Tonight:
5°c
Anger as BBC hides pay of its £229m stars
Alistair Foster, Jonathan Prynn and Nicholas Cecil9 Feb 2010
The BBC was accused today of having a “culture of secrecy” after it refused to reveal how much it pays its top presenters and stars.
The corporation said performers received £229 million for the year up to last March — but would not disclose what individuals such as Jonathan Ross, Jeremy Paxman and Fiona Bruce cost the licence payer.
The decision by BBC boss Mark Thompson angered critics who claim the BBC has a duty to be more open.
Douglas Carswell, a Conservative member of the public accounts committee, said the BBC was acting like the “duck house brigade” of MPs disgraced over their expenses, adding: “It's a cover-up. It's unacceptable for a publicly funded broadcaster to not let the public know how they are using our money.”
Conservative MP Edward Leigh, chairman of the committee, said: “This is a culture of secrecy that does not fit in the modern world. Their top people are ludicrously overpaid. The BBC should be entirely transparent like everybody else in the public sector.”
He said millions of people on low wages had to pay the “poll tax” licence fee to fund the salaries of BBC stars.
The BBC would only say that it has a total of 300,000 contracts with “talent” but would not say how many individuals this represents. The figures only apply to people directly employed by the BBC, not those working for production companies.
A spokesman said that if individual salaries were disclosed “there is a danger they could be trumped by the BBC's competitors”.
Caroline Thomson, the BBC's chief operating officer, said: “Artists, presenters, musicians and other contributors are central to the BBC's ability to deliver high quality and distinctive programming and we know that audiences expect to see and hear them on BBC programmes.
“The BBC engages some of the greatest performers in the world across television and radio, and also nurtures and develops people that will be at the heart of our programmes in the future. They add to the credibility, expertise and creativity of the BBC.”
The BBC published details of the salaries and expenses of its top management in June last year.
The broadcaster has been under huge pressure to give more information about highly paid on-screen “talent” since details were leaked four years ago. Anger intensified over the £18 million three-year contract that was offered to Ross to keep him at the BBC in 2007, although he is leaving the broadcaster later this year.
Other top-paid stars include Graham Norton on about £2 million a year, Jeremy Paxman on £1 million and Fiona Bruce who gets about £500,000. Today the BBC said the £229 million to artists, presenters and musicians represented 6.5 per cent of the licence fee.
Of the total, £114 million went on contracts worth less than £50,000 a year, £44 million for those between £50,000 and £100,000, £17 million on the £100,000 to £150,000 band and £54 million to those paid more than £150,000.
Liberal Democrat culture spokesman Don Foster said that even if the individual sums could not be disclosed publicly they should be made available to the National Audit Office. He said: “It is absolutely critical that these eye-watering sums are submitted to an independent audit by a public body representing the public interest.”
Yesterday director general Mr Thompson told the public accounts committee that full disclosure would be counter-productive. “We actually in most cases try to pay less than the market rate where we can so releasing individual salaries could push costs up,” he said.
The BBC has been accused of overpaying its top talent at a time when many other broadcasters are having to cut costs due to the recession. ITV's Ant and Dec signed a new deal in November which left them £5 million worse off each. The BBC is guaranteed its £3.6 billion income from the licence fee and has been accused of causing “super-inflation” of wages.
Earning power
Fiona Bruce
It has been reported that the 45-year-old newsreader commands a salary of about £500,000. The former Crimewatch presenter, who moved to Antiques Roadshow, has described Jonathan Ross's salary as “a hell of a lot”.
Jeremy Paxman
The Newsnight presenter is said to earn about £1 million a year. Paxman, who also presents University Challenge, was quizzed on his salary last year during a Newsnight interview with London Mayor Boris Johnson. Mr Johnson accused Paxman of being paid an “elephantine sum”. Paxman replied: “You don't know [what I earn].”
Graham Norton
Recently signed a new two-year deal reportedly worth about £4 million, taking an annual pay cut of £500,000. His new deal includes a new series of his BBC1 chat show and presenting duties on BBC1's latest Saturday night talent show, Over The Rainbow — the hunt for a Dorothy to star in The Wizard of Oz. Norton will also host the TV Baftas and the BBC's Eurovision coverage.
