records show earl spencer and i might say? no, it's not. i mean, ourj records show earl spencer and steve hewlett, the editor of panorama, no longer with us, did speak around the weekend of the mail on sunday story, that earl spencer briefed steve on a draft statement he wanted to make to the mail on sunday which seemed to say according to a record at the time, that bashir came with allegations about specific journalists and that led him to introduce bashir to the princess, the event earl spencer made no comment at all. we thought wrongly that sort of dealt with the issue,

looking back at it and in fact, i accept lord dyson �*s recommendation that of course, in the light of what earl spencer said, we should have gone back to earl spencer, one of us should have done, to pin down exactly these facts about the fake documents. i accept that as a mistake, 25 years on, but, you know, we were trying to do our best and be as rigorous as we could with what we had them but we were confronted with someone who in my 35 years at the bbc, i've not come across, basically you trust your reporters and editors to tell the truth and in his case, that trust was misplaced. but are seekinr that trust was misplaced. but are seeking one _ that trust was misplaced. but are seeking one side _ that trust was misplaced. but are seeking one side of— that trust was misplaced. but are seeking one side of a _ that trust was misplaced. but are seeking one side of a story i that trust was misplaced. but are seeking one side of a story it i that trust was misplaced. but are i seeking one side of a story it would not have _ seeking one side of a story it would not have been acceptable for a bbc journalist _ not have been acceptable for a bbc journalist so far it was it acceptable for a senior manager at the bbc? — acceptable fora senior manager at the bbc? |— acceptable for a senior manager at the bbc? 4' , ., ., the bbc? i think the focus of our second investigation _ the bbc? i think the focus of our second investigation was - the bbc? i think the focus of our| second investigation was actually quite narrow and it wasn't an

inquiry as i was suggesting to your other question, of this sort we might have now into this, it was narrowly focused on thought was the breach of editorial guidelines and had bashir can only preach them and did he understand that he had breach them and would he not do that again? and these documents were used in front of earl spencer, he was showing them, that was an offence against a street dealer guidelines but the documents never went anywhere near air, but the documents never went anywhere nearair, i mean, that would have been an even more serious breach of the guidelines so our judgment that was it is about bashir and does he understand, is he remorseful, does he understand he has done something wrong? that is what we concentrated on. in retrospect, maybe the inquiry should have been bigger but that's what we

were trying to get an answer to. thank you. i'm sorry, myjawjust dropped when you set whether he was sorry or not, this is potentially described as one of the scripts of the century and it is found to have been attained through, well, let's been attained through, well, let's be honest about it, faking documents, fraudulent means, you are more concerned with whether or not he's sorry or not? absolutely priceless. he's sorry or not? absolutely priceless-— he's sorry or not? absolutely riceless. . ., ,, , ., priceless. clive. chair, thank you. lord hall, — priceless. clive. chair, thank you. lord hall, lord _ priceless. clive. chair, thank you. lord hall, lord dyson _ priceless. clive. chair, thank you. lord hall, lord dyson says - priceless. clive. chair, thank you. lord hall, lord dyson says martinj lord hall, lord dyson says martin bashir— lord hall, lord dyson says martin bashir does not seem to accept he acted _ bashir does not seem to accept he acted in _ bashir does not seem to accept he acted in breach of bbc guidelines. how many— acted in breach of bbc guidelines. how many ways did he breach those guidelines? he how many ways did he breach those ruidelines? , .,. how many ways did he breach those ruidelines? , .. , guidelines? he breach the guidelines in terms of the _ guidelines? he breach the guidelines in terms of the street _ guidelines? he breach the guidelines in terms of the street dealer. - guidelines? he breach the guidelines in terms of the street dealer. he i in terms of the street dealer. he should not have put a fake documents in front of earl spencer. right now

though because of low dyson �*s inquiry that there were other things he did. ifrankly inquiry that there were other things he did. i frankly was astonished to read low dyson �*s report saying martin bashir had not understood the gravity of what he had done because certainly, tony and others, he understood the gravity of what he had done. he understood the gravity of what he had done. , ., . , ., ,, had done. he produced these fake documents — had done. he produced these fake documents in _ had done. he produced these fake documents in a _ had done. he produced these fake documents in a peculiar _ had done. he produced these fake documents in a peculiar way, i had done. he produced these fake documents in a peculiar way, we i documents in a peculiar way, we didn't— documents in a peculiar way, we didn't take — documents in a peculiar way, we didn't take that through any of his senior— didn't take that through any of his senior management, he made a visit to a hawk— senior management, he made a visit to a hawk which led him to be concerned _ to a hawk which led him to be concerned about whether this was going _ concerned about whether this was going through the proper procedure. and then, _ going through the proper procedure. and then, later on, he lined out at least, _ and then, later on, he lined out at least, according to lord dyson, three _ least, according to lord dyson, three occasions to the bbc. he had breached _ three occasions to the bbc. he had breached the guidelines pretty much all the _ breached the guidelines pretty much all the way through. so how did you come _ all the way through. so how did you come to— all the way through. so how did you come to the —

all the way through. so how did you come to the conclusion that he was an honest — come to the conclusion that he was an honest individual? asl come to the conclusion that he was an honest individual?— an honest individual? as i said earlier, an honest individual? as i said earlier. i— an honest individual? as i said earlier, i think, _ an honest individual? as i said earlier, i think, to _ an honest individual? as i said earlier, i think, to the - an honest individual? as i said earlier, i think, to the chair, i| earlier, i think, to the chair, i regret the use of those words now. but i go back to the interview that ann and i conducted with him 25 years ago for over 90 minutes and we pushed him really, really hard on the guidelines and his breach of the guidelines on street dealers and he was contrite, we thought he was out of his depth. and that's why we did two things, one is to ensure that he was properly and carefully and closely managed going forward, by steve hewlett, the editor of the programme who as i say, we trusted hugely and i still trust, and i wish he was here to talk more about this but alas, he is not. you he was here to talk more about this but alas, he is not.— but alas, he is not. you are repeating _ but alas, he is not. you are repeating yourself, - but alas, he is not. you are repeating yourself, can't i i but alas, he is not. you are i repeating yourself, can't i get but alas, he is not. you are - repeating yourself, can't i get back to, in_ repeating yourself, can't i get back to, in that —

repeating yourself, can't i get back to, in that room, you could put him under— to, in that room, you could put him under a _ to, in that room, you could put him under a spotlight, stabbed to, in that room, you could put him undera spotlight, stabbed him to, in that room, you could put him under a spotlight, stabbed him with a cattle _ under a spotlight, stabbed him with a cattle prod but the fact is, that there _ a cattle prod but the fact is, that there were — a cattle prod but the fact is, that there were all of these breaches of there were all of these breaches of the guidelines. there was, the way he formulated and got those documents made. there was the lies that he _ documents made. there was the lies that he repeated when he was questioned about it, the fact he used _ questioned about it, the fact he used this— questioned about it, the fact he used this fake documents in order to -ain used this fake documents in order to gain access — used this fake documents in order to gain access to the princess of wales and get _ gain access to the princess of wales and get that interview. all of that, surely, _ and get that interview. all of that, surely, must have added up to you to a series— surely, must have added up to you to a series which, i think the prime minister— a series which, i think the prime minister got sacked or less than he was working for the telegraph. so, i mean, _ was working for the telegraph. so, i mean. how— was working for the telegraph. so, i mean. how is— was working for the telegraph. so, i mean, how is it that you came to the conclusion— mean, how is it that you came to the conclusion that he was an honest and honourable _ conclusion that he was an honest and honourable man? it conclusion that he was an honest and honourable man?— honourable man? it was a breach of the guidelines _ honourable man? it was a breach of the guidelines that, _ honourable man? it was a breach of the guidelines that, there _ honourable man? it was a breach of the guidelines that, there was i the guidelines that, there was absolutely no doubt about that. the decision we had to make and it is a decision we had to make and it is a decision and lots of managers have to make in all sorts of different places, if someone breaches the guidelines, it's the first time they have done it, do you say, that is

it? farewell? you are sacked? or do you say, or run, you are remorseful, you say, or run, you are remorseful, you understand it and we will give you understand it and we will give you a second chance and that is what we did and we did it, haven't listened to him and talk to 25 years ago. in light of what i now know about that matter, was that the wrong judgment? yes, about that matter, was that the wrongjudgment? yes, it about that matter, was that the wrong judgment? yes, it was, about that matter, was that the wrongjudgment? yes, it was, but about that matter, was that the wrong judgment? yes, it was, but we trusted him. clearly we should not have done. i trusted him. clearly we should not have done-— have done. i say it's 'ust a failure to acknowledge i have done. i say it's 'ust a failure to acknowledge the i have done. i say it'sjust a failure to acknowledge the fact - have done. i say it'sjust a failure to acknowledge the fact that i have done. i say it'sjust a failure to acknowledge the fact that was | have done. i say it'sjust a failure i to acknowledge the fact that was in front of— to acknowledge the fact that was in front of you. can ijust take you back— front of you. can ijust take you back to — front of you. can ijust take you back to something you said to the chair— back to something you said to the chair at _ back to something you said to the chair at the — back to something you said to the chair at the beginning of the meeting? you said that you purchased guidelines— meeting? you said that you purchased guidelines on how to produce fake documents, is that what you meant? no, i'm _ documents, is that what you meant? no, i'm so— documents, is that what you meant? no, i'm so sorry if that is how it appeared, that is not really what i meant. so, there were two consequences to this and i won't repeat one of them. it was to do with the management of bashir but the second one was we were in the

middle of revising our editorial guidelines and i insured that the controller of editorial policy then amended the guidelines to include some paragraphs on the faking of documents to make sure that it was clear that this was not acceptable. that was not in the guidelines at that time. so that was not in the guidelines at that time. �* �* ., , ., that time. so the bbc as an organisation _ that time. so the bbc as an organisation needs - that time. so the bbc as an i organisation needs guidelines to that time. so the bbc as an - organisation needs guidelines to its reporters— organisation needs guidelines to its reporters to tell them not to produce _ reporters to tell them not to produce. it was?— reporters to tell them not to produce. it was? reporters to tell them not to roduce. it was? , ., produce. it was? the guidelines are there. produce. it was? the guidelines are there- they — produce. it was? the guidelines are there- they are _ produce. it was? the guidelines are there. they are there _ produce. it was? the guidelines are there. they are there to _ produce. it was? the guidelines are there. they are there to tell- there. they are there to tell reporters, producers, to act as the wisdom as to how to conduct themselves across all the things that they are doing and they are an important set of documents, in fact, before i left the bbc, nine or ten months ago, i got a new set of guidelines which reflects where we were at their own terms of editorial policy, to be published and go round to staff. ~ . policy, to be published and go round to staff. ~ , .,

to staff. with hindsight, do you acce -t to staff. with hindsight, do you accept that _ to staff. with hindsight, do you accept that mr _ to staff. with hindsight, do you accept that mr should - to staff. with hindsight, do you accept that mr should have i to staff. with hindsight, do you. accept that mr should have been dealt _ accept that mr should have been dealt with as a whistle—blower? shouldn't— dealt with as a whistle—blower? shouldn't he have been treated more elaborate _ shouldn't he have been treated more elaborate by the bbc and they should have been_ elaborate by the bbc and they should have been grateful for him coming forward _ have been grateful for him coming forward with his concerns about those _ forward with his concerns about those documents and how they might have been? i those documents and how they might have been? .. those documents and how they might have been? ,, ., �*, have been? i think that's right. i think some _ have been? i think that's right. i think some context, _ have been? i think that's right. i think some context, there i have been? i think that's right. i think some context, there had l have been? i think that's right. i- think some context, there had been two investigations when everybody had been spoken to, first of all, there was a difficult programme culture that steve hewlett was dealing with. but i expect, and i accept the point that matt should have been spoken to and listened to as we now see as a whistle—blower. but he must listen to, that is the point, in both investigations. the treatment of, i regret the language

used. ., , , treatment of, i regret the language used. . , , ., used. has there ever been a satisfactory _ used. has there ever been a satisfactory explanation - used. has there ever been a | satisfactory explanation from used. has there ever been a - satisfactory explanation from martin bashir_ satisfactory explanation from martin bashir and stir—fry he had these bank— bashir and stir—fry he had these bank statements made up but couldn't it have _ bank statements made up but couldn't it have been and did it ever cross your— it have been and did it ever cross your mind — it have been and did it ever cross your mind that will sponsor and the princess_ your mind that will sponsor and the princess of— your mind that will sponsor and the princess of wales were concerned that they — princess of wales were concerned that they may be princess of wales were concerned that they may he being conspired against, — that they may he being conspired against, that these documents could be used _ against, that these documents could be used just to feed that theory? in order_ be used just to feed that theory? in order to _ be used just to feed that theory? in order to obtain that interview and did it _ order to obtain that interview and did it ever— order to obtain that interview and did it ever crossed your mind that that is_ did it ever crossed your mind that that is why— did it ever crossed your mind that that is why they were produced? because — that is why they were produced? because it — that is why they were produced? because it was peculiar to go so far to confirm — because it was peculiar to go so far to confirm what they believed to be facts. _ to confirm what they believed to be facts, information that had been supplied — facts, information that had been supplied to martin bashir. the light we were working _ supplied to martin bashir. the light we were working on _ supplied to martin bashir. the light we were working on which - supplied to martin bashir. the light we were working on which martin . we were working on which martin bashir told us and remember, we were talking all the time to people like steve hewlett, who worked and

supervised martin bashir, was that he had been introduced to the princess by earl spencer and the documents he got were he to close later, to the princess of ours, and later, to the princess of ours, and later, we know the timeline was wrong because there was very strong evidence that earl spencer has come up evidence that earl spencer has come up with but at the time we were lied to about that as well. but up with but at the time we were lied to about that as well.— to about that as well. but what amazes me _ to about that as well. but what amazes me as _ to about that as well. but what amazes me as well, _ to about that as well. but what amazes me as well, at - to about that as well. but what amazes me as well, at the - to about that as well. but what| amazes me as well, at the time to about that as well. but what. amazes me as well, at the time of marthr— amazes me as well, at the time of martin bashir and also the time of his reappointment to the bbc, there are these _ his reappointment to the bbc, there are these top journalists have a remarkable amnesia when it comes to remembering the facts around what they did _ remembering the facts around what they did and did not know about marthr— they did and did not know about martin bashir. for instance, is it

likety— martin bashir. for instance, is it likety that — martin bashir. for instance, is it likely that these journalists that interviewed martin bashir about being _ interviewed martin bashir about being employed in the bbc nothing of the scandal that surrounded martin bashir— the scandal that surrounded martin bashir when he was employed at the bbc previously? seriously? is that likely? _ bbc previously? seriously? is that likel ? ~ ., bbc previously? seriously? is that likel ? ~ . , ., ., likely? what i understand from the re ort i likely? what i understand from the report i read _ likely? what i understand from the report i read yesterday _ likely? what i understand from the report i read yesterday for - likely? what i understand from the report i read yesterday for the - likely? what i understand from the report i read yesterday for the bbc| report i read yesterday for the bbc is that the head of mass gathering had spoken to steve hewlett, a former editor of panorama and had been briefed by him and then the judgments about martin bashir �*s reemployment were made by him and james harding. you know, in that sense, that was his due diligence. let's go to the conclusion. of the bbc 's _ let's go to the conclusion. of the bbc 's report into the reemployment of marthr— bbc 's report into the reemployment of martin bashir that was published yesterday. right at the end, it says that i_ yesterday. right at the end, it says that i have — yesterday. right at the end, it says that i have no doubt if any of the individuats— that i have no doubt if any of the individuals involved in the apartment of martin bashir in 2016

had been _ apartment of martin bashir in 2016 had been aware of what is now publicly— had been aware of what is now publicly known as a result of the lord _ publicly known as a result of the lord dyson report, martin bashir would _ lord dyson report, martin bashir would not — lord dyson report, martin bashir would not have been reappointed to the bbc _ would not have been reappointed to the bbc. but you did. you had done the bbc. but you did. you had done the inquiry — the bbc. but you did. you had done the inquiry. you know he lied to the bbc on _ the inquiry. you know he lied to the bbc on several occasions, you know he had _ bbc on several occasions, you know he had produced the first document, you know— he had produced the first document, you know he had used boost. events shown. _ you know he had used boost. events shown. he _ you know he had used boost. events shown, he has certainly shown them to individuals. you out loud him to be re—employed back into the bbc? is it likely— be re—employed back into the bbc? is it likely and _ be re—employed back into the bbc? is it likely and before you come back and say _ it likely and before you come back and say you did not because it is remarkable how much people in the bbc do _ remarkable how much people in the bbc do not — remarkable how much people in the bbc do not know about their important decisions, but is it likely— important decisions, but is it likely that they were about to employ — likely that they were about to employ martin bashir to such a sensitive — employ martin bashir to such a sensitive position back in the bbc that not— sensitive position back in the bbc that not our door and said we are about— that not our door and said we are about to — that not our door and said we are about to re—employed martin bashir or we _ about to re—employed martin bashir or we are _ about to re—employed martin bashir or we are interviewing martin bashir~ — or we are interviewing martin bashir. no wonder that? or we are interviewing martin bashir. no wonderthat? -- or we are interviewing martin bashir. no wonder that? -- what did

