creative industries during a pandemic. for more than two years now i have seen the beating heart of the bbc up close and for all its complexities, successes and occasional failings complexities, successes and occasionalfailings bbc complexities, successes and occasional failings bbc is an incredible dynamic and world beating creative force not matched anywhere. as chair i have acted at all times in the public interest and for the betterment of the bbc. i am proud to have fought for the recent return of government funding for the world service, i have been active in commissioning independent thematic reviews of touchstone issues and i have championed the importance of the bbc as a well funded and impartial bbc broadcaster and teacher this incredible organisation has been an honour and the contribution of the bbc took national life is immense, its people hard—working and absolutely ha rd—working and absolutely brilliant hard—working and absolutely brilliant and preserving and enhancing it really matters. thank you.

let's remind us of the events that led us to where we are today. richard sharp was appointed chairman of the bbc in february 2021. at the start of this year the sunday times reported he was accused by a group of mps for failing to declare his involvement in securing an £800,000 loan for mrjohnsonjust involvement in securing an £800,000 loan for mrjohnson just before he recommended mr sharp for the bbc job. there was discussion of his listenership with eventbrite minister and there was added pressure for him to resign amid the gary lineker impartiality row last month. mr sharp denies any wrongdoing. as i mentioned, started in the sunday times and we are going live to the whitehall editor at the sunday times. gabriel, quite a skip on quite a conclusion. what is your reaction? i on quite a conclusion. what is your reaction? ~ ., ._ on quite a conclusion. what is your reaction? ~ . ._ ., , reaction? i think, in a way, it has codified and _ reaction? i think, in a way, it has codified and crystallised - reaction? i think, in a way, it has codified and crystallised what - reaction? i think, in a way, it has codified and crystallised what we| codified and crystallised what we have long known to be the case. the

qc have long known to be the case. the oc was _ have long known to be the case. the qc was incredibly fair to richard sharp, — qc was incredibly fair to richard sharp, said he was never in doubt on dotting _ sharp, said he was never in doubt on dotting the _ sharp, said he was never in doubt on dotting the eyes and crossing the ts on a financial loan, but he spoke to boris _ on a financial loan, but he spoke to borisjohnson and simon on a financial loan, but he spoke to boris johnson and simon case about an offer_ boris johnson and simon case about an offer of— boris johnson and simon case about an offer of financial support for the then— an offer of financial support for the then prime minister, and none of those _ the then prime minister, and none of those facts _ the then prime minister, and none of those facts were made available to the people entrusted with making sure his _ the people entrusted with making sure his appointment was compliant with the _ sure his appointment was compliant with the rules.— with the rules. but, gabriel, they were somehow _ with the rules. but, gabriel, they were somehow made _ with the rules. but, gabriel, they were somehow made available i with the rules. but, gabriel, they were somehow made available to with the rules. but, gabriel, they - were somehow made available to you, and you told everybody through the sunday times. can you just take us through what happened when you heard about the news and how you were able to publish that story?— to publish that story? absolutely. it all to publish that story? absolutely. it all started _ to publish that story? absolutely. it all started when _ to publish that story? absolutely. it all started when harry - to publish that story? absolutely. it all started when harry yorke, i to publish that story? absolutely. | it all started when harry yorke, my colleague, — it all started when harry yorke, my colleague, and i were investigating not richard sharp but actually this distant _ not richard sharp but actually this distant cousin of boris johnson, distant cousin of borisjohnson, the canadian _ distant cousin of borisjohnson, the canadian multimillionaire businessman sam bligh, who at a

dinner— businessman sam bligh, who at a dinner was— businessman sam bligh, who at a dinner was discussing boris johnson's i won't say penurious situation, — johnson's i won't say penurious situation, but he was in financial peril, _ situation, but he was in financial peril, the — situation, but he was in financial peril, the redecoration of downing street, _ peril, the redecoration of downing street, divorce payments, child care payments. _ street, divorce payments, child care payments, was struggling to meet, you know. — payments, was struggling to meet, you know, the cost of living as a prime _ you know, the cost of living as a prime minister being unable to take in separate income, and at a notting hill dinner— in separate income, and at a notting hill dinner party sam bligh basically said, i would be pretty happy— basically said, i would be pretty happy to— basically said, i would be pretty happy to support the prime minister while he _ happy to support the prime minister while he is _ happy to support the prime minister while he is in office, and we spent quite _ while he is in office, and we spent quite a _ while he is in office, and we spent quite a long — while he is in office, and we spent quite a long time trying to assemble the details on that. borisjohnson's team _ the details on that. borisjohnson's team were — the details on that. borisjohnson's team were pretty effective at deterring others from publishing ahythihq — deterring others from publishing anything in the first instance. we had numbers. they rejected them, and then we _ had numbers. they rejected them, and then we had _ had numbers. they rejected them, and then we had sources who told us the figure _ then we had sources who told us the figure was— then we had sources who told us the figure was £800,000 and it transpire that transpired it was a financial facility— that transpired it was a financial facility of— that transpired it was a financial facility of up to £800,000, so much sophistry— facility of up to £800,000, so much sophistry and verbiage used to get