Fearne Cotton
The 27-year-old DJ, who is a distant relative of late BBC executive Sir Bill Cotton, was believed to have doubled her salary to about £200,000 after winning the mid-morning slot on Radio 1 previously held by Jo Whiley. Cotton has also presented parts of the BBC's Eurovision coverage and music festivals including the Isle of Wight.
Anne Robinson
In 2007, the Weakest Link presenter reportedly struck a £6 million two-year deal to continue to front the gameshow. It is believed that she was kept on her £3 million annual salary after agreeing to return to consumer programme Watchdog.
Christine Bleakley
The One Show presenter was said to be paid about £100,000 a year for her role on the magazine show which she presents alongside Adrian Chiles. It is believed that the 31-year-old took a pay cut last year when she agreed a new two-year deal.
Reader views (35)
I agree, use the money to network the country with fibre-optic broadband, and employ 300,000 new presenters (of which there are an abundance) who could do the job equally as well for a fraction of the cost.
- Guy, Southampton, 13/09/2010 00:11
Report abuse
Scrap the license fee and charge by the hour from the set top box.
- Eastender, London, 01/04/2010 14:19
Report abuse
Under 7% of the licence fee pays it's 'stars' as opposed to some 80/90% paid to footballers in some cases!!
Let's do something about footballers salaries instead!
- Kaz, London, 10/02/2010 11:04
Report abuse
Who does the negoitiating for these luvvies, Bob Crows brother?
- Dave, Totland Bay, 10/02/2010 08:58
Report abuse
I watch TV very rarely probably no more than 2 or 3 hours a week. I don't watch the BBC mainly because of it's watered down content in news programmes.
I complained to the BBC about sending a full team of reporters and the full media wagon to a Scottish hospital to report on a couple admitted with suspected swine flu. Unnecessary sensationalism and expenditure.
I pay a licence fee but not for watching the BBC, I pay because I am made to by law.
I am going to discontinue with the fee, in April and watch anything I need to on-line.
Why should I pay for something very rarely used and in the BBC's case never used.
London
- David T, London, 10/02/2010 05:52
Report abuse
Although i believe that the BBC is blowing money left and right and that us forced sponsors (licence payers) have a right to feel the money is being well managed, i oppose this nasty new marxist trend of demanding to know what people are paid. For obvious commercial reasons this info can not be made public or we'll see forign companies raiding our best tallent both in business and on the small screen.
- Barry, woking, uk, 09/02/2010 21:56
Report abuse
Amanda London:
'Since when have people who pay for a service not been entitled to air their views on it?'
I commented that some people views were not original but were repeating middle class tabloid trash, but I said nothing about stopping anyone from airing their views.
You are implying I cannot air mine though, making you a blatant hypocrite.
- James, London, 09/02/2010 21:10
Report abuse
Best way to sort this problem is to slash the money the BBC gets from the TV licence fee and divert the money to networking the country with optic fibre broadband.
- J Grant, London, 09/02/2010 20:40
Report abuse
Many of the BBC's competitors are broke and in no position to poach their 'talent.' We tend to see the same overapid faces all the time. Why can't Auntie spend some of our money nurturing new talent at a lot less cost and spread the money less thickly to more people? This timidity over what it pays its top performers is quite shameful when the Beeb prides itself on extracting the truth of other people's abuses , supposedly for the public good. Why is the public less entitled to know what it pays BBC broadcasters than what it pays MPs? It is difficult to avoid the conclusions that Auntie is plain frit!
- Maggie, London, 09/02/2010 18:43
Report abuse
The BBC sets the standard that all Broadcasters pay, so should be transparent esp when members of staff have more than 1 contract.
- Bill, Hay~Heath UK, 09/02/2010 18:21
Report abuse
Can't believe someone like Fiona Bruce gets £500,000 for reading from an autocue -- and we are paying for it!!!
- Mc, London, England, 09/02/2010 17:47
Report abuse
I think it's about time the BBC was closed down and the licence fee scraped. let them earn their keep in the market place like everybody else. Quite apart from the ridiculous salaries paid to generally untalented jobsworths, the political bias is unacceptable in a modern age and contradicts its charter. Get rid of the lot of them.
