Oral evidence: The work of the BBC, HC 382

Oral evidence, 13 June 2023.

Witnesses

Tim Davie CBE, David Jordan and Charlotte Moore.

Chair

Welcome to today’s meeting of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. This is one of our regular accountability sessions with the BBC. These sessions are usually held after the publication of the BBC’s annual report and accounts, which I understand are due to be published next month, but issues that you will all be aware of—including impartiality, governance and cuts—mean that we were very keen to bring this session forward. Welcome to our panel today. We are joined this morning by Tim Davie, the Director-General of the BBC, alongside Charlotte Moore, who is the Chief Content Officer, and David Jordan, the Director of Editorial Policy and Standards, so a warm welcome to you all. Before we start, do any members need to declare interests?

Simon Jupp

I am a former BBC employee.

Dr Rupa Huq

I was a paid BBC staffer in the 1990s.

Kevin Brennan

I have received hospitality in the past from the BBC. Because of some of the questions I might ask, I would also like to declare that I am a member of the Musicians’ Union and the Ivors Academy and I chair the APPG on Music.

Steve Brine

I once worked for the BBC a long time ago. I worked formerly in the last century and I have attended “Strictly”—the last series—at the request of the BBC.

Chair

As a contestant?

Steve Brine

I have not been a contestant—yet.

Chair

I think “Strictly” is the poorer for that.

Julie Elliott

I have accepted hospitality from the BBC in the past.

Damian Green

I have both worked for and accepted hospitality from the BBC in the past.

John Nicolson

I worked as a reporter and presenter for the BBC. I have worked with David Jordan, who was my producer, in a whole series of films for BBC politics. Mr Jordan also appointed me as presenter of “The Week in Westminster” at one point, and I have been to various BBC events.

Chair

Thank you very much, everybody. Well, that concludes that bit so I am going to start. Tim, how confident are you that no production set of the BBC could be described as toxic?

Tim Davie

I think overall we are confident that we have a good culture across the BBC in our productions. I can hand to David in a minute in terms of some of the questioning around the specifics of the policies. Having said that, I think this is an area in which the BBC has a lot of experience. We have things that have happened in our past that we have learnt from and you are constantly vigilant and, in my view, any complacency is misplaced. Therefore, with regard to that, we don’t just rely on good intent. We have very fixed policies on bullying, harassment, whistleblowing, and production guidelines that are rigorously enforced. We can go into more detail as the Committee sees fit, but it is an incredibly important issue. Over time we have constantly refined and improved our processes, and I would hope that we are the best in the world. They are certainly the best in terms of the processes we have. We also spent a lot of time trying to get the right culture that is supported by the policies—like whistleblowing—that secure the right culture. That is not to say we are perfect. There are always things you have to be vigilant for but, overall, I am confident about the culture of the BBC.

Chair

Does anyone want to add to that?

David Jordan

We have a lot of policy around this area, as you might expect. Fundamentally, our duty of care requirements are outlined in the Ofcom code but also in the editorial guidelines, where we were the first broadcaster to have due care requirements in our guidelines, supported by a whole suite of guidance. That includes guidance on working with children, specifically working with children online, safeguarding vulnerable adults and adults who might become vulnerable through their contribution, and guidance on competitions for talent and so on. Therefore, we have a lot of policy in the area. We also have a group called the safeguarding unit in our SSR team, which is safety, security and resilience, who specialise in the law around safeguarding. For example, they will make sure that anybody who is vulnerable or who is a child who works in a drama is doing the things that are required by law, has a chaperone, and limited to the hours that they can work and so on. All our programmes deal with what we call competitive or immersive programming. Competitive is obvious; immersive is where people, for example, are living together in a house for long periods of time. All those programmes and many others besides will have protocols specific to that individual programme, which will set out what is required of all the people working on the programme and what they can expect. Those protocols will determine things like what happens before they even become part of the programme. For example, we might psychologically test people to ensure that they are capable of withstanding the rigours and scrutiny that come with being part of a major television programme that is going to be seen by millions of people and all the social media attention that may result in that in today’s world, so we will assess people. When they get on the programme we will have support for them during the production of the programme itself, right through to around the time of TX. When it is TX we will have support for people and we continue that support—and I can go into more detail if you want me to—with an aftercare service for people so that they are not just abandoned the day after the programme finishes and left to fend for themselves. There is a lot of support work that goes in to ensure that people who contribute to our programmes are properly looked after, properly safeguarded, and properly protected from the issues that they might encounter as a consequence of their participation.