that. the bashir. no wonder that? -- what did that- they did _ bashir. no wonder that? -- what did that. they did not. _ bashir. no wonder that? -- what did that. they did not. my _ bashir. no wonder that? -- what did that. they did not. my view- bashir. no wonder that? -- what did that. they did not. my view is - that. they did not. my view is exactly the view contained in the report you are reading from which is why it did not 25 years ago the scale of what martin bashir had done to gain access to the princess of wales through earl spencer. so you go back to the fact we did not know 25 years ago what. and if you now throw lord dyson, but we know about martin bashir, then of course he could not have been re—employed, that's my view. bk. could not have been re-employed, that's my view— could not have been re-employed, that's my view. 0k. kevin? thank you could borrow- — that's my view. 0k. kevin? thank you could borrow. allegations _ that's my view. 0k. kevin? thank you could borrow. allegations against - could borrow. allegations against martin— could borrow. allegations against martin bashir at the time that were made _ martin bashir at the time that were made in _ martin bashir at the time that were made in the press, of public interest— made in the press, of public interest in their view. i�*m made in the press, of public interest in their view. i'm so sor , interest in their view. i'm so sorry. i _ interest in their view. i'm so sorry. i missed _ interest in their view. i'm so sorry, i missed the - interest in their view. i'm so sorry, i missed the top -

interest in their view. i'm so sorry, i missed the top of i interest in their view. i'm so i sorry, i missed the top of that. interest in their view. i'm so - sorry, i missed the top of that. i will repeat it. the allegations that were made against martin bashir in the press, — were made against martin bashir in the press, post the interview, where they are _ the press, post the interview, where they are in _ the press, post the interview, where they are in the public interest, in your— they are in the public interest, in your view? — they are in the public interest, in your view? were they of public interest? — your view? were they of public interest? , ., , , . interest? they are in the public interest, interest? they are in the public interest. of— interest? they are in the public interest, of course. _ interest? they are in the public interest, of course. worthy - interest? they are in the public interest, of course. worthy of i interest, of course. worthy of ublic interest, of course. worthy of public interest _ interest, of course. worthy of public interest at _ interest, of course. worthy of public interest at the - interest, of course. worthy of public interest at the time, i interest, of course. worthy of| public interest at the time, do interest, of course. worthy of i public interest at the time, do you think? _ public interest at the time, do you think? i— public interest at the time, do you think? ~' , public interest at the time, do you think? ~ , ., , , . think? i think they were a public interest. fight _ think? i think they were a public interest. fight to _ think? i think they were a public interest. fight to the _ think? i think they were a public interest. fight to the bbc - think? i think they were a public interest. fight to the bbc not i interest. fight to the bbc not re ort interest. fight to the bbc not report on _ interest. fight to the bbc not report on them _ interest. fight to the bbc not report on them if— interest. fight to the bbc not report on them if they - interest. fight to the bbc not report on them if they were l interest. fight to the bbc not report on them if they were a j interest. fight to the bbc not i report on them if they were a public interest? _ report on them if they were a public interest? it�*s report on them if they were a public interest? �* , , , .., , interest? it's interesting because lord dyson _ interest? it's interesting because lord dyson asked _ interest? it's interesting because lord dyson asked me _ interest? it's interesting because lord dyson asked me about i interest? it's interesting because lord dyson asked me about this. interest? it's interesting because i lord dyson asked me about this and referred to a particular piece i think by paul donovan in the sunday times. where paul donovan raised the issue of right did the bbc not reporting this? and all i can say is there was absolutely nothing from me that said this is not to be reported upon, completely not. not least because i know it all my experience that the bbc, the best way to get a

store store cupboard in the bbc is to say about the bbc is do not covered! �* , ., ., , covered! 0k. are you relieved it was not covered! 0k. are you relieved it was rrot reported — covered! 0k. are you relieved it was rrot reported at _ covered! 0k. are you relieved it was not reported at the _ covered! 0k. are you relieved it was not reported at the time? _ covered! 0k. are you relieved it was not reported at the time? i - covered! 0k. are you relieved it was not reported at the time? i cannot i not reported at the time? i cannot recall at all. _ not reported at the time? i cannot recall at all. i _ not reported at the time? i cannot recall at all, i think _ not reported at the time? i cannot recall at all, i think i _ not reported at the time? i cannot recall at all, i think i would - not reported at the time? i cannot recall at all, i think i would not i recall at all, i think i would not be relieved or relieved.- recall at all, i think i would not be relieved or relieved. were you surrised be relieved or relieved. were you surprised it _ be relieved or relieved. were you surprised it was _ be relieved or relieved. were you surprised it was not _ be relieved or relieved. were you surprised it was not reported i be relieved or relieved. were you surprised it was not reported at l be relieved or relieved. were you l surprised it was not reported at the time, _ surprised it was not reported at the time, given— surprised it was not reported at the time, given that you say you believe i believed _ time, given that you say you believe i believed it — time, given that you say you believe i believed it was a public interest? again, _ i believed it was a public interest? again, i_ i believed it was a public interest? again, i cannot recall 25 years ago whether i was surprised not surprised. whether i was surprised not surprised-— whether i was surprised not surrised. surprised. can't you recall the feelinus surprised. can't you recall the feelings you _ surprised. can't you recall the feelings you had _ surprised. can't you recall the feelings you had at _ surprised. can't you recall the feelings you had at the i surprised. can't you recall the feelings you had at the time l surprised. can't you recall the i feelings you had at the time about it not— feelings you had at the time about it not being reported after you have done the _ it not being reported after you have done the investigation? karen you recall— done the investigation? karen you recall any— done the investigation? karen you recall any reaction to that? or thinking — recall any reaction to that? or thinking anything about it at the time? _ thinking anything about it at the time? ls— thinking anything about it at the time? , . . thinking anything about it at the time? , ., ., ~ time? is it all a blank? m“ can sa to time? is it all a blank? m“ can say to you _ time? is it all a blank? m“ can say to you it — time? is it all a blank? m“ can say to you it is _ time? is it all a blank? m“ can say to you it is very _ time? is it all a blank? m“ can say to you it is very difficult i say to you it is very difficult looking back over 25 years but can i say i have never, ever, in all my

years at the bbc, tried to stop a story about the bbc. l years at the bbc, tried to stop a story about the bbc.— years at the bbc, tried to stop a story about the bbc. i am sure that is true but that _ story about the bbc. i am sure that is true but that is _ story about the bbc. i am sure that is true but that is not _ story about the bbc. i am sure that is true but that is not what - story about the bbc. i am sure that is true but that is not what i - story about the bbc. i am sure that is true but that is not what i am i is true but that is not what i am asking — is true but that is not what i am asking i— is true but that is not what i am asking. i asked you can't you recall any thoughts or feelings about the fact the _ any thoughts or feelings about the fact the story was not being reported despite it appearing in the sunday— reported despite it appearing in the sunday times and other publications? at the _ sunday times and other publications? at the time? | sunday times and other publications? at the time? ., ., sunday times and other publications? at the time?— at the time? i want to answer honestly to — at the time? i want to answer honestly to you, _ at the time? i want to answer honestly to you, i _ at the time? i want to answer honestly to you, i cannot i at the time? i want to answer i honestly to you, i cannot remember 25 years ago. my apologies. lard 25 years ago. my apologies. lord t son 25 years ago. my apologies. lord dyson does _ 25 years ago. my apologies. lord dyson does rrot _ 25 years ago. my apologies. lord dyson does not believe the bbc 's story— dyson does not believe the bbc 's story is, _ dyson does not believe the bbc 's story is, in— dyson does not believe the bbc 's story is, in his report. openness individually, decided autonomously that the _ individually, decided autonomously that the martin bashir story was not newsworthy and he believes the sunday— newsworthy and he believes the sunday times story about there being an official— sunday times story about there being an official line not to report it is true _ an official line not to report it is true there _ an official line not to report it is true. there simon? -- an official line not to report it is true. there simon?— an official line not to report it is true. there simon? -- is he wrong? i think it is wrong, _ true. there simon? -- is he wrong? i think it is wrong, all _ true. there simon? -- is he wrong? i think it is wrong, all i _ true. there simon? -- is he wrong? i think it is wrong, all i can _ true. there simon? -- is he wrong? i think it is wrong, all i can say - true. there simon? -- is he wrong? i think it is wrong, all i can say is i think it is wrong, all i can say is in my part a bit, i could never and

i know howl in my part a bit, i could never and i know how i would have behaved then, this is what i believe profoundly. that the way in which bbc editors report on the bbc and the independence within which they were put on the bbc is an important part of our contract with the public. and so, i don't understand quite how it was not reported at the time. but i would put it down to judgments by individual editors, thatis judgments by individual editors, that is the only way i can understand it.— that is the only way i can understand it. ., ., , ., ., understand it. how do you feel about prince william _ understand it. how do you feel about prince william 's _ understand it. how do you feel about prince william 's statement - understand it. how do you feel about prince william 's statement that i understand it. how do you feel about prince william 's statement that his i prince william 's statement that his mother— prince william 's statement that his mother and i quote was failed by a rogue _ mother and i quote was failed by a rogue reporter and leaders with the bbc looked the other way rather than asking _ bbc looked the other way rather than asking the _ bbc looked the other way rather than asking the tough questions. | bbc looked the other way rather than asking the tough questions.- asking the tough questions. i regret deel that asking the tough questions. i regret deeply that we _ asking the tough questions. i regret deeply that we did _ asking the tough questions. i regret deeply that we did not _ asking the tough questions. i regret deeply that we did not get - asking the tough questions. i regret deeply that we did not get to i asking the tough questions. i regret deeply that we did not get to the i deeply that we did not get to the bottom of martin bashir and what happened 25 years ago. bird bottom of martin bashir and what happened 25 years ago.— bottom of martin bashir and what happened 25 years ago. and you have said that, i happened 25 years ago. and you have said that. i am _ happened 25 years ago. and you have said that, i am asking _ happened 25 years ago. and you have said that, i am asking for _ happened 25 years ago. and you have said that, i am asking for your- said that, i am asking for your reaction — said that, i am asking for your reaction to— said that, i am asking for your reaction to prince william 's quote

because _ reaction to prince william 's quote because when he says notjust by a rogue _ because when he says notjust by a rogue reporter but by leaders at the bbc, he _ rogue reporter but by leaders at the bbc, he is _ rogue reporter but by leaders at the bbc, he is talking about you there, isn't he? _ bbc, he is talking about you there, isn't he? we — bbc, he is talking about you there, isn't he? ~ , ., ., , isn't he? we did before it was right at the time. _ isn't he? we did before it was right at the time, investigating - isn't he? we did before it was right at the time, investigating martin i at the time, investigating martin bashir, not once but twice and i have a huge amount of respect for the prince, i have worked with him on various things in the past. and i am deeply sorry for the heart this has caused to him and i really don't want to make that clear. haste has caused to him and i really don't want to make that clear.— want to make that clear. have you soken to want to make that clear. have you spoken to him _ want to make that clear. have you spoken to him to _ want to make that clear. have you spoken to him to express - want to make that clear. have you spoken to him to express your- want to make that clear. have you | spoken to him to express your deep sorrow— spoken to him to express your deep sorrow and — spoken to him to express your deep sorrow and regret about it? no, | sorrow and regret about it? no, i haven't, sorrow and regret about it? no, i haven't. i— sorrow and regret about it? no, i haven't, i wanted _ sorrow and regret about it? no, i haven't, i wanted to _ sorrow and regret about it? no, i haven't, i wanted to have - sorrow and regret about it? no, i haven't, i wanted to have the i haven't, i wanted to have the session with you all before i think about what i did next. fin session with you all before i think about what i did next.— session with you all before i think about what i did next. on the issue ofthe about what i did next. on the issue of the reappointment _ about what i did next. on the issue of the reappointment of _ about what i did next. on the issue of the reappointment of martin i of the reappointment of martin bashir, — of the reappointment of martin bashir, it— of the reappointment of martin bashir, it is quite surprising to me as someone — bashir, it is quite surprising to me as someone who has a degree of respect — as someone who has a degree of respect for— as someone who has a degree of respect for the bbc, that its recruitment and hiring policy seems to be _ recruitment and hiring policy seems to be less _ recruitment and hiring policy seems to be less rigorous than the policy

is that— to be less rigorous than the policy is that are — to be less rigorous than the policy is that are going employ parliamentary researcher. when i appoint _ parliamentary researcher. when i appoint a — parliamentary researcher. when i appoint a parliamentary researcher i advertise _ appoint a parliamentary researcher i advertise the job externally, often -et advertise the job externally, often get more — advertise the job externally, often get more than 200 applications, always— get more than 200 applications, always go— get more than 200 applications, always go through all of the cvs. the ones — always go through all of the cvs. the ones that cannot spell my name, keep the _ the ones that cannot spell my name, keep the rest. and then create a long _ keep the rest. and then create a long list— keep the rest. and then create a long list on— keep the rest. and then create a long list on the shortlist and work with some — long list on the shortlist and work with some the people at interview, harbour— with some the people at interview, harbour some little practical exercises to see if they are suitable _ exercises to see if they are suitable for the job and a part of the best— suitable for the job and a part of the best person for the job. itjust really— the best person for the job. itjust really surprises me you are, as someone — really surprises me you are, as someone who would regard themselves as a supporter of the bbc, that this kind of— as a supporter of the bbc, that this kind of democracy approach to appointment of someone who was a proven— appointment of someone who was a proven liar. — appointment of someone who was a proven liar, with a very dodgy background, was made. i mean, i suppose _ background, was made. i mean, i suppose the — background, was made. i mean, i suppose the only question i could ask you. — suppose the only question i could ask you, what was your reaction when you heard _ ask you, what was your reaction when you heard he — ask you, what was your reaction when you heard he had been reappointed? —— chumocracy. |

you heard he had been reappointed? -- chumocracy— -- chumocracy. i did not make the effort i know _ -- chumocracy. i did not make the effort i know now. _ -- chumocracy. i did not make the effort i know now. i— -- chumocracy. i did not make the effort i know now. i remember- -- chumocracy. i did not make the effort i know now. i remember i i effort i know now. i remember i think i remember saying to james, i hope he delivered against his kind of book. —— i did not know then what i don't know. it was not up to me to second—guess gems �*s procedures for finding the right people, the talent he wanted to come and join with us, that was news to run through. did ou kick that was news to run through. did you kick the cat when he heard he had been — you kick the cat when he heard he had been appointed, did you turn the air blue _ had been appointed, did you turn the air blue with frustration, when you heard _ air blue with frustration, when you heard he _ air blue with frustration, when you heard he had been reappointed, even if you _ heard he had been reappointed, even if you did _ heard he had been reappointed, even if you did not know everything you know _ if you did not know everything you know now. — if you did not know everything you know now, you know you have to be perhaps _ know now, you know you have to be perhaps concerned about the history appointment? was that fair or did you just _ appointment? was that fair or did you just shrug your shoulders? i think you just shrug your shoulders? think i go you just shrug your shoulders? i think i go back, you have to cover in the end, say this is the appointment made byjames harding and jonathan morrow in this gathering. i support them in their

decision. i go back to the point this is a highly developed organisation. and you trust the people to trust the right time of to come... w people to trust the right time of to come... ., ., , ., ,, come... said that. finally, do you believe now— come... said that. finally, do you believe now having _ come... said that. finally, do you believe now having been - come... said that. finally, do you | believe now having been appraised come... said that. finally, do you i believe now having been appraised of further— believe now having been appraised of further information through all these — further information through all these enquiries that martin bashir never— these enquiries that martin bashir never actually showed those forged documents to princess diana? we had a letter... documents to princess diana? we had a letter- -- l'm — documents to princess diana? we had a letter... i'm about, _ documents to princess diana? we had a letter... i'm about, we _ documents to princess diana? we had a letter... i'm about, we have - documents to princess diana? we had a letter... i'm about, we have that- a letter... i'm about, we have that on the record _ a letter... i'm about, we have that on the record but _ a letter... i'm about, we have that on the record but do _ a letter... i'm about, we have that on the record but do you _ a letter... i'm about, we have that| on the record but do you personally believe _ on the record but do you personally believe it _ on the record but do you personally believe it is— on the record but do you personally believe it is chalk, given we know that princess diana was in a vulnerable position and that martin bashir— vulnerable position and that martin bashir was a deceiving, manipulative liar, bashir was a deceiving, manipulative liar. isn't_ bashir was a deceiving, manipulative liar. isn't it— bashir was a deceiving, manipulative liar, isn't it entirely credible that— liar, isn't it entirely credible that this _ liar, isn't it entirely credible that this is true, he might have populated _ that this is true, he might have populated princess diana into writing — populated princess diana into writing that letter in order to cover— writing that letter in order to cover his _ writing that letter in order to cover his tracks? i writing that letter in order to cover his tracks?— writing that letter in order to cover his tracks? i cannot say but the letter from _

cover his tracks? i cannot say but the letter from her,, _ cover his tracks? i cannot say but the letter from her, , 25 - cover his tracks? i cannot say but the letter from her, , 25 years i cover his tracks? i cannot say but l the letter from her,, 25 years ago, a letter in her own handwriting princess saying what she said, that she was not manipulated, that martin bashir told her nothing she did not already know, she had no regrets at all, was very, very powerful and i think when lord dyson also says that it was very likely she was going to do an interview somewhere, then i take that seriously too.— take that seriously too. that's all from me. clive. _ take that seriously too. that's all from me. clive. chair, _ take that seriously too. that's all from me. clive. chair, thank- take that seriously too. that's all| from me. clive. chair, thank you, this aoes from me. clive. chair, thank you, this goes back — from me. clive. chair, thank you, this goes back to _ from me. clive. chair, thank you, this goes back to the _ from me. clive. chair, thank you, this goes back to the point i i from me. clive. chair, thank you, this goes back to the point i was. this goes back to the point i was trying _ this goes back to the point i was trying to— this goes back to the point i was trying to make, what was the conceivable purpose of this document is being _ conceivable purpose of this document is being created in the first place. and isn't— is being created in the first place. and isn't it — is being created in the first place. and isn't it likely that if he showed _ and isn't it likely that if he showed those documents to the princess— showed those documents to the princess of wales, she says that she showed _ princess of wales, she says that she showed documents that told her nothing — showed documents that told her nothing that she was not previously aware _ nothing that she was not previously aware but _ nothing that she was not previously aware but if she already thought

