MPs have stated that BBC chairman Richard Sharp committed “serious mistakes of judgment” when he acted as a middleman for a loan for Boris Johnson when he was applying for the position.
Two years ago, when a cross-party committee was evaluating his eligibility for the BBC position, he allegedly failed to provide the “whole facts.”
It was stated that he should evaluate how this harmed trust in him and the BBC. Mr. Sharp apologized if MPs lacked all the necessary information.
Since the Sunday Times first reported the allegations a month ago, his role in the then-prime minister Mr. Johnson’s acquisition of an £800,000 credit guarantee has been scrutinized.
Businessman Sam Blyth, a distant cousin of Mr. Johnson and a friend of Mr. Sharp, reportedly proposed in 2020 that he serve as a loan guarantor for Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Sharp stated last week before the Commons Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) Committee that he did not help negotiate this guarantee or provide Mr. Johnson with financial advice.
In January 2021, he was designated the government’s favored choice for the BBC post, and the DCMS Committee supported his appointment at the time.
The final decision is made by the prime minister, based on the advice of the culture secretary, who is in turn advised by a panel.
In a report released on Sunday, the DCMS Committee is extremely critical of Mr. Sharp’s omission to disclose his role in events surrounding the loan while he was being evaluated for the position.
The investigation stated that his decisions to “get involved in the facilitation of a loan to the then-prime minister while simultaneously applying for a job that was in that same person’s gift” eroded confidence in the public appointments process.
Mr. Sharp told the committee earlier this week that he met with Cabinet Secretary Simon Case in December 2020 to obtain permission to share Mr. Blyth’s information with him.
However, he disclosed to Mr. Case at the same meeting that he had applied for a position at the BBC, and he agreed to have “no further participation” in order to avoid any conflict of interest or perception of a conflict of interest in light of his application to the BBC.
In a highly critical report, MPs stated that Mr. Sharp had acknowledged the need for “openness and transparency” by bringing it to the cabinet secretary’s attention, but “failed to apply the same standards of openness and candor in his decision not to disclose this information during the interview process or to this committee during the pre-appointment hearing.”
“Mr. Sharp’s omission to disclose his activities to the panel and the committee, despite his belief that it was entirely appropriate, constitutes a violation of the norms expected of those seeking such public posts,” the report concluded.
The investigation stated, “Mr. Sharp should consider how his omissions would affect public confidence in him, the BBC, and the public appointment process.”
A representative for Mr. Sharp stated that he did not introduce Mr. Johnson and Mr. Blyth, nor was he involved in the structuring of a loan between them.
“Mr. Sharp acknowledges that the committee felt it should have been informed of some information during his pre-appointment hearing. He expresses regret and apologizes.
Richard Sharp behaved in good faith at the time because he wanted to guarantee that the regulations were followed and he believed that this had been accomplished.
The spokesman continued,
“Mr. Sharp believed he had resolved the issue by proactively informing the cabinet secretary that he was seeking for the position of BBC chair, and he recused himself from the subject beyond connecting Mr. Blyth with Mr. Case.”
The DCMS Committee report was particularly critical of ministers who, despite being unaware of the circumstances, justified the choice to back Mr. Sharp in 2021 after the loan scandal arose.
“The fact that ministers have cited this committee’s original report on Mr. Sharp’s appointment as a defense of the process that was followed when we were not in full possession of all the facts that we should have had in front of us in order to reach a conclusion, is extremely unsatisfactory,” the report stated.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak stated that Mr. Sharp was appointed BBC chairman after two “open and thorough” appointment processes, noting that his predecessor made the appointment.
The Sunday Times reports that a leaked document from Mr. Case cautioned Mr. Johnson to “never longer” seek financial advice from Mr. Sharp.
In this latest report, however, the MPs state that there is an “unresolved problem” regarding why the cabinet secretary felt Mr. Sharp had given financial advice to Mr. Johnson, and they request that the Cabinet Office “clear up the confusion” in light of Mr. Sharp’s denial.
Acting Chair of the DCMS Committee Damian Green MP stated, “The public appointments process can only be effective if everyone is open and transparent, yet Richard Sharp opted not to disclose his role in facilitating a loan for Boris Johnson to either the appointment panel or our committee.”
The memorandum written by the Cabinet Office to Boris Johnson on 22 December 2020 is a fascinating part for those of us following this narrative closely.
Mr. Sharp would soon be named chairman of the BBC, a position appointed by the then-prime minister. Therefore, Boris Johnson has been instructed to “never longer seek his guidance on your own financial concerns.”
Richard Sharp claims he never gave Mr. Johnson financial advice. So why is the memo written in this manner? The committee has requested that the Cabinet Office promptly clarify the situation.
The committee does not call for Mr. Sharp to quit, but it comes close to urging he does so when it says he should assess the impact his actions have had on the BBC’s and the public’s trust in him.
Even if he had disclosed this potential conflict of interest, there is no assurance that someone else would have been selected as BBC chairman.
Nonetheless, the procedure is being scrutinized, and we are currently awaiting the examination by the public appointments watchdog.
Shadow culture minister Lucy Powell stated that the BBC chairman’s position was becoming “increasingly untenable” and that it “threatens the BBC’s essential impartiality and independence.”
According to the Liberal Democrats, Mr. Johnson must also answer questions as part of an independent investigation.
Mr. Sharp’s hiring is also being investigated by the agency that monitors the public appointment process.
William Shawcross, the Commissioner for Public Appointments, recused himself from leading this assessment last month, stating in a letter to the DCMS that he had “previously” met Mr. Sharp.
Additionally, the BBC is launching an internal investigation into any potential conflicts of interest Mr. Sharp may have as BBC chairman.
Also Read: Jonathan Groff, Who Is Out Gay, Discusses A Relationship Gone Wrong
