The BBC must tell the truth about decisions it made over Huw Edwards because the public “need to know”, a former culture secretary has said.
Sir John Whittingdale argued that revelations about the 62-year-old were “damaging” for the corporation, and an internal inquiry would not be enough.
Edwards, the former leading BBC presenter, this week pleaded guilty to possessing 41 indecent images of children, including one believed to be as young as seven.
The BBC admitted it knew Edwards had been arrested last November for “serious offences”, but continued to employ him for five months.
Appearing on BBC Newsnight, Sir John referred to reports that Edwards subjected employees to “completely inappropriate behaviour [who] reported it and yet nothing was done”.
“Those are the kinds of questions where it isn’t enough just to have an internal inquiry,” he said. “I think there is a public need to know exactly what actions were taken by the BBC.”
Sir John said the corporation’s handling of the affair had left “an impression that the BBC has not sought to be as transparent as they should be”, adding: “I think it’s clearly damaging for the BBC, particularly the way in which further revelations [have] become public.
“[The] BBC always carries out internal inquiries and we’re told that lessons have been learnt and safeguards have been put in place, and yet they don’t appear to have been effective.”
The BBC has held a number of internal investigations into scandals in recent years, including the prolific sex abuse by Jimmy Savile while at the corporation.
Referring to his time as the chairman of the Commons culture, media and sport committee, Sir John said it was “unfortunate” the committee had not yet been set up in the new Parliament.
He added that if he still led the group, he would haul Tim Davie, the BBC’s director general, before it immediately “to answer what are very significant questions”.
“I think Tim Davie generally does a very good job, I have a lot of respect for Tim, and I absolutely accept what he said… this must have been a very difficult decision.
“But I think we need to know much more about why it came to the conclusion that [Edwards] should go on receiving his salary, that he should be allowed to resign rather than be sacked, and why the BBC knew about his arrest and yet we only discover it eight months later.”
Edwards, who was the corporation’s highest-paid journalist and delivered the news of Queen Elizabeth II’s death, resigned from the BBC in April in the wake of separate accusations.
He had been suspended the previous July following allegations in The Sun newspaper that a senior broadcaster at the corporation paid a teenager for sexually explicit pictures.
Vicky Flind, his wife, revealed after days of speculation that Edwards was the celebrity at the centre of the scandal, saying he was suffering from “serious mental health issues”.
The BBC conducted a “fact-finding” inquiry into his alleged behaviour while he was off air, while the Metropolitan Police said last July there was nothing to indicate that any criminal offence had been committed.
In an interview given to the BBC, Mr Davie said it would be “legally challenging” to attempt to claw back more than £200,000 Edwards received after he was arrested but added: “We’ll look at all options.”
He also defended the decision not to sack the newsreader when it became aware of his arrest, saying: “The police came to us and said, ‘look, we need to do our work in total confidence, we’ve arrested, please keep this confidential’.
“And at that point, I think the principle is clear in my mind, and I say we thought long and hard about this – this wasn’t a knee-jerk decision.
“And it was difficult, but when the police, if you think about this in terms of precedent, people do get arrested and then we’ve had situations where no charges [are made] and there’s nothing there to be followed up on.”
Mr Davie said the BBC “knew it was serious” but had “no specifics apart from the category of the potential offences”.
Echoing a statement released by the corporation, he said he was “very shocked” when the full charges emerged this week, and described the case as “deeply disturbing”.
He went on to claim that the safety of BBC employees had not been compromised, because Edwards remained suspended before his resignation.
Dismissing the idea the BBC knew any further information, Mr Davie said: “I can categorically say that when it comes to the offences we’ve seen, which are truly horrendous, any evidence that is out there is not in the hands of the BBC. If I saw evidence of that, that is not a complicated decision.”
