Female stars could sue BBC over pay gap
AT LEAST 10 female BBC presenters will consider legal action against the BBC if the corporation does not close the gender pay gap, in a revolt by women who did not appear on the list of staff earning above £150,000.
The women, household names from radio and television, were furious to learn that male colleagues who shared their job descriptions were significantly better paid.
Since the list was published on Wednesday, female presenters have been contacting each other to discuss the way forward. Their number is expected to grow in the coming days.
They will use a “strength in numbers” strategy, to demand their earnings are brought in line with those of their male counterparts. The BBC will be in breach of employment law if it is found to pay men and women different salaries for “like work”.
Jane Garvey, the BBC Radio 4 Woman’s Hour presenter, said a group legal claim was “certainly a possibility”. She added: “This is the sisterhood in full flow.” She noted that “not a single male broadcaster” had been in contact to offer support.
As the BBC struggled to contain the fallout from the pay disclosures, female presenters came forward to claim they had been offered pay rises on the eve of the report’s publication.
In a move that helps to obscure what male and female presenters are paid for identical work, the BBC has ordered its highest-paid names to keep their salary breakdown hidden from the public.
THE BBC has been warned not to use loopholes to hide or lower salaries of stars, as dozens prepare to go “off the books”.
All shows made by BBC Studios, including Strictly Come Dancing, Casualty and Eastenders, will be exempt from the published list next year. What was once the in-house production arm of the BBC has become a commercial subsidiary, and the requirement for transparency will not apply. Damian Collins, the Conservative chairman of the culture, media and sport select committee, said: “There is a worry that in the disclosure you had how much the Strictly stars are being paid. But that would not be there because they are being paid by BBC Studios. Big stars are earning big salaries – it is still licence fee payers’ money but the fact that it has been routed through a production company does not make any difference.”
Mr Collins said he would be questioning Lord Hall of Birkenhead, the direc- tor-general of the BBC, about the risks of the loophole when he appears before the committee in October.
He said: “The big stars should still be included – as part of the agreement with the production company they should be clear what the level of pay will be for senior stars.”
Mr Collins said the pay of David Dimbleby, the presenter of Question Time, should be disclosed – currently it is not because the show is made by an independent production company. He also said that the National Audit Office should be allowed to vet and publish the details of BBC stars which are no longer directly employed by the corporation.
The committee would consider raising the issue with the spending watchdog if it was not satisfied with Lord Hall’s answers in the autumn.
In a process beginning this year, all series made in-house by the BBC – with the exception of sport and children’s shows – will be put out to competitive tendering. Whether BBC Studios wins the right to keep making them, or loses them to an independent production company, the result will be the same: talent pay will be hidden from public view.
The Government previously endorsed BBC Studios’ change of status. Lord Ashton of Hyde said last October: “Full named salary disclosure will not [apply] to BBC Studios in future. They will not be benefiting from taxpayer funding, it needs to operate on a fully commercial basis.” He added that disclosing talent pay “would undermine BBC Studios’ ability to compete”.