that that — aware but if she already thought that that sort of coercion and bribery— that that sort of coercion and bribery to _ that that sort of coercion and bribery to gain information on hope was happening, she would be able to write that, _ was happening, she would be able to write that, it doesn't actually say she wasn't— write that, it doesn't actually say she wasn't showing those statements? well, our— she wasn't showing those statements? well, our understanding back then of why martin bashir had produced those documents was as part of a file to documents was as part of a file to do a story which he never and steve hewlett said at the time, never pursued, looking at a whole raft of allegations around the royal family to do with bugging and all sorts of things like that. so that was the reason he produced them and that is the reason that seemed credible to us the time. credible. john nicholson. _ us the time. credible. john nicholson. chair, - us the time. credible. john nicholson. chair, thank i us the time. credible. john | nicholson. chair, thank you. us the time. credible. john i nicholson. chair, thank you. lord hall, have _ nicholson. chair, thank you. lord hall. have you — nicholson. chair, thank you. lord hall, have you any _ nicholson. chair, thank you. lord

hall, have you any idea _ nicholson. chair, thank you. lord hall, have you any idea how i nicholson. chair, thank you. lord i hall, have you any idea how utterly implausible it is that you are not closely— implausible it is that you are not closely involved in the monitoring of the _ closely involved in the monitoring of the rehiring of martin bashir, someone — of the rehiring of martin bashir, someone that you not to be a serial liar because — someone that you not to be a serial liar because this wasn't any rehiring? _ liar because this wasn't any rehiring? this was the top of the matter— rehiring? this was the top of the matter and, of the bbc, rehiring? this was the top of the matterand, of the bbc, people wandering around saying to one another, — wandering around saying to one another, can you believe a cup martin— another, can you believe a cup martin bashir is back and as religion _ martin bashir is back and as religion correspondent? and you know nothing _ religion correspondent? and you know nothing about this?— nothing about this? come on! mr nicholson, _ nothing about this? come on! mr nicholson, l— nothing about this? come on! mr nicholson, i asked _ nothing about this? come on! mr nicholson, i asked you _ nothing about this? come on! mr nicholson, i asked you to - nothing about this? come on! mr| nicholson, i asked you to consider the number of things that come across the desk of any director—general and... across the desk of any director-general and... this is in a different director-general and. .. this is in a different skill— director-general and... this is in a different skill level _ director-general and... this is in a different skill level of _ director-general and... this is in a different skill level of importance, | different skill level of importance, this is— different skill level of importance, this is martin bashir, he'd been sacked — this is martin bashir, he'd been sacked twice in america for wrongdoing. you knew he was a serial liar and _ wrongdoing. you knew he was a serial liar and he _ wrongdoing. you knew he was a serial liar and he pops wrongdoing. you knew he was a serial liarand he pops up wrongdoing. you knew he was a serial liar and he pops up at the bbc, the idea that _ liar and he pops up at the bbc, the idea that you were unaware of this and have _ idea that you were unaware of this and have closely involved with that is just _ and have closely involved with that isjust implausible. mike and have closely involved with that isjust implausible.— isjust implausible. mike was not involved in _ isjust implausible. mike was not involved in the _ isjust implausible. mike was not involved in the rehiring _ isjust implausible. mike was not involved in the rehiring of- isjust implausible. mike was not involved in the rehiring of martin j involved in the rehiring of martin

bashir, mr nicholson, as the report yesterday made clear. ltinfoil bashir, mr nicholson, as the report yesterday made clear.— yesterday made clear. well the re ort is yesterday made clear. well the report is a _ yesterday made clear. well the report is a whitewash. - yesterday made clear. well the report is a whitewash. well, i l yesterday made clear. well the i report is a whitewash. well, i don't think it is because _ report is a whitewash. well, i don't think it is because it _ report is a whitewash. well, i don't think it is because it is _ report is a whitewash. well, i don't think it is because it is reporting i think it is because it is reporting what i meant to be the case as well. and it has been produced by a very independently minded person may make kenneth mcquarrie. abs, independently minded person may make kenneth mcquarrie._ kenneth mcquarrie. a long time bbc staff at the store _ kenneth mcquarrie. a long time bbc staff at the store i _ kenneth mcquarrie. a long time bbc staff at the store i was _ kenneth mcquarrie. a long time bbc staff at the store i was not _ staff at the store i was not constantly asking for briefings about — constantly asking for briefings about one correspondent in part of the mass _ about one correspondent in part of the mass operation.— about one correspondent in part of the mass operation. neither would i exect to the mass operation. neither would i exoect to be — the mass operation. neither would i expect to be running _ the mass operation. neither would i expect to be running the _ the mass operation. neither would i expect to be running the bbc, i the mass operation. neither would i | expect to be running the bbc, you've got a whole raft of things to do, against the charter, services like bbc sounds, nothing more of the bbc out of london. let's examine what you knew and when you knew it. martin bashir bridges failte bank documents intended to make it look like they are now bass

my closest aides were corrupt and working against her. he showed these forgeries to graham earl spencer, to secure an introduction to diana. he lied about the way in which these documents had been used. why did you not pick up the phone and call earl spencer at yourself and ask for his side of this two the story? i spencer at yourself and ask for his side of this two the story?- side of this two the story? i have said already. _ side of this two the story? i have said already, but _ side of this two the story? i have said already, but i _ side of this two the story? i have said already, but i will— side of this two the story? i have said already, but i will repeat. i side of this two the story? i have said already, but i will repeat. 1. said already, but i will repeat. i accept — said already, but i will repeat. i accept lord dyson's conclusion we should _ accept lord dyson's conclusion we should have picked up the phone to earl spencer. why should have picked up the phone to earl spencer-— should have picked up the phone to l earl spencer._ steve earl spencer. why did you not? steve hewlett had — earl spencer. why did you not? steve hewlett had spoken _ earl spencer. why did you not? steve hewlett had spoken to _ earl spencer. why did you not? steve hewlett had spoken to earl _ earl spencer. why did you not? steve hewlett had spoken to earl spencer. l hewlett had spoken to earl spencer. as i said _ hewlett had spoken to earl spencer. as i said before, looking back at it, as i said before, looking back at it. what— as i said before, looking back at it. what we _ as i said before, looking back at it, what we saw back then was that he had _ it, what we saw back then was that he had spoken to earl spencer when the mail— he had spoken to earl spencer when the mail on— he had spoken to earl spencer when the mail on sunday story came out... i want _ the mail on sunday story came out... i want to— the mail on sunday story came out... i want to know— the mail on sunday story came out... i want to know why you did not pick

up i want to know why you did not pick up the phone. this is basic rookie journalist stuff. there are obviously too sized to the story. you ask one person there review, and then you pick up the phone and ask then you pick up the phone and ask the other person their view. this is the other person their view. this is the very basis of research. you did not do any research at all, did you? they did the research, and then i interviewed martin bashir. the point is, we _ interviewed martin bashir. the point is, we were — interviewed martin bashir. the point is, we were looking at something narrower~ — is, we were looking at something narrower. in retrospect, in terms of dyson, _ narrower. in retrospect, in terms of dyson. that — narrower. in retrospect, in terms of dyson, that was a mistake. the narrow— dyson, that was a mistake. the narrow point we were trying to make was hard _ narrow point we were trying to make was hard martin bashir breach of these _ was hard martin bashir breach of these guidelines and what we should do about— these guidelines and what we should do about that. you these guidelines and what we should do about that-— do about that. you should not have set such narrow _ do about that. you should not have set such narrow parameters, i do about that. you should not have set such narrow parameters, you . set such narrow parameters, you should have gone rightly slowly let you. worse, you painted earl spencer

as a co—conspirator with martin bashir, involved with falsifying the content of forged bank statements. you will understand earl spencer's outrage at this. i have in front of me the document that you wrote. you said that" a earl spencer head shown some documents to mind my, including bank documents.". you wrote this and gaveit bank documents.". you wrote this and gave it to the board, and it was false. it has got your name on it. i accept that it's false, because we were _ accept that it's false, because we were lied — accept that it's false, because we were lied to by martin bashir. and ou did were lied to by martin bashir. and you did no — were lied to by martin bashir.:5:1c you did no research. were lied to by martin bashir. ji.1c you did no research. unit were lied to by martin bashir. l1c you did no research. unit martin bashir and reported back tojohn birt. he is an honest and honourable man. but you knew that he wasn't. let's look at this maino. he was the head of weekly programmes, he had

given you this maino, and it had told you that martin bashir had lied three times. what happened to that they know that he gave to you? i acted upon it, and as the maino in front— acted upon it, and as the maino in front of— acted upon it, and as the maino in front of you — acted upon it, and as the maino in front of you makes clear, i said we should _ front of you makes clear, i said we should look— front of you makes clear, i said we should look into it all again, and we did _ should look into it all again, and we did that. should look into it all again, and we did that-— should look into it all again, and we did that. ~ , ., we did that. where is the maino? -- no no. we did that. where is the maino? -- no no- where _ we did that. where is the maino? -- no no. where is _ we did that. where is the maino? -- no no. where is the _ we did that. where is the maino? -- no no. where is the original - we did that. where is the maino? -- no no. where is the original copy i no no. where is the original copy that was given to you? i’m no no. where is the original copy that was given to you? i'm sorry, i do not that was given to you? i'm sorry, i do rrot know- _ that was given to you? i'm sorry, i do not know. this _ that was given to you? i'm sorry, i do not know. this is _ that was given to you? i'm sorry, i do not know. this is a _ that was given to you? i'm sorry, i do not know. this is a very - do not know. this is a very important _ do not know. this is a very important document, i do not know. this is a very important document, did l do not know. this is a very i important document, did you do not know. this is a very - important document, did you place do not know. this is a very _ important document, did you place it in the bbc�*s files with the other martin bashir notes? l in the bbc's files with the other martin bashir notes?— in the bbc's files with the other martin bashir notes? i cannot tell ou, this martin bashir notes? i cannot tell you. this is _ martin bashir notes? i cannot tell you. this is a _ martin bashir notes? i cannot tell you. this is a 25 _ martin bashir notes? i cannot tell you, this is a 25 years _ martin bashir notes? i cannot tell you, this is a 25 years ago, - martin bashir notes? i cannot tell you, this is a 25 years ago, and l martin bashir notes? i cannot tell you, this is a 25 years ago, and i | you, this is a 25 years ago, and i cannot_ you, this is a 25 years ago, and i cannot tell— you, this is a 25 years ago, and i cannot tell you what happened to the various_ cannot tell you what happened to the various documents. it�*s

cannot tell you what happened to the various documents.— various documents. it's gone missing- _ various documents. it's gone missing- did _ various documents. it's gone missing. did you _ various documents. it's gone missing. did you destroy - various documents. it's gone missing. did you destroy it? | missing. did you destroy it? absolutely not. going back to my position— absolutely not. going back to my position and the way i looked at all these _ position and the way i looked at all these things. i approach this with an open—minded way, trying to get through— an open—minded way, trying to get through to — an open—minded way, trying to get through to the truth. we were delighted by martin bashir, that is at the _ delighted by martin bashir, that is at the root of l. but delighted by martin bashir, that is at the root of l.— at the root of l. but you knew he lie to yom _ at the root of l. but you knew he lie to you. you _ at the root of l. but you knew he lie to you. you are _ at the root of l. but you knew he lie to you. you are not _ at the root of l. but you knew he lie to you. you are not telling - lie to you. you are not telling something that is new. fortunately, this missing document which is so key to the dicing enquiries, it found its way to lord dyson. you will understand why this is so important, because it predates all your assurances to the board about martin bashir�*s honesty, it shows that you knew he lied to secure the interview. this document has disappeared. unfortunately, its original offer had kept a copy of it

which is why lord dyson got out. lord dyson kojey woefully inadequate. even more damningly, prince william said that you chose to look the other way. do you know how much the dicing inquiry cost? 7 i can tell you, it cost £1.1i million. that is 9000 license fees directly as a result of your negligence for top —— dyson inquiry. lord hall, is a very hard to believe that you were once thought of as a safe pair of hands. having presided over the bbc pay covid up, the patient licence fee fiasco, and now this scandal. do not think that a forfeit of some of your lavish bbc pension would appropriate? i have been a public _

pension would appropriate? i have been a public servant _ pension would appropriate? i have been a public servant for - pension would appropriate? i have been a public servant for 35 - pension would appropriate? i have been a public servant for 35 years | been a public servant for 35 years at the _ been a public servant for 35 years at the bbc, running news. ithen left and — at the bbc, running news. ithen left and the republic service, running — left and the republic service, running the royal opera house, which at that_ running the royal opera house, which at that time _ running the royal opera house, which at that time was in a time of crisis — at that time was in a time of crisis i_ at that time was in a time of crisis. i came back to the bbc, which — crisis. i came back to the bbc, which i — crisis. i came back to the bbc, which i never thought i would order wanted _ which i never thought i would order wanted to— which i never thought i would order wanted to do in 2013 to rescue the bbc from — wanted to do in 2013 to rescue the bbc from the crisis that was involving _ bbc from the crisis that was involving saddles. 25 years ago, myself— involving saddles. 25 years ago, myself and everybody believed that we made _ myself and everybody believed that we made a mistake, but please do not let that _ we made a mistake, but please do not let that colour the other things that i_ let that colour the other things that i have done in terms of my record — that i have done in terms of my record of— that i have done in terms of my record of public service over 35 years — record of public service over 35 years i— record of public service over 35 years. i have done a hell of a lot for the _ years. i have done a hell of a lot for the bbc, and years. i have done a hell of a lot forthe bbc, and i think years. i have done a hell of a lot for the bbc, and i think the arts, but and — for the bbc, and i think the arts, but and i— for the bbc, and i think the arts, but and i regret this one thing we all got _ but and i regret this one thing we all got wrong because we liked about marthr— all got wrong because we liked about martin bashir 25 years ago. some rescue, martin bashir 25 years ago. some rescue. lord _ martin bashir 25 years ago. some rescue, lord hall. _ martin bashir 25 years ago. some rescue, lord hall. it _ martin bashir 25 years ago. some rescue, lord hall. it was - martin bashir 25 years ago. some rescue, lord hall. it was clear- martin bashir 25 years ago. some l rescue, lord hall. it was clear that you were negligent in the way that

you were negligent in the way that you carried out this investigation. you say that you believe martin this year, but in fact you knew that he was a liar. the key witness and all of this, earl spencer, you did not bother to pick up the phone to ask him some questions. is it something a rookiejournalist him some questions. is it something a rookie journalist would him some questions. is it something a rookiejournalist would have him some questions. is it something a rookie journalist would have done. there has been a bbc cover—up, which is what you and the other witnesses are now here. flan is what you and the other witnesses are now here-— is what you and the other witnesses are now here. can i 'ust say, number one, i are now here. can i 'ust say, number i accept— are now here. can i 'ust say, number i accept we — are now here. can ijust say, number one, i accept we should _ are now here. can ijust say, number one, i accept we should have - are now here. can ijust say, number one, i accept we should have spoken j one, i accept we should have spoken to erroi— one, i accept we should have spoken to errol spencer, i accept that conclusion from lord dyson's report. one of— conclusion from lord dyson's report. one of i_ conclusion from lord dyson's report. one of i should have gone back to earl spencer about this issue of the documents. we are not trying to conceat— documents. we are not trying to conceal from the public or anyone any of— conceal from the public or anyone any of the — conceal from the public or anyone any of the conclusions we came to around _ any of the conclusions we came to around this— any of the conclusions we came to around this 25 years ago. the notion that there _ around this 25 years ago. the notion that there has been some consistent line that _ that there has been some consistent line that we have drawn under this, trying _ line that we have drawn under this, trying to— line that we have drawn under this,

trying to conceal something from the public, _ trying to conceal something from the public, is _ trying to conceal something from the public, is not true. we thought we had come — public, is not true. we thought we had come to an honest conclusion 25 years— had come to an honest conclusion 25 years ago. _ had come to an honest conclusion 25 years ago, based on somebody who was contrite _ years ago, based on somebody who was contrite and _ years ago, based on somebody who was contrite and was prepared to see how to make _ contrite and was prepared to see how to make made a big mistake. we got that wrong, — to make made a big mistake. we got that wrong, we believed him, and i am sorry— that wrong, we believed him, and i am sorry for— that wrong, we believed him, and i am sorry for that.— am sorry for that. lord hall, there is one thing _ am sorry for that. lord hall, there is one thing i— am sorry for that. lord hall, there is one thing i do _ am sorry for that. lord hall, there is one thing i do not _ am sorry for that. lord hall, there is one thing i do not quite - is one thing i do not quite understand. you repeatedly say to the chair and just now to mr nicholson that there is a great deal that the director general has to involve. that is understandable with 25,000 employees. as you just said, you were brought in to deal with the fallout from the appalling savile affair. coming in off the back of that, i do not understand why you burn on your metal more and put mechanisms in place to ensure that the honesty, openness and

