Speeches by Hinds.

“With a director general and a deputy director general, the hierarchy could not be clearer. Did you think about doing it a different way and having a chief executive who runs the organisation and an editor-in-chief, or whatever you call them, who is ultimately accountable for content, and they both report into the board…”

“Well, it is going to be renewed quite soon, Dr Shah.”

“Sir Robbie, what role do you think the BBC should play in the future? What role should it play in the next 10 years, which may be the same or different from in the past 10, 20 or 30 years?”

“Well, here you are in Parliament; this is an opportunity to express your views in any way you like. You are constrained by the current charter. Were you unconstrained, would you take a different view?”

“Let us return to the backward-looking thing and what is in the Prescott memo. The board is committed to revisit everything that is in that memo and to report back your conclusions on those items transparently. What does that mean in practice, and what is the transparency we should be looking out for?”

“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?”

“Forgive me, but the question is: do you think it is a reasonable approach to this exercise that is about to be undertaken to start with the assumption that for each of those items, it may have been systemic and you have to demonstrate that it is not?”

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

“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—”

“It was Socks and Cookie, in case you are interested.”

“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.”

“Well, here you are in Parliament; this is an opportunity to express your views in any way you like. You are constrained by the current charter. Were you unconstrained, would you take a different view?”

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

“Well, it is going to be renewed quite soon, Dr Shah.”

“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…”

“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 …”

“Forgive me, but the question is: do you think it is a reasonable approach to this exercise that is about to be undertaken to start with the assumption that for each of those items, it may have been systemic and you have to demonstrate that it is not?”

“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?”

“Sir Robbie, what role do you think the BBC should play in the future? What role should it play in the next 10 years, which may be the same or different from in the past 10, 20 or 30 years?”