Chair

Thank you. We have heard a lot in the media over recent weeks about what happens when there is an imbalance of power in the workplace, when the safeguarding of junior staff is brought into question. Both of you have spoken about safeguarding in answer to that question, but specifically what is there in place to prevent a junior staff member’s career being unduly influenced or, in fact, derailed by one of your more—you have some incredibly highly paid and powerful celebrities and others within your ranks. What is there specifically in place to stop that form of exploitation or abuse?

David Jordan

We have very specific policies—and I will come on to how we enforce those in a moment—which everybody is required to adhere to and, clearly, we have learned from the awful experiences that took place at the BBC in the past. For example, one of the protocols that I referred to just now says explicitly, “Any personal or sexual relations with any contributors are prohibited and will result in disciplinary procedures, all crew to keep professional boundaries with contributors, and this is not to be crossed”. That is just a quote from one of the protocols that we use in one of the programmes and there are many more like that. For example, in a major series that we have at the present time or have in entertainment, we have a thing called the pledge, which is a pledge from the executive producer to all the people in the programme about how they expect that programme to be run free of bullying and harassment of any sort. Everybody is expected to uphold those and, if they see them not being upheld, either to raise them as a line management issue or, if they feel they are not being listened to, we obviously have our whistleblowing process, which we have beefed up in recent years to allow people to take that route. In addition, the SSR team that I referred to earlier—the safeguarding team—now pays site visits, so actually goes out to locations, to studios, and looks at what is going on and makes sure that the policies are being implemented properly in all the environments as well. We are relying on two things: first, people making it clear to us if they see these policies not being adhered to and, secondly, making spot checks, as it were, going in and making sure that the policies are being implemented properly.

Tim Davie

Just to answer directly, building on what David has said and the architecture of what we have in place at the BBC, the processes are very robust. I do think from the leadership there is an absolutely clear signal, very direct, and this is born from experience. I have personally been through a number of reviews looking at the history of the BBC, and your concerns are well placed, which is that imbalances of power are dangerous and we care about them. The first thing is that culturally at the top of the BBC I am very direct that that is not something I want to see in the organisation. That is not about me, but it is also about the leadership being very clear that is unacceptable. We do have imbalances. It is a strange industry but not wholly strange, where you have people earning—we will no doubt come on to this topic, I suspect—talent salaries versus producers, all that. This is an environment in which there is power in place. The first thing is setting the cultural framework correctly. You underpin that with process, which is, if you like, pre-process. That is, when you come to a production or when you join a team we do spend a lot of time on the BBC values but also policy, as David said, what you sign up to when you go on a production. The third part of the architecture, in my view, is the way in which, if you are facing a difficulty, you can raise it. There are two big things that we can talk about. One is bullying and harassment through the management process, which is, “I feel the work environment is not right for me”, and this could be anything from disputes with a line manager. Any organisation of 20,000 people is going to have some of those. The good news is that those numbers are going down and, by the way, we publish both the bullying and harassment and the whistleblowing in our annual report with the numbers. That is all fully transparent, which is another important thing that we do. You have bullying and harassment and then you have whistleblowing. The critical thing about whistleblowing—and we have tuned this process through various phases and we are pushing harder after the Serota review, and we are very happy to keep pushing—is that when it comes to whistleblowing we are being very open and pushing it with staff that, “If you have an issue you need to raise that cannot go through management, it can go straight through, around management, to non-executive directors, so you can raise those concerns”. I think we have been very front-footed about that but, to answer your question directly, if those issues emerge that is the structure of what we are trying to put in place.