truthfulness we expect from the bbc. i would have thought you would have been all over that on your arrival, then the martin bashir thing happened. then the martin bashir thing happened-— then the martin bashir thing ha--ened. ~ ., happened. when i came back to the bbc to deal— happened. when i came back to the bbc to deal with — happened. when i came back to the bbc to deal with the _ happened. when i came back to the bbc to deal with the savile - happened. when i came back to the bbc to deal with the savile crisis, . bbc to deal with the savile crisis, and it— bbc to deal with the savile crisis, and it was— bbc to deal with the savile crisis, and it was a real crisis, there were three _ and it was a real crisis, there were three investigations going on into what _ three investigations going on into what should be done. i accepted all three _ what should be done. i accepted all three. when it came to at the final report— three. when it came to at the final report on— three. when it came to at the final report on how this had happened by an eminent — report on how this had happened by an eminentjudge, i spoke to survivors, _ an eminentjudge, i spoke to survivors, and i then ensured we had the policies _ survivors, and i then ensured we had the policies in place to ensure such a thing _ the policies in place to ensure such a thing could not happen again. the same _ a thing could not happen again. the same thing — a thing could not happen again. the same thing with bullying and harassment, equal pay, an issue we were _ harassment, equal pay, an issue we were dealing with. i brought in changes— were dealing with. i brought in changes to the way that people were employed _ changes to the way that people were employed when i came back to the bbc, _ employed when i came back to the bbc, terms and conditions and so on, that had _ bbc, terms and conditions and so on, that had not— bbc, terms and conditions and so on, that had not been done for a generation. we were reforming the culture _ generation. we were reforming the cuiture of— generation. we were reforming the culture of the bbc to make it a iletter— culture of the bbc to make it a better place to work, a place where people _ better place to work, a place where people could see what the third and did not— people could see what the third and

did not feel that we bullied or it would _ did not feel that we bullied or it would be — did not feel that we bullied or it would be caldas some way into submission. fundamentally, i believe in people _ submission. fundamentally, i believe in people giving their best in the workforce, i really do. when i came back to _ workforce, i really do. when i came back to the — workforce, i really do. when i came back to the bbc, that is what i wanted — back to the bbc, that is what i wanted to— back to the bbc, that is what i wanted to achieve a stop i appreciate all of that, it is all very— appreciate all of that, it is all very aware it isjust appreciate all of that, it is all very aware it is just that appreciate all of that, it is all very aware it isjust that having come _ very aware it isjust that having come back— very aware it isjust that having come back in after such an enormous crisis. _ come back in after such an enormous crisis. you _ come back in after such an enormous crisis. you did — come back in after such an enormous crisis, you did not actually put in place _ crisis, you did not actually put in place mechanisms whereby the martin bashir— place mechanisms whereby the martin bashir affair could have happened. place mechanisms whereby the martin bashiraffair could have happened. i do not _ bashiraffair could have happened. i do not think the martin bashir affair— do not think the martin bashir affair would happen in the same way now, affair would happen in the same way now. or— affair would happen in the same way now, or rather the way we would investigate — now, or rather the way we would investigate happened they'd be very different _ investigate happened they'd be very different. i did bring in policies around — different. i did bring in policies around whistle—blowing, which were very clear~ _ around whistle—blowing, which were very clear. now, if you want to whistle — very clear. now, if you want to whistle blow, if you are still not satisfied, — whistle blow, if you are still not satisfied, it goes right up to the board _ satisfied, it goes right up to the board level. there is a board member responsible _ board level. there is a board member responsible for whistle—blowing. we had whistle—blowing policies, ways in which _ had whistle—blowing policies, ways in which you could complain about

behaviour— in which you could complain about behaviour and so on, editorial policy— behaviour and so on, editorial policy is — behaviour and so on, editorial policy is now much more stronger within— policy is now much more stronger within the — policy is now much more stronger within the bbc and is much more powerfully felt within the bbc and people _ powerfully felt within the bbc and people use it properly. all in all, ithink— people use it properly. all in all, i think we — people use it properly. all in all, i think we have better controls. you would _ i think we have better controls. you would know— i think we have better controls. you would know when you are dealing with thousands _ would know when you are dealing with thousands of decisions being made each day. — thousands of decisions being made each day, which i difficult editorial decisions, you do need people — editorial decisions, you do need people to — editorial decisions, you do need people to understand the guidelines. you need _ people to understand the guidelines. you need people to understand what is good, _ you need people to understand what is good, bad, what is good journalism and bad journalism. i think— journalism and bad journalism. i think we — journalism and bad journalism. i think we did a huge amount in my time— think we did a huge amount in my time to— think we did a huge amount in my time to ensure that those guidelines in what _ time to ensure that those guidelines in what we _ time to ensure that those guidelines in what we wanted from myjournalist was understood. | in what we wanted from my 'ournalist was understood.* was understood. i 'ust think perhaps there's too much — was understood. ijust think perhaps there's too much devolution, - was understood. ijust think perhaps there's too much devolution, but. there's too much devolution, but thank you very much.— there's too much devolution, but thank you very much. time is running short, thank you very much. time is running short. lord — thank you very much. time is running short, lord hall. _ thank you very much. time is running short, lord hall. we _

thank you very much. time is running short, lord hall. we do _ thank you very much. time is running short, lord hall. we do appreciate i short, lord hall. we do appreciate the fact that you volunteered today. not everyone wishes to volunteer for a select committee. ijust wonder whether you really receive any other complaints regarding martin bashir�*s journalism during his time at the bbc, perhaps in relation to terry venables and the faking of documents in that case? , venables and the faking of documents in that case?— in that case? yes, there was an issue around — in that case? yes, there was an issue around terry _ in that case? yes, there was an issue around terry venables's l issue around terry venables's panorama, which was dealt with at the time — panorama, which was dealt with at the time i— panorama, which was dealt with at the time. i cannot remember the details _ the time. i cannot remember the details now,. the time. i cannot remember the details now"— the time. i cannot remember the details now,. . . ., , details now,. and that was two years before the diana _ details now,. and that was two years before the diana faking _ details now,. and that was two years before the diana faking of _ before the diana faking of documents, so he was a faker of documents, so he was a faker of documents long standing then? i documents long standing then? i cannot remember the details of the terry— cannot remember the details of the terry venables case... what happened was that there — terry venables case... what happened was that there was _ terry venables case... what happened was that there was a _ terry venables case... what happened was that there was a payment - terry venables case... what happened was that there was a payment and - was that there was a payment and loan to terry venables, and this was

a graph of size in order to show the numbers, the graphics were fake, it was effectively a fake bank statement broadcast on newsnight two years prior to the princess about diana having been involved with fake documents by the same reporter. that is wh i documents by the same reporter. that is why i was — documents by the same reporter. that is why i was clear _ documents by the same reporter. that is why i was clear about bringing in guidelines— is why i was clear about bringing in guidelines to make sure that these fake documents... that guidelines to make sure that these fake documents. . ._ guidelines to make sure that these fake documents... that was 30 years a . o fake documents... that was 30 years a . 0 when fake documents... that was 30 years ago when that _ fake documents... that was 30 years ago when that happens, _ fake documents... that was 30 years ago when that happens, nearly - fake documents... that was 30 years ago when that happens, nearly 30 i ago when that happens, nearly 30 years ago, when he was first faking documents at the bbc, two years prior to princess diana. the question — prior to princess diana. the question is. _ prior to princess diana. the question is, chair? - prior to princess diana. the question is, chair? you - prior to princess diana. the | question is, chair? you then prior to princess diana. the - question is, chair? you then say you introduce new— question is, chair? you then say you introduce new guidelines _ question is, chair? you then say you introduce new guidelines at - question is, chair? you then say you introduce new guidelines at a - question is, chair? you then say you introduce new guidelines at a much | introduce new guidelines at a much later date, editorial guidelines. that is right. that was after this faking _ that is right. that was after this faking of—

that is right. that was after this faking of documents in and princess dianam _ faking of documents in and princess diana... ~ , ., faking of documents in and princess diana... ~ i. ., faking of documents in and princess diana... ~ ., ., ., ., diana... where you are aware he had also fake documents _ diana... where you are aware he had also fake documents for _ diana... where you are aware he had also fake documents for terry - also fake documents for terry venables? i also fake documents for terry venables?— also fake documents for terry venables? ., , , venables? i cannot recall, this is auoin venables? i cannot recall, this is going back _ venables? i cannot recall, this is going back a _ venables? i cannot recall, this is going back a very _ venables? i cannot recall, this is going back a very long _ venables? i cannot recall, this is going back a very long time. - going back a very long time. obviously, the terry venables panoramic was something i would have known _ panoramic was something i would have known about at the time. —— panorama _ known about at the time. —— panorama. if known about at the time. -- panorama-— known about at the time. -- panorama. , ., ., , . ., panorama. if you had been director aeneral at panorama. if you had been director general at the _ panorama. if you had been director general at the time _ panorama. if you had been director general at the time of _ panorama. if you had been director general at the time of lord - panorama. if you had been director general at the time of lord dyson's report, would you have resigned? i report, would you have resigned? i was not director general, i had left lon- was not director general, i had left long before it. was not director general, i had left long before it— long before it. well, not so long auo. he long before it. well, not so long ago. he obviously _ long before it. well, not so long ago. he obviously resigned - long before it. well, not so long ago. he obviously resigned at i long before it. well, not so long. ago. he obviously resigned at the national gallery, but do you think it would have been at the right thing for you, morally, to have resigned at that point? i thing for you, morally, to have resigned at that point?- resigned at that point? i really cannot answer _ resigned at that point? i really cannot answer that _ resigned at that point? i really cannot answer that question. i j resigned at that point? i really - cannot answer that question. i left the bbc_ cannot answer that question. i left the bbc some nine or ten months before _ the bbc some nine or ten months before to — the bbc some nine or ten months before to take up the chair of the national— before to take up the chair of the national gallery. i obviously do not know _ national gallery. i obviously do not know this — national gallery. i obviously do not know this was about to emerge on the scene _ know this was about to emerge on the scene. ., . ., know this was about to emerge on the

scene. ., ., ., ., ., r, scene. you are not aware? by the course not- — scene. you are not aware? by the course not. finally, _ scene. you are not aware? by the course not. finally, do _ scene. you are not aware? by the course not. finally, do you - scene. you are not aware? by the course not. finally, do you think i course not. finally, do you think that what martin bashir did was criminal? i that what martin bashir did was criminal? ., ., ,, ., ., ., ., criminal? i do not know, i am not a la er, criminal? i do not know, i am not a lawyer. and — criminal? i do not know, i am not a lawyer. and it _ criminal? i do not know, i am not a lawyer, and it would _ criminal? i do not know, i am not a lawyer, and it would not _ criminal? i do not know, i am not a lawyer, and it would not be - criminal? i do not know, i am not a lawyer, and it would not be for - criminal? i do not know, i am not a lawyer, and it would not be for me| lawyer, and it would not be for me to say— lawyer, and it would not be for me to say chucked out the lawyer, and it would not be for me to say chucked ou— lawyer, and it would not be for me to say chucked out the definition of fraud is to gain _ to say chucked out the definition of fraud is to gain financial _ to say chucked out the definition of fraud is to gain financial gain - fraud is to gain financial gain through false pretenses. he gain financially. i through false pretenses. he gain financiall . ., ., ~' through false pretenses. he gain financiall . ., ., ,, ., financially. i do not think he gain financially. i do not think he gain financially through _ financially. i do not think he gain financially through this _ financially. i do not think he gain financially through this at - financially. i do not think he gain financially through this at all. - financially. i do not think he gain financially through this at all. in | financially through this at all. in terms financially through this at all. terms of financially through this at all. u�*i terms of his career, he got the biggest interview that has been in british tv history, almost. that is a big thing to gain, is it not? there are four has a financial consequence down the line. martin bashir did not _ consequence down the line. martin bashir did not gain _ consequence down the line. martin bashir did not gain from _ consequence down the line. martin bashir did not gain from that - bashir did not gain from that financially, the bbc might have done _ financially, the bbc might have done i— financially, the bbc might have done. i think some of the money went to charity. _ done. i think some of the money went to charity, as— done. i think some of the money went to charity, as i— done. i think some of the money went to charity, as i recall, but i do not _ to charity, as i recall, but i do not think— to charity, as i recall, but i do not think martin bashir gained. thank— not think martin bashir gained. thank you _ not think martin bashir gained. thank you very much, lord hall. that

concludes our first panel. we'll take a short adjournment. studio: that is the department for joint and media questioning lord hall, tony hall, former director—general of the bbc over martin bashir following on director—general of the bbc over martin bashirfollowing on from director—general of the bbc over martin bashir following on from the recent report by lord dyson which criticised the methods used by my neck to secure the interview with princess diana. he was also questioned about the subsequent return to the bbc of martin bashir in 2016 as religious correspondence, subsequently promoted to religious editor. he faced uncomfortable questioning by the mp5, three former bbcjournalists among them. he was asked why the bbc had let off martin bashir over fake documents, but blackballed the graphic designer who had done the right thing, speaking up had done the right thing, speaking up about it. he was also asked about

that process about martin bashir returning to the bbc, and whether the process of getting him the job was designed to make sure he would get it. coming up next is going to be lord john birt, who was director general when the panorama interview with princess diana happened. after that, it will be the current bbc director general, tim davie and the chairman richard sharpe. further coverage of that as it continues. ministers say they are confident the government can stick to its new plan of removing covid restrictions in england by mid—july, after announcing a one month delay. borisjohnson says he's "determined" that the 19th ofjuly will be the "terminus date" for the remaining restrictions on social contact to finally be lifted. scientists had warned of a "significant resurgance" in the virus and say the delay means the peak in hospital admissions will be reduced

by between a third and a half. but conservative mps are concerned. steve baker from the covid recovery group said it was "the last chance" for industries such as hospitality and live entertainment and "time for us to regain our mental health." delaying lifting lockdown will cost around £3 billion in sales according to the industry trade body, uk hospitality. it's demanding additional financial support for affected businesses. the delay is described as a "hammer blow" by live music and theatre. the music venues trust wants financial help including extending repayment options for loans, cancelling business rates and extending support schemes such as furlough. mark harper is the chair of the covid recovery group of conservative mps. he explained his concern over the delay. these decisions have a really big effect on real people across the country. i did not hear anything yesterday from the prime minister in terms of the data,

there was nothing new that we had there was nothing new that we heard that was not true when he said he was confident about moving forward onjune 21, so my worry is we are going to get tojuly i9 and we are not going to relax restrictions then as well, because he could not give a cast—iron guarantee about that. the health secretary last night in the house of commons when i asked him could not rule out restrictions coming back in the autumn. so i am worried that although ministers say now that we have vaccinated the most vulnerable, and we have offered a double vaccine to all of the most vulnerable people, even though ministers say we now need to learn to live with the virus. every time we get to the point where that is what we need to do, they seem to step back from that point. that is what i am worried about. scotland's first minister, nicola sturgeon, is expected to give an update on covid restrictions there later today. the central belt of scotland is still in level two restrictions — classed as "high" — while the rest of the mainland

is in level i, or "medium." all areas are due to move to level zero onjune 28. borisjohnson and the australian pm have agreed a trade deal between the two countries. the agreement is the first trade deal to be built from scratch since the uk left the eu. borisjohnson and his australian counterpart, scott morrison, met in downing street this morning to agree a deal that they claim will make it cheaper to sell british cars, scotch whisky and confectionery to australia. there has been concern from uk farmers over the deal. the prime minister said the deal contains "the strongest possible provision for animal welfare" and that he believes the deal to be a good one. here we have had to negotiate very hard, and i want everybody to understand that this is a sensitive sector for both sides, and we have got to deal with this that runs over 15 years and contains the strongest possible provisions for animal welfare, but i think it is a good deal. it's one that i think

will benefit british farmers and british consumers, as well. it will also, by the way, mean that it will make it easier for british people, for young people to go and work in australia, without i think of having the traditional compulsion of having to go and work on a farm for 80 days, which used to be the rule. i think at one point they wanted to extend it to 90 days, but that turned out to be the wrong approach to negotiations. anyway, we have got rid of that. young people, any people can go and work much more easily in australia, both ways. there will be free exchange of british, and indeed australian campaign managers will be able to come up managers will be able to come more easily to work in this country. more importantly perhaps than all of that, this is the first freestanding, free trade deal the uk has done since brexit.

