Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Celebrity pay not for public discussion, BBC tells MPs

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 04 June 2009
THE BBC is avoiding scrutiny of its spending because of confidentiality agreements struck with some of its most high– profile stars, according to a report from an influential group of MPs.
The House of Commons public accounts committee said the corporation appeared to be paying some radio presenters double the salaries of commercial station broadcasters.

This comes as reports suggest the BBC is set to cut the wages of Jonathan Ro
ss, who presents a Saturday morning Radio 2 show, upon the expiry of his existing deal at the end of the year.

Ross, who is believed to earn around £6 million a year, also faces losing his billing as the BBC's biggest name, with the announcement that Graham Norton's BBC 2 show is moving to the main channel.

The committee's report, published today, describes as "disgraceful" the corporation's refusal to give the National Audit Office (NAO), a breakdown of presenters' salaries for a selection of radio shows, unless the public spending watchdog signs a non-disclosure agreement.

Committee chairman Edward Leigh said the BBC should not be allowed to dictate what the NAO could inspect when public money was at stake.

The report on the efficiency of radio production said the government should arrange for the NAO to have legally-guaranteed right of access to the BBC's expenditure, including presenters' salaries, as it does for other publicly-funded bodies.

Describing what he regards as a "highly unsatisfactory arrangement", Mr Leigh said: "The NAO has a statutory right to examine the details of expenditure in any government department. It has no such right of audit access to the BBC, despite the fact the corporation is funded with over £3 billion of public money."

The report found programmes such as Sir Terry Wogan's Wake Up to Wogan on Radio 2 cost on average twice as much per hour as the most expensive commercial breakfast show.

"It is disgraceful that the NAO's lack of statutory audit access to the BBC puts the corporation in the position to dictate what the spending watchdog can and cannot see," said Mr Leigh.

The MPs said the BBC's main value for money test, the "cost-per-listener hour," which takes the size of audience into account, risked creating an inflationary wage spiral, and should be balanced with a range of other measures.

While commercial stations have been cutting hourly rates for presenters in response to falling advertising revenues and an increasingly fragmented audience, the BBC has until recently actually been increasing its rates.

The BBC Trust, the corporation's governing body, said it was "disappointed" the NAO would not sign a non-disclosure agreement.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 04 June 2009 12:20 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: The BBC
 
1

Ewan Randall,

04/06/2009 00:40:59
The public's money goes into paying the licence fee doesn't it, so why are we not allowed to see how much is spent on things like fees to celebrities?

Have the BBC got something to hide?

Maybe we should get to see their expenses claims too?
2

Iainbroch,

04/06/2009 01:51:17
Why Not?

Looks like the BBC has not just something to hide but a lot to hide?
3

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 04/06/2009 02:20:49
I believe we should have public broadcasting and in its remit the BBC should provide quality programs from centres thoughout Britain. I don't see why it must compete with commercial media; it needs to return to its role to educate and entertain. This entertainment not to be mindless prattle but documentaries and drama that provoke the viewer to think. Let's have satire and humour too.

MPs mustn't be cowed but scrutinise the BBC on quality and cost and chop its budget for waste and extravagance.
4

Mallory,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 08:08:07
Not just celebrity pay. How about details of expenses, who qualifies for business / first class travel and how much money is being given to the likes of the Football and FI circuses. Why are sponsors names always included in sports events but not rarely mentioned in arts productions?

Much greater transparency needed from this overblown overpaid self-satisfied quango.
5

Findlay Thompson,

Broadcasting House 04/06/2009 08:08:20
It is the 21st Century, for a government to force it’s citizens (by law) to pay the alleged six figure salaries for the likes of J Ross, regardless of whether they wish to see his programs or not is un-democratic. People who live in a supposed democracy have the right of free choice. The sooner this abhorrent licence fee is scrapped the better. I for one should have a democratic right to say aye or no to sustaining these people in the super rich lifestyles, which they have become accustomed to courtesy of the taxpayer. Pay per view is the only way forward for the future of this bloated organisation, which does provide on occasion some excellent viewing!
6

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 04/06/2009 09:03:12
Let the BBC raise its own funds and then we'll see how keen it is to pay Ross the still exorbitant £3M/year.