Chair

You are talking about the processes that you just mentioned. When do you expect—as a specific example—the review into what the BBC knew about Tim Westwood’s behaviour to report?

Tim Davie

Very specifically, we have the bullying and harassment, and we have the whistleblowing. Separately, sometimes historically, or if we have a very big issue, we call in an independent person to review an issue of very significant scale. We have seen this irregularly, but as to the very significant reviews that we have done, on Westwood, as you know, the review is being led by Gemma White KC. It is an independent review. I don’t have control of the timing. If I was guessing—and it is not a commitment because it is her review, not mine and not the management’s—I would say in the next couple of months. She has made a call for extra evidence. She is talking to people, running the process independently, and then it will report.

Chair

Are there any reviews into other cases ongoing at the moment?

Tim Davie

I don’t think there are any similar reviews, which I know of, of that type and that significance. Aside from whistleblowing cases being worked through or bullying and harassment, just thinking through, the only comparable one—because I suspected you might ask me—is that we have a review into “Top Gear” because we had a very difficult situation with the accident. You could argue that it is not quite in the same area, but I think that is the only significant programme review that is running at the moment.

Chair

The other issue that we have been a bit concerned about in recent weeks, around this whole arena, is the way that non-disclosure agreements prevent people from being able to speak up about bullying or negative experiences. How much does the BBC use NDAs?

Tim Davie

David, do you want to take that?

David Jordan

We do not have non-disclosure agreements anymore. At one point we did ask for non-disclosure agreements, but we do not enforce non-disclosure agreements on people in the BBC anymore at this time.

Chair

To be clear, there are no staff or former staff who have complained about the culture of the BBC but cannot disclose it because they are signed up to a non-disclosure agreement?

David Jordan

Not because they are signed up to a non-disclosure agreement. There are certain elements of confidentiality about negotiations with them and that kind of thing, which are just normal confidentiality and legal processes, but there is no restriction on people speaking up because they have a non-disclosure agreement as such, no.

Tim Davie

Our standard processes are that no employee needs to keep the factual terms of a settlement agreement confidential. The second thing is—and we live with it every day—we do not prevent people from making derogatory statements about the BBC and how it operates after they leave. That is different to some other organisations. We don’t do that. We do not have a non-disclosure. There may be something in the history, I will have to get back to you on that, but certainly in recent times that is not how we have operated. The point David is making is that there is, for instance, the commercial arm—you would not want public-sensitive business information or confidential information—but it is very narrow. Broadly speaking, people are not subject to that. There is another area that sometimes gets raised, which is that if we are in the midst of staff changes or going through a process and we are having confidential discussions with people that may affect people’s jobs and livelihoods, publicly tweeting about that—not the policy but the detail of that—I think is subject to it. This is just standard code of conduct stuff of an employee in an organisation, but I would say overall we are in a pretty good state on this.

Chair

What I do not want to do is dance on the head of a pin here. There are semantics between what is a non-disclosure agreement and what is a confidentiality agreement. Clearly, if something is to do with some kind of commercial sensitivity or some kind of negotiation or something to do with a business discussion, then that is understandable.

Tim Davie

Yes. I would say, versus my life in the commercial sector, it is perfectly appropriate for someone—in some of the areas that we may well get to—to talk about publicly announced cuts. That is not what we are talking about. It is not that management are sitting there going, “You can’t speak about your views on local radio or other things”. By the way, there are organisations where that would be seen as way over the line. That is not the case in the BBC. I am talking about a very specific thing, if we are on the pinhead, if you just have announcements that are confidential and you are trying to manage people carefully and with sensitivity. Aside from that, we do not have NDAs.

Damian Green

Good morning. We had the Secretary of State before us last week and she was magnificent. In two hours she said nothing of any interest, which is the perfect ministerial performance, apart from when she was asked, “Is the BBC biased?” when she said yes, straightforwardly, and slightly qualified it by saying it was biased on occasion. Has she raised any cases with you?

Tim Davie

Not cases. The discussion we had with the DCMS is about the implementation of the Serota impartiality plan, overall progress against publicly declared objectives, but nothing has been raised on editorial matters, no.

