Tonight:
5°c
The BBC today moved to reassure its stars that their salaries would not be revealed in a transparency drive showing how its £3.6 billion a year from the licence fee is spent.
The corporation played down a report that new salary bands would give a clear indication of the earnings of top performers such as Jonathan Ross and Graham Norton without actually naming them.
But it did promise to reveal for the first time the total cost of all on-screen and on-air “talent” — from newsreaders and chat-show hosts to extras in EastEnders. These figures, due at the start of next year in a quarterly breakdown of costs, are also likely to show the number of BBC employees who appear in front of camera or on radio.
A BBC spokesman said today: “We will provide talent spend figures across the organisation which deliver much more transparency and detail, but this will not result in individual fees being disclosed.”
It is already known that the top 30 to 40 stars at the BBC — each earning more than £1 million — are paid a total of about £70 million a year.
Last week the BBC published the salaries of its top 100 decision-makers, headed by £834,000-a-year director general Mark Thompson.
The BBC says the fees it pays its stars are commercially confidential, but that it is more open than its commercial rivals. Ross, whose reported £18 million three-year contract ends next summer, and others have been warned they face a possible pay cut as the BBC looks for an extra £400 million of savings on top of a £1.9 billion efficiency drive.
The BBC Trust has said the corporation should “walk away” from stars whose wage demands are excessive. Alan Davies and Bruce Forsyth have taken a pay cut and Norton says he would accept a lower rate.
Reader views (14)
MPs have had to do own up. Why shouldn't the BBC? Looking at the comments here, it seems everyone is sick and tired of the BBC thinking they are "above" everyone else. I really resent paying a licence fee so that some BBC employee allegedly can get a ridiculously priced taxi from A to B or can send a bouquet of flowers to an overpaid presenter. I've worked at BBC TV Centre and I've seen the sheer waste of licence payers money that takes place on a daily basis. Its a disgrace.
- Stella, London, UK, 19/11/2009 23:13
Report abuse
It is our money and every single penny should be accounted for. Full uncensored discloser is required now.
If the BBC wish to act like an aloof private sector bank, then let them find their own funds and abolish the enforced TV tax.
- Frank, Home Counties, England., 19/11/2009 16:13
Report abuse
Even the Queen declares what she costs the public (costs, mind you - she doesn't get a salary), but luvvies at the BBC would prefer you not to know what they have as take-home pay: how democratic is that?!
- Roz, France, 19/11/2009 15:45
Report abuse
Won't matter. The majority of the public is so brain dead they idolize anyone on TV. The education of the population so low they fail to understand the money for these 'celebrities' is coming out of their own pockets.
BBC is one step from being a criminal enterprise. That one step is apathy of the population.
- Trunk, US, 19/11/2009 15:11
Report abuse
The TV license is a pre historic way for the BBC to fund itself. It must be privatized / forced to fund itself and released from the Governments grasp, then and only then, will it report news without bias and monitor its absurd salary requirements of its staff and so oo. When the BBC's income is related to the quality of broadcasting, a whole new company will be born, one that will have to listen for once, to its viewers.
- Dirk Diggler, Soho, London, 19/11/2009 14:50
Report abuse
Truth and facts appear to be a stranger as far as the BBC are concerned and it is only when they are forced to do they let us know a little of the way they that they are spending OUR MONEY.
- Mike M, Bedford England, 19/11/2009 14:20
Report abuse
As a License Fee Payer (like many) I am very cross about the way the BBC has tried to dishonestly hide its massive inflated salary/expenses bill to celebs. The BBC Trust is made up of spineless people who will not stand up for what is right and honest. The difference is this is PUBLIC money not PRIVATE. Sad for what is a great institution.
- Andrew, London, 19/11/2009 13:23
Report abuse
I hope they will be accompanied by details of their agents so we can see who really runs the BBC and work out their family trees.
- Tina, Somers Town, UK, 19/11/2009 12:32
Report abuse
What with their expenses as well are this shower any different to the shower in Westminster ? Tar, same and brush spring to mind............
- Andy Woodhead, London, ENGLAND, 19/11/2009 12:22
Report abuse
Huggy is spot on - the TV tax should be stopped.
- Tax Free Tv, London, 19/11/2009 11:56
Report abuse
Why do we need "stars" anyway. These salaries should be spent on producing good drama and comedy. There is enough talent to secure quality casting at reasonable remuneration. If Ross et al want to earn big bucks they can tour or sell through their own production companies and let the public will decide their worth.
- Bj, East London, 19/11/2009 11:28
Report abuse
The BBC has just followed the same old road that all unaccountable public institutions take, bloated salaries and spending practices for inefficient performance.
Sport has gone the same way; only private concerns need to drive up performance to stay buoyant.
Now the best bits of the BBC are worth saving, and the public demands quality programming without annoying (and ever increasing) ad breaks, so some subsidy is necessary to achieve this.
But, like MP`s expenses, the angry public are focussed on issues like JR, and are demanding a restructuring and trimming of this behemoth, who, incidentally have more people working in it’s Human Resources department than CH4`s entire staff level!!!
And it must start at the top, someone like Stephen Fry would be ideal (except he’s escaping over the pond), so Charlie Brooker would be my next radical choice - and a radical change IS what is needed, otherwise we may well throw the very spoilt fat baby out with it’s soiled bath water!
- Darius, London UK, 19/11/2009 11:19
Report abuse
It most certainly is a step in the right direction. Some of the huge salaries, such as Paxman's, may be justified. However the scale of the BBC's largesse to so-called talent seems to be out of control. There are those fronting medocre shows and allegedly being paid six-figure salaries for doing little more than read an autocue. How do I apply?
The BBC's luvvie culture needs to be dismantled without delay.
- John C, Leatherhead, UK, 19/11/2009 10:54
Report abuse
Public money should be publicly accountable. -Personally I wish I had the gumption to refuse to pay the licence fee. Far too many second rate programmes which I never watch, and ,as a pensioner, I'm no longer prepared to pay for 'T.V. for foreign lands at British licence payers expense'!
- Huggy, Cumbernauld Scotland, 19/11/2009 09:57
Report abuse