The BBC has no mandate from us, the people who pay its expenses to keep its dealings secret. No taxation without knowledge never mind representation! Time this cesspit of spending was cleaned up after the Commons, Lords, MEPs, quangoes...
7

Jock's Away,

Africa 04/06/2009 09:15:56
it is just like the bankers and MP's, under the cloak of secrecy they milk the system. Bent bankers, bent broadcasters. There was a time the BBC stood for honesty, trust and objectivity.
now like so many in "public office" the anthem is. "The taxpayer can kiss my **** I'm on the gravy train at last." the cancer of greed is now endemic. But until the voters and taxpayers shake themself and say enough is enough then the parasite will continue to syphon the money from their pay packets.
8

billalba,

fife 04/06/2009 10:03:34
Just the sleazy westminster mp's trying to divert attention.
9

Andrah,

Embrugh 04/06/2009 10:09:25
The BBC, an outdated, bloated organisation,force-funded by the British Taxpayer under threat of prosecution and forever working against the interests of Britain.

Makers of trash TV, and it's flagship R4 is the bastion of the BBC's Left liberalism with scarcely any dissenting views being expressed throughout the day.

Many people absorb the message without realising it.
Opinions and attitudes are slid painlessly into their minds through the plotlines of soaps and dramas, while notions and fancies are implanted by the twittering of mindless DJs and weather girls - it's a seamless, ceaseless process and because of the all-pervading nature of the BBC it is a monumentally powerful propaganda tool.

Time to sell it off or force it to work for it's funding.
10

Curious Yellow,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 10:40:17
We pay their wages, therefore we should be told what they are. End of.
11

drunken proffet,

Tassy 04/06/2009 11:08:54
Well back in the seventies and eighties we got great programs like the Onedin Line, comediens that would keep you laughing, When the Boat comes in, Sharpes Rifles, the list is endless. Nowadays for the same money you can get a picture of the latest flavour of the month to hang above the mantlepiece and no doubt costing the same kind of money. A bit of a bummer, eh!
12

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 04/06/2009 11:16:51
A better idea is a Scottish Broadcasting Corporation. It'd be a small but vital part of the scottish budget. Wick would be a great site for an HQ. Its strategic airport easily accesses the Northern Isles, Western Isles, Aberdeen, the Central Belt, the Borders and our scandanavian neighbours. The underused Thurso College (benefit of the nuclear age) could train journalists and technicians. There's a classy French restuarant too and you see alot of highflyers passing through in their exotic machinery.
13

criochan,

Lochailort 04/06/2009 11:58:15
Here we go again.
14

Tartan Viking,

04/06/2009 12:55:26
I object to funding these overpaid middle-England pro-Labour-feminist types that seem to run the BBC. I object to the compulsory tax I have to pay for owning a television set capable of receiving a BBC channel even though that channel is rarely watched in my house.

This mob should be forced to compete for their income in the competitive media market, and not sit back on their lazy backsides, safe in the knowledge that they have a guaranteed income to make the programmes that suit their agenda whislt sticking two fingers up at the viewer.
15

JT,

04/06/2009 13:08:01
Its not so much Ross's salary but what about the numpties that run the bbc who in their "wisdom" think its great to have the whole of the country watching London and SE England centric broadcasting.
16

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 04/06/2009 13:49:08
Placing all broadcasting in the private sector would lead to the lowest common denominator - one media monopoly covering the hole of Britain and HQed in London.

The BBC is a global brand, and although it's little to commend it apart from radios 4 and 3 , it should keep its name for the sake of sentimentality and tradition.

Upgrading Radio Scotland by employing real journalists in place of twitterers would cost little to raise our game.
17

Tartan Viking,

04/06/2009 14:50:06
#16. Yok Finney.

You have a point about upgrading radio Scotland. They could start by employing more male journalists. The morning news programme in particular is often presented by an all-female cast. All twittering on and on, never missing an opportunity to make an the usual anti bloke jokes.

Bring in professionals and hoist this lot out to present Loose Women or something more up their street.
18

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 04/06/2009 19:39:03
Ruth Wishart and Lesley Riddoch are good radio journalists and Ruth is good at leading politicians quietly along till they put their foot in it rather than straight confrontation. I don't think it's a male or female thing: my mother can't stand Tom Morton though I sometimes like the music.

Beyond the morning news program, there should be a serious schedule. People might want to hear a farmer talking about farming or a shipbuilder (endangered species) talking about ships. Why not a learner's Gaelic class. An hour seems a good size of slot for radio.
19

Kenny A,

04/06/2009 23:39:27
The public pay for the BBC.

The public should know what they are paying in salaries.

Are they better even than politicians who the public also pay for.

Please no one respond or I will start on other public funded bodies and probably expire mid typo.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.