Damian Green

What about other Ministers or special advisers? There is a long history of people trying to influence you.

Tim Davie

Over time, if you work at the BBC, boy, do you get a lot of opinion, yes. There is not a BBC executive and news executive at senior level who hasn’t been given the benefit of feedback regularly, as you know, Damian. The thing we do is employ people. As editor in chief, I can tell you that my orders are very clear, which is we report without fear or favour, with due impartiality. I have never claimed we get it perfect all the time, and sometimes we do not get it right, but, overall, on the vast majority of occasions and in summary, I think we are delivering very well. Actually, we are here to talk about the work of the BBC. I think overall we have had a good year in terms of maintaining impartiality in a world in which there are fierce storms around us. The whole of the global media market is being drawn into more partiality to make commercial return, but no, to answer your question directly, I have not had anything raised by the Secretary of State. Ministers and other people in the past have now and again raised things, “Are you reporting this issue?”, but, honestly, that is just the normal cut and thrust of how we do our business.

Damian Green

Is the level of noise from inside Government at your news and current affairs people less or more than in previous eras?

Tim Davie

I was not here in previous eras but, David, you might have a temperature check for us. I don’t know.

David Jordan

I was running political programmes in the era of Alastair Campbell and New Labour. I don’t think anything could get louder than that.

Damian Green

What about over the last five years or so? Is this Administration more or less interfering than previous Administrations?

David Jordan

As you know, because there are those of you on the Committee who have worked with the BBC and so on in political programmes and news and current affairs, as the Director-General says, there is always a constant amount of incoming from whatever Government or Opposition happens to be in Government or Opposition at the time. That is part of what you expect. The important thing is that you should always listen, because people do sometimes make an important point or important points of accuracy, which need to be looked at. You always need to listen to what people are saying and not dismiss it because of where it is coming from. The important thing is that you take that into account and you make sure that your reports are factually accurate and reflect all viewpoints and then they are fine. That is true of most of what the BBC produces.

Tim Davie

If I may say something on this, if you read the history of the BBC the noise is constant. There is something different going on in the world, which you may be recognising. I saw some research that most 16 to 34s do not believe any media is impartial. This is really big for us all; 73% of the world does not have a free press now. People want to control the message, and I mean that broadly. People in the round want to control the message. We have social media where they can go directly. We also have business models under enormous pressure around the world, traditional broadcast media or print media. In that, it is perfectly rational—and I am not being critical—to go off to particular audiences and become more polarised. That is not what we are doing as the BBC. In that choice sometimes I think there is more noise. I talk about ascribing of intent, which is that if I ask a tough question of a certain politician people will quickly leap in to say we are of that side or this side. I think there is something quite profound that we are going to have to fight for and, as editor in chief, I feel very strongly about, and this is where you see BBC Verify and you see the things we are doing that demonstrate our intent. We are not perfect. We do not get it right all the time, but I am telling you that our intent is good. Our newsroom is outstanding at trying to find the facts and present them with due impartiality. That I think is a change in climatic conditions for the BBC that is material. I do not think it is related wholly to just what I might call political noise and general feedback.

Damian Green

The difference here—and I take the point about external pressure—is that you now have internal pressure where your own presenters start getting engaged. Gary Lineker is the sort of spear at the point of this.

Tim Davie

Of course, social media adds numerous amounts of joy to this particular situation, where you have people who are freelancers. They are not broadcasting on the BBC. We also forget our long-established freelancers. If you are bringing people into the world of entertainment, television or others, it is very unlikely now that you are going to bring someone in without some social media history, and that obviously adds a challenge.

Damian Green

That is precisely the point I was going to get to because, regardless of Gary Lineker, news presenters are leaving the BBC saying, “Phew, I can now say what I think”, and they all have. I do not think any of them have surprised us yet with what they really think because we could all tell that from their performance on the BBC. Anyway, that is no longer your problem. What is is that when you are looking—precisely the point—for future presenters, and this will not necessarily be news presenters but exertainment presenters or sports presenters, increasingly they will have a social media history so we might well, as viewers, all know what their political or social views are. How is the BBC going to cope with creating the next generation of stars, when more and more of those stars will have established possibly controversial positions, particularly because they want to be controversial when they want to attract attention as influencers and so on? Where do you get your next generation of stars from?