us not _ sophistry and verbiage used to get us not to— sophistry and verbiage used to get us not to report this, but it was after— us not to report this, but it was after we — us not to report this, but it was after we revealed sam bligh's involvement in this that a source approached me and the rest i suppose has been _ approached me and the rest i suppose has been chronicled in the sunday times _ has been chronicled in the sunday times. �* , ., ., , , times. but tell us what happened next when you — times. but tell us what happened next when you approached - times. but tell us what happened l next when you approached downing street and the bbc.— street and the bbc. well, for ages the government _ street and the bbc. well, for ages the government and _ street and the bbc. well, for ages the government and ministers - street and the bbc. well, for ages. the government and ministers were issuinq _ the government and ministers were issuinq pro— the government and ministers were issuing proforma statements saying everything was utterly transparent and done — everything was utterly transparent and done by the book. i and done by the book. ithink. _ and done by the book. i think, though, and done by the book. ithink, though, the and done by the book. i think, though, the facts, and done by the book. ithink, though, the facts, you know. — ithink, though, the facts, you know, squarely contradicted that. because _ know, squarely contradicted that. because it — know, squarely contradicted that. because it was always clear that none _ because it was always clear that none of — because it was always clear that none of the people involved, not the appointments panel, not the dcms select— appointments panel, not the dcms select committee of mps to rubber—stamp the appointment, wherever— rubber—stamp the appointment, wherever told about any of this. it would _ wherever told about any of this. it would have — wherever told about any of this. it would have been apparent from outer space _ would have been apparent from outer space it _ would have been apparent from outer space it is _ would have been apparent from outer space it is a — would have been apparent from outer space. it is a sort of well—established that bbc appointments are approved formally try appointments are approved formally by the _ appointments are approved formally by the monarch on the advice of ministers, — by the monarch on the advice of ministers, and it is always known

there _ ministers, and it is always known there is— ministers, and it is always known there is room for political interference. that was the case durinq — interference. that was the case during new labour and it would be totally— during new labour and it would be totally disingenuous to say that was anything _ totally disingenuous to say that was anything new, albeit in this case it seemed _ anything new, albeit in this case it seemed particularly subject to that. there _ seemed particularly subject to that. there was— seemed particularly subject to that. there was a report in the spectator written _ there was a report in the spectator written by — there was a report in the spectator written by robert peston, formerly of your— written by robert peston, formerly of your parish, in which he said people — of your parish, in which he said people who are interested in applying for the job in late 2020 were _ applying for the job in late 2020 were being told, literally, "do not bother— were being told, literally, "do not bother because it is already richard sharp" _ bother because it is already richard sharp", _ bother because it is already richard sharp", and — bother because it is already richard sharp", and that was after, by the way, _ sharp", and that was after, by the way, charles moore had been designated as a shoe in but chose not to— designated as a shoe in but chose not to apply for the position. it was always clear boris johnson had sharp— was always clear boris johnson had sharp in— was always clear boris johnson had sharp in mind and people would have known _ sharp in mind and people would have known that _ sharp in mind and people would have known that but what wasn't known was the fact _ known that but what wasn't known was the fact they had actually discussed it inside _ the fact they had actually discussed it inside downing street and that sharp— it inside downing street and that sharp had intimate knowledge and was in fact— sharp had intimate knowledge and was in fact involved in negotiations about— in fact involved in negotiations about how underwriting prime minister's day—to—day finances in office _ minister's day-to-day finances in office. ., , minister's day-to-day finances in office. ., �*, office. you said boris johnson's team was _ office. you said boris johnson's team was effective _ office. you said boris johnson's team was effective in _ office. you said boris johnson's team was effective in deterring j office. you said boris johnson's - team was effective in deterring you at the beginning when you came

forward with the story. is that part of the problem? borisjohnson, a friend of richard sharp, mentor to the current prime minister, and even the current prime minister, and even the person who was going to conduct a report into him had to stand aside because he knew him. this was a political appointment. does it effectively now cause a lot of problems for this role is bbc chairman in the way to structured at the moment? does it all look very bad? it the moment? does it all look very bad? . . , the moment? does it all look very bad? . ., , ., bad? it certainly looks bad. i am obviously a _ bad? it certainly looks bad. i am obviously a humble _ bad? it certainly looks bad. i am obviously a humble reporter, - bad? it certainly looks bad. i am obviously a humble reporter, so| obviously a humble reporter, so never— obviously a humble reporter, so never have _ obviously a humble reporter, so never have any intellectual opinions of my— never have any intellectual opinions of my own. — never have any intellectual opinions of my own, but i think it is apparent _ of my own, but i think it is apparent that even by the standard of bbc_ apparent that even by the standard of bbc appointments in times gone by they certainly gave the appearance of beinqm — they certainly gave the appearance of being... of cosiness, friends who knew— of being... of cosiness, friends who knew each— of being... of cosiness, friends who knew each other and saw each other outside _ knew each other and saw each other outside the — knew each other and saw each other outside the world of westminster and whitehall, _ outside the world of westminster and whitehall, you know, making things happen— whitehall, you know, making things happen without the knowledge of those _ happen without the knowledge of those appointed to ensure probity and due _ those appointed to ensure probity and due process was done. and it is possible _ and due process was done. and it is possible now that this will lead to