it's also therefore a prelude to further deals and is the way in to the comprehensive and transpacific partnership, the cptpp. liz truss, our wonderful trade secretary, has been working on that for a very long time. i want to conclude by thanking liz and her teams and all of your teams for everything that you have done. i think congratulate the negotiators on both sides on what i think is a good deal for britain and australia. thank you very much, scott. great to see you and over to you. thank you, boris, very much for the invitation here today. can i congratulate you on the g7 plus, d11, and foryour leadership at that summit, which really brought together the leaders of the world's biggest economies and liberal democracies. it's pretty cool that you were able to establish right

across the leadership group and for us to get around the fundamental principles of what we believe in these liberal liberal democracies, i want to commend you for that and we are very pleased to be part of those very important set of discussions we had in carbis bay. in addition to that, i simply note the framework for all the trade agreement we have been able to agree here is within the foundation, on the foundation, of the broader partnership that australia and the united kingdom enjoy. this is a foundational partnership for australia, as it is for the uk, and everything else we do stems from that relationship — our co—operation on defence, on strategic issues, our cooperation on science and research, in dealing with technology challenges, to combat climate change, and indeed, in the economic relationship. our economies are stronger by these agreements. let's cross back to westminster where the former director general of the bbc, john birt, has in the last few minutes started giving his evidence to a group of mps about events leading up to panorama's landmark interview with the late

diana, princess of wales, and the broadcaster's handling of investigations into how reporter martin bashir obtained it. the security services and gchq alleged a concerted campaign of surveillance and intersection, marshalled by prince charles's private secretary. he alleged that a friend of princess diana's had driven him around and shown him in at thejunction box driven him around and shown him in at the junction box will stop if you watch the panorama, you will find that friend said she never met martin bashir. this is absolutely critical. unless you can understand this point, you will not understand what happened. he said when he met earl spencer, earl spencer gave him

copies of the bank statements of his head of security. that was the prime basis of the document. that information from earl spencer was supplemented by information he said he then got from princess diana or about the two payments on the documents, one from news international, the other he made up a name but said that this was a front for the security services, and that waller was in their pay. this was deeply carless because of the impact that it had on many of the individuals concerned. he was utterly oblivious of the harm that he was causing. that was the backdrop that he had presented and the essence of the story, from my point of view. by the way, i have

only understood the story i have recounted over recent weeks and months. the essence of the story is that he filled the bbc executives concerned. you havejust given lord hall a very hard time. —— filled. you have to remember that five extremely seasoned bbc executives, none of them are faceless bureaucrats, steve hewlett, tim souter, tim garton, and sluman and tony hall himself. the sad fact is that they believed his story. unless you understand that, you cannot understand particularly what happened. when it was presented at the bod management and the board of governors, the so—called document was presented as something essentially authored by earl spencer himself. that will help you understand that the answer right now

before it was right to go back to earl spencer, because they thought he was a prime offer, which was complete nonsense. unless you understand all of that, you can understand all of that, you can understand how events played out. thank you. what a guy that you had in your team. thank you. what a guy that you had in yourteam. i'm thank you. what a guy that you had in your team. i'm glad you mentioned that the board of governors, because there was a lot of tension at the time between yourself and duke hussey, was there not, as chairman of the board? those relations were quite strange. obviously, he had close relationships with senior members of the royal family. close relationships with senior members of the royalfamily. the allegation was that the board was kept out of the loop about the planning of the interview and the aftermath of it. ijust wonder how did the relationship between the board of governors and the royal family influence how us director—general dealt with allegations at the time? we are interested in getting to the truth of decision making and how decisions were made, and are scrutinising

that. this seems to me to be a rather interesting part of the plot. it had no impact whatsoever. tony hall reported up his best understanding, we now know completely flawed understanding of what exactly had happened. we all believe that was an honest account, and it was one shared by the board management, board of governors. by the way, it was one that i believed fought the best part of 25 years. it came as a great shock to me when i read tim souter�*s account well after lord dyson's inquiry started, in which i learned for the first time that martin bashir had lied. it simply is not the case that anybody set out to deceive, other than martin bashir himself. as you say, quite a guy. unless you understand that this was a serial liar on an

industrial scale, you simply cannot understand the story. moreover, in fairness to some of the people involved, in 100 years of bbc journalism, can we think of anybody else who behaved in that kind of way? so, yes, they all believed him, hardened and experienced though they were, and we know they were wrong to believe him. but we can also see why some of the reasons why. you have only got to look at the interview itself and other work that martin bashir has done, he is a very skilled and confident trickster. he usesin skilled and confident trickster. he uses in motion, he is very persuasive. he cried in his interview with tony hall, and fessed up interview with tony hall, and fessed up to the fact that he had shown the documents to earl spencer. he did not face up to the fact that he had created those documents from his own information and continue to argue,

as i think it still does, but earl spencer, as well as princess diana, whitley prime supplies the information. this is your chance to give your version of events and the world is watching and you are giving a very compelling argument that you were all na vely deceived by a clever man. it reminds me of the people who appear on the radio to talk about a fraudster that phoned them up and tricked them into giving their bank details. previously, when the then appeals case came up, were you not aware of the venables tobacco two years previously when this same confidence trickster had seemingly use the same modus operandi? l use the same modus operandi? i simply don't know. i can't overstate

enough the difficulty trying to remember things. you are a young man and in 25 years you will struggle to remember the details of lots of things in your life. i have no memories whatsoever of the things we are talking about. everything we are talking about is coming from reading the documents. from the documents, the documents. from the documents, the venables case... my best understanding is wasn'tjust martin bashir, there was a panel and a producer involved. my best understanding, possibly not true, is that document was compiled on the back of somebody reading into a tape recorder a document that existed that they had seen and they had then created. it was a facsimile of a real document. if you look at the evidence that is now available, the

producer, and i presume martin bashir himself, were scolded for not making clear on air that it —— that the viewers were not seeing an original document, that they were watching something that had been created. my understanding was that it was a facsimile of a document that really existed. i it was a facsimile of a document that really existed.— it was a facsimile of a document that really existed. i 'ust want to return to that really existed. i 'ust want to eumt to the h that really existed. i just want to return to the question _ that really existed. i just want to return to the question i - that really existed. i just want to return to the question i asked i that really existed. i just want to l return to the question i asked lord hall at the very start. you were the director general at the time, the fact that a veryjunior reporter landed the scoop of the century. i know your memory is vague, presumably you remember thinking that it was an incredible feat that he had achieved. did it ring any alarm bells at all? ida. he had achieved. did it ring any alarm bells at all? no, absolutely none. alarm bells at all? no, absolutely none- you — alarm bells at all? no, absolutely none- you can — alarm bells at all? no, absolutely none. you can overstate - alarm bells at all? no, absolutely none. you can overstate the i alarm bells at all? no, absolutely i none. you can overstate the ginger. he is in his early 30s and had

worked on the bbc for a number of years, he has risen up the ranks to panorama. what i did understand and is embedded in my memory is that he didn't, i mean i think he probably didn't, i mean i think he probably did set out to get an interview with princess diana, what he set out was to make panorama on princess diana and the royal family. to make panorama on princess diana and the royalfamily. not an unreasonable thing to do because in the previous couple of years to private phone calls, one from princess diana, one from prince charles, had been intercepted and published. it was fanciful to assume that there were difficulties around the surveillance and bugging of members of the royal family. my my understanding is that is the journey he set out on. giving now how we know how he operates, the

skill of the yarn that he is punter earl spencer, that we can be suspicious that that was it subjective all along.- suspicious that that was it subjective all along. you didn't think, subjective all along. you didn't think. why _ subjective all along. you didn't think, why hasn't _ subjective all along. you didn't think, why hasn't nicholas i subjective all along. you didn't i think, why hasn't nicholas witchell got this? think, why hasn't nicholas witchell tot this? ., ., , , ., ., got this? no, absolutely not. you wouldn't steer— got this? no, absolutely not. you wouldn't steer a _ got this? no, absolutely not. you wouldn't steer a gift _ got this? no, absolutely not. you wouldn't steer a gift horse - got this? no, absolutely not. you wouldn't steer a gift horse in i got this? no, absolutely not. you wouldn't steer a gift horse in the | wouldn't steer a gift horse in the mouth. you are being told, he said something very interesting there. you said you wouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth. i am interested in your personal feelings about this now given the recollection that you have learnt in recent months about this. idat recent months about this. not recollection _ recent months about this. not recollection new _ recent months about this. time recollection new knowledge. recent months about this. not i recollection new knowledge. with our new recollection new knowledge. with your new knowledge, you are the boss, you were the director—general when this went on, an interview with one of the most famous people on the

planet was attained under first pretense. reputations were trashed and in the words of the duke of cambridge, this made lyrics and false claims about the royal family which played on herfears and fuelled her paranoia. so, fears... let me finish. her fears and paranoia, which is not a great stretch to say that sparked a chain of events that would lead to the underpass in paris. reflecting now with the passing of time and your learnt knowledge there are many things you have done since, will strategy a jar —— an adviser to tony blair for five years, strategy a jar —— an adviser to tony blairforfive years, is strategy a jar —— an adviser to tony blair for five years, is this your iraq war, mr burt? == blair for five years, is this your iraq war, mr burt?—

blair for five years, is this your iraq war, mr burt? -- birt? it is an absolute horror _ iraq war, mr burt? -- birt? it is an absolute horror story _ iraq war, mr burt? -- birt? it is an absolute horror story and - iraq war, mr burt? -- birt? it is an absolute horror story and it - iraq war, mr burt? -- birt? it is an absolute horror story and it is i iraq war, mr burt? -- birt? it is an absolute horror story and it is a i absolute horror story and it is a complete embarrassment that it did happen. my heart goes out to the sons of princess diana, but none of us can truly speculate and understand what the consequences where. what we can understand is that this was a plane crash. it shouldn't have happened. stand that this was a plane crash. it shouldn't have happened. and at that toint i will shouldn't have happened. and at that point i will head _ shouldn't have happened. and at that point i will head back _ shouldn't have happened. and at that point i will head back to _ shouldn't have happened. and at that point i will head back to the _ shouldn't have happened. and at that point i will head back to the chair. i point i will head back to the chair. good morning, lord birt. you have answered — good morning, lord birt. you have answered in — good morning, lord birt. you have answered in some part what i was about— answered in some part what i was about to _ answered in some part what i was about to ask you about the board of governors _ about to ask you about the board of governors meeting on the 15th of april 1996 about lord hall's update to that _ april 1996 about lord hall's update to that meeting. i wanted to know what _ to that meeting. i wanted to know what you — to that meeting. i wanted to know what you made a it. you have expressed _ what you made a it. you have expressed what you think about that,

but can— expressed what you think about that, but can you _ expressed what you think about that, but can you actually remember the board _ but can you actually remember the board meeting, know what you thought at the _ board meeting, know what you thought at the time _ board meeting, know what you thought at the time. ~ , , board meeting, know what you thought at the time. ~ ,,., , ., board meeting, know what you thought at the time. ~ , , ., ., �* at the time. absolutely not. i don't remember — at the time. absolutely not. i don't remember it- _ at the time. absolutely not. i don't remember it. the _ at the time. absolutely not. i don't remember it. the committee i at the time. absolutely not. i don't remember it. the committee may| at the time. absolutely not. i don't i remember it. the committee may find that surprising, but i haven't met anybody who does remember it's. there may be people who do, lord dyson doesn't appear to. i think however hard it is to understand, it is because of the nature of the report that lord hall made, which we exhaustively discussed so far about what the origin of those documents was... please may i finish? a recognition that those documents should not have been created and the reprimanding of the report are concerned and a letter from princess diana. all of these things are reported to the board. it is embarrassing to say it now, but it didn't have the consequence of the

time because of that very limited and wrong understanding of events, it didn't have the impact that in hindsight you might think it would have done. by the way their were some very weighty people around that board table, as they rod —— as there were around the board of management table and there is no record of anybody seriously challenging that because it was a convincing, completely wrong, but a convincing yarn at the time. the completely wrong, but a convincing yarn at the time.— yarn at the time. two things there. one thint yarn at the time. two things there. one thing i — yarn at the time. two things there. one thing i accept _ yarn at the time. two things there. one thing i accept 25 _ yarn at the time. two things there. one thing i accept 25 years - yarn at the time. two things there. one thing i accept 25 years ago, i l one thing i accept 25 years ago, i remember— one thing i accept 25 years ago, i remember some did that year, not everything — remember some did that year, not everything. however, the diana interview. — everything. however, the diana interview, the princess of wilson interview. — interview, the princess of wilson interview, was such a huge thing, probably— interview, was such a huge thing, probably one of the most memorable things— probably one of the most memorable things i_ probably one of the most memorable things i remember watching on television in my life, so it wasn't that it _ television in my life, so it wasn't that it was — television in my life, so it wasn't

that it was an insignificant thing that it was an insignificant thing that you — that it was an insignificant thing that you were talking about, that is why i_ that you were talking about, that is why i am _ that you were talking about, that is why i am very surprised that you have _ why i am very surprised that you have no— why i am very surprised that you have no recollection. | why i am very surprised that you have no recollection.— why i am very surprised that you have no recollection. i didn't say i had no recollection _ have no recollection. i didn't say i had no recollection of _ have no recollection. i didn't say i had no recollection of events i had no recollection of events surrounding this interview, because this was an extremely important eventin this was an extremely important event in my life and that of everybody else concerned. i have a reasonable recollection of those things where i myself was in the lead, for instance in discussion of the interview itself, i lead the discussion about whether it was legitimate to do it and if we didn't do it what was reasonable to ask princess diana and what we shouldn't ask. i don't have a detailed understanding of that meeting but i can remember the occasion and i can remember some of the things said and i can clearly remember what i thought at the time. if i had to make a decision, princess diana only asked for one condition that she and

only she should inform the queen when the interview was done. i had to think about that. i can clearly remember because my main problem, as has already been alluded to, i had had an excellent relationship with the chairman of the bbc over the best part of ten years, but it deteriorated over the previous year, and i don't particularly want to go into what had happened to him as the years went on, but it became more and more difficult and he became more and more unreasonable. he had very strong views about the royal family and things i would not repeat about his views about princess diana. the hardest thing for me, which i clearly remember, was having to decide what to do about that. in the end i decided he would be told seven days before transmission but

not before the interview because i judged that if you were told he would frustrated and that would have been wrong for the bbc. that's a very difficult decision and i said to my wife at the time i expected that i would lose myjob on the back of it, but i thought it was the right decision. i can remember clearly the events that followed that because he made a great fuss at the board and i had further meetings with members of the board and in the end they supported me. all those things i remember, but self—evidently this investigation was conducted notjust by lord hall but all the other people we have mentioned. that was reported up to me. i have very limited memory of that. ., ., ., ., that. you had no reason to question lord hall's — that. you had no reason to question lord hall's evidence _ that. you had no reason to question lord hall's evidence to _ that. you had no reason to question lord hall's evidence to the - that. you had no reason to question lord hall's evidence to the board i that. you had no reason to question lord hall's evidence to the board of| lord hall's evidence to the board of directors? — lord hall's evidence to the board of directors? ~ , , ., ., ., directors? absolutely not. lord hall has talked about _ directors? absolutely not. lord hall has talked about trust. _ directors? absolutely not. lord hall has talked about trust. i _ directors? absolutely not. lord hall has talked about trust. i knew i directors? absolutely not. lord hall has talked about trust. i knew all i has talked about trust. i knew all five people in that line. they are

all people of real integrity and ability and experience, and if somebody tells me that those five people are standing behind that, believe me, i will believe it, and i did. if believe me, iwill believe it, and i did. ., ., ., �* �* �*, did. if we move on to the bbc's internal investigations - internal investigations into the allegations around martin basheer, without— allegations around martin basheer, without being approached by the bbc, how could _ without being approached by the bbc, how could earl spencer have presented himself for questioning in that process?— that process? well, i think earl stencer that process? well, i think earl spencer has — that process? well, i think earl spencer has been _ that process? well, i think earl spencer has been asked - that process? well, i think earl spencer has been asked why i that process? well, i think earl| spencer has been asked why he that process? well, i think earl i spencer has been asked why he didn't come forward and i respect his answer, which was he was very concerned about the welfare of his sister and after the interview went out he didn't want to undermine her by revealing all of his doubts about the process that he had been involved in. when he did talk to people, as lord hall has already mentioned, he actually raised other

issues, not the documents. my best understanding is that earl spencer himself didn't understand the documents were fake. if a site discussed at length with lord dyson, if we had come to earl spencer we would have discovered, and i think there were good reasons why it didn't happen, but if we had it done we would have understood the complete incompatibility between martin basheer�*s narrative and earl spencer's. what earl spencer says is martin bashir should be these documents at the beginning of the process in late august, early september. what martin basheer told his colleagues at the bbc is that these documents were created on the basis of information in october not long before the interview was

conducted. that disparity in the evidence that finally, when earl spencer did come forward, started to unravel martin basheer�*s story. it wasn't even then unravelled because there were some difficulties in reconciling the two accounts. you would accept _ reconciling the two accounts. you would accept i — reconciling the two accounts. you would accept i think that if earl spencer— would accept i think that if earl spencer had been interviewed at that point by— spencer had been interviewed at that point by the bbc's internal investigations this would have come to light _ investigations this would have come to light long before it has done? without — to light long before it has done? without a — to light long before it has done? without a doubt. i discussed this with lord dyson. 0f without a doubt. i discussed this with lord dyson. of course, if earl spencer had come forward with the account that he finally came forward with last november in the interview he gave richard kay, it would have blown martin basheer�*s account right apart immediately. the history would

have been different. i'm very, very sorry indeed that it took 25 years for this terrible story to emerge. finally, can ijust ask for this terrible story to emerge. finally, can i just ask you finally, can ijust ask you obviously would have been aware of martin _ obviously would have been aware of martin basheer at the time, i'm sure you would _ martin basheer at the time, i'm sure you would have met him. no, absolutely — you would have met him. no, absolutely not. _ you would have met him. no, absolutely not. i— you would have met him. no, absolutely not. i didn't - you would have met him. no, absolutely not. i didn't meetl you would have met him. no, | absolutely not. i didn't meet at you would have met him. no, i absolutely not. i didn't meet at the time and i have _ absolutely not. i didn't meet at the time and i have never— absolutely not. i didn't meet at the time and i have never met - absolutely not. i didn't meet at the time and i have never met him i absolutely not. i didn't meet at the l time and i have never met him since and i doubt i was even aware of him. you weren't aware of him? i and i doubt i was even aware of him. you weren't aware of him?— you weren't aware of him? i doubt it. the you weren't aware of him? i doubt it- the bbc — you weren't aware of him? i doubt it- the bbc is _ you weren't aware of him? i doubt it. the bbc is a _ you weren't aware of him? i doubt it. the bbc is a very _ you weren't aware of him? i doubt it. the bbc is a very big _ it. the bbc is a very big organisation.— it. the bbc is a very big organisation. it. the bbc is a very big ortanisation. . . organisation. he did the biggest interview... _ organisation. he did the biggest interview... sorry, _ organisation. he did the biggest interview... sorry, i— organisation. he did the biggest interview... sorry, ithought- organisation. he did the biggest| interview... sorry, ithought you were asking _ interview... sorry, ithought you were asking was _ interview... sorry, ithought you were asking was i _ interview... sorry, ithought you were asking was i aware - interview... sorry, ithought you were asking was i aware of- interview... sorry, ithought you were asking was i aware of him. were asking was i aware of him before that interview. in were asking was i aware of him before that interview.— were asking was i aware of him before that interview. in the time that ou before that interview. in the time that you were _ before that interview. in the time that you were director _ before that interview. in the time that you were director general, l that you were director general, which _ that you were director general, which was — that you were director general, which was after this interview as well, _ which was after this interview as well. you — which was after this interview as well, you will have been aware of