Tim Davie

Charlotte may want to talk about this a little bit in terms of looking after our television or radio output, but I think you raise a challenge. It is a challenge for us as the BBC and I would not duck that. I think there are differences and we do see a very significant difference between those who are in news and current affairs. As you know, we have always hired from every bit of the spectrum. We have just hired, I believe, a Times journalist and we are hiring people who have worked at GB News. We have hired people who have worked at The Guardian. They come with a history—you know what I am going to say—but it has worked for many years and we can hold the line. However, it is tougher based on what you are talking about because people will dig into the history. When you come to news and current affairs, just as you do if you come to my job or Charlotte’s job, you leave it all behind and you are fighting for something more important, which is free and democratic debate and facilitation of that. That is what we do. Now, we will be held to account. I think it is a tough choice we have made, but it is the right choice. When it comes to presenters beyond that, we are obviously doing the social media review because it has been tough. Where do you draw the line between social issues versus party political issues, tone? We want to find the right balance. It is not right that we say—and we are not there now; we were not in the previous policy—that everyone across the BBC is not right to show a view. Audiences are smart. They can say, “Okay, this individual has views but they are presenting a nature programme”, but that does not mean that we need to consider where we are on some lines in terms of protecting the reputation of the BBC. Charlotte, do you want to say something more?

Charlotte Moore

Yes. To be very clear, I think audiences and talent have been quite confused by the debate. That is why we felt the review was really necessary. We are talking about all our platforms, online, radio and TV. We ask all our presenters and our teams to be impartial in the programmes that we make, to make sure that we show due balance and due impartiality on any subject. That does not mean you cannot have opinions, but we need to make sure that we give due impartiality to the subject matter. This is about their own personal social media and, of course, when they are on a platform at the BBC we ask them not to use that platform to campaign in any way on subject matters. It is very, very clear. But they are not staff, a lot of our presenters have lives beyond the BBC, and obviously we would never say that they cannot have their own social media account. We would not be able to impose that. However, we are very clear about what we expect from them, from the responsibility of the BBC, and if they are on regular programmes I think they carry an added responsibility about how they use their social media. The review that we are doing is to give clarity to this, because the discussion about party political and political controversy is something that we think we need to bring greater clarity to for freelancers and their own personal social media use.

Damian Green

One of your new attempts to address this is the thematic reviews. You have had one on economic coverage, and one of the recommendations on that was that, when you ask questions of somebody saying, “The Government should be spending more money on X” that it should be framed as, “Okay, you think that. There are always trade-offs”, so a basic economic point. Are you confident that that report has had any effect? I was thinking back to the coverage of the last Budget, which was subsequent to that report coming out. I did not notice any of those trade-off questions coming.

Tim Davie

David, do you want to just go for it and then I can add?

David Jordan

Sure. You make a very good point in the sense that it is important not just to have reports but to make sure that they have some impact on our output. In order to try to do that, Andrew Dilnot and Michael Blastland, who wrote the report, have been taking an interest in our output subsequent to the report and feeding back their thoughts, including about the Budget. I think the Budget was a mixed picture. There were a lot of improvements in our Budget coverage but there is still some work to do, as you might expect for a report that appeared not that long before. We have been rolling this out across the organisation significantly, starting with a major meeting that Andrew Dilnot and Michael Blastland took themselves, which had over 500 attendees from the BBC. We are doing that in lots of other ways across the organisation, but we do need to make sure that the issues that they raised, the trade-off issue being one of them, the framing of economic debate within politics being another—they drew attention to the way in which we look at some debates, like the tax debate or things like buses. There was certainly an impact on the coverage of buses very immediately. These issues that they raised in their report need to feed through to our overall output and achieve the aims that they wanted to, which is a more rounded coverage of economics.