a wider— possible now that this will lead to a wider conversation about the way these _ a wider conversation about the way these appointments are administered. either— these appointments are administered. either way, _ these appointments are administered. either way, just another connection to add _ either way, just another connection to add to _ either way, just another connection to add to those you are new narrated, _ to add to those you are new narrated, rishi sunak while a junior banker. _ narrated, rishi sunak while a junior banker. you — narrated, rishi sunak while a junior banker, you know, had richard sharp as his _ banker, you know, had richard sharp as his boss, — banker, you know, had richard sharp as his boss, so there is a connection between almost literally all the _ connection between almost literally all the main characters this story, and i_ all the main characters this story, and i think. — all the main characters this story, and i think, you know, at a time when _ and i think, you know, at a time when the — and i think, you know, at a time when the bbc... i certainly don't need _ when the bbc... i certainly don't need to— when the bbc... i certainly don't need to tell you this, but obviously there _ need to tell you this, but obviously there is— need to tell you this, but obviously there is massive scrutiny, it is a profoundly— there is massive scrutiny, it is a profoundly difficult moment for the corporation. you have had the gary lineker— corporation. you have had the gary lineker controversy which put bbc impartiality under the spotlight, and this— impartiality under the spotlight, and this was always going to be very difficult _ and this was always going to be very difficult from the moment the report found _ difficult from the moment the report found there had been multiple breaches of the governments own code _ breaches of the governments own code. . ., ,, ., , ., code. richard sharp said it was an inadvertent _ code. richard sharp said it was an inadvertent mistake _ code. richard sharp said it was an inadvertent mistake and - code. richard sharp said it was an inadvertent mistake and he - code. richard sharp said it was an i inadvertent mistake and he thought he had told the civil service and they might pass this information on. do you have any sympathy for him? i certainly have sympathy for the argument that simon case faces questions — argument that simon case faces questions of his own. this

argument that simon case faces questions of his own.— argument that simon case faces questions of his own. this is the uk's to- questions of his own. this is the uk's top civil — questions of his own. this is the uk's top civil servant. _ questions of his own. this is the uk's top civil servant. that's - uk's top civil servant. that's ri . ht, uk's top civil servant. that's riaht, i uk's top civil servant. that's right, i should _ uk's top civil servant. that's right, i should have - uk's top civil servant. that's| right, i should have clarified. uk's top civil servant. that's - right, i should have clarified. the cabinet _ right, i should have clarified. the cabinet secretary. firstly, to say, qenuinely. — cabinet secretary. firstly, to say, genuinely, we never accuse richard sharp— genuinely, we never accuse richard sharp of— genuinely, we never accuse richard sharp of acting in bad faith or being — sharp of acting in bad faith or being an _ sharp of acting in bad faith or being an unpleasant person or anything — being an unpleasant person or anything like that. that is nothing to do— anything like that. that is nothing to do with — anything like that. that is nothing to do with our role in investigating and revealing facts about what happened, but on the topic of the facts _ happened, but on the topic of the facts one — happened, but on the topic of the facts one of the very few people other— facts one of the very few people other than borisjohnson, richard other than boris johnson, richard sharp— other than boris johnson, richard sharp and — other than borisjohnson, richard sharp and sam bligh who knew about this was— sharp and sam bligh who knew about this was the uk's top official. he had behind closed doors, un—minuted, undeclared _ had behind closed doors, un—minuted, undeclared meeting with simon case and richard sharp gabriel pogrund and richard sharp gabriel pogrund and not _ and richard sharp gabriel pogrund and not only was nothing ever proactively disclosed gabriel pogrund but the only actions which simon _ pogrund but the only actions which simon case saw fit to undertake after— simon case saw fit to undertake after it— simon case saw fit to undertake after it was he produced written advice _ after it was he produced written advice to — after it was he produced written advice tojohnson after it was he produced written advice to johnson saying, please stop seeking richard sharp pours my advice _ stop seeking richard sharp pours my advice on _ stop seeking richard sharp pours my advice on your personal financial matters, — advice on your personal financial matters, but the ink had dried on the page — matters, but the ink had dried on the page of that advice after sharp

had been — the page of that advice after sharp had been earmarked as a candidate, so what _ had been earmarked as a candidate, so what use — had been earmarked as a candidate, so what use was that? simon case, as ever. _ so what use was that? simon case, as ever. not— so what use was that? simon case, as ever. not too— so what use was that? simon case, as ever, not too far from the scene of the proverbial crime, and questions over he _ the proverbial crime, and questions over he ensured his responsibility in ensuring — over he ensured his responsibility in ensuring things were done on the film in ensuring things were done on the right way _ in ensuring things were done on the right way. like matt allwright, gabriel — right way. like matt allwright, gabriel pogrund, the man who brought us the _ gabriel pogrund, the man who brought us the original story in gabriel pogrund, the man who brought us the original sto_ us the original story in the sunday times, us the original story in the sunday times. thank— us the original story in the sunday times, thank you _ us the original story in the sunday times, thank you for _ us the original story in the sunday times, thank you forjoining - us the original story in the sunday times, thank you forjoining us i us the original story in the sunday l times, thank you forjoining us here on bbc news —— well, all right, gabriel pogrund. today we saw the publication of the other report we were waiting for by a barrister and now we can go through that report which was also damning, live, this might, in the newsroom with the bbc�*s nyom lee smith. along report, 25 pages. what have you been able to gather from it so far? —— naomi. it is

