Five senior BBC figures, including its chairman, faced questions from MPs for more than three hours after a leaked memo raised claims of bias at the corporation.

It comes after BBC director general Tim Davie and BBC News chief Deborah Turness resigned earlier this month over a Panorama episode that edited together parts of a 2021 speech by US President Donald Trump.

That edit was highlighted in the memo, which was leaked and published by the Daily Telegraph. The memo’s author Michael Prescott was among those facing MPs’ questions on Monday.

Prescott appeared alongside Caroline Daniel, his fellow former external editorial adviser to the BBC, at the Culture, Media and Sport (CMS) committee. BBC chairman Samir Shah and fellow board members Sir Robbie Gibb and Caroline Thomson also appeared.

Prescott, a former Sunday Times political editor, was clear when asked if he thought there was institutional bias at the BBC.

“No, I don’t,” he told MPs. “Let’s be clear, tons of stuff the BBC does is world class.”

But he said there were problems with dealing with editorial issues, adding 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 added.

Prescott said he wrote the memo “because I am a strong supporter of the BBC”. But he stressed there were “incipient problems” not being tackled. In other words, issues at an early stage he felt were not being dealt with.

He singled out a now-removed BBC Verify story from 2024 that incorrectly reported that people from ethnic minorities paid higher car insurance premiums.

This story was found to be “utterly untrue”, Prescott said, saying this was a “dreadful thing to have put out”. There were “multiple levels” of editorial failure on this story, he added, as well as the apparent absence of an inquiry into what happened and why.

Shah started his evidence to the committee by apologising to all those who believe in the BBC, licence fee payers, and to BBC staff, saying: “I regret the mistakes that have been made.”

This comes after he made an apology to the committee – and after the BBC also made an apology to Trump.

Shah admitted action should have been taken sooner after issues with the Trump speech edit became known at board level.

Former Newsnight journalist David Grossman, who wrote internal reports commissioned by the BBC board, first flagged the edit in January and it was then discussed further in May, the committee heard.

“Looking back, I think we should have made the decision [to respond] earlier, in May,” said Shah.

He told the committee that Turness, the BBC News chief, had wanted to apologise for the edit sooner, but he did not think this was “sufficient” as the real issue was the impression given 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.”

Asked if there was pressure from the board to delay the apology, he said “absolutely not”.

Shah vowed to stay in his role to fix the problems.

Thomson, who worked at the BBC until 2012 and returned this year as a non-executive board member, also spoke about the timing of the BBC apology.

She said there was a “continuing and sharp difference of opinion” between members of the board and Turness about whether they were going to apologise for the edit or the impact of the edit.

Thomson told the committee she thought the edit gave a “misleading” impression of what the US president said.

She added that news bosses continued to maintain the impression given was correct because of 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 it came down to 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”, repeating her assertion 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 told the committee 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 launched its search for a new boss on Monday, with the advert for the next director general now 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 spent over 20 years working at the BBC and was director of communications for former Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May, was asked how he managed 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 also dismissed claims of there having been a “board-level orchestrated coup” over 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.