Tim Davie

I am really encouraged by this thematic review. I think they did really good work. I am sure you have read it, but the work that Andrew Dilnot and Michael Blastland did was very considered. It talks to a bit of a deeper subject than just what I might call basic impartiality because it said that we do a decent job, more than a decent job. We do a good job. It doesn’t find evidence of bias but sometimes in this world, where there is so much noise, the idea of providing a bit more context and understanding where you stop and start a story is very useful guidance. There is evidence in the Budget coverage. You can get drawn into income tax versus—I am sure there is a song there—VAT. You can get drawn into buses versus all those things, but we are an editorial organisation so the ways in which you can deploy this into the organisation is really important. I think it was an outstanding piece of work. I think it will affect our output. It is extremely helpful. It will take us beyond just covering off the basics—if that is even possible—of impartiality. A lot of the issues are: are you covering the issue in the round? Are you showing the right perspectives? This is more than just technical impartiality. One of the things that I think is interesting is that for all the noise, for all the challenges, quite rightly, you have given me, the impartiality scores for the BBC overall is what I look at. With all the work that we are doing, my only objective is that we are trusted and seen as impartial by the public who pay for us. That is it. Everything else is working us towards that aim. Overall, broadly, our numbers are flat in the midst of a storm. It has been a really tough time for institutions in terms of preserving trust. We have been very transparent. Sometimes we have difficult days at the office but, overall, that is holding up. We will continue that fight. Thematic reviews are very important for that actually, as is the rest of the Serota plan.

Damian Green

I agree about the thematic reviews. As a former financial journalist at the BBC, I was particularly interested in this one so I read it several times. Knowing a bit about the BBC and its history, quite often you get good reports that then disappear into the mire, so what is the mechanism by which journalists will refer back to that? You say they have had a meeting. Are they going to have a continuous interest, Andrew Dilnot and Michael Blastland?

David Jordan

I did not want to go through the whole list unnecessarily, but I am very happy to do so. They held an initial meeting, which is still available on what we call our gateway site internally. Anybody can watch it, and they are encouraged to do so by our BBC Academy and others. They then talked to nations and regions, and there has been a structural change in Wales as a result of the report, a change in the way in which they do economics and business coverage as a consequence of the findings of the report. They have held sessions with all the Radio 4, sequences, content division, commissioners, and political story teams at Millbank. They have reported back to the EGSC on what they think of our coverage and what we are doing well in relation to the Budget. They thought there had been less political framing on live programmes. They thought there were fewer instances of tax being interpreted only as income tax. There was more context and less hype around borrowing and so on and so forth, and they noted that buses had replaced trains as the BBC’s preferred mode of transport, so these things are all happening. The EGSC, the board committee that covers editorial standards, is asking for them to come back in the autumn and for us to come back to them in the autumn and give us an indication of what has been done so far and what continues to be done. It is a continuing programme. It is not a case of the report being done and it being put on a shelf. It is a continuing programme of implementing it and making sure that everybody is aware that we are improving our coverage in the way that it suggests.

Tim Davie

Your concern is a very good one. I think this industry oftentimes reports action steps; what actually changes? The lines you are using are very much used internally, if I may, which is: how do we make sure that there is a real change in how we go about our issues? I would say that on top of David’s—the fact that the authors are still helping us, working it through, at the end of the day the BBC is about those editors, those wash-up meetings. By the way, I think the teams are doing an outstanding job and they are learning from these things. In the midst of a lot of challenges I think we are delivering really well. I do think the thematic reviews are going to make a difference.

Simon Jupp

Good morning. I am going to talk about BBC local radio, which you probably were expecting, because you continue to face questions from staff, unions, parliamentarians and even Ofcom about the changes, the cuts you are making to BBC local radio. Given they seem to have very little support, how can you continue with these changes?

