I think Piers has a point, the statement offered was a totally inadequate response to the points raised, was provided in lieu of putting somebody up for interview and told us very little.
The way the BBC's guidelines are phrased implies that if they offer an interview they have fulfilled their responsibility - there is nothing in there to say that if they refuse and interview any statement they provide in lieu has to be read out https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidance/right-of-reply
That's not quite the case is it :
There is no prescribed format that a right of reply should take. For example - if it is fair to do so - we may offer an interview, request a written statement for inclusion fairly in the output or simply telephone the subject of the allegations, note their response and reflect it fairly in the relevant output.
The final element of noting their response and reflecting it fairly in the output means if you ask someone for an interview, they decline, and instead send a written response, you should still reflect that. You can't ask them for an interview and then, if they decline that offer, ignore their written response. You still have an obligation to offer a right of reply and fairly reflect that response.
There is nothing in that to say that if they decline an interview they get to choose an alternative means of replying, if they were offered an interview and choose not to make themselves available that seems to be sufficient to me.
It may seem fair to you - but the rules are clear. if a response to your offer of a right to reply is received - you have an obligation to fairly reflect that response. If someone is offered a studio interview, but declines and submits a written statement instead, you can't ignore that written statement.
You can't compel someone to appear on camera, nor is it fair to ignore their response to that request. You may not agree with it - but that's an accepted way of treating people fairly.
Nor does it say that any (unsolicited) statement they send in lieu has to be read verbatim, it can be reflected in the interview questions - I have only seen the clip linked above so I don't know if it was.
No - and it would be incredibly unusual to read a response verbatim (they are usually far too long). However it is required that you don't alter the meaning or intent when you sub, or paraphrase, a response. It is also editorially important to make it clear that you are reading their response to demonstrate you have behaved fairly.
Lots of rights of reply will have been scripted in association with a duty lawyer employed by the broadcaster for this kind of thing, and once agreed and 'legalled' you have to be very careful with any further changes.
If the statement is just generic waffle that doesn't address what was discussed, then it isn't really a reply and explaining why you are not going to read it is arguably reflecting its content.
In reality - not really. You have a duty reflect the response fairly. You may be able to editorially reference it after reading it noting that it didn't seem to address the points you made, but you can't just bin it.