martin— well, you will have been aware of martin bashir. was there any thing, a gut _ martin bashir. was there any thing, a gut feeling or anything that ran alarm _ a gut feeling or anything that ran alarm bells about this man. there were no alarm bells at all because _ about this man. there were no alarm bells at all because of _ about this man. there were no alarm bells at all because of all _ about this man. there were no alarm bells at all because of all the - bells at all because of all the reasons i talked about earlier. a quiet, gentle, emotionally sympathetic manner, like you saw in the interview itself. no alarm bells. alarm bells rang subsequently when he got into trouble in america and the appalling things he said about sarah peeling —— serin —— sarah peeling. i felt very uneasy about what he did with michaeljackson. that was the first time that my doubts started to kick in. you can be definitive about

what he did with michaeljackson, but i never liked the smell of that and the failure to reach proper conclusions in that. i did subsequently think, goodness me, i'm not sure about this person. thank ou ve not sure about this person. thank you very much- — not sure about this person. thank you very much. lord _ not sure about this person. thank you very much. lord birt, - not sure about this person. thank you very much. lord birt, you i not sure about this person. thank. you very much. lord birt, you have read the lord _ you very much. lord birt, you have read the lord dyson _ you very much. lord birt, you have read the lord dyson report - you very much. lord birt, you have read the lord dyson report and i you very much. lord birt, you havej read the lord dyson report and you have listened to lord hall's evidence this morning. is there anything looking back on that period that you feel let down by? if you have read _ that you feel let down by? if you have read your _ that you feel let down by? if you have read your dyson's - that you feel let down by? if you have read your dyson's report, l that you feel let down by? if you i have read your dyson's report, you will see, because he and i met at the very end of his deliberations, he and i had a very good

conversation about all of this and he fairly reports it in his report, and he also feels that he and i disagreed. i think hejudges my former colleagues too harshly, given the circumstances that i shared with the circumstances that i shared with the committee earlier. if you say do you have regrets then, i mean, i don't know how many of these people you have met, but steve hewlett had a take no prisoners approach, he was not a man and you got on the wrong side of. tim garden is one of this sharpest minds of anybody i've ever met. and sluman was a significant figure in radio. none of them spotted, maybe another person might

have spotted the discrepancies in his testimony and there is a mystery about why the report never informed subsequent deliberations. yes it would have been terrific if one of them had spotted floors, but i have to say as the director general at the time, this was my team and these are people that i respected and our people of real integrity. so, of course we can all completely agree that what happened is deeply, deeply regrettable, but it is better to understand how it happened and then work out what would you do to make sure that it never happens again. but again recognising this is probably a one in a hundred—year occurrence of having a rogue reporter who is willing to be deceitful on this scale. it is not the first time _

deceitful on this scale. it is not the first time the _ deceitful on this scale. it is not the first time the bbc - deceitful on this scale. it is not the first time the bbc has i deceitful on this scale. it is notj the first time the bbc has been deceived on a massive scale. perhaps ou could deceived on a massive scale. perhaps you could remind _ deceived on a massive scale. perhaps you could remind me _ deceived on a massive scale. perhaps you could remind me of— deceived on a massive scale. perhaps you could remind me of some? i deceived on a massive scale. perhaps you could remind me of some? well, | you could remind me of some? well, jimmy savile- — you could remind me of some? well, jimmy savile- i— you could remind me of some? well, jimmy savile. i know _ you could remind me of some? well, jimmy savile. i know there _ you could remind me of some? well, jimmy savile. i know there is - jimmy savile. i know there is massive uneasy at the bbc but i'm sure you have not forgotten that. you have said that this was a very devious individual that misled everybody and the bbc and all its officials and all it's really top reporters were all just officials and all it's really top reporters were alljust bamboozled by this individual over a long period of time, but mr whistler came forward after the broadcast. what happened then, was that brought your attention? , . ., ., attention? only in the context of lord hall's _ attention? only in the context of lord hall's report _ attention? only in the context of lord hall's report and _ attention? only in the context of lord hall's report and you - attention? only in the context of lord hall's report and you have l lord hall's report and you have already talked to lord hall about that. he reports, and the

documentation that we can all study is completely clear about what happens when he came forward. he was respected as a whistle—blower by tim gordon. tim gordon acted with real dispatch and vigour and immediately confronted martin bashir about it. he got the story. tim gordon got the letterfrom princess diana and he was reassured by that letter and he went back to say don't worry. it was perfectly legitimate for him to come forward and he was given reassurance i have seen from the documentation, i have seen from the documentation, i didn't know this at the time, by tim gordon that they had checked that the documents will not shown to princess diana and he should be reassured. hate

princess diana and he should be reassured-— princess diana and he should be reassured. ~ . ., ., , ., reassured. we have a fairly 'unior re torter reassured. we have a fairly 'unior reporter at — reassured. we have a fairly 'unior reporter at panorama i reassured. we have a fairly 'unior reporter at panorama who i reassured. we have a fairlyjunior reporter at panorama who lord i reassured. we have a fairlyjunior l reporter at panorama who lord hall has just told us fakes these documents and when interviewed about it disclosed that he was investigating all sorts of things around the royal family and the princess of where is, so it goes beyond just those fake documents and you have said that yourself, that he gave a litany... you have said that yourself, that he gave a litany- - -_ gave a litany... that was the 'ourne gave a litany... that was the journey he — gave a litany... that was the journey he was _ gave a litany... that was the journey he was on. - gave a litany... that was the journey he was on. his i gave a litany... that was the | journey he was on. his editor gave a litany... that was the - journey he was on. his editor had followed thatjourney journey he was on. his editor had followed that journey with journey he was on. his editor had followed thatjourney with him. this didn't start off, it may have done in martin basheer�*s mine, but on everybody else? might it started off as a panorama about surveillance on the royal family. as a panorama about surveillance on the royalfamily.— the royalfamily. lord dyson has said there was _ the royalfamily. lord dyson has said there was an _ the royalfamily. lord dyson has said there was an irregularity - the royalfamily. lord dyson has said there was an irregularity in l said there was an irregularity in the fact that he didn't have his hand held by a producer, which is quite strange for somebody who is a junior as that. he discloses to the head of news, lord hall, that he is

not only produced fake documents, but is investigating lots of things around the world family. given the sensitivity of that information, shouldn't somebody help, knocked on your door? m0. shouldn't somebody help, knocked on our door? ., ., ~' shouldn't somebody help, knocked on our door? ., ., ~ , ., ., your door? no, no. i think you fail to appreciate _ your door? no, no. i think you fail to appreciate the _ your door? no, no. i think you fail to appreciate the sequence - your door? no, no. i think you fail to appreciate the sequence here. | your door? no, no. i think you fail. to appreciate the sequence here. he is under the stewardship of his editor, steve hewlett, and steve hewlett as far as i understand it does understand martin basheer over many months was doing a programme about the surveillance of the royal family. if that had turned into a panorama, somebody would have knocked at my door because it was my practice, as everybody will be aware, it was my practice when there was a really difficult panorama which may raise either severe legal or public policy issues, from the moment i arrived at

the bbc, i'm sorry... have my way. let me take you back. i the bbc, i'm sorry... have my way. let me take you back.— the bbc, i'm sorry... have my way. let me take you back. i remember the cuestion. let me take you back. i remember the question- if— let me take you back. i remember the question. if that _ let me take you back. i remember the question. if that had _ let me take you back. i remember the question. if that had turned _ let me take you back. i remember the question. if that had turned into - let me take you back. i remember the question. if that had turned into a - question. if that had turned into a panorama about surveillance of the royal family a red flag would have gone up and it would have come to me and as with other difficult panoramas, i viewed and as with other difficult panoramas, iviewed it and as with other difficult panoramas, i viewed it personally, and as with other difficult panoramas, iviewed it personally, i had seen the programme and very often i would be accompanied in that process by an leading qc.— process by an leading qc. sorry, i missed the _ process by an leading qc. sorry, i missed the start _ process by an leading qc. sorry, i missed the start of _ process by an leading qc. sorry, i missed the start of that _ process by an leading qc. sorry, i | missed the start of that sentence. if the programme that he had set out to make about surveillance of the royal family, to make about surveillance of the royalfamily, if to make about surveillance of the royal family, if that had turned into a real programme, then there would have been a red flag and as was my practice that programme, any

programme that raised significant legal or public policy issues, and there are only a couple of panorama programmes a year that would have done that, it would have come to me and i would have viewed it and i would have been accompanied by a leading gc. the reason why i was invited into the bbc was because a lot of people had gone wrong and particularly at panorama had gone wrong, where the bbc had lost a major legal action in court. to be honest, the bbc's processes for managing that were terrible. ihell. managing that were terrible. well, that is lord — managing that were terrible. well, that is lord birt _ managing that were terrible. well, that is lord birt giving _ managing that were terrible. well, that is lord birt giving evidence to the culture, media select committee. he was talking about the fact that

everybody believed what martin basheer was telling them about how the interview with princess diana was secured. he said that basically management were told by martin basheer that lord spencer had given martin basheer documents, so they believe that. he says though it emerged, undertook in 25 years to understand the truth, he said that kim is a great shock to him when he learned that martin basheer had lied and at that point he described him as a serial liar on an industrial scale. he said that martin basheer is a very strong confidence trickster, he is very persuasive. we will leave coverage of that committee. tim davie is going to be giving evidence to that committee a little bit later. now it's time for a look at the weather with carol kirkwood.

we were going to have a dry and sunny day ahead. the exception to thatis sunny day ahead. the exception to that is across northern ireland in western scotland where the cloud will continue to build ahead of a band of rain coming in. temperatures 22 in aberdeen to heights of about 25 or 26 as you push down towards the south—east. through the course of this evening and overnight, or weather france sinks further south taking the rain with it. it will eventually move into northern england. there will be some hill fog, coastal missed and behind the clear skies with showers. ahead of it, clearskies clear skies with showers. ahead of it, clear skies as well. through the course of to mark the weather front slowly sinks southward, the rain and it weakening all the time. behind sunshine and showers. humidity is going to build and later we will see some torrential thunderstorms.

this is bbc news — the headlines: downing street says the prime minister is determined lockdown restrictions in england will end onjuly i9, as business groups demand more support forfirms hit by the delay in easing. the uk and australia agree the broad terms of a free trade agreement. it's the first deal of its kind negotiated from scratch after brexit. this is the first freestanding free trade deal that the uk has done since at brexit, and is also therefore a valued two further deals. former bbc bosses, tony hall and john birt, and the current director—general, tim davie, are giving evidence to mps today about events leading up to panorama's interview with the late diana, princess of wales — and the broadcaster's handling of investigations into how martin bashir obtained it.

we decided that we would give him a second chance because he was so contrite, and because the guidelines on straight dealing, he understood the mistake he'd made. a bbc investigation has found that the uk's police forces received more than 800 allegations of domestic abuse against their officers and staff in the past five years — just 43 cases were prosecuted. and, a long—awaited report into the unsolved murder of a private investigator 3a years ago will finally be published today. the us model, chrissy teigen, has broken a month—long social media silence to apologise for bullying several people on twitter. and coming up this hour: we'll be looking into how biologists have uncovered the genetic secrets of the world's smallest diving mammals, water shrews.

ministers say they are confident the government can stick to its new plan of removing covid restrictions in england by mid—july, after announcing a one—month delay. borisjohnson says he's "determined" that the july 19 will be the "terminus date" for the remaining restrictions on social contact to finally be lifted. scientists had warned of a "significant resurgance" in the virus and say the delay means the peak in hospital admissions will be reduced by between a third—and—a—half. but conservative mps are concerned — steve baker from the covid recovery group said it was "the last chance" for industries such as hospitality and live entertainment and "time for us to regain our mental health." delaying lifting lockdown will cost around £3 billion in sales according

to the industry trade body, uk hospitality. it's demanding additional financial support for affected businesses. the delay is described as a "hammer blow" by live music and theatre. the music venues trust wants financial help including extending repayment options for loans, cancelling business rates and extending support schemes, such as furlough. mark harper is the chair of the covid recovery group of conservative mps — he explained his concern over the delay. these decisions have a really big effect on real people across the country. i did not hear anything yesterday from the prime minister in terms of the data, there was nothing new that we heard that was not true when he said he was confident about moving forward onjune 21, so my worry is we are going to get tojuly i9 and we are not going to relax restrictions then as well, because he could not give a cast—iron guarantee about that. the health secretary last night in the house of commons when i asked him could not rule out restrictions coming back in the autumn. so i am worried that although ministers say

now that we have vaccinated the most vulnerable, and we have offered a double vaccine to all of the most vulnerable people, even though ministers say we now need to learn to live with the virus. every time we get to the point where that is what we need to do, they seem to step back from that point. that is what i am worried about. nicola sturgeon is expected to give an update on covid restrictions in scotland this afternoon. the central belt in. of scotland is still classed as high. all air are due to move to level zero onjune 28. all air are due to move to level zero onjune 28. this week on bbc news, we're

reporting from across the uk to find let's out what you think about life during and after the pandemic and the impact it's had on your businesses and communities. we'll be hearing from residents of all these locations throughout the week. yesterday, we visited blackpool�*s promenade, and tomorrow we'll be in lincoln. the city of london has survived fire and plague in its centuries—long history, but the coronavirus pandemic has emptied its streets of office workers, shoppers and tourists, leading some to question whether the square mile will ever return to the way it was before covid. our business presenter, ben thompson, is spending the day there. welcome to the beating heart of the financial world, certainly the city thatis financial world, certainly the city that is surrounded by banks, insurance brokers and accountancy firms, and take a look atjust how quiet it is down here. road as you normally one of the busiest in the city, and after 18 months of restrictions, and now this latest extension by four weeks, means that

the extension to the advice to work from home remains in place. offices here are still very quiet. the tube, cabs, buses, and all businesses in this area are really suffering from a fall in the number of people around. earlier, ispoke a fall in the number of people around. earlier, i spoke to some businesses affected by that. quite hospitality businesses that rely on people being here for lunch meetings, coffees on the way to work, they are really struggling. one of them told me that they really hope they can get people back in the offices, meaning people back in their businesses pretty soon. as a sector, we have lost £90 billion during the last 15 months. this extension will cost us another £3 billion of lost revenue. there are 300,000 jobs at risk. this morning i saw michael gove on your programme saying no more support. ultimately, you have got to show more respect to our sector. we are the third biggest employer in the country, we account for 10% of the workforce of the entire country, so we need support.

so, they need more support, but so many other businesses in this square mile are affected, the key cutters, the hairdressers, the gyms, and all of the businesses that have popped up of the businesses that have popped up to cater to commuters. also for landlords it is a huge problem. lots of big business now are trying to debate how much office space they need for the work. even if you stay working at home for one or two days a week, it has a big impact on how much office space is needed. earlier, i spoke to one the firm who are responsible for some of the biggest office buildings here. they are trying to work outjust how many of them they will need in the future. our portfolio of offices in london isjust over 6 million square feet. at the moment, that is about a quarter full. but our customers crucially

are telling us they want to get back in, and intended to get back in to about two thirds of their occupancy from june 21. that has obviously been put back now. they are telling us that they want to get back in and use spaces to help drive their business forward. that gives you a sense of what office firms are thinking about. how about all of the smaller businesses? this is ruth, who runs a physiotherapy and pilates studio in the city. it has been so quiet. we are hearing there about the number of people coming to the square mile, it is down significantly. what does it is down significantly. what does it mean for you day—to—day? the it mean for you day-to-day? the numbers have — it mean for you day—to—day? ina: numbers have definitely it mean for you day—to—day? “i1;e: numbers have definitely been it mean for you day—to—day? ina: numbers have definitely been done. we have got about 50% of our normal number of clients in the studio at the moment, and itjust makes it very difficult in terms of planning, staffing, and the availability of the studio. the main problem is

really at the uncertainty of not knowing when that is going to pick up knowing when that is going to pick up again and try to plan ahead with the business, i do not really knowing how we can do that. a, lot the business, i do not really knowing how we can do that. a lot of the --eole knowing how we can do that. a lot of the peeple i — knowing how we can do that. a lot of the peeple i have _ knowing how we can do that. a lot of the people i have spoken _ knowing how we can do that. a lot of the people i have spoken to, - knowing how we can do that. a lot of the people i have spoken to, they . the people i have spoken to, they are saying on the face of it it is just four more weeks. but in summer like this, they worry that those four weeks will turn into the whole summer, workers saying they will not go back again in august, september. is that a worry for you?— is that a worry for you? summer for us is usually — is that a worry for you? summer for us is usually a _ is that a worry for you? summer for us is usually a quiet _ is that a worry for you? summer for us is usually a quiet time, - is that a worry for you? summer for us is usually a quiet time, we - is that a worry for you? summer for us is usually a quiet time, we plan i us is usually a quiet time, we plan for that, us is usually a quiet time, we plan forthat, but us is usually a quiet time, we plan for that, but obviously everything has been throwing up into the air in the last year. i think it will mean that people will not be coming back in the summer. i think people are still wanting a bit of a holiday, a break in the uk. i think most people are going to be planning on coming back a little later in the year. it just pushes back that return to normal a little bit further than just the four weeks. $5 normal a little bit further than just the four weeks.— normal a little bit further than just the four weeks. as a business, it does get — just the four weeks. as a business, it does get to _ just the four weeks. as a business, it does get to the _ just the four weeks. as a business, it does get to the point _ just the four weeks. as a business, it does get to the point where - just the four weeks. as a business, it does get to the point where you | it does get to the point where you

can where your outlets, where your studios will be? rather than city centres, you might be better putting them in a local high street, rather than a big city?— them in a local high street, rather than a big city? definitely. we will still maintain _ than a big city? definitely. we will still maintain a _ than a big city? definitely. we will still maintain a presence - than a big city? definitely. we will still maintain a presence in - than a big city? definitely. we will still maintain a presence in the - still maintain a presence in the city, it will still be a demand and need for physiotherapy and pilates we have here. we are planning to expand, but we have had to make it one of our studios. we had won over the river whichjust was not one of our studios. we had won over the river which just was not viable because it relied on commuters. we actually close that one and moved it to where we have got much more residents and people living there so we can keep it busy and not rely so much on people coming into offices. good luck, really nice to see you. that is if yo sort of sense of what business is having to contend with now, trying to work out what the changes are, how and where we work will mean for all those businesses that have popped up to cater for those workers. it is very easy to

