Panorama edit ‘probably’ did not damage Trump, author of leaked BBC memo tells MPs – latest updates

4.54pm GMT

Caroline Daniel says from her experience on the standards committee there was always active discussion on editorial bias.
“It’s put the spotlight on issues of impartiality, which in my view, the BBC was actively engaging with on a regular basis.
“The fact that the committee was extremely robust, discussions were had, research was commissioned on a regular basis, and it was challenging research, I think that’s a really healthy organisation and a very healthy debate.”

4.52pm GMT
Prescott memo did not reflect full report on BBC's US election coverage - other adviser

Caroline Daniel says she thinks her fellow former adviser’s memo “does not provide a comprehensive view of what was in the David Grossman report.”
She is sitting right next to Prescott while giving her assessment of what she says was “a personal account rather than a comprehensive review of everything that was covered in the (standards) committee.”
MP: “What do you think was missing?”
Daniel: “I think the David Grossman report covered a lot of ground, significant errors, like the coverage of the election and the use of polling, issues like who is being represented on programs, issues of impartiality.
There was obviously a BBC response to it as well, which was also significant. They did engage with each of the details of the David Grossman report.

4.47pm GMT
Panorama inaccuracy does not undercut broader BBC principles of accuracy, Daniel says

Caroline Daniel, the other external adviser to the standards committee alongside Prescott has also stepped into defend the Panorama edit.
“Obviously, issues of trust are foundational to the BBC. It is very important that they take inaccuracies extremely seriously,” she says.
She adds that it was “regrettable that this wasn’t recognised at the time” and that probably by the time Panorama was alerted to it, it was too late for the BBC to take practical action – more than a year after the episode had been broadcast.
She also stresses that David Grossman’s 20-page report on the US election “was really about a much broader, comprehensive view about US election coverage.”

“It wasn’t to try and micromanage a particular programme, edit an individual issue out of principle… I personally think that the BBC did take issues of impartiality and accuracy incredibly seriously. It’s the reason that the one of the most trusted news brands in the world.”

4.41pm GMT
Prescott says Panorama edit 'probably' does not damage Trump

Prescott has been pressed again by Liberal Democrat MP Cameron Thomas to answer whether he agrees with Trump’s argument that the 12-second video edit of his January 6 speech damages his reputation.
Thomas: “Do you agree that Donald Trump’s reputation has been tarnished by this documentary?”
Prescott: “Probably not”.
He offers a rueful smile.

Updated at 4.58pm GMT

4.32pm GMT
Committee questions Prescott on his own bias in leaked memo

MP Rupa Huq questions Prescott on his own political bias in his memo, noting that many of his concerns appear to come from a certain slant.
She points out some of the language he used are common phrases used in right-wing ideological circles, or that experts he references are “not completely neutral people”.
Prescott says that he didn’t have a “tick list”, and his memo just reflected reports “commissioned by the entire (standards) committee” for editorial adviser David Grossman to look into.
“We never knew what he would come back with. And if you take American presidential race, for example, it did come back saying, well, actually, it’s a little unbalanced.”
Huq says she watched the whole 70-minute Panorama documentary last night, and the 12-second edit does not change what the topic was about, which she says Trump would probably like because it includes many MAGA supporters.

Updated at 4.36pm GMT

4.19pm GMT

Prescott is asked if he agrees with Trump that the BBC documentary constitutes defamation, given the US president has been indicted over the January 6 riots.
“I can’t think of anything I agree with Donald Trump on,” Prescott replies.

4.17pm GMT
Watch the questioning live

Just a reminder to readers, the live feed from the House of Commons session can be viewed right here in the stream embedded at the top of this blog.

4.07pm GMT
Glastonbury apology a sign of improvement- Daniel

Daniel however, the other external adviser, says there have been improvements including after systemic reviews on certain subject matters.
She gives the example of Tim Davie’s immediate response after the BBC’s live broadcast of Bob Vylan’s set at Glastonbury Festival where the singer chanted “Death to the IDF”.

I think that was a speedy apology, and rightly so. I think there are probably many other examples where the BBC has apologised, in the last few years.

But I would say I think the real issue is the culture of the BBC in terms of the level of attention paid to these issues. And again, in my view, the fact that we had a robust committee to debate issues of impartiality, the fact that we had David Grossman being commissioned to ask questions about the BBC’s coverage in order to help inform future coverage, was actually really significant.

I think there are a few organisations when you actually have that level of auditing internally on a regular basis, and this is an ongoing issue. This is not one and done.

