The BBC has revealed it is unlikely to be able to recoup the £200,000 paid to Huw Edwards after he was arrested or the £300,000-a-year pension he can now receive.
The corporation knew the 62-year-old presenter had been arrested last November but continued to pay his salary until he resigned on medical advice this April.
Edwards had been the BBC’s highest-paid newsreader, with its accounts putting him in a pay bracket of between £475,000 and £479,999 for 2023/24. This was a £40,000 pay rise from 2022/23, when he was paid between £435,000 and £439,999.
And the veteran broadcaster, who joined the BBC in 1984, is estimated to have received more than £200,000 pre-tax after his bosses knew of the allegations.
Edwards also could still retire on a BBC pension paying more than £300,000-a-year, despite admitting making indecent photographs of children in court on Wednesday.
He is thought to have been entitled to a pension paying two thirds of his final salary from the age of 60 – provided he never left the scheme, according to the Telegraph.
Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has now asked the BBC to look into whether it can recoup money from Edwards’s pay packet – and its director-general Tim Davie said the corporation is considering legal action to get back some of his payments.
Director-general Tim Davie said the BBC will ‘look at all options’ over Huw Edwards’s pay
Huw Edwards leaves court on Wednesday after admitting making indecent images of children
When asked about Edwards keeping his pension, Mr Davie told BBC News that the sums are ‘very difficult to claw back, nigh on impossible’ and ‘unfortunately the specifics of how it works’.
ANALYSIS: Could the BBC have sacked Huw Edwards with a parallel disciplinary probe?
By MICHAEL NADIN
Huw Edwards will have been entitled to receive salary and pension contributions for as long as his employment continued.
Had the BBC taken action when they first found out about the allegations they could potentially have run a parallel disciplinary investigation and – depending on the outcome – dismissed him.
However, the BBC may have been asked by the police not to take this action for fear that it would interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation.
Unfortunately, because Huw Edward’s employment continued until April 2024 – when he resigned – the BBC would have no automatic right to recoup any payments made to him up to this point.
The only exceptions would be if there was a clause in his employment contract which allowed recovery in these circumstance – which seems very unlikely – or if Huw Edwards voluntarily agrees to return the money.’
MICHAEL NADIN is an employment partner at DFA Law LLP, Northampton
Mr Davie – who has spoken to Ms Nandy about the situation – added: ‘When it comes to pay, again, (it’s) legally challenging (to recover), but we’ll look at all options.’
He has also defended the BBC’s decision to employ the broadcaster until April, five months after he was told of Edwards’s arrest in November over the most serious category of indecent images of children.
BBC bosses were not aware of the ages of the children in the images.
Today, one employment law specialist pointed out that the BBC has ‘no automatic right to recoup any payments made to him up to this point’.
Michael Nadin, employment partner at Northampton-based DFA Law LLP, told MailOnline: ‘Huw Edwards will have been entitled to receive salary and pension contributions for as long as his employment continued.
‘Had the BBC taken action when they first found out about the allegations they could potentially have run a parallel disciplinary investigation and – depending on the outcome – dismissed him.
‘However, the BBC may have been asked by the police not to take this action for fear that it would interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation.
‘Unfortunately, because Huw Edward’s employment continued until April 2024 – when he resigned – the BBC would have no automatic right to recoup any payments made to him up to this point.
‘The only exceptions would be if there was a clause in his employment contract which allowed recovery in these circumstance – which seems very unlikely – or if Huw Edwards voluntarily agrees to return the money.’
Ian Jones, director and principal solicitor at Spencer Shaw Solicitors in Birmingham, said the concept of recovering either the pay or pension ‘seems to be a political reaction without knowledge of the complexities of employment or pension law’.
He told MailOnline: ‘Suspension is a neutral act under the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary Procedures.
‘If an employer makes a decision to suspend an employee, it must continue to pay the employee – including pension contributions. The employer’s obligation to pay an employee does not cease until they decide to terminate employment.
‘It is the employer’s choice whether to proceed with disciplinary action whilst a police investigation is ongoing. The procedures and standards of proof are different for both.