think of that delay affecting just hospitality, but as we are hearing, so many other businesses are affected by that extension. they are going to work out now how they can pay their bills if there is not more government support coming down the line. officials figures just published show the uk's unemployment rate has fallen slightly to 4,7% in the three months to april. it stood at 4,8% a month earlier. the number of payrolled employees also increased for the sixth consecutive month — up by 197,000 in may to 28.5 million. but this was still 553,000 below the level seen before the pandemic. our economics correspondent andy verity said many people may not have been aware they didn't have a job to go back to at certain points throughout the pandemic. he explained the figures earlier. the unemployment rate has been a terrible indicator of what the term turmoil that has been going on in

the labour market over the past year. of course that has been a huge impact, but if you are asked, lots of people thought they might have jobs to go back to when restrictions were lifted, even if they had been let go completely about their employer, so that they would have answered yes to the question do you have a job to go back to, and therefore would not be classified as unemployed. it is better to look at the payroll employees fizzed up between february and november last year, that figure dropped by nearly 1 million, that was the really serious impact of the pandemic on the labour market. it has now bounced back up, still about 500,000 lower than the total employees we had before the pandemic began. nevertheless, an improvement. redundancies, they are needed at their pre—pandemic levels now. 153,000 redundancies, that is about the normal level you get when the economy is going ok. looking at

vacancies, which they dropped quite substantially in the lockdowns, they bounce right back up to 758,000. looking at the workers are not the payroll, it is still 28.5 million. putting that in context, we still have some 2.8 million people who are reliant on the furlough or self—employed income support scheme. that has gone down massively. lots people have come off for a bow and back into work. still, 2.8 million people are still a lot of people to find jobs for. there are also other factors, like unemployment. because of the lockdowns and pandemic going on for so long, there are a 778,000 people who have not worked for more than six months. arguably, that is a bad thing in itself, when people do not have any work to do, even if they are getting 80% of their pay, it is still not necessarily a good thing for so much of the workforce to be idle, not lease

psychologically and mental health wise for those people. bbc two, it is time to say goodbye. researchers at cambridge university say the early warning signs of self—harm can appear almost a decade before it starts. the team used artificial intelligence to analyse data from 11,000 children in the uk. they found those who were bullied, or had fewer friends or difficulty controlling their emotions were more likely to self—harm in the future. the researchers hope the findings show there's opportunity to improve children's mental health. at 2:110 this afternon, we'll be answering your questions on coronavirus restrictions in england. we'll be talking to our own health correspondent, so do send in your questions using the hash tag #bbc your questions, or by emailing us

at yourquestions@bbc.co.uk. the headlines on bbc news: downing street says the prime minister is determined lockdown restrictions in england will end on 19th ofjuly. as business groups demand more support for firms hit by the delay in easing. the uk and australia agree the broad terms of a free trade agreement. it's the first deal of its kind negotiated from scratch after brexit. former bbc bosses tony hall and john birt and the current director—general, tim davie, are giving evidence to mps this morning about events leading up to panorama's interview with the late diana, princess of wales, and the broadcaster's sport now, and a full round—up from the bbc sport centre. good afternoon. aaron ramsdale has been called up to england's euro 2020 squad to replace injured goalkeeper, dean henderson. the manchester united goalie has

withdrawn from the tournament with a hip injury. england have been training this morning, with jack grealish a notable absentee. they face scotland in their second group d match at wembley on friday. christian eriksen has made his first public comments since suffering a cardiac arrest whilst playing for denmark at the weekend. the midfielder sent this tweet from hospital, thanking fans for their messages of support. he says he's "fine, under the circumstances" and is looking forward to cheering on denmark in their upcoming games at euro 2020. eriksen was resuscitated on the pitch on saturday after collapsing during his side's opening game against finland. u efa uefa said it is investigating austria four word goal celebration during his side? when over macedonia on sunday. the striker who has said heritage, scored at this goal, and

then had to be restrained by his captain as he celebrated a late goal. several reports said he directed comments out to north macedonian players who have albanian roots. he has since apologised for what he calls his heated words and said he is not racist. away from the euros, from next season south africa s super rugby teams willjoin the pro“; to form the united rugby championship. the existing 12 sides from ireland, scotland, wales and italy will be joined by four south african teams. all teams will be eligible to qualify for european competitions ahead of the 2022/2023 season. tournament organisers say the competition will be "bigger, bolder and stronger" than before. andy murray steps back onto a grass court today in his first match for three months. he's won a record five titles, the last in 2016, at the queen's club, where he plays benoit paire later. he is also planning to return to grand slam action at wimbledon, provided he does not encounter any

further injury problems. been happy with the way i've been playing in practice, i've been hitting the ball well. but i need to hope my body holds up during this period. and that is a big if for me. i can't say with certainty that i'm going to be fine, because that hasn't been the case over the last sort of six, six to nine months, really, when i've been playing. that's all the sport for now. you can find more on all those stories on the bbc sport website. including live coverage from queens and build up ahead of the euro games. more in an hour. borisjohnson and the australian pm have agreed a trade deal between the two countries. the agreement is the first to be built from scratch since the uk left the eu. borisjohnson and his australian counterpart, scott morrison, met in downing street this morning to agree a deal that they claim will make it cheaper to sell british cars,

scotch whisky and confectionery to australia. there has been concern from uk farmers over the deal. the prime minister said the deal contains "the strongest possible provision for animal welfare" and that he believes it to be a good one. here we have had to negotiate very hard, and i want everybody to understand that this is a sensitive sector for both sides, and we have got to deal with this that runs over 15 years and contains the strongest possible provisions for animal welfare, but i think it is a good deal. it's one that i think will benefit british farmers and british consumers, as well. it will also, by the way, mean that it will make it easier for british people, for young people to go and work in australia, without i think of having the traditional compulsion of having to go and work on a farm for 80 days, which used to be the rule. i think at one point they wanted

to extend it to 90 days, but that turned out to be the wrong approach to negotiations. anyway, we have got rid of that. young people, any people can go and work much more easily in australia, both ways. there will be free exchange of british, and indeed australian campaign managers will be able to come more easily to work in this country. more importantly perhaps than all of that, this is the first freestanding, free trade deal the uk has done since brexit. it's also therefore a prelude to further deals and is the way in to the comprehensive and transpacific partnership, the cptpp. liz truss, our wonderful trade secretary, has been working on that for a very long time. i want to conclude by thanking liz and her teams and all of your teams for everything that you have done.

i think congratulate the negotiators on both sides on what i think is a good deal for britain and australia. thank you very much, scott. great to see you and over to you. thank you, boris, very much for the invitation here today. can i congratulate you on the 67 plus, d11, and foryour leadership at that summit, which really brought together the leaders of the world's biggest economies and liberal democracies. it's pretty cool that you were able to establish right across the leadership group and for us to get around the fundamental principles of what we believe in these of what we believe in as liberal democracies, i want to commend you for that and we are very pleased to be part of those very important set of discussions we had in carbis bay. in addition to that, i'd simply note the framework for the trade agreement we have been able to agree here is within the foundation, on the foundation, of the broader partnership that australia

and the united kingdom enjoy. this is a foundational partnership for australia, as it is for the uk, and everything else we do stems from that relationship — our co—operation on defence, on strategic issues, our cooperation on science and research, in dealing with technology challenges, to combat climate change, and indeed, in the economic relationship. our economies are stronger by these agreements. it's a "very long way from being transformative" in terms of gdp — that's according to our business correspondent, andrew walker. there are some official government figures that put the likely range at between 0.01% and 0.02% of gdp, so it's a very long way from being tra nsformative. in terms of the wider trade and british economy picture, i think perhaps the significance of it the government would argue is more in terms of being a first step towards, first of all, an agreement with countries in the pacific

region, the comprehensive pacific trade partnership, some of whom we already have trade agreements with, it must be said. and the big prize for people who support an independent british trade policy, of course, is a deal with the united states. that, of course, is not imminent. more about that radio in a moment. first, i want to bring you an initial detail about an import looking into the unsolved murder of a private investigator. that report by an independent panel has accused the metropolitan police of "a form of institutional corruption" for concealing or denying failings over the unsolved murder of private investigator daniel morgan. it isa it is a 1200 page report, so it is

going to be a lot of detail to go through. i am also getting a bit more detail. let me remind you of the background of it. it was written in's most investigated unsolved murder. in 1987, the private investigator was found dead in a pub car park with an axe in his head. despite five separate police inquiry spanning two decades, nobody has been convicted of his murder. we will bring you more detail as we get it. as soon as the details starts to come through, we will get some reaction to it. it has been a long time coming for the family. we will keep you right up to date.

going back to the trade deal between uk and australia, there have been other previous deals when the uk was part the eu. the farming sector in the uk has expressed concern about imports of meat. the farming sector in the uk has expressed concern about imports of meat. guy cowling is a beef farmer at horn bank farm in pannal in north yorkshire. what is your reaction to this deal now it has finally been agreed? ila now it has finally been agreed? iif? competition is great. we compete against ourselves through the country, and we think that is probably enough. i suppose our biggest issues are at the welfare of the meats that will be imported into the meats that will be imported into the country and whether it will be to the standards that we have. the government _ to the standards that we have. the government says british farmers will be protected by a cap on tariffs for imports for 15 years using quotas

and other safeguards— are you reassured by that? we and other safeguards- are you reassured by that?— and other safeguards- are you reassured by that? we to an extent. about 15 years _ reassured by that? we to an extent. about 15 years is _ reassured by that? we to an extent. about 15 years is not _ reassured by that? we to an extent. about 15 years is not as _ reassured by that? we to an extent. about 15 years is not as long - reassured by that? we to an extent. about 15 years is not as long as - reassured by that? we to an extent. about 15 years is not as long as you | about 15 years is not as long as you might think. itjust depends how much australian beef is going to be brought into the country. currently, the amount — brought into the country. currently, the amount of— brought into the country. currently, the amount of australian _ brought into the country. currently, the amount of australian beef - the amount of australian beef brought into the country accounts for 0.1 5% of all australian beef exports, so it is vanishingly small at the moment. what are your concerns?— at the moment. what are your concerns? _, . , ., ., concerns? the concerns are that it is a very tight _ concerns? the concerns are that it is a very tight marketplace - concerns? the concerns are that it is a very tight marketplace as - concerns? the concerns are that it is a very tight marketplace as it i is a very tight marketplace as it is, so any extra is not good news. again, the main concern is the welfare standards, i'm not having a go at australian farmers, but we adhere to a very high welfare standards in this country. we also

have to look at the environment. as british farmers, i feel unfairly cited for an awful lot of problems in the environment. we do not think we are, we think we work very well. but how can it be right to bring meat across from the other side of the world? bre meat across from the other side of the world? �* , ., meat across from the other side of the world? �* i. ., meat across from the other side of the world?— meat across from the other side of the world? �* i. ., ., ,., ., the world? are you worried about a direct impact _ the world? are you worried about a direct impact on — the world? are you worried about a direct impact on your _ the world? are you worried about a direct impact on your business? - the world? are you worried about a direct impact on your business? i i the world? are you worried about a i direct impact on your business? i am not massively _ direct impact on your business? i am not massively worried _ direct impact on your business? i —11 not massively worried about it, because i sell mainly to a farm shop and a butcher, and that is not significant, obviously, they will not be selling australian beef. the supermarkets are where i think they will target. i don't hear this morning on austrian format that they

are going to target high—end restaurants. —— australian farmer. i think most high—end restaurants, we must put faith in the british public, will really take note of where their meat comes from. it must be better if it comes locally rather than from the other side of the world. . ~' ,, than from the other side of the world. ., ~ i. ., ., than from the other side of the world. ., ~' i., ., ., , world. thank you for 'oining us. goina world. thank you for 'oining us. going back * world. thank you for 'oining us. going back to h world. thank you for 'oining us. going back to the _ world. thank you forjoining us. going back to the detail - world. thank you forjoining us. going back to the detail coming through of that report into the murder of daniel morgan, described as britain's most investigated unsolved murder. a report by an independent panel has accused the metropolitan police of "a form of institutional corruption" for concealing or denying failings over the unsolved murder of private investigator daniel morgan. panel chairman baroness nuala o'loan said. in 1987, the private investigator was found dead in a pub car park in lion pub in south london, with an axe in his head.

the metropolitan police of daniel moore going's family an apology for not addressing system systemic failings of those individual officers. the report says it is worth just going back to the fight that his family have had to try to get answers to his murder. —— daniel morgan. he was found dead with an axe in the back of his hat in a car park in south london in 1987. his brother had written to his mp, he was then a young student, he said that he was a man at the absolute end of his tether. he said, i have reached the end of my resources, emotionally, spiritually, physically. my younger brother was murdered five years ago, since that date like mother and i have spent

almost every waking moment and a horrible debilitating battle to expose the truth about why daniel met such a horrible death. the panel have now come up with their findings. from the detail we are getting initially, it sounds like it is hard hitting, accusing the metropolitan police of a form of institutional corruption. there have been five investigations into the murder, but nobody has ever been convicted of the murder of daniel morgan. he was a private investigator. those five separate police inquiries have spanned more than two decades. no one could convicted of that murder. we can answer into the baroness. let me introduce the panel members to you. to my left is sam pollock

and professor rod morgan and mr michael kalex. you have had time to look at the report so i am not going to focus on the forensic scrutiny into the numerous investigations and operations surrounding the murder of daniel morgan. they are detailed in our report. i want to take this opportunity to comment briefly on aspects relating to our remit, the family, corruption and why it has taken us so long to produce a report. i will also comment later on the last minute delay by the home secretary, which has been the subject of so much media coverage. the unsolved murder of daniel morgan on the 10th of march 1987 is a crime which has followed the metropolitan police and criminaljustice system ever since. the family of daniel morgan are at the heart of this tragedy. they have been central to our work over the past eight years. daniel morgan's carter left his

wife, iris, without a husband and their two young children, sarah and dan, without a father. it left the ref his mother, isabelle, and his siblings, alistair and jane morgan. they have told us what a devastating impact this is all had and continues to have upon them. daniel's mother sadly died before our report could be published. this was a further cause of immense distress to her family. the love which is family had for daniel morgan and their desire for daniel morgan and their desire for accountability have made them unwavering in seeking to bring his murderer or murderers to justice. whilst they have not seen convictions, members of his family have kept the issue of the murder and the failures of the metropolitan police and others in the public eye. it was in parts as a consequence of their persistent pressure that the desire —— the decision to establish

an independent panel was taken. there was in many situations a failure to explain to the family what was happening and i experienced dreadful shocks and almost constant frustration. the final chapter of a report sets out the personal reflections of family members in their own words. over the years, a vast amount of money, impossible now to quantify given the passage of time and a lack of records, has been spent and huge police resources have been devoted to the various major investigations. i want to say a word about the remit of the panel. the panel was established on the 10th of may 2013 by then home secretary theresa may to shine a light on the circumstances of daniel morgan's murder, its background and the handling of the case since 1987. in so doing we have addressed reissues. whether there was evidence of police involvement in daniel morgan's murder. the role played by police

corruption in protecting those responsible for the murderfrom being brought to justice. responsible for the murderfrom being brought tojustice. and the failure to confront that corruption. and the incidence of connection between private investigators, police officers and journalists at the news of the world and other parts of the media. and alleged corruption involved in the linkages between them. the task has not been simple. we have scrutinised some 110,000 documents amounting to more than a million pages and in cases documents are regularly 500 pages long. we have also scrutinised a very substantial amounts of additional sensitive or secret material held by the metropolitan police and other organisations. our work was made more difficult by the fact that the panel was not established under the inquiries act 2005, therefore did not have the statutory powers available to such an enquiry. we could not compel witnesses to testify, nor could we

compel the metropolitan police to disclose documents in a timely manner. we had to rely on the readiness of the metropolitan police and others to honour their promise to the home secretary to provide exceptional and full disclosure. all those interviewed came voluntarily —— voluntarily to assist the panel. we conducted 711 interviews with family members, serving and retired police officers, with other individuals who are closely involved with the police investigations and with the police investigations and with those who had information they wish to make available to us. a few individuals declined to be interviewed for a variety of reasons, including fear of reprisal, even 30 years after the murder. several witnesses sought and were given anonymity. i want to say a brief word about the investigations. the complex events that we have

examined began before the merger in march 1987. despite four major police investigations, an inquest and several other operations, no one has ever been convicted of daniel morgan's murder. from the moment of his murderer there were serious failures of investigation, both at the scene, which was never searched, and during the first investigation. in many respects, that investigation was not compliant with the policies and procedures in force at the time. many opportunities to gather evidence were irretrievably lost during that first investigation. the forensic work was described by a senior officer in the second investigation as pathetic. three other investigations and several operations and reviews have occurred since 1987. they are all detailed in a report. from the beginning, as you know, there are allegations that police officers were involved in the

murder and that corruption by police officers played a part in protecting the murderers from being brought to justice. by not acknowledging or confronting over the 311 years since the murder, its systemic failings, or the failings of individual officers, by making incorrect assertions about the quality of investigations and by its lack of candour, which is evident from the materials we have examined, we believe that the metropolitan police because my first objective was to protect itself. in so doing, it compounded the suffering and trauma of the family. the metropolitan police were not honest in their dealings with daniel morgan's family or the public. the family and the public are owed an apology. corruption, as i said, the metropolitan police concealed from the family of daniel morgan and the