have you been able to gather from it so far? -- naomi.— so far? -- naomi. it is a long reort so far? -- naomi. it is a long report and — so far? -- naomi. it is a long report and we _ so far? -- naomi. it is a long report and we can _ so far? -- naomi. it is a long report and we can take - so far? -- naomi. it is a long report and we can take to - so far? -- naomi. it is a long report and we can take to the so far? -- naomi. it is a long - report and we can take to the first findings at the beginning here. it emerged here richard sharp failed to disclose, and we will zoom back up there, apologies for technical headaches, but he failed to disclose potential perceived conflict—of—interest to the panels which interviewed candidates and advise ministers on who to appoint. which potential perceived conflicts of interest are we talking about? there are two the report mentions they were investigating. the first was when mr sharp informed the then prime minister, borisjohnson, he wished to apply to be the chair of the bbc board before he made his application to become the bbc chairman. this was back in november 2020. the second conflict of interests, perceived potential conflict of interests, was this meeting that mr richard sharp said he would arrange between the cabinet secretary, simon case and a canadian businessman named sam bligh, who was

one of the people guaranteeing or helping to facilitate that loan to the then prime minister boris johnson. in both of those cases this report by the public watchdog finds mr sharp did not declare these in the correctly and it finds later on in the report that it is the duty of the appointee to make those disclosures known, and it finds that was not carried out correctly, however we should say the report says it gave rise to a potential perceived conflict of interests but it doesn't make a judgment on whether there actually was that conflict of interests or whether mr sharp did in fact facilitate that loan. we should also maintain that mr sharp continues to maintain this was all inadvertent and he had no involvement in the actual arrangement of that loan. so plenty more to diejust arrangement of that loan. so plenty more to die just here and you can go to our website for the full report.

all right, naomi thank you very much. if you'rejustjoining us, richard sharp is resigning as chairman of the bbc, and an investigation into the facilitation of his loan to the then prime minister borisjohnson has been published, and we havejust minister borisjohnson has been published, and we have just been hearing about that with naomi. mr sharp has given a statement, says he accepts he breached the code, that it was inadvertent and not material but that the matter had become a distraction for the organisation and he was giving that as his reason for resigning, although he does insist he didn't facilitate this controversial loan. so ewels bbc chairman. he will be standing down injune, but what is the role of the bbc chairman and how they appointed? 0ur reporter courtney bainbridge explains. richard chuck —— richard sharp has been the bbc chairman since february 2021, a government appointed role but not quite that simple. let's look at how that appointment was made. we start with this document, the bbc�*s royal

charter, which sets out the role of the bbc but also the rules, and on the bbc but also the rules, and on the subject of chair it says this... "that appointment may only be made following fair and open competition". in the case of richard sharp, applications opened in october 2020 and there were 23 candidates. it was then up to two government ministers to decide on their preferred candidate, and that was then taken to the prime minister for sign off before richard sharp sat through a pre—appointment hearing. but what is the chair actually do? according to the bbc website, they have a number of responsibilities, including upholding and protecting the independence of the bbc. for that, they are required to spend at least 3-4 they are required to spend at least 3—4 days a week in the job across a four—year term and they are paid £160,000 a year, and that amount is set by the government. studio: this does put the focus on the bbc, and i'm nowjoined by mark murkowski, and branding consultant.

thanks forjoining us on bbc news. you are welcome. haifa thanks forjoining us on bbc news. you are welcome.— thanks forjoining us on bbc news. you are welcome. how damaging has this been for— you are welcome. how damaging has this been for the _ you are welcome. how damaging has this been for the bbc? _ you are welcome. how damaging has this been for the bbc? incredibly - this been for the bbc? incredibly damarain. this been for the bbc? incredibly damaging- l _ this been for the bbc? incredibly damaging. i find _ this been for the bbc? incredibly damaging. i find it _ this been for the bbc? incredibly damaging. i find it incredulous i this been for the bbc? incredibly i damaging. i find it incredulous that the bbc_ damaging. i find it incredulous that the bbc are battered into these... they— the bbc are battered into these... they seem — the bbc are battered into these... they seem to operate in this very critical— they seem to operate in this very critical world. this is an experienced corporate figure, a banker. — experienced corporate figure, a banker, and frankly it is not a particularly good look for that trope. — particularly good look for that trope, that pale stale nail individual. but they were clearly anomalies here, there were clearly some _ anomalies here, there were clearly some lines— anomalies here, there were clearly some lines crossed, and considering the recent— some lines crossed, and considering the recent badgering the bbc got over the — the recent badgering the bbc got over the gary lineker tweets, to stay in _ over the gary lineker tweets, to stay in post and not to do the decent — stay in post and not to do the decent thing, which was to elegantly resiqn, _ decent thing, which was to elegantly resign, knowing, or perhaps you basically— resign, knowing, or perhaps you basically thinking this would