‘The employer does not need to wait until the authorities to reach a decision to complete its own disciplinary proceedings.’
He said that most employers do await the outcome of the criminal process, because they could face claims for unfair dismissal if the proceedings do not result in a conviction.
Mr Jones continued: ‘The BBC made a choice which may have been the right one at the time. Hindsight always has the advantage of coming after the event.
‘There is little prospect of the BBC being able to recover either the salary paid or the employee’s pension. Pensions are administered by the pension trustees, not the BBC.
‘This seems to be a political reaction without knowledge of the complexities of employment or pension law.’
Another employment law specialist said she cannot see any legal basis for the BBC trying to recoup salary and pension contributions, unless there is something in the contract entitling them to.
Dawn Robertson, an employment law specialist from Scottish firm BTO Solicitors, told MailOnline: ‘Suspension is really intended to preserve the evidence and avoid the employee from interfering with any investigations.
‘As such, the employee should be paid as normal – including any employer pension contributions – during any period of suspension.
‘It will not always be necessary for an employer to wait until the conclusion of a criminal trial before determining the fate of the employee’s employment.
‘However, an employer will have to consider the matter very carefully before determining that it can dismiss an employee not yet convicted by virtue of their alleged criminal conduct.
‘Unless there is something contained within the employee’s contract entitling the employer to recoup salary and benefits – including pension contributions – in certain circumstances, including where there is a subsequent conviction or admission of guilt, I cannot see any legal basis for an employer seeking to do so.’
Ms Robertson also pointed out that the issue of pensions has been highlighted in some high profile police misconduct cases, and there is a specific provision for police pensions which permit forfeiture of the pension in certain cases.
One was Wayne Couzens, the police officer who kidnapped and murdered Sarah Everard, who was stripped of his Metropolitan Police pension after the Home Office was requested to withhold it by the Mayor of London.
The cases include when a pension scheme member has been convicted of treason or of offences under the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1939 and has been sentenced to at least ten years in jail.
Another possibility is where a pension scheme member has been convicted of an offence committed in connection with his or her service as a member of a police force, which is certified by the Home Secretary either to have been gravely injurious to the interests of the state, or to be liable to lead to a serious loss of confidence in the public service.
But Ms Robertson added: ‘I am not however aware of any similar provisions for non police employees.’
Ms Nandy spoke with Mr Davie yesterday after Edwards admitted three counts of making indecent photographs, with seven of the 41 images being of the most serious type.
After the meeting between Ms Nandy and Mr Davie, a statement issued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport said: ‘The Culture Secretary is, like the whole nation, shocked by Huw Edwards’ abhorrent actions, and her thoughts are with the victims whose lives have been destroyed. It is now for the judiciary to decide on an appropriate sentence.
‘The BBC is operationally and editorially independent, but given the incredibly serious nature of this issue, the Secretary of State has spoken to the BBC to raise concerns on a number of points regarding the handling of their own investigations into Huw Edwards, what safeguards and processes had been followed in this case, and additionally, what further action may be taken, especially with regard to the handling of licence fee payers’ money.’
The DCMS statement added that Ms Nandy ‘sought assurance that the BBC has robust processes in place regarding non-editorial complaints, and the handling of complex contractual matters, so that in future it can act at pace and be transparent with the public at the earliest opportunity to ensure trust is maintained’.
Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has asked the BBC to look into whether it can recoup money from Edwards’s pay packet after the former broadcaster admitted the charges on Wednesday
Ms Nandy has asked the broadcaster to keep her updated on any developments in the case.
Yesterday, Mr Davie defended the pay rise for Edwards , saying it was made up of an ‘inflationary increase’ and work he did at the BBC in February 2023 before any allegations were made.
Mr Davie also said the corporation will ‘look at all options’ in trying to reclaim pay from Edwards after the revelations.
Asked how much BBC managers were told in November after Edwards’ arrest, Mr Davie said: ‘We knew it was serious, we knew no specifics, apart from the category of the potential offences.’
He also confirmed that the chief executive of BBC News & Current Affairs, Deborah Turness, knew about the charges before this week, BBC News reported.
