Senior figures from the BBC, including its chairman, faced scrutiny from Members of Parliament for over three hours following the emergence of a leaked memo alleging bias within the corporation.
This follows the resignations of BBC Director-General Tim Davie and BBC News chief Deborah Turness earlier this month, triggered by a Panorama episode that selectively edited a 2021 speech by former U.S. President Donald Trump.
The edited segment was highlighted in the aforementioned memo, which was leaked and subsequently published by The Daily Telegraph. Michael Prescott, the memo’s author, was among those questioned by MPs on Monday.
Prescott appeared before the Culture, Media and Sport (CMS) committee alongside Caroline Daniel, a fellow former external editorial advisor to the BBC. BBC Chairman Samir Shah, along with board members Sir Robbie Gibb and Caroline Thomson, were also present.
Prescott, formerly a political editor at The Sunday Times, addressed the issue of institutional bias at the BBC during the hearing.
“No, I don’t,” he stated to MPs. “Let’s be clear, a considerable amount of the BBC’s output is of world-class standard.”
However, he identified shortcomings in the handling of editorial matters, noting that “the BBC was not, and I hope they will change, treating these as having systemic causes.”
“There’s real work that needs to be done at the BBC,” he asserted.
Prescott explained that he authored the memo “because I am a strong supporter of the BBC.” He emphasized the presence of “incipient problems” that were not being adequately addressed, referring to early-stage issues that he believed were being neglected.
He specifically cited a now-removed BBC Verify report from 2024, which incorrectly claimed that individuals from ethnic minorities paid higher car insurance premiums.
Prescott characterized this report as “utterly untrue” and a “dreadful thing to have put out.” He pointed to “multiple levels” of editorial failure in the story’s production, as well as the apparent lack of an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding its publication.
Shah initiated his testimony by offering an apology to all those who believe in the BBC, licence fee payers, and their staff, stating, “I regret the mistakes that have been made.”
This follows a previous apology to the committee, and an earlier apology issued by the BBC to Trump.
Shah conceded that action should have been taken sooner after issues with the altered Trump speech were brought to the board’s attention.
The committee heard that former Newsnight journalist David Grossman, who authored internal reports commissioned by the BBC board, first raised concerns about the edit in January, which were then discussed further in May.
“Looking back, I think we should have made the decision [to respond] earlier, in May,” Shah acknowledged.
He informed the committee that Turness, the BBC News chief, had desired to apologize for the edit sooner, but he felt her proposed apology was “not sufficient” because the central issue was the impression that Trump “encouraged a call to violent action.”
“I think there is an issue about how quickly we respond, the speed of our response, why do we not do it quickly enough,” he said, adding: “We should have pursued it to the end and got to the bottom of it, and not wait as we did until it became public discourse.”
When asked whether there had been pressure from the board to delay the apology, he answered “absolutely not.”
Shah pledged to remain in his position to address the existing issues.
Thomson, who worked at the BBC until 2012 and rejoined the board this year as a non-executive member, also addressed the timing of the BBC’s apology.
She stated that persistent disagreements remained within the board and with Turness regarding whether to apologize for the edit itself, or the impact the edit had.
Thomson conveyed to the committee her belief that the edit presented a “misleading” depiction of the former U.S. president’s statements.
She added that news executives continued to believe that the impression the edit gave was correct, due to the content of Trump’s speech that day, saying: “They felt that the edit was justified, but it should have been a more transparent edit.”
Sir Robbie told the committee the core issue was “whether there was a serious error.”
He said he felt that the edit gave the impression that Trump’s comments were a call to arms, adding this “was a breach of editorial policy.”
Asked if he tried to stop Davie stepping down, Shah said “I did indeed”.
He described the actions of Turness as “honourable” and “proper,” reiterating her statement that “the buck stops” with her.
But on Davie, he said: “I wish, and the board wishes, that the director general had not resigned. He had our full confidence throughout.”
“I am very sorry to lose him,” he added.
Shah also informed the committee that the role of Director General is “too big for one person” and that he is “inclined to restructure the executive in the future, once we get a new director.”
The BBC officially commenced its search for a new leader on Monday, with the job posting for the next Director General now featured on its careers site.
“The lens through which we examine potential candidates for the director general includes the idea that there will be a deputy director general, who would be focused on journalism,” Shah told the MPs.
Sir Robbie, who worked at the BBC for over 20 years and served as director of communications for former Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May, was questioned about how he manages his own bias.
“I have impartiality through my bones,” he told the committee, saying it was “drummed” into him when he joined the BBC in 1991.
He said he felt he had become “weaponised” in the way he had been perceived. Asked about Sir Robbie during the session, Shah said he had “absolute faith” in him.
Sir Robbie additionally dismissed claims of a “board-level orchestrated coup” regarding the leaking of the memo as “complete nonsense.”
“It’s also deeply offensive to fellow board members who are people of great standing in different fields,” he added.