- Wiseone, Gloucs, 09/02/2010 17:10
Report abuse
Aren't these people paid by the public purse, i.e. the licence payer. I think we have a right to know what they are paid, I was going to say earn but thought better of it !!!!! We know what members of the military are paid, why not the Beeb ??????
- John.W, east kent., 09/02/2010 16:48
Report abuse
James, London
Get a life! Pompously coming on here to do nothing but whine about your so called "whiners". Since when have people who pay for a service not been entitled to air their views on it?
Wake up! the country is famed for freedom of opinion and freedom of expression. Even if people have the temerity to disagree with yours.
- Amanda, London, 09/02/2010 16:34
Report abuse
If the BBC is to continue it needs to compete for viewers - in order to compete for viewers it needs to be able to pay competitive salaries. The BBC does employ a lot of 'newcomers' who earn substantially less and often, when they have the experience, they then go and work for ITV/Sky/etc for more money.
The BBC has to pay millions for the rights to various sports events so why shouldn't it be able to pay for the right to employ top quality/commercially viable personalities that people want to see (whilst you might not like some of them others do)?
If the BBC can't pay market rates BBC1 and BBC2 will effectively become commercially redundant (providing cheap rubbish) and we will be left with commercial TV (ITV, channel 4, Sky, etc) whilst still having to pay the licence fee.
- Andy, london, 09/02/2010 16:32
Report abuse
In fairness, Jeremy Paxman is worth every penny, Graham Norton is not !
- Jonathan Lloyd, Nesle Hodeng France, 09/02/2010 16:27
Report abuse
i'm about to renew my licence and think a compulsory rate of £140.odd is a it excessive as i tend to watch
the other channels. perhaps i could negotiate a pro rata
aggrement based on my viewing habits and tastes as regard the 'stars'.
- M.Obrien, london.uk, 09/02/2010 15:44
Report abuse
You people will whine endlessly until all the BBC get paid peanuts.
Then you will whine endlessly when all the employees are monkeys.
Have any of you actually found evidence that BBC employees are paid above the market rate, or are repeating word for word the silly ranting of The Daily Mail?
- James, London, 09/02/2010 15:11
Report abuse
Careful, you'll be claiming footballers earn too much next.
- Madmax, London, UK, 09/02/2010 15:06
Report abuse
The BBC is the best media organisation there is in the world because of the license fee! if there are audits that need to be put in place by all means do that but lets not hide behind an agenda and dwell on "sensational fees" that the talent get paid. They would get in MOST cases double that outside of the BBC. why don't people complain about the quality of Skys programming compared to the revenue it gets from advertising. Its not an argument to say I want a choice to pay the licence fee. it is part and parcel of our country. the rest of the world also relies on the news service. and yes we should provide that service because that is why we are called Great Britain. we lead the world in freedom of information but no at the expense of frivolous headlines.
If you have not used any BBC service in the last 10 years (or shall I say the last 10 hours). let me know and will pay your license fee for you!
- Stacey, London, 09/02/2010 15:04
Report abuse
I could definitely do with less of Paxman,I bet he sneers in his sleep.......overpaid pedantic prat."Oh nearly forgot" Graham Norton is a repulsive imbecile.
- Jacob, Bolshevik Brown Country., 09/02/2010 14:38
Report abuse
Christine Bleakley is worth every penny.
- Anthony, Esher, Surrey, 09/02/2010 14:38
Report abuse
i wonder why the tv licence keep going up and up,the bbc and the whole clan are milking the taxpayers'money,to be honest it's not worth a penny to watch these perfomers and by the way their time is up.
- Fodil, london,uk, 09/02/2010 14:37
Report abuse
Liam you dopey the Editor of the Mail is not paid by us, we are forced to pay this BBC Tax, which is the television license. So who cares what the editor of any newspaper gets, since one is not forced to buy their newspapers whether you like to read it or not. Whereas the TV license we are forced to pay irrespective if we watch BBC TV or not and so often they get their records incorrect that they send the Gestapo to your house who have the audacity to walk around your home inspecting the place.
- Sandra, ealing, 09/02/2010 14:32
Report abuse
So you'd rather have Murdoch? Day time TV and Sky killed the talent that was the BBC. Poll tax yes bevause SKY is free isn't it?
