Speeches by Hinds.

“21. What discussions she has had with the chair of the curriculum and assessment review on her proposals to change the progress 8 measure.”

“There is nowhere in the DFE budget from which £6 billion could possibly come other than the core schools budget, so either SEN funding is being cut, the core schools budget is being cut—that implies 5% per head—or the Secretary of State has an explicit agreement with the Chancellor for the money to come from somewhere …”

“The Minister says that the limit is three items, but actually, the limit is three in primary school, while I believe it is four in secondary school—she will correct me if I am wrong—so long as the fourth is a tie. Can she tell me for what reason a fourth is not allowed in primary school, if the fourth is a tie?”

“As a simple, comparative piece of maths, if the Minister is saying that breakfast clubs will save families £450 a year, how much money is the Department for Education providing to the school to provide that breakfast?”

“David Laws!”

“Did the Minister just say that all of these documents would be FOI-able and would then be released, albeit in redacted form, presumably in the usual way, with personal details being blacked out?”

“Earlier this afternoon Mr Prescott said to us that you should treat all the issues he has raised as systemic unless and until they are demonstrated to be otherwise. Do you think that is a correct way to go about that analysis that you are talking about?”

“He is not here for me to put words in his mouth at present, but I think what he means is that, rather than saying, “It was a one-off. Something went wrong on that Tuesday in March, and somebody made an error”, there is something in the organisation, whether in the culture, the systems or the processes. I think that is …”

“I do not mean a literal blind spot, in that they did not spot the splice—I do not think anybody did—but rather that, its having been brought to people’s attention, a lot of people apparently overlooked it until, as Dr Shah says, having had 500 complaints after your memo, there has been a period of reflection.”

“This question is for both of you. Do you agree that it is people who would like to see the demise of the BBC who are the ones—”

“That was in time for the January meeting. An awful lot of time has passed between January and November, so there were still a lot of people who had a blind spot. So after this thing had been identified—”

“No, no—let me finish my sentence. It is the people who would wish to see the demise of the BBC who ought to downplay this incident. The people who love the BBC and think it has a more important role than ever in the information meltdown and mosh pit of information and disinformation—they are the ones who will say that,…”

“Do you think the corporation has what you might call a “bigger truth” problem—that there is a bigger truth that the vast majority of BBC output is good, and therefore it is less important when something is misleading? Or that, on this specific episode of “Panorama”, there was a bigger truth the programme was trying to …”

“It was not just a management blind spot; lots of people must have had a blind spot, starting with the person who did it, then whoever was editing it, a producer—presumably somebody straight away. Obviously, it did not get the most massive audience, because people in general did not spot it, but many people must have se…”

“It was a very good splice job—that is why.”

“I am asking about a principle. I was asking about the splice—that is correct—but you could apply the same question to a number of other things in the memo. My question really was, for all the 99-point-something-per-cent output that is very high quality and unquestionable, is it not the case that if you really care abou…”

“No, I did not. It was an extremely good splice job where you could not see the seam. That is the point.”

“To go back to the splicing, in his “sacred job” memo to us, Dr Shah mentions that since your memo, Mr Prescott, the corporation has had 500 complaints, which has prompted “further reflection.” As a result of that further reflection, the BBC now accepts that the splice gave the impression of “a direct call for violent a…”

“Dr Shah, a few moments ago you came back to what I think is a central issue, which is the speed of response. I am old enough to remember 2007, before your time leading the organisation, when the BBC was in hot water over the misnaming of a kitten. You do get held to a higher standard. That comes with the privilege of t…”

“No, I did not. It was an extremely good splice job where you could not see the seam. That is the point.”