Mr Davie said there was a ‘very small group of people at the centre’ who knew and they had a ‘very restricted list of names’.
‘When it comes to news, there was one name on it, the CEO of news, Deborah Turness. She isn’t involved editorially in the reporting of the story,’ he added.
Mr Davie defended the corporation’s decision not to sack Edwards in November, 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.’
While he knew the severity of the charges, Mr Davie said he was ‘very shocked’ when the details of Edwards’ arrest came to light in full earlier this week.
‘We were very shocked. No-one knew about the specifics of what we heard over the last few days, which have been deeply disturbing,’ he said.
He claimed that because Edwards remained suspended before his resignation in April, there were no issues relating to BBC employees’ safety.
Huw Edwards arrives at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday for his court hearing
He added: ‘Another factor at this point was very significant duty-of-care considerations.
‘I think it was right for us to say, ‘Look, we’ll let the police do their business, and then when charges happen, we will act’.’
The BBC previously said after Edwards’s 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.
Huw Edwards has behaved in an ‘utterly deplorable’ manner and should hand back thousands of pounds he was paid by the BBC,
Meanwhile one of the nation’s most distinguished broadcasters said last night that Edwards had behaved in an ‘utterly deplorable’ manner and should hand back thousands of pounds he was paid by the BBC.
Huw Edwards announced the death of Queen Elizabeth II on BBC News on September 8, 2022
In a searing condemnation of his former colleague, Nicholas Witchell said Edwards should have quit as soon as he was arrested for child sex offences last November because he would have immediately known that ‘the game was up’.
He accused the Edwards of putting the corporation in ‘an impossible position’ and said he should repay the wages he received since his arrest if he has ‘a shred of decency’.
The intervention will pile further pressure on Edwards to cough up the cash.
Witchell – who retired earlier this year after a decades-long career that included a lengthy stint as the BBC’s royal correspondent – told the Mail he had regarded Edwards ‘as a friend’ and had ‘expressed sympathy for him’ after the initial nude photos controversy broke in July last year.
He said: ‘I now think his behaviour is utterly deplorable. The very least he should have done last November when he was arrested is immediately to have resigned. He would have known then that the game was up.
‘Instead, he put the BBC in an impossible position as it tried to discharge its duty of care towards him.
‘The very least he should do now, if he has a shred of decency, is to repay the money the BBC has paid him since his arrest.
‘The BBC has tried to be honourable in the way it has handled this. He has been dishonourable and shabby in his response.’
Radio 5 presenter Nicky Campbell also attacked Edwards. Mr Campbell, who was physically abused by a teacher when he was at school, said: ‘Let’s think about the children in these images.
‘Callously exploited and psychologically destroyed… [they] will live with this for ever, and all for the twisted pleasure of the disgusting men who trade and swap this misery.’
The BBC 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 them
Radio 2 presenter Jeremy Vine said the BBC should clarify if it had asked Edwards if he was guilty when it was made aware of his arrest.
He called on bosses to confirm if they had tried to establish whether the star was guilty or not, adding: ‘You can’t justify paying him beyond November if you know he’s guilty.’
Vine said on his Channel 5 talk show: ‘We need to find out if BBC said, what [were you arrested] for and are you guilty? If he said to them, ‘It’s for these serious offences, but I’m not guilty’, then I would think you could start to take action to get the money back. Because that clearly is a lie. He’s admitted he’s guilty.’
Former BBC royal correspondent Jennie Bond said: ‘Frankly, if Huw has any dignity left then he would hand some of the money back, certainly the 200 grand he has made since his arrest.’
Edwards admitted making indecent photographs, with seven being of the most serious type
It emerged in July last year that Edwards had paid a young person £35,000-plus for explicit images.
Edwards resigned from the BBC in April ‘on the basis of medical advice from his doctors’ after unrelated allegations revealed in July last year that he paid a young person £35,000-plus for sexually explicit photos.
He eventually resigned from the BBC in April, and police found no evidence of criminal behaviour in that matter.
But it was revealed on Monday that Edwards was arrested on November 8 last year regarding the indecent photographs.
He admitted the charges at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday, and will next appear in court on September 16.