I now have to pay to watch live football, watch films with no adverts in them and get an endless stream of reality TV because its cheap and all the commsioning channels can afford. If I have to watch another episode of Come Dine With Me I will not be responsible for my actions!!
Another Thatcher legacy that everyone conveniently forgets she killed the BBC as a quality programme maker. I Claudius would never get made today. It shows how bad it is when documentary makers are putting unused clips of films as footage for WW2 re enactments. 100 channels is not more choice its less choice and more rubbish.
- Duncan, Kent, 09/02/2010 14:17
Report abuse
What the editor of the Daily Mail earns is irrelevant. You have a choice about buying the newspaper (or not). There is no choice about paying for the BBC. Wouldn't mind so much if they were any good at it. How many times can they not get the words out when all they're doing is reading off an autocue.
- Anne, London, England, 09/02/2010 14:12
Report abuse
This is a classic commercial media response. It's actually 300,000 contracts we are talking about here - and BBC managers etc. earn a fraction of their commercial counterparts. How much does the Editor of the Daily Mail earn, for example?
- Liam, London, 09/02/2010 13:40
Report abuse
Fiona Bruce £500000, are you serious.
Who negotiated on behalf of the BBC.
Surely with supply and demand a newsreader/bog standard presenter can't earn that much!
- Dave, London, 09/02/2010 13:35
Report abuse
I would happily pay the divine Ms Bruce £500K to read the news to me - £1000K if she did it round at my house.
- Harry, Bedford England, 09/02/2010 13:32
Report abuse
You mean to tell me there's talent on the BBC??! Hmmm...maybe it's not too hard to see why so many people refuse to pay the TV licence!
- Jack, Kent, 09/02/2010 13:24
Report abuse
Stephen Fry has become too much of a good thing. He seems to be never off-screen these last few years. I envisage him operating his endless media contributions from a bunker deep within the bowels of the BBC Shepherd's Bush TV Centre.
Naturally the stars and their agents will never turn down fee paying contracts and opportunities. However, it has been BBC commissioning editors and lazy management who have wearied their audiences with showing the few same old faces. From quizzes, to stand-up comedy, to wild-life documentaries, to chat shows, to travel journeys, even to drama. The figuring has long been, if the audience likes them in this, let's put them in that - and that - and that. The result is, we're left with the same people dominating the box and the only people who can compete are the notorious and the instant celebrity talentless.
Our up and coming drama students and the really talented in other spheres are given little work or exposure. The same old few faces who appear again and again do have strong followings among niche audiences, but they drive the wider audience away. Quality and creativity have little place in the cheap and rapidly made programming now. With the biggest trenche of the budgets going to 'stars' money is tight elsewhere. The stars also lose out because talents aren't highlighted, most shows being personality driven.
- Richard, London, 09/02/2010 13:02
Report abuse
i,m trying to think why someone who reads auto que cards like fiona bruce gets £500,000 a year perhaps she's got hidden talents we don't know about! maybe she can play the spoons or the gazoo or comb and toilet paper?
- Anon, leicestershire, 09/02/2010 13:00
Report abuse
This is an outrageous amount of our money being spent on these people. It is about time they got the right amount for the job that they do, not the overpaid monies they have been receiving. Who decides on these payments?Possibly the overpaid directors etc. of the BBC.
- Lynn, London, 09/02/2010 12:38
Report abuse
Hurrah for Bagpuss
Hurrah for Trumpton
Hurrah for Chigley
I don't see how the BBC can justify these ourageous payments to "stars" under any circumstances.
No wonder viewers and listener numbers are dwindling due to other available media.
AND WHERE FOR CHRIST'S SAKE ARE THE DECENT CHILDRENS T.V SHOWS ( i must admit that me and the grandchildren do like in the night garden)
MR(i still love bagpuss) PASTRY
- Mr Pastry, london, 09/02/2010 12:17
Report abuse
And not one of them was as enduring as Oliver Postgate or Peter Fermin, who both earned a modest wage to produce generation-shaping childrens programmes from a Garden Shed . . .
- Roz, France, 09/02/2010 11:49
Report abuse
