History is just one more battleground in culture war being fought over the BBC

Samir Shah's selection as chair and the role of Robbie Gibb on the board have prompted a rethink about political appointees at the BBC

- Ceri Thomas

There was a moment at the Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) committee hearing last week into the BBC's recent convulsions when the body language seemed to drown out the words spoken. At the long tables in front of MPs sat three BBC board members, among them the chair, Samir Shah, and one of its political appointees, Sir Robbie Gibb.

"Can I clarify something?" asked the Labour MP Natasha Irons. "... Sir Robbie, did you have any role in Dr Shah becoming chair?" The normally forceful voice of Gibb dimmed to something too faint to be recorded in the official transcript (he "indicated dissent", it says) and he smiled boyishly. Shah jumped in: "The chair is a public appointment," he said, as if that answered the question.

Irons pressed on. "Yes, but I was wondering whether there were any conversations. Were your views canvassed in any way?" When he worked at the BBC, Gibb commissioned Shah's independent TV and radio production company, Juniper, to make political programmes.

Gibb turned awkwardly towards Shah and, again, muttered something which the microphones could not pick up (this time, too indistinct even for the transcript to give a gist). He took a glug of water, and in the air hung a question: is there something more we should know about the process which led to Samir Shah being appointed BBC chair?

To answer that question, it helps to know a little about Professor Robert Tombs. As a historian, he is bound to appreciate more than most people that some answers emerge very slowly. "We sent in a report to the BBC which, as far as I was aware, they had completely ignored," he told The Observer last week.