Updated at 4.12pm GMT

4.06pm GMT
Editorial mistakes weren't being thoroughly addressed- Prescott

Much of the criticism from Prescott is around what he says is BBC News departments failing to throughly address editorial mistakes when pointed out by the panel.

What I was frequently seeing was that the BBC’s idea of dealing with something was to change the editors around, tweak the written guidelines, but there was never, it seemed to me, any willingness at exactly what went wrong and whether there were deep implications.”

He has described some of the responses as “defensive” and he says there’s a problem of some “cultural forces” within the BBC, without specifying what exactly.
When questioned further by the committee, he mentions: “You’ve got urban rural bias, possibly a London focus, London values versus values outside of the capital”.

Updated at 4.23pm GMT

3.59pm GMT
'No idea' how memo was leaked - Prescott

Prescott is questioned on how his memo of editorial concerns was leaked to the Telegraph report.
“I have no idea”, he says.
His dossier pointed out failings in the editing of a Trump speech, allegations of bias in its coverage of the Israel-Hamas war and trans issues.
He’d said that he had also sent the memo off to the Ofcom regulator after sending it to the BBC board to highlight what he thought were editorial concerns.
He says the memo was “all my own work” and that he’d not written it with anyone else.

Updated at 4.21pm GMT

3.57pm GMT
'I’m a centrist dad' - Prescott

Prescott is questioned on his own personal biases and refers to reports about Robbie Gibb’s Conservative background.
The Committee chair has been asking if one personality was more dominant than the other members on the standards committee. It has been alleged that Gibb’s political views steered the panel one direction.

“You’re asking about my preferences. I am no ideological soul mate of Robbie Gibbs. I’m a centrist dad.”

He is asked whether the fact his company received more than £100,000 in donations from a conservative Republican donor influenced him. He says he did want the BBC to be completely impartial.

Updated at 3.59pm GMT

3.50pm GMT
BBC took impartiality 'extremely seriously' says external adviser

Caroline Daniel is also asked about her views on editorial bias.
“My experience was the BBC took issues of impartiality extremely seriously,” she said.
She says in her three years involved on the standards committee, it was a “continuous process, an active debate” on issues on individual daily programmes, “across thousands of hours of coverage”.
She said there was always healthy debate, and the BBC was always open to discussing if the right line had been taken.
“Was the BBC willing to have a proper conversation, debate and actually take action? In my view, yes.”

Updated at 4.13pm GMT

3.45pm GMT
BBC 'not institutionally biased', says Prescott

The committee asks Prescott whether he thinks the BBC is institutionally biased?
“I don’t,” says Prescott. “Let’s be very clear. Tons of stuff the BBC does is world class factual programming… I think the standard of BBC Westminster is exemplary, and that’s why I keep saying these were incipient problems. We were finding the odd problem here and there.”
He says the crucial thing was that when problems were spotted, they appeared to have systemic causes that were not addressed.
He says “the root of his disagreement and slight concern even today” was that the BBC appeared to not be treating the problems as having systemic causes.
“There’s real work that needs to be done at the BBC.”

Updated at 3.49pm GMT

3.39pm GMT
Prescott says he was 'troubled' by problems 'not being tackled properly'

Prescott is the first to respond, acknowledging “the saga does begin with that memo that I wrote”, which he says he wrote because “let me be clear, because I am a strong supporter of the BBC.”

What troubled me was that during my three years on the BBC’s standards committee, we kept seeing incipient problems, which I thought were not being tackled properly. And indeed, I thought the problems were getting worse.

He says in the era of fake news, the BBC can become the provider of news for the entire world.

“I would like it to happen, but it can only happen successfully if the BBC, I think, does a better job addressing these incipient and growing problems of the type that the Standards Committee kept identifying. And that’s why I tried to alert the BBC board to what was going on. And indeed thereafter sent a memo on to Ofcom and DCMs. There was no ideology at play here, no party politics.”

3.32pm GMT
Committee session has kicked off

The Select Committee has begun their questioning.
Michael Prescott and Caroline Daniel, the external advisers to the editorial and standards committee, will be the first to face quizzing from lawmakers.

3.30pm GMT
Key questions to be answered

Many people will be closely watching today’s proceedings to understand what went on at the BBC board level. Some key questions from the Guardian’s media editor Michael Savage:

To what extent were Prescott’s concerns ignored?

After his role as external adviser ended over the summer, Prescott sent his memo to the BBC board in September. He said he was doing so because his concerns of bias had been ignored.The BBC has apologised for an edit of a Trump speech raised in the memo, but Shah has also claimed Prescott’s memo was a partial and personal account.So how many issues that Prescott outlined have not been dealt with? Daniel may have a view on whether Prescott is right to say he was ignored.