wider public they failings in the first murder investigation and the role of corrupt officers. that lack of candour over so many years has been a barrier to proper police accountability. in 2011, the metropolitan police said publicly for the first time that police corruption had been a factor in the failure of the first police investigation. however, it was unable to explain satisfactorily what that corruption was or how it affected the investigation. there have long been suspicions about the possible impact of conflicting loyalties between the obligations of police officers who are freemasons and their professional policing obligations. however, we have seen no evidence that masonic channels were corru ptly no evidence that masonic channels were corruptly used in connection with either the commission of the murder or to subvert the police

investigations. nevertheless, we recommend that all police officers and police staff should be applied to register in confidence onjoining the police force or at any point after their recruitment their membership of an organisation, including the freemasons, which might call their impartiality into question or give rise to the perception of a conflict of loyalties. we received evidence from serving and retired officers that in some circumstances police officers who have sought to report wrongdoing by other police officers have been ostracised, transferred to a different unit, encouraged to resign or have faced disciplinary proceedings. this is not conducive to a culture of integrity. we recommend that her majesty's inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services conduct a

thematic investigation of the operation of the practices and procedures introduced following the adoption of the college of policing's code of ethics in 2014 to determine whether sufficient resources are available to ensure proper protection of those police officers and staff, sometimes called whistle—blowers, who wish to draw attention to alleged wrongdoing within the organisation. without proper resources there can be no effective fight against corruption. we have seen evidence of inadequacies in the resources available for the investigation of alleged corruption. we recommend that the metropolitan police must ensure that the necessary resources are allocated to the task of tackling corrupt behaviour among its officers. the independent office for police conduct also has responsibility for investigating corruption matters, in this case it was not resource to allow it to deal

with the referrals which were made to it. it, too, must be properly resourced. we have observed current inadequacies in the vetting of police officers and staff and in anti—corruption controls. we anti—corru ption controls. we recommend anti—corruption controls. we recommend that the police metropolitan police should not only that its employees in accordance with its recently updated policy, but also that it ensure that it has adequate and effective processes to establish whether its officers and staff are currently engaged in crime. the family of daniel morgan has suffered previously as a consequence of the failure to bring his murderer or murderers to justice. the unwarranted assurances that they were given, the misinformation which was put into the public domain and the denial of failings in the investigation, including failings to acknowledge

professional incompetence, individual�*s venal behaviour and managerial and organisational failures. we believe that concealing or denying failings for the sake of an organisation's public image is dishonesty on the part of the organisation for reputational benefits. this constitutes a form of institutional corruption. we recommend the creation of a statutory duty of candour to be owed by all law enforcement agencies to those who they serve, subject to the protection of national security and relevant data protection legislation. i want to say a word about delay. the panel started its work in september 2013 when it first met. it was paused for six months during 2014 until i assume the chair in september of 2014. our terms of reference, as you know, envisage

that the panel would complete its work within12 months of the documentation being made available. we received the last relevant material from the metropolitan police in march this year. difficulties encountered and restrictions imposed on access to certain documentation delayed our work very significantly. we received excellent assistance from organisations such as the national crime agency, the independent police complaints commission, now the independent office for police complaints, and the criminal cases review commission. we did not experience consistently as similar level of cooperation from the metropolitan police. at times our contact with the police resembled police contact with litigants rather than a body established by the home secretary to enquire into a case. it took 15 months from the

establishment of the panel to the point at which the metropolitan police agreed terms under which they were prepared to disclose investigation documents to us. this was neither necessary nor proportionate. as i said, we continue to receive documentation until march this year. arrangements should be made in the future to ensure that any panel has timely access to the material required to do its work. organisation such as the metropolitan police, which promise to make exceptional and full disclosure, should do so. some of the delays and difficulties we encountered were the result of existing processes for archiving historic policing policies and procedures whether national or local. we believe that there should be a review of these procedures so as to create a system that can quickly produce national and local documents as required. i need to say a word about access to the police computer system,

a word about access to the police computersystem, homes, a word about access to the police computer system, homes, which is the large major enquiry system. access at our secure premises, which had been approved by the metropolitan police to the computerised investigation databases for the murder of daniel morgan was vital to enable us to undertake our work expeditiously. it was requested in 2013. access was provided only at metropolitan police premises and only two panel members and one named member of staff injanuary only two panel members and one named member of staff in january 2015. every time we wanted to check something on the homes, that member of staff had to cross london, get access, do the work, and bring the product back to us. we are aware of investigators and reviewers in similar circumstances, including one member of this panel having had

access to homes in their own premises even before 2013 when the panel was established. in september 2020, during the covid pandemic, our homes expert was given at laptop with access to the databases for use at homes. we have never been given an explanation... to have unsupervised access to the holmes accounts to our staff. the delays to our work added to the costs and caused further necessary distress to the family of daniel morgan all independent panels and enquiry is examining police investigation should be given full access to the associated holmes accounts at their secure premises when they begin

their work. secure premises when they begin theirwork. i secure premises when they begin their work. i want to say a word about impact on costs. the work of the panel has cost around £16 million. the panel expenditure has increased as a consequence of the excessive length of time taken by the metropolitan police to provide us with necessary access to documentation and the limited access to the holmes accounts that was permitted. i want to say a word about the home secretary was not requirement to read the report. i would like to touch on the regrettable last—minute delay to the publication of the reports. we had expected to publish on monday, 17th may, and the home office had been aware of that for several weeks. senior home office officials had indicated to us that this was a convenient date, subject to the final decision of the home secretary. at the last moment, we were told that this would not be possible due to a backlog of

parliamentary business arising as a result of the pre—local election purges and the morning of prince philip, the duke of edinburgh. we were told would be likely to report republished on the 24th of may. again, at the last minute and very much to our surprise, the home secretary informed that she would not publish the report in parliament until she and her officials had time to read it to ensure that the report did not give rise to any issues under article two of the european convention on human rights or on national security grounds. you will be aware that our report had been previously examined by a senior police officer —— a senior police officers, five of them for ten day, to make sure there were no such breaches. they only saw that part of our report that did not contain our findings and the policy sections. we do not wish to rehearse the

discussions it subsequently took place other than to say how very disappointed we were that the home secretary chose to adopt a stance when she did. we are unaware of any such intervention previously. we do not believe the approach was justified in this case. nonetheless, our aim throughout the discussions was to ensure that daniel morgan because my family had the opportunity to view our report as soon as possible, and that is this morning. we have achieved our aim. before we move the questions i would like to take this opportunity to offer our thanks to the members of daniel morgan has my family, who have followed our work with great diligence and patience, for which we are most grateful. and to all those who have helped us in this work. thank you. who have helped us in this work. thank you-— who have helped us in this work. thank you. well, that is baroness muller alone, _ thank you. well, that is baroness muller alone, who _ thank you. well, that is baroness muller alone, who was _ thank you. well, that is baroness muller alone, who was chair- thank you. well, that is baroness muller alone, who was chair of. thank you. well, that is baroness | muller alone, who was chair of the panel looking into the 1987 murder

of a private investigator daniel morgan. skating in her criticism of the metropolitan police, accusing them of institutional corruption and also going into considerable detail as to the extent with which the metropolitan police did not cooperate with that enquiry. she started sharing it in september 2014 and at that point she said we were expecting the enquiry to take 12 months. but it went on to take eight years and she said that that was because of the way the metropolitan police responded in terms of disclosure. she said that the £16 million cost of the enquiry, which was accrued because of the excessive length of time that it took, was down to the metropolitan police posit lack of cooperation. she has said that she believes the findings of the enquiry are equivalent to those of the macpherson enquiry, which found evidence of institutional racism, so there

couldn't be stronger criticism from her and herfellow couldn't be stronger criticism from her and her fellow panel members of the metropolitan police. she also made comment on the home secretary, who asked at the last moment to read the report prior to publication. the report had been intended to be published on the 24th of may, priti patel said she needed to read it in case of damage national security or contravene human rights legislation. muller alone there said that the panel were disappointed that the home secretary took that approach, saying she did not believe it was justified, it had previously been vetted for exactly those issues. i want to read a little bit from the statement for the family of daniel morgan. they have said that in the light of that report that no family should have to go through what we have had to suffer over these decades, no family should have to find that confidence was betrayed by those for whom we should be able to

turn to for help. no family should be cut adrift in the way that we were left to fend for ourselves in the face of the most serious criminality that can be imagined. no family should have to bear the immense and indescribable cost we have paid in terms of our health, emotional, physicaland have paid in terms of our health, emotional, physical and otherwise. above all, no family should be left to find, as we do, that we are no longer able to place our trust in the police, the states or any other form of authority in this country. priti patel is speaking with her response to it, we also expect to hear from the family. we will bring you their reaction when it happens, but right now let's go back to westminster where the director—general of the bbc, tim daveyis director—general of the bbc, tim davey is giving a response to questions over martin bashir and the princess diana interview.

where were you in 1995, tim davey? good question. i believe i was a proctor— good question. i believe i was a proctor and _ good question. i believe i was a proctor and gamble and moving on... i might— proctor and gamble and moving on... i might have — proctor and gamble and moving on... i might have just moved to the world of fizzy— i might have just moved to the world of fizzy drinks at pepsico. did i might have just moved to the world of fizzy drinks at pepsico.— of fizzy drinks at pepsico. did you interview? _ of fizzy drinks at pepsico. did you interview? i _ of fizzy drinks at pepsico. did you interview? i think _ of fizzy drinks at pepsico. did you interview? i think so. _ of fizzy drinks at pepsico. did you interview? ithink so. i— of fizzy drinks at pepsico. did you interview? i think so. i saw- of fizzy drinks at pepsico. did you interview? i think so. i saw the i interview? i think so. i saw the cli -s interview? i think so. i saw the clips and _ interview? i think so. i saw the clips and i _ interview? i think so. i saw the clips and i think _ interview? i think so. i saw the clips and i think i _ interview? i think so. i saw the clips and i think i watched - interview? i think so. i saw the clips and i think i watched the l clips and i think i watched the whole thing thing, yes. —— did you watch the interview? did whole thing thing, yes. -- did you watch the interview?— whole thing thing, yes. -- did you watch the interview? did you know who martin — watch the interview? did you know who martin bashir _ watch the interview? did you know who martin bashir was _ watch the interview? did you know who martin bashir was at - watch the interview? did you know who martin bashir was at the - watch the interview? did you know| who martin bashir was at the time. was it a new name to you? i suspect he was a fairly — was it a new name to you? i suspect he was a fairly unknown _ was it a new name to you? i suspect he was a fairly unknown name - was it a new name to you? i suspect he was a fairly unknown name to - was it a new name to you? i suspect| he was a fairly unknown name to me. we are 25 years ago, in the realms

of me guessing here, if i am honest. i suspect, like most people, he would not have been a major household name and this was the interview that put him into the spotlight. he interview that put him into the sotliuht. , ., ., spotlight. he did very well out of it, spotlight. he did very well out of it. dignity. _ spotlight. he did very well out of it. dignity. maybe _ spotlight. he did very well out of it, dignity, maybe not _ spotlight. he did very well out of it, dignity, maybe not directly, i spotlight. he did very well out of i it, dignity, maybe not directly, but certainly as a career launch, it wasn't a bad one to launch the strip of the century. i'm sure you are listening to the evidence from your predecessors, do you share the view that he did profit from landing this interview? it that he did profit from landing this interview? . , that he did profit from landing this interview? ., , . ., , ., interview? it was certainly an important — interview? it was certainly an important interview - interview? it was certainly an important interview for- interview? it was certainly an important interview for his i interview? it was certainly an - important interview for his career, it was a landmark interview. in terms ofjoining that up into the technical questions you asking predecessors, in terms of where that leads, i think that is beyond my expertise, but certainly it was a career defining interview, there is no doubt about that.— career defining interview, there is no doubt about that. looking at lord l son's no doubt about that. looking at lord dyson's work. _ no doubt about that. looking at lord dyson's work, then, _ no doubt about that. looking at lord dyson's work, then, do _ no doubt about that. looking at lord dyson's work, then, do you -

no doubt about that. looking at lord dyson's work, then, do you think - no doubt about that. looking at lord | dyson's work, then, do you think you carried out a pretty full investigation of the martin bashir tobacco? i investigation of the martin bashir tobacco? ., , tobacco? i do. one thing in this sorry affair— tobacco? i do. one thing in this sorry affair i — tobacco? i do. one thing in this sorry affair i am _ tobacco? i do. one thing in this sorry affair i am pleased - tobacco? i do. one thing in this sorry affair i am pleased about| tobacco? i do. one thing in this. sorry affair i am pleased about is tobacco? i do. one thing in this i sorry affair i am pleased about is i think we got someone who with great integrity and outstanding experience managed to interview everyone, trawl the documents more thoroughly than ever have been done, and got too a thorough and comprehensive report. as people have discussed the report, that has shown through. i’m that has shown through. i'm surprised — that has shown through. i'm surprised it _ that has shown through. i'm surprised it didn't really look at the supervision that was afforded to him on this project. was that an area you think you should have explored better in the report? he was explored better in the report? he: was unrestricted in terms of he had his terms of reference. it is

important we have to understand his independence. once the terms were set he was interfered with totally by myself and the bbc in terms of trying to guide the process. he could go pretty much anywhere he wanted in terms of trying to get to the truth and we have to respect his judgments in terms of where he went. in the statement that the duke of cambridge read out that day. what was your personal feelings when you heard that, from the air to the true to say that's about your organisation that exists under royal charter, it must have looked you back on your heels? it charter, it must have looked you back on your heels?— charter, it must have looked you back on your heels? it was upsetting and it was a — back on your heels? it was upsetting and it was a sad _ back on your heels? it was upsetting and it was a sad day. _ back on your heels? it was upsetting and it was a sad day. primarily, - back on your heels? it was upsetting and it was a sad day. primarily, i - and it was a sad day. primarily, i felt deep sympathy for the sons of princess diana and we have offered

an unconditional apology. that was the primary thing on my mind, clearly for us as an institution that cares so deeply and has an outstanding track record in terms of journalistic integrity, it was a very low moment for us. have you soken very low moment for us. have you spoken to — very low moment for us. have you spoken to either _ very low moment for us. have you spoken to either of _ very low moment for us. have you spoken to either of the _ very low moment for us. have you spoken to either of the princess i spoken to either of the princess since this happened to personally apologise? i since this happened to personally aoloaise? . ., apologise? i have engaged with the r0 als will apologise? i have engaged with the royals will directly. _ apologise? i have engaged with the royals will directly. i— apologise? i have engaged with the royals will directly. i do _ apologise? i have engaged with the royals will directly. i do think - apologise? i have engaged with the royals will directly. i do think it - royals will directly. i do think it is appropriate in terms of how exactly i talk to, they were private and confidential meetings. i think i will leave it for the royal household if they want to say anything on that, but i have talked directly to the royal household. finally, was there anything in listening to the last few hours that you heard from your predecessors, anything that surprised you and that you learnt from what they told us this morning? i

you learnt from what they told us this morning?— this morning? i don't think any revelations. _ this morning? i don't think any revelations. i— this morning? i don't think any revelations. i think— this morning? i don't think any revelations. i think it - this morning? i don't think any revelations. i think it is - this morning? i don't think any revelations. i think it is useful| this morning? i don't think any l revelations. i think it is useful to hear people in terms of what the construct was at the time in terms of how people saw things and how the corporation behaved, but there was nothing in it in my mind that didn't fit with the analysis we have had from lord dyson. i fit with the analysis we have had from lord dyson.— fit with the analysis we have had from lord dyson. i wondered if you were in any — from lord dyson. i wondered if you were in any way — from lord dyson. i wondered if you were in any way surprised - from lord dyson. i wondered if you were in any way surprised by - from lord dyson. i wondered if you were in any way surprised by lord i were in any way surprised by lord birt�*s, the way that he told us that he was just too surprised to have been tricked by this trickster, i think i described it as somebody who might appear think i described it as somebody who mightappear on think i described it as somebody who might appear on money box talking about how they have been tricked by about how they have been tricked by a phone scam into giving their bank details. it is a pretty sorry tale, really, isn't it that the director—general could be so misled? indeed. but lord birt has previously

in his statement when he saw the dyson report made clear that he felt understandably that there was, the case of martin bashir, is around a rogue reporter. that wasn't a surprise, but i think it was clearly laid out in the previous discussion. have you had conversations with lord birt since the dyson report came out, have you picked up the phone to him and shot the breeze on the subject or have you just kept it all in writing? subject or have you 'ust kept it all in writin: ? , ., ., ~ in writing? kept it formal? i think since the report _ in writing? kept it formal? i think since the report i _ in writing? kept it formal? i think since the report i have _ in writing? kept it formal? i think since the report i have spoken i in writing? kept it formal? i think since the report i have spoken to | since the report i have spoken to lord birt once. we never spoke about the process on lord dyson. we speak fairly regularly on the business of managing the bbc. he is a wise and trusted source of advice for me in terms of how we reform the bbc, how we go through this job, so we talk

about that. in terms of lord dyson in terms of the process, that the subject was not talked about at all. there are only a few people alive who know what it is like to be in your shoes so i'm not surprised to talk to them. thank you.- your shoes so i'm not surprised to talk to them. thank you. thank you mr sharp and _ talk to them. thank you. thank you mr sharp and mr— talk to them. thank you. thank you mr sharp and mr davey _ talk to them. thank you. thank you mr sharp and mr davey -- - talk to them. thank you. thank you mr sharp and mr davey -- mr - talk to them. thank you. thank you i mr sharp and mr davey -- mr davie mr sharp and mr davey —— mr davie per talking to us and hanging on for the session. i want to go back to the session. i want to go back to the rehiring of martin bashir in a moment. how was it decided who would take part in the review of editorial policies, there has been some criticism of that about its diversity and where they will be getting independent advice from. i would you respond to that criticism and what will you do to meet it?

ifi if i may answer that.