If the BBC chairman Richard Sharp has to go, it will not be entirely his fault

Although he might not care to admit it, Richard Sharp, currently an increasingly beleaguered chair of the BBC, is one of the many people damaged by an association with Boris Johnson. In Mr Sharp’s case, it was his self-styled role as a “go-between”, linking Mr Johnson, then prime minister, with a rich Canadian businessman, Sam Blyth. The aim was to help relieve Mr Johnson of his personal financial stress, through Mr Blyth acting as guarantor for an £800,000 credit facility. What financial institution or friendly individual was willing to extend such a credit line to Mr Johnson, with or without guarantee, remains a mystery. Mr Johnson’s chaotic personal financial affairs, by contrast, were and are an open secret.

All of that would be irregular enough, not to say undesirable, in a serving prime minister – presenting all manner of potential conflicts of interest and risks. For Mr Sharp it was entirely unwise, given that around this time – mid-to-late 2020 – he was in the running for the forthcoming vacancy of chair of the BBC. He had applied for the post before, unsuccessfully, long before Mr Johnson was in charge of nominating the government’s “preferred candidate”.

Mr Sharp is an intelligent man and not entirely lacking in judgement. He, on behalf of Mr Blyth and to some extent himself, and with the prime minister’s approval, therefore approached the cabinet secretary, Simon Case, to discuss and clear this unconventional method of supplementing the prime minister’s earnings, and to approve Mr Sharp’s limited role as an agent of introduction. Mr Case helpfully concluded that there would indeed be no conflict of interest in relation to the BBC appointment – provided Mr Sharp’s involvement, whatever it was, then ceased. In parallel, Mr Case apparently advised the prime minister that “given the imminent announcement of Richard Sharp as the new BBC chair, it is important that you no longer ask his advice about your personal financial matters”.

This perhaps poorly drafted phrase strongly suggested that is what he had been doing for some time, especially as Mr Sharp was an old friend, a banker and someone as astute in finance as Mr Johnson was clueless.

Mr Case should probably have told Mr Sharp that the public perception that he would be getting the BBC job as a thank you from Mr Johnson – even if unfair and untrue – might eventually become known, and would hurt his reputation and the standing of the BBC. So, indeed, it has proved. Mr Sharp is now subject to three inquiries into his appointment, including an internal BBC one ordered by Mr Sharp himself. In his evidence to the Commons select committee, who recalled him for not declaring the possible conflict of interest when they grilled him in 2021, Mr Sharp expressed his misgivings but also their limits: “It’s manifest that this has caused embarrassment for the BBC and I regret that. I acted in good faith to ensure that the rules were followed and in that sense I have no regret for that.”

Obviously, it would have been better all round if Mr Sharp (and Mr Case, for that matter) had never become embroiled in Mr Johnson’s private financial affairs, even as a “go-between”. In some ways, it might have been better if Mr Sharp had never met Mr Johnson in the first place but that is a matter for him. It does seem unlikely to me that Mr Sharp will entirely escape criticism from the Commons committee, the BBC internal investigation or the report by Adam Heppinstall KC on behalf of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The perception of a conflict of interest, at the least, is perfectly obvious – if there were none then three separate inquiries would not now be taking place and Mr Sharp would not be accused of wrongdoing.

Mr Sharp may not survive, therefore, which would also seem unfair, given that there has been relatively little criticism of his work at the BBC. He maintains he was appointed on merit, and he was a well-qualified candidate. He was “political”, but that is not unusual in a BBC chair. Some eyebrows were understandably raised when he, a non-executive chair, attended the interview for a new BBC head of news, but that is in the context of intense recent criticism of the BBC’s journalism and impartiality, on politics and particularly Brexit. However, Mr Sharp, a Leaver, has defended the BBC’s record, wisely pointing out that journalism can be an untidy business, and that there were as many attacks from the Remain side and the left as from the Brexiteer right.

With his strong business background and financial expertise, Mr Sharp ought to be able to do much to help the BBC thrive in more challenging commercial times. Cynically, it is no bad thing for a Conservative Party member, former Conservative councillor, substantial party donor and old friend of Mr Johnson to head the corporation, the better to protect it from its enemies on the right who seek to “defund” and destroy it. Nadine Dorries, when secretary of state, displayed obscene relish at the prospect of dismembering one of “global” Britain’s few internationally respected brands.

The BBC, in the approach to charter renewal, remains in jeopardy. As the record of Lord (Chris) Patten as chair (2011-14) shows, Mr Sharp would not be the first former Tory politician to prove a formidable asset and defender of the BBC and its brilliant staff. Mr Sharp’s misfortune was to find himself appointed at a feverish moment when Tory “sleaze” dominates the headlines, and his unfortunate association with the cavalier ways of Mr Johnson. If he does have to go it will not be entirely Mr Sharp’s fault. We may be “100 per cent ding dang sure” of that.