Ed BBC - presenters' salaries, should they be public?

[Darat]

The "Public Accounts Committee" has made some interesting comments regarding the BBC and how its presenters salaries aren't public: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8081083.stm

I'm unhappy to read some of the details revealed. That the BBC would not allow the NAO access to the details unless they designed an NDA is quite frankly bizarre and should not be allowed to continue. The BBC is a publicly funded organisation and a body with statutory rights and therefore the NAO should have access to all its financial information.

As for the ""We believe our approach in this case was in line with the Data Protection Act and information commissioner's guidance."" I'd like to see the actual "guidance given", as it stands that looks like nothing more than an attempt to hide under the skirt of the DPA.

On a wider point - I really do not think a rational and supportable argument can be made, as to why the details of the renumeration packages of presenters contracted or employed by the BBC should be kept confidential.

 

[arthwollipot]

Inasmuch as anyone else's salary is public. Why should BBC Presenters be any different?

 

[paximperium]

Inasmuch as anyone else's salary is public. Why should BBC Presenters be any different?

Are they technically State/Public Employees?

 

[Darat]

Inasmuch as anyone else's salary is public. Why should BBC Presenters be any different?

Are they technically State/Public Employees?

The BBC is a strange beast, it is independent of the government but it is also a public body (with statutory rights and obligations), its funding is raised by (in essence) a tax on UK folk who watch TV.

 

[DC]

BBC is a public TV station i thought, so actually as they are employes of the people, the people should know what they pay to their employes.

 

[moopet]

Even though I appreciate all the good things the BBC provide, I still would prefer they were scrapped rather than pay a (euphemistic) licence fee. Second best would be if they were made into a proper state service, funded by an actual tax - at which point I would expect salaries to be graded and the grades made public.

 

[chillzero]

I don't see that they need to be made public. I think this is an attempt to deflect some attention from the MPs, but my issue with the MPs isn't so much whether what they did was allowed technically or not it was the blatent lack of ethical behaviour which should be expected from public servants. Perhaps also to deflect from the earlier scandal of bank manager retirement funds alongside public bailouts.

I don't see that the BBC employees are acting in the same kind of capacity, nor are they utilising and abusing an expenses system so this isn't about ethics. I wouldn't know how to go about determining what would be an approriate salary for any of them, so it matters less to me.

 

[Darat]

I don't see that they need to be made public. I think this is an attempt to deflect some attention from the MPs, but my issue with the MPs isn't so much whether what they did was allowed technically or not it was the blatent lack of ethical behaviour which should be expected from public servants. Perhaps also to deflect from the earlier scandal of bank manager retirement funds alongside public bailouts.

I don't see that the BBC employees are acting in the same kind of capacity, nor are they utilising and abusing an expenses system so this isn't about ethics. I wouldn't know how to go about determining what would be an approriate salary for any of them, so it matters less to me.

Could that be because you are starting from a premise that information about public bodies should be confidential unless there is a reason to make it public?

I start from the opposite position, i.e. all information about public bodies should be public unless there can be shown to be a good reason why it shouldn't be.

 

[chillzero]

I'm not starting from any premise at all .... well, other than the premise that public officials should act ethically, which I know is a little off topic.

I guess you are correct - publicly funded bodies should have their information be answerable and visible.

 

[Denver]

I think, as a public entity, their budgets should be transparent, down to some reasonable level of detail and accountability. But I don't think 'reasonable' should include individual salaries. Departmental salaries, perhaps.

 

[Darat]

I think, as a public entity, their budgets should be transparent, down to some reasonable level of detail and accountability. But I don't think 'reasonable' should include individual salaries. Departmental salaries, perhaps.

I'm not too interested in Jo Bloggs salary (because she is likely to be on a "scale" and we will know the range her salary falls within). However when according to the report "three quarters of budgets for breakfast and drive-time shows were spent on presenters", I think the idea of individual privacy doesn't come into it. Especially because these presenters are public faces (and voices), and will undoubtedly make more money the more exposure they get via the BBC.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I'm not too interested in Jo Bloggs salary (because she is likely to be on a "scale" and we will know the range her salary falls within). However when according to the report "three quarters of budgets for breakfast and drive-time shows were spent on presenters", I think the idea of individual privacy doesn't come into it. Especially because these presenters are public faces (and voices), and will undoubtedly make more money the more exposure they get via the BBC.

Is that really a surprise?

On talk radio, what expenses would you expect to have other than salaries (my guess is that there is no allocation of overhead costs to individual shows so the costs of actually operating the station won't be included).

Presenters and technical staff salaries would seem to be about it. I am not surprised that the on air staff make more.

 

[andyandy]

Ever since the MP scandal broke I've been waiting for the spotlight to be turned to the salary of BBC staff. Not surprisingly MPs getting it in the neck relentlessly are looking for some sort of diversion. And really there is some reason to be aggrieved if you are a frontbench politician. A Cabinet minister doing the rounds on the morning radio shows will probably be on around a 10th of the salary of the presenter asking him questions. Are we really saying that Nicky Campbell for 15 broadcast hours a week is worth more than the person responsible for running the entire education system?

The BBC is often seen to make the argument that they need to pay top rates to ensure that they don't lose "talent" to the private sector, but with the private broadcast sector absolutely tanking in terms of revenues this seems less persuasive in the current climate. In addition, the BBC has a significant amount of "value added" - much bigger audiences, crossover shows, a higher profile, juicy pensions, niche shows. Paxman receives just over £1 million a year for Newsnight and University challenge. Neither show would survive outside the public broadcast remit, so against what metric is the private sector equivalent measured against?

I'm not in any way opposed to the BBC in general, indeed I am a big supporter of the organisation. And there is a real danger that the anti-BBC press combine with newly wounded MPs in a witchhunt against the organisation. As such the BBC really needs to be proactive in dealing with this potential threat rather than relying upon arguments for the need for secrecy. Like MPs expenses sooner or later presenter salaries were going to in the open, along with executives expense accounts, how much the organisation spends on wining and dining on taxis and planes on hotels and food. Far better to clean up now in advance.

As a first step, how about a 30% cut on all presenter and executive salaries above say £200,000. If people want to leave to the commercial sector so be it, there will be dozens of excellent CVs in the post for every position vacated.

 

[andyandy]

I'm not too interested in Jo Bloggs salary (because she is likely to be on a "scale" and we will know the range her salary falls within). However when according to the report "three quarters of budgets for breakfast and drive-time shows were spent on presenters", I think the idea of individual privacy doesn't come into it. Especially because these presenters are public faces (and voices), and will undoubtedly make more money the more exposure they get via the BBC.

I had a friend who worked on the BBC breakfast show on radio five and he assured me that all the top presenters (Nicky Campbell, Simon Mayo, John Humphrys, Terry Wogan, Chris Moyles etc) were taking home at least £1 million a year. Nice work if you can get it.

 

[Uncayimmy]

On a wider point - I really do not think a rational and supportable argument can be made, as to why the details of the renumeration packages of presenters contracted or employed by the BBC should be kept confidential.

That's remuneration, not renumeration. Just a peeve.

If the salaries are set by some sort of scale, then I'm with you. If they are negotiated individually, then it is probably against the best interest of the public to make those salaries known. It can make future negotiations difficult and may result in presenters clamoring for renegotiation to get higher salaries. If I'm a presenter looking to make a move to the private sector, I would not want my salary known if it is significantly less than that of people in similar positions.