disappear, in terms of sort of outrageous misjudgments in terms of pr this _ outrageous misjudgments in terms of pr this is _ outrageous misjudgments in terms of pr this is right up there, similar to one _ pr this is right up there, similar to one of— pr this is right up there, similar to one of the in between characters actually _ to one of the in between characters actually handling the corporate pr, from this— actually handling the corporate pr, from this man. you actually handling the corporate pr, from this man.— from this man. you are saying richard sharp _ from this man. you are saying richard sharp has _ from this man. you are saying richard sharp has harmed - from this man. you are saying richard sharp has harmed the j from this man. you are saying - richard sharp has harmed the bbc by staying on, but the bbc board has asked him to stay on and thanked him for his significant contribution. would you have advised them to do something different?— something different? well, this is what ou something different? well, this is what you call _ something different? well, this is what you call half _ something different? well, this is what you call half pregnant - something different? well, this isj what you call half pregnant move. something different? well, this is. what you call half pregnant move. i think— what you call half pregnant move. i think they— what you call half pregnant move. i think they are trying to manage out the situation and dampening down the very poor— the situation and dampening down the very poor decision making in terms of pr_ very poor decision making in terms of pr that — very poor decision making in terms of pr that has gone on. by holding him in _ of pr that has gone on. by holding him in post— of pr that has gone on. by holding him in post for a while. i of pr that has gone on. by holding him in post fora while. i mean, it is saving — him in post fora while. i mean, it is saving rishi sunak's skin, he might— is saving rishi sunak's skin, he might have _ is saving rishi sunak's skin, he might have had to step in at some point _ might have had to step in at some point to— might have had to step in at some point to make a judgment about this, but this— point to make a judgment about this, but this is— point to make a judgment about this, but this is obfuscation of some relationships and some facts. in

this world. _ relationships and some facts. in this world, you know, of where we step in— this world, you know, of where we step in now— this world, you know, of where we step in now where people have to be transparent— step in now where people have to be transparent and authentic, and have to respond _ transparent and authentic, and have to respond to their audience, you are just _ to respond to their audience, you are just throwing meat to the crowds on social— are just throwing meat to the crowds on social media to create a pylon for the _ on social media to create a pylon for the bbc. sol on social media to create a pylon for the bbc. so i can see this as some _ for the bbc. so i can see this as some ways... you know, the work that has gone _ some ways... you know, the work that has gone into— some ways... you know, the work that has gone into put out the embers of this enormous fire, but the damage is there _ this enormous fire, but the damage is there and — this enormous fire, but the damage is there and it has created an enormous _ is there and it has created an enormous embarrassing situation for the bbc _ enormous embarrassing situation for the bbc. just enormous embarrassing situation for the bbc., , , ., enormous embarrassing situation for the sac. , ,., , enormous embarrassing situation for thebbc.. enormous embarrassing situation for thebbc. , ~ the bbc. just explain why you think it has been damaging. _ the bbc. just explain why you think it has been damaging. where - the bbc. just explain why you think it has been damaging. where has l it has been damaging. where has public opinion following on this? what is the perception the bbc is left with today? i what is the perception the bbc is left with today?— left with today? i think the perception. _ left with today? i think the perception, you _ left with today? i think the perception, you know, - left with today? i think the perception, you know, the| left with today? i think the - perception, you know, the two parts of your— perception, you know, the two parts of your question, i think one only has to— of your question, i think one only has to get— of your question, i think one only has to get out of any bubble to actually — has to get out of any bubble to actually look at the amount of negativity that has surrounded the story _ negativity that has surrounded the story this — negativity that has surrounded the story. this story, when it first came — story. this story, when it first came to — story. this story, when it first came to light, when the sunday times originally— came to light, when the sunday times originally wrote the story, there

was a _ originally wrote the story, there was a sort — originally wrote the story, there was a sort of ignoring of the facts, and a _ was a sort of ignoring of the facts, and a typical old—fashioned 20th—century version of pr, to put a hard hat— 20th—century version of pr, to put a hard hat on. — 20th—century version of pr, to put a hard hat on, go down the parapet and disappear. _ hard hat on, go down the parapet and disappear, on the back of where the story— disappear, on the back of where the story was— disappear, on the back of where the story was still sort of in public domain — story was still sort of in public domain was around the sort of public outraqe _ domain was around the sort of public outraqe of— domain was around the sort of public outrage of the treatment of gary lineker. — outrage of the treatment of gary lineker, and the way that he found himself— lineker, and the way that he found himself in— lineker, and the way that he found himself in a — lineker, and the way that he found himself in a situation of that, so those _ himself in a situation of that, so those two — himself in a situation of that, so those two points, you need to start constructing a strategy straightaway. and not avoiding something this inevitable, hoping some _ something this inevitable, hoping some report would actually exonerate you. some report would actually exonerate you the _ some report would actually exonerate you. the bbc has always, always been incredibly— you. the bbc has always, always been incredibly difficult to manage. they have always been those people who feel they _ have always been those people who feel they own the bbc, the licence payers. _ feel they own the bbc, the licence payers, you have some very aggressive newspapers, legacy media, callinq _ aggressive newspapers, legacy media, calling the _ aggressive newspapers, legacy media, calling the bbc to account, you have a lot of—

