Huw Edwards has been asked to hand back the salary he earned from the corporation after being arrested on child abuse image charges.
Formerly the BBC’s most high-profile newsreader, Edwards continued to earn his salary for five months after he was arrested on three counts of making indecent images of children, during which time he was paid more than £200,000.
In a letter to staff the BBC Chair Samir Shah said that Edwards had “behaved in bad faith” – saying that the corporation believed he had taken his salary despite preparing to plead guilty to the “appalling” offences.
“Today, the Board has authorised the Executive to seek the return of salary paid to Mr Edwards from the time he was arrested in November last year,” the Board statement said.
“Mr Edwards pleaded guilty to an appalling crime. Had he been up front when asked by the BBC about his arrest, we would never have continued to pay him public money.
“He has clearly undermined trust in the BBC and brought us into disrepute.”
The corporation was informed that Edwards had been arrested in November 2023 but continued to employ the veteran broadcaster until April, when Edwards resigned on medical advice.
Edwards pleaded guilty to making indecent images of children on July 31, with the court hearing he had been involved in an online chat with an adult man on WhatsApp between December 2020 and August 2021, who sent him 377 sexual images, of which 41 were indecent images of children.
The BBC statement said: “There is nothing more important than the public’s trust in the BBC; the BBC board is the custodian of that trust.
“The board has met a number of times over the last week to review information provided by the executive relating to Huw Edwards. The board’s focus has been principally around two issues.
Watch Apple TV+ free for 7 days
New subscribers only. £8.99/mo. after free trial. Plan auto-renews until cancelled
Watch Apple TV+ free for 7 days
New subscribers only. £8.99/mo. after free trial. Plan auto-renews until cancelled
“Firstly, what was known in the lead up to Mr Edwards being charged and pleading guilty last Wednesday to making indecent images of children; and, secondly, the specifics of the BBC’s handling of the complaints and the BBC’s own investigations into MrEdwards, prior to his resignation on April 22 2024”.
The BBC Board also said it backed Director General Tim Davie’s handling of the matter.
Mr Davie confirmed last week that the BBC had known that the presenter had been arrested over possessing the most serious category of images.
The statement also announced that the Board has commissioned an independent review that will “make recommendations on practical steps that could strengthen a workplace culture in line with BBC Values”.
Previously, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy told Sky News that she had asked to see the employment law advice given to the BBC, and called for the corporation’s director-general Tim Davie to address “outstanding issues”, and come back to her.
The minister also said of Edwards: “I think he ought to return his salary.
“I think having been arrested on such serious charges all the way back in November, to continue to receive that salary all the way through until he resigned is wrong and it’s not a good use of taxpayers’ money.”
Before Edwards resigned, he was the broadcaster’s highest-paid newsreader, with a pay bracket between £475,000 and £479,999 for the year 2023-24, according to the BBC’s latest annual report.
It marked a £40,000 pay rise from 2022/23, when he was paid between £435,000 and £439,999.
In an interview with BBC News on August 1 the director-general defended the rise, saying it was made up of an “inflationary increase” and work Edwards did at the BBC in February 2023 before any allegations were made.
Mr Davie also said in the same interview that the corporation would “look at all options” in trying to reclaim pay from Edwards after the revelations, but ruled out doing the same for his pension due to legal reasons.
The BBC previously said after Edwards’ guilty plea that if he had been charged while he was still an employee it would have sacked him, but at the point of charge he no longer worked for the corporation.