Tim Davie

It is totally understandable that for something so precious and essential as local radio and BBC local more generally, when you make changes it is very difficult and unpopular. We believe we are doing the right thing, but it is a situation in which we understand, are listening and we have already made some adjustments to our plans to make sure we are making the right choices with very limited money. The overall situation is that, as you know—I think you are well briefed and you have talked to some of our regional colleagues and you understand the issue—we have made some decisions around local provision in the BBC, because it is so essential and precious, to keep its budget flat. You cannot avoid the fact that the BBC has had 33% of income taken over the last decade and we have had to absorb inflation for the last two years. We have made a choice to keep more in local than the average by keeping the budget flat. Now, within that, you have then got choices—once you have agreed you are going to hold the budget—with what you do with it. Local radio is precious. The connection with people who often aren’t digitally connected, all of that, is absolutely critical to the BBC. There is a but, which is that it does have a big audience but it is 13% of the population, so an incredibly precious 5 million people, but it is 13% of the population. The linear local market has been declining about 20% over the last few years. In total, it is down about 20%. With that in mind and the fact that audience behaviour is changing rapidly, you don’t have to be a digital evangelist to look at the numbers and say that most 65 to 75 year-olds are getting their news online now. In that context, we believe that reallocating about 10% of our budget—the vast majority of the budget remains in linear broadcast, by the way, and there is not a media organisation in the world that is not going through this transformation. We believe that upweighting the online offer is critical for local democracy. I need no convincing of the essential role of the BBC in local democracy in the regions, in the localities, and we have made a decision—the Committee I think is pretty well versed on these topics—to keep all local radio stations open, protecting where the vast majority of the listening is. Yes, there is a painful choice, which is the sharing of programmes in the afternoon going to 20 rather than 39. You cannot avoid that. That is where you cut, and then you are able to then invest in digital, where we are increasing the headcount by 130 in other areas, putting 71 investigative journalists in, building 11 journalism hubs. I think that is the right decision, I really do, in terms of having a proper local offer. There is no diminishment in the appetite of the BBC to be supporting local democracy, holding people to account in the localities and representing these towns and cities—

Simon Jupp

If I may, you talk about local radio being precious, and obviously you have had to make some changes to your proposals in light of feedback and lots of views from all different sectors of the BBC and everything else. Should you have consulted audiences before you did this? How has this been explained to these loyal audiences? If you look at RAJAR figures, BBC local radio, yes, in certain areas the audience might be smaller than it was 10 years ago but they are very loyal. They are an audience that is super-served by BBC local radio, which has been left behind by every other media because commercial radio has changed so much in recent years. Should you have consulted them?

Tim Davie

We are always looking at audience research. We are looking at the numbers. We are talking to people. There is a formal process, of course, with Ofcom. We asked Ofcom about the changes.

Simon Jupp

I am not talking about Ofcom. I am talking about the audience, the people who care about these programmes. I am thinking about my constituents, who are slightly older than the average in East Devon, and the radio is their friend. Social isolation is a real problem in the UK. BBC local radio is that friend. It is not going to be as relevant to them. If I talk about my local radio station for a second—I am sorry to take a bit of time talking about this—when these changes come in, none of the presenters, bar one, who have been there 12 months ago will still be on air. That is a huge change to an audience that is loyal, in a county that is fairly traditional. Why did you not consult audiences who pay for these services?

Tim Davie

We are talking to audiences all the time. There wasn’t a formal consultation. I think you have to scale these processes to the scale of change. As I say, the vast majority of both listening and listeners are not affected by these changes if you take breakfast and mid-morning and what we are protecting across all 39 local stations. I know you have talked to Stephanie Marshall and others in the region, and I know there are specific changes with regard to the John Acreses of this world in terms of some of the changes that have happened. There is a bit more change within Devon, and I appreciate that. By the way, that is a challenge when you change from—but remember, we are not changing the breakfast programming. We have 39 breakfast programmes mid-morning. That is where most of the listening is. There is a compromise here. There inevitably is. With this financial framework there is a compromise. I have the Devon issue and I appreciate that. I take the point. There is a compromise, which is in the afternoons, and remember it is a precious audience. It is 13%—this is balance—of the population. My objective when I walk into Plymouth, which I have done, is that when I look at the people in the street 50% are getting local or regional news and, particularly from a BBC local point of view, we are not just confined to a media that I love to bits but is declining and is less of the audience. I cannot change the audience habits on that. I think we need to respond—

Simon Jupp

Let’s just delve into the weeds a second if I can. Some of these changes that have come forward, and all the different regions that come out of it and all the different programmes that come up, are you confident that the scoring process used in different regions to select which presenters will present different slots was robust, fair and even nice or kind to your employees?