calling the bbc to account, you have a lot of opinion on the internet. so you have _ a lot of opinion on the internet. so you have to— a lot of opinion on the internet. so you have to have a more modern aspect— you have to have a more modern aspect to — you have to have a more modern aspect to this. there is a certain level— aspect to this. there is a certain level we — aspect to this. there is a certain level we have seen of cronyism that has gone _ level we have seen of cronyism that has gone on. this is a critical point — has gone on. this is a critical point of— has gone on. this is a critical point of view from someone who has not actually — point of view from someone who has not actually been at the centre of this and — not actually been at the centre of this and advising this, obviously. i am giving — this and advising this, obviously. i am giving my opinion. but it is clearly— am giving my opinion. but it is clearly something they hoped would io clearly something they hoped would go away _ clearly something they hoped would go away and somehow it didn't and i think— go away and somehow it didn't and i think the _ go away and somehow it didn't and i think the responsibility falls on richard — think the responsibility falls on richard sharp to actually think about. — richard sharp to actually think about, you know, his responsibility to the _ about, you know, his responsibility to the bbc— about, you know, his responsibility to the bbc and perhaps, you know, the obfuscation of some of the contacts— the obfuscation of some of the contacts and links he had with this, and falling — contacts and links he had with this, and falling into that trap.— and falling into that trap. mark, ou and falling into that trap. mark, you mention — and falling into that trap. mark, you mention the _ and falling into that trap. mark, you mention the gary _ and falling into that trap. mark, you mention the gary lineker. and falling into that trap. mark, i you mention the gary lineker row, and during that row the director—general of the bbc got caught up in it, of course, and he was categorical when he was asked about it that he didn't have any say over who was bbc chairman. in fact, the bbc didn't have any say over when this person was appointed or when this person was appointed or when they leave, well then actually

it was a very difficult situation for the bbc during this. they really couldn't do anything, could they? no, that's the point, that is exactly— no, that's the point, that is exactly the difficulty, and i have a huge _ exactly the difficulty, and i have a huge amount of sympathy for tim davie _ huge amount of sympathy for tim davie and — huge amount of sympathy for tim davie and the director—general. it is a very. — davie and the director—general. it is a very, very difficult job. there are some — is a very, very difficult job. there are some institutions that have such are some institutions that have such a cultural— are some institutions that have such a cultural impact and such a legacy within— a cultural impact and such a legacy within this — a cultural impact and such a legacy within this country, you know, very similar— within this country, you know, very similar to _ within this country, you know, very similar to the royal family in some ways. _ similar to the royal family in some ways, you're a damned if you do and damned _ ways, you're a damned if you do and damned if— ways, you're a damned if you do and damned if you don't. you are covered with process. — damned if you don't. you are covered with process, and supposedly covered with process, and supposedly covered with a _ with process, and supposedly covered with a hands off appointment of the luy with a hands off appointment of the guy sitting right at the top of the institution to appoint all the governors, so it is complicated. and that is— governors, so it is complicated. and that is why. — governors, so it is complicated. and that is why, you know, the bbc seem to be _ that is why, you know, the bbc seem to be the _ that is why, you know, the bbc seem to be the battered person here that suffers _ to be the battered person here that suffers it. _ to be the battered person here that suffers it, and it's very difficult for it— suffers it, and it's very difficult for it to — suffers it, and it's very difficult for it to recover. and that's the

point — for it to recover. and that's the point the _ for it to recover. and that's the point. the point is what the bbc go through— point. the point is what the bbc go through and the responsibility of people _ through and the responsibility of people having the understanding and the nuanced thing that they understand what they are stepping into. understand what they are stepping into you _ understand what they are stepping into. you know, it is not an easy 'ob into. you know, it is not an easy job and — into. you know, it is not an easy job and it — into. you know, it is not an easy job and it carries huge responsibility.- responsibility. there's conversations - responsibility. there's conversations going . responsibility. there'sl conversations going on responsibility. there's i conversations going on with politicians talking about the next chairman and the integrity that person has to have, but from the bbc's person has to have, but from the bbc�*s point of view the focus on impartiality, from this and the gary lineker row, it is only likely to intensify, isn't it? it lineker row, it is only likely to intensify, isn't it?— lineker row, it is only likely to intensify, isn't it? it becomes more and more difficult _ intensify, isn't it? it becomes more and more difficult in _ intensify, isn't it? it becomes more and more difficult in a _ intensify, isn't it? it becomes more and more difficult in a complicatedl and more difficult in a complicated world _ and more difficult in a complicated world for— and more difficult in a complicated world for institutions to operate that's~~~ — world for institutions to operate that's... and that seems to be a piece _ that's... and that seems to be a piece of— that's... and that seems to be a piece of rhetoric, but it is absolutely the issue here, that actually— absolutely the issue here, that actually in some ways the bbc has to -et actually in some ways the bbc has to get back— actually in some ways the bbc has to get back to _ actually in some ways the bbc has to get back to its knitting, it has to produce — get back to its knitting, it has to produce world—class television aqainst — produce world—class television against this backdrop, and integrity

