The Broadcasting Commission is likely to review the evidence presented at a hearing into Senator David Burch?s ?house nigger? remark in light of new comments by one of the witnesses, can reveal.

Ira Philip, the Commission?s acting chairman, said yesterday he was ?perplexed? that Glenn Blakeney, managing director of Hott 107.5, the radio station on which the remark was made, told this newspaper that he did not recall Sen. Burch apologising.

Mr. Philip said Mr. Blakeney gave evidence at a hearing on May 2 that the Lieutenant Colonel had said sorry for using the term.

?The record will show clearly that Mr. Blakeney said that Col. Burch had apologised and he was asked by the Commission ?apologised to whom??,? said Mr. Philip.

?He said ?to those who may have been offended by the comment?.?

The claimed apology was taken into consideration by the Commission in reaching its decision on a complaint made by Shadow Finance Minister Patricia Gordon-Pamplin about Sen. Burch?s language.

The Works and Engineering Minister used the phrase ?house nigger? in apparent reference to a black member of the United Bermuda Party on his Sunday night radio show last August.

The Commission, in a statement deploring the use of the phrase this week, also said: ?To his credit, the Commission has taken note of the fact that the broadcasting station?s talk show host Col. Burch, publicly apologised for his expression of the term complained about.?

No record of the apology can be found and it emerged yesterday that although Scott Pearman, chief operating officer of Hott 107.5, believed he heard the apology on air a week after the original broadcast, he was not asked to give evidence to the Broadcasting Commissioners.

Mr. Philip said he did not know ?what, if anything? the Commission could do about what appeared to be conflicting statements by Mr. Blakeney.

But he added: ?There is every likelihood that the Commission will review that aspect.? He said he expected the Commissioners to meet again this month, when the issue would be raised.

Mr. Blakeney told yesterdaythat during his testimony at the hearing he went outside to consult his radio station partner, Mr. Pearman, about the apology.

?Scott said he heard it. From my understanding, based on what was verified by my partner, he (Sen. Burch) did apologise. I don?t know because I didn?t hear it. I said ?I have here verification from my partner that he did make a public apology?.?

Mr. Blakeney said radio station tapes were only kept for 30 days so there was no way of confirming if an apology had been made. Mr. Pearman said he attended the hearing and expected to give evidence but was not called as a witness.

He said: ?The first witness went in and made a sound case. It wasn?t necessary to call the second.?

He said he told Mr. Blakeney he ?thought? he recollected Sen. Burch telling listeners that if he had offended someone he was sorry. But he added that the hearing was held nine months after the broadcast, making it difficult for him to recollect exactly what was said.

?When I was listening I did not realise at that time that I was listening to anything that would be such a big, public hoopla,? he said. ?It was just dialogue on a radio show.?

Mrs. Gordon-Pamplin said the Commission?s decision was ?compromised? by the quality of Mr. Blakeney?s evidence and that if the Commissioners had been ?misinformed? it should be exposed She added that Sen. Burch should have been called to give evidence at the hearing.

Mr. Philip yesterday warned Mrs. Gordon-Pamplin not to ?goad the Commission into revealing the conflicting evidence presented to the Commission by herself and her witness, former Senator Kenneth Bascome?.

?She has variously labelled the Commissioners as a bunch of lazy, lying political hacks with a set of sorry behinds,? he said. ?If I were to say I expected more from that honourable lady, it would be a statement that could be taken more than one way.?

The Commission said this week it was ?reprehensible? that Mrs. Gordon-Pamplin had made comments about the Broadcasting Commission hearing in Parliament while it was still deliberating.

In response, the UBP MP said she was reacting to a decision made by the Human Rights Commission on the same complaint.

Mr. Philip said: ?The fact is that the Commission first met May 2 and Ms Pamplin jumped the gun voicing her reactions at the subsequent House meeting, which was well before the Human Rights Commission had released its findings against her.?

The HRC decision was made public on May 16.