Is there evidence of an internal rightwing campaign against the BBC?

Some in the BBC believe that while Prescott’s memo pointed to real failings, it was part of a longer-running attempt by like-minded figures to pressure the corporation from the right. They point to the fact that many of Prescott’s concerns chimed with those of Gibb. Prescott’s memo was based on research carried out by David Grossman, a longstanding journalist who had once confronted a colleague over bias. Who suggested what Grossman should be researching? Was there a pre-existing relationship between Gibb and Prescott?

3.24pm GMT
BBC to add deputy director general role and expand standards panel

In response to the crisis, the BBC is preparing several new measures, my colleague Michael Savage has been reporting:
The BBC is planning to overhaul the way it investigates editorial concerns, in a move that will dilute the influence of a Conservative figure accused of trying to sway its political impartiality.
A new deputy director general post is also expected to be created to aid Tim Davie’s successor as director general, after concerns that the task of overseeing the corporation has become too big for one person.
The measures are being prepared as the BBC reacts to a crisis that led to the sudden resignations of Davie and Deborah Turness, the head of BBC News.

Related: BBC to expand standards panel and add deputy director general after bias row

3.17pm GMT
Board member quit after being ‘cut out’ of talks over liberal bias claims

Shumeet Banerji resigned from the board on Friday after saying he was cut out of the discussions that led to the shock resignation of director general Tim Davie.
The tech industry executive was out of the country on the crucial days before the departure of Davie and the head of BBC News, Deborah Turness.
The pair quit after tense board discussions over how to respond to allegations of liberal bias made by Michael Prescott, a former independent external adviser to the BBC’s editorial guidelines and standards committee (EGSC). Prescott left that role in the summer.
Banerji cited what he called “governance issues” at the top of the corporation.
In a letter, he said he had not been consulted about the events leading up to the departures of Davie and Turness.

Related: BBC board member quits after being ‘cut out’ of talks over liberal bias claims

Updated at 3.25pm GMT

3.16pm GMT
Who are the key BBC figures facing questioning?

Michael Prescott: The former editorial adviser on the editorial guidelines and standards panel, whose memo raising concerns about an edit of a Donald Trump speech was leaked to the Telegraph newspaper in early November, prompting questions over editorial standards.
The Guardian understands that conflict among the board in responding to the memo is what led to the resignations of Davie and Turness. Prescott has not issued any public statement yet. This will be the first time we hear from him.
Robbie Gibb: A board member appointed under the former Conservative government, who is also a member of this pivotal Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee (EGSC). Since the resignations, several politicians and a staff union have called for his removal from the board, alleging he wielded improper political influence.
Samir Shah: The BBC Chair has been under pressure for the board’s delayed response to the editorial issues of the Panorama edit. He has denied any improper political interference on the board as a “fanciful” notion.
Caroline Thomson: A long-term board member and former Chief Operating Officer, who had served for 12 years as a member of the BBC’s Executive Committee.Caroline Daniel: A former editorial adviser who was in the role alongside Prescott.

Updated at 3.22pm GMT

3.05pm GMT

The BBC has been in crisis since the sudden resignation of its director general, Tim Davie, and the head of news, Deborah Turness.
Their decision shocked many in New Broadcasting House, but what emerged in the hours after their departure was talk of a rightwing “coup”, board splits and crippling delays.
Their departure followed a disagreement over how to respond to a memo from a former external adviser Michael Prescott, in which he claimed there were “serious and systemic problems” at the corporation.
Prescott alleged liberal bias in its coverage of the US election, Gaza and racial diversity and transgender issues.
MPs on the culture, media and sport committee are examining Prescott’s claims this afternoon. They will hear from Prescott and Robbie Gibb, the Conservative-supporting BBC board member accused of raising repeated claims of liberal bias.
Also appearing are Samir Shah, the BBC chair, Caroline Daniel, who was an external adviser alongside Prescott, and Caroline Thomson, another BBC board member.

3.03pm GMT
Welcome

Hello and welcome to our live coverage of a parliamentary committee’s questioning of key BBC figures involved in the broadcaster’s editorial standards crisis.
The BBC is facing a potential billion-dollar lawsuit from the US president, Donald Trump, over a misleading edit of his January 6 speech in a BBC documentary.
Disputes over how the broadcaster might respond to that error led to the shock resignations of both its director general and head of news earlier this month.
The BBC’s chair as well as other key figures in the row are due to be questioned over their actions, at a hearing this afternoon in the House of Common’s culture, media and sport committee.