is all _ against this backdrop, and integrity is all for— against this backdrop, and integrity is all. for many corporations now, you have — is all. for many corporations now, you have to— is all. for many corporations now, you have to tread incredibly carefully. sill you have to tread incredibly carefully-— carefully. all right, mark borkowski, _ carefully. all right, mark borkowski, thank - carefully. all right, mark borkowski, thank you i carefully. all right, mark i borkowski, thank you much for joining on bbc news. you borkowski, thank you much for joining on bbc news.— joining on bbc news. you are welcome- _ joining on bbc news. you are welcome. thank— joining on bbc news. you are welcome. thank you. - joining on bbc news. you are welcome. thank you. let's i joining on bbc news. you are| welcome. thank you. let's get reaction now. _ welcome. thank you. let's get reaction now. we _ welcome. thank you. let's get reaction now. we can - welcome. thank you. let's get reaction now. we can go i welcome. thank you. let's get reaction now. we can go to i welcome. thank you. let's get reaction now. we can go to a l reaction now. we can go to a political correspondent david wallace lockhart. as we have been saying, this is a political appointment. what have the politicians been saying this morning?— politicians been saying this mornin: ? . v politicians been saying this mornin: ? ., �*, , politicians been saying this mornin? ., �*, , ., morning? that's right. there is an element of _ morning? that's right. there is an element of politics _ morning? that's right. there is an element of politics to _ morning? that's right. there is an element of politics to all - morning? that's right. there is an element of politics to all of i morning? that's right. there is an element of politics to all of this. l element of politics to all of this. richard sharp, the bbc chairman, was appointed by the government of the day, of course that was boris johnson back when he came into post, but as you would expect we are seeing political reaction to this. the labour party saying that the prime minister, rishi sunak, should have sacked richard sharp earlier. the labour party shadow culture secretary lucy powell said that should have happened weeks ago.

response from number ten to that is that it was only right for due process to run its course, that it is richard sharp who has made the decision to step down, and that is a matterfor him and decision to step down, and that is a matter for him and the bbc. but important to reflect on the fact that this report we have today is not actually the first report that has been critical of how mr sharp behaved in the appointments process, because there was the cross—party group of mps, the culture committee, who already looked at his appointment and questioned how open he had been in quite a difficult report for him back in february. we have also heard from ed davey, the leader of the lib dems, who said borisjohnson should have never been allowed to appoint richard sharp in the first place, given what we know now, and of course that is someone who we are very keen to hear from now, what do they make of it, boris johnson, who has not spoken out yet since richard sharp announced he planned to resign? below this there is also a further level of political

intrigue, when you go through today's report, because one of richard sharp's main arguments about why he hadn't made his position in facilitating any sort of involvement in a loan for borisjohnson so open and public is because he says he raised it with the cabinet secretary simon case, who is the country's top ranking civil servant, but reading the report here simon case is not denying the fact that that may have happened, but he is saying he had no recollection of that taking place. so quite an interesting subtext to all of that there, and there have been people in the cabinet office pointing us towards the part of the report that says the governance code puts the obligation of disclosure on the candidate and not on others, so essentially an argument coming out of government that any sort of declaration about conflicts of interest or perceived, potential conflicts of interest were bound to

richard sharp to flag and were not the responsibility of anyone else. now questions of course about what happens next. still it is the government's gift to appoint a new chairman to the position within the bbc. damian green, who is the acting chairman of parliament's culture committee, has said he hopes lessons have been learned and a new chair has to be appointed with integrity and impartiality, so i would imagine thatis and impartiality, so i would imagine that is where some of the political focus on all of the story will move next. ., ., _ ., next. david, i have to say that sentence. _ next. david, i have to say that sentence, the _ next. david, i have to say that sentence, the cabinet - next. david, i have to say that sentence, the cabinet office l next. david, i have to say that i sentence, the cabinet office pushing us towards, you know, when i looked at this report straightaway in terms of this issue it is quite clear cut that simon case is off the hook, and it also disabled one of the key arguments richard sharp was deploying, howeverwe arguments richard sharp was deploying, however we do know that simon case, according to all these reports, was told about it. there was that suspicion from richard sharp, putting that information out there. do you think that based on

other reasons why simon case has been hitting the headlines recently that this top civil servant and head of overseeing this appointments process, do you think this is a problem for him? i process, do you think this is a problem for him?— problem for him? i think with retards problem for him? i think with regards to — problem for him? i think with regards to this _ problem for him? i think with regards to this particular i problem for him? i think with l regards to this particular report that we have got today, i think that keyline in there talking about the obligation on any disclosure is on the candidate and anyone else does probably mean simon case is unfairly safe ground here to point to the fact that in this particular instance it was the responsibility of richard sharp to bring up anything that could be a potential perceived conflict—of—interest, and is where essentially richard sharp has fallen foul in this whole process. but you raise an interesting point, the fact that simon case is the head of the civil service, he is someone who, largely speaking, is a backroom operator, someone who shouldn't regularly hit the headlines, who shouldn't really be a household name in many

