Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has raised “concerns” with the BBC’s director general over its handling of the Huw Edwards scandal, including how licence fee payers’ money was spent on the former BBC News presenter’s pay.

Ms Nandy held talks with Tim Davie on Thursday, the day after Edwards pleaded guilty to three counts of making indecent images of children.

The BBC continued to employ Edwards, formerly the BBC’s most high-profile newsreader, for five months after he was arrested, during which time he was paid £200,000.

In an interview with BBC News on Thursday, Mr Davie said the corporation had taken “difficult decisions in a fair and judicious manner”.

A spokesperson for 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.”

They said Ms Nandy spoke to Mr Davie “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”.

“She 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.”

Ms Nandy is said to be concerned the incident could damage public trust and has asked to be kept updated on its progress.

Edwards was suspended by the BBC in July 2023 following separate allegations in the Sun newspaper. He was then arrested in November on the charges that he has now pleaded guilty to.

He resigned this April, which the BBC said at the time was on “medical advice”.

He received between £475,000-£479,999 between April 2023 and April 2024, an increase of £40,000 on the previous year. Mr Davie said the pay rise dated from before any allegations.

He said it was “legally challenging” to recover any of the pay, but said he would “look at all options”.

He also said it would be “nigh on impossible” for the BBC to claw back his pension.

On Thursday, Conservative former Culture Secretary John Whittingdale told the BBC’s Newsnight there was “an impression that the BBC has not sought to be as transparent as they should be” over the whole matter.

“I think we need to know much more about why it was came to the conclusion that he [Edwards] should go on receiving his salary, that he should be allowed to resign rather than be sacked, and why the BBC knew about his arrest, and yet we only discover it eight months later,” Mr Whittingdale said.

The Metropolitan Police told senior BBC managers about the arrest in “strict confidence” in November.

Asked how much he was told at the time, Mr Davie said: “We knew it was serious, we knew no specifics, apart from the category of the potential offences.”

BBC bosses were not aware of the ages of the children in the images.

Asked why Edwards could not have been sacked at the time of his arrest, Mr Davie replied: “Because the police came to us and said they need to do their work in total confidence, [and said], ‘please keep this confidential’.”

Edwards had not been charged at that point and it was still possible he would be cleared, Mr Davie noted.

“We thought long and hard about this. This wasn’t a kneejerk decision. When you think about this in terms of precedent, people do get arrested, and then we’ve had situations where [there are] no charges, and there’s nothing there to be followed up on.”

He said the corporation also had to consider its duty of care to Edwards.

After being arrested last November, Edwards was charged in June. In a statement on Wednesday, the BBC said he would have been dismissed had he been charged while still employed.

Edwards admitted having 41 indecent images of children, which had been sent to him by a convicted paedophile, Alex Williams, on WhatsApp.

They included seven category A images, the most serious classification – two of which showed a child aged between about seven and nine.