respects, but when it comes to other issues such as, you know, those leaked whatsapps from matt hancock that came out from during the pandemic that the telegraph newspaper managed to get hold of simon case's name was one that came up simon case's name was one that came up occasionally about certain messages he had sent as part of that whole process, and there will perhaps be concern from some about the fact that someone who is a high ranking civil servant, their name is getting out there publicly, perhaps relating to situations they would prefer to not be related to when it comes to the sort of stories getting into the newspapers and into the media. well perhaps, yeah, wider consideration for some people would be how often his name can come up in relation to stories at the moment, but i think and put it in fairness to reflect the view coming out of the cabinet office that in this particular situation you can't see how it would have been simon case's

responsibility in this situation to be flagging any potential perceived conflicts of interest for richard sharp, when the rules do seem to clearly state the obligation is on the candidate. just clearly state the obligation is on the candidate.— clearly state the obligation is on the candidate. just because i know ou have the candidate. just because i know you have a — the candidate. just because i know you have a very — the candidate. just because i know you have a very busy _ the candidate. just because i know you have a very busy day, - the candidate. just because i know you have a very busy day, two i the candidate. just because i knowl you have a very busy day, two quick questions. firstly, do you think this has damaged rishi sunak? i think it does offer opposition parties the opportunity to accuse the prime minister of not acting quickly enough in this area. i think they will be quick to say the outcome in this report of richard sharp having to resign was obvious for some time and rishi sunak could have taken action earlier. of course the on that from number 10, it was right to let this process run its course and it was right to leave this final decision to sharpe because once he was in that role at the bbc -- because once he was in that role at the bbc —— final decision to richard sharp. what he was in that role, it was his response guilty. he sharp. what he was in that role, it was his response guilty.— sharp. what he was in that role, it was his response guilty. he has been seeinr a was his response guilty. he has been seeing a lot — was his response guilty. he has been seeing a lot of— was his response guilty. he has been seeing a lot of key _ was his response guilty. he has been seeing a lot of key allies _ was his response guilty. he has been seeing a lot of key allies residing i seeing a lot of key allies residing at the moment, hasn't he? my next question, this row involves both the

bbc impartiality and the government, all entwined. are there calls to change how that relationship works? i think what we are certainly seeing its calls from some figures to see a change in the process of how the bbc chairman is appointed. you know, not only had there been complaints when it emerged, this story about the loan and borisjohnson, but the fact that richard sharp was someone who came from working as an adviser to the government during covid who had a history of connections in the conservative party, and that there were perhaps even already before this came out some eyebrows being raised about how this process is done. important to stress that richard sharp is not the first bbc chairman to ever have connections to a political party. that is how this role has traditionally worked, but as we are seeing from labour they are calling for a truly independent and robust process going forward. i think we will hear discussion about whether or not the process of appointing the chairman of the bbc should be changed.— appointing the chairman of the bbc should be changed. david, thank you ve much

should be changed. david, thank you very much for— should be changed. david, thank you very much for all— should be changed. david, thank you very much for all of— should be changed. david, thank you very much for all of that. _ should be changed. david, thank you very much for all of that. you - should be changed. david, thank you very much for all of that. you will. very much for all of that. you will have a busy day ahead. good luck. a bit earlier my colleague ben thompson spoke to the political editor of the spectator magazine, katy balls. she spoke about what we have learned from all of this, and the political ramifications... i think there were lots of reports overnight richard sharp would be trying to fight for his political life and clearly made the decision this morning that was not feasible. he had the bbc chairman insisting he does not have to resign. yes, there was a breach in the sense he should have declared his role in terms of helping to facilitate this loan to borisjohnson during his time as prime minister, during appointments process, but he says... he goes short in saying that would actually mean he would need to go, suggesting it would have been survivable but he does want —— does not want to be a distraction to the corporation. i think very much the jury is out on whether that would be survivable. if you look, i think, at recent

comments, for example last month you had rishi sunak in an interview being asked about richard sharp and his role, and i think it was fair to say he was pretty lukewarm, did not give his emphatic endorsement, and i'm not sure if richard sharp had wanted to fight on if he would have had the support from the corporation, clearly they're being uneasy about the way this has played out in the media, and also perhaps from government in terms of where this has all been going. interesting. as we are speaking, katy, our political editor helen catt reporting that a downing street source is telling her there had been an independent process and richard sharp's decision to st mac step down was a matter for him and the bbc. it is clear they will distance themselves from this. . , ., themselves from this. yes, they do, ou will themselves from this. yes, they do, you will hear— themselves from this. yes, they do, you will hear people _ themselves from this. yes, they do, you will hear people in _ themselves from this. yes, they do, you will hear people in governmentl you will hear people in government saying this was very much a boris johnson appointment, during his time as prime minister, hence why it was so complicated with the loan situation. also rishi sunak is someone who knows richard sharp well, they go back, their business

careers