Tim Davie

I think it was robust in the right process. There is a balance. I would have to get back to you on some of the very specific details if you have questions on the process.

Simon Jupp

I am not going into specifics. It would not be appropriate.

Tim Davie

I was going to say that as well. We would have to work on what is appropriate. One of the things we have tried to do in the process—and there is a balance here—in the BBC is properly discussing with unions. Going through processes you open up, as much as possible, jobs to as big a community as you can and that increases the stress on the organisation over a time period. If you think about how potentially a commercial organisation would do it, it may be a much quicker process. It would be a different process. If you look at some tech companies, there are brilliant things that they do but sometimes it can be a very quick change. It can be within a week. We are not running that type of process. That is kind and the right thing to do over time, but the fact that it takes longer does create quite a lot of stress on the organisation.

Simon Jupp

When we look at these changes, if audiences plummet across BBC local radio—which in certain regions they may because, as Ofcom has said, these programmes may not have the same relevance to audiences—will you look again at these changes? Would you look to reintroduce local programming if RAJAR figures fall to the floor?

Tim Davie

I think we will always look to maximise the use of that money on local to ensure that we have the right editorial—sorry, I mean—

Simon Jupp

Yes or no?

Tim Davie

What it means is that we will always review how well we are doing. You will always act on things that are not working. Whether you go back to where—you know what I am saying here, which is I am not committing to go back to where we were but you constantly look at how you use your budget. The objective for people working in BBC local is that everyone in a community is properly represented and has their local news. That is what we will do.

Simon Jupp

You are committed to not just managing decline of local audiences on local radio?

Tim Davie

Absolutely not. Quite the reverse. If I may, that is an important point. I love local radio. I listen to a blend of the “Today” programme on Radio Berkshire coming down to know what is going on in Caversham every morning, absolutely committed to it, 100%. We are committed to all the local radio stations.

Simon Jupp

Just briefly, because I know other colleagues—

Tim Davie

No, but it is important. You asked me if we are managing decline. Quite the reverse. If you are sitting with all your money on broadcast you will be managing decline. That is a decision I cannot take for the BBC. I have to be in a position where the majority of people are getting local news of the quality we produce. It is really important to the country. Now, the question is: have we enough investment to do everything and keep everything whole? We haven’t at the moment so we make some choices. But, no, it is a growth agenda, not a decline agenda, absolutely. That is the point.

Simon Jupp

Just briefly before I pass on to a colleague who wants to continue this discussion, industrial action has been taken by journalists at BBC local radio, presenters and everything else like that, who are really worried about their jobs. They are worried about their colleagues and everything else. What is your response to those industrial pickets across the network, because they are not going to go away?

Tim Davie

I am highly empathetic to it because I think change has been stressful. It has taken a long time, and it has been a very difficult time for people working in local radio with so many at risk. What we have done is we are beginning to take hundreds of people out of being at risk, as we go through the process. As we move through the process, I am hoping we will have more certainty for people and move that fully to a point where, overall, by the way, in the round there will not be a big change in headcount in local. There won’t be a big change in budget. Getting from A to B is very difficult. I understand it. I have talked to people out there on the picket. It is a difficult time, and I am highly empathetic to those going through it. I have been through restructures myself and it is not nice, so I understand it. I am utterly committed to BBC local growing for the long-term. That is what we have to get done.

Steve Brine

Hi, Tim. Are you concerned that your cuts to BBC local radio make you the Mr Beeching of local broadcasting?

Tim Davie

No, because I can understand why and I think some of the communication I get goes into that area, which is: are we managing the decline of local radio? Have we made some kind of strategic choice to get out of local radio and local? I won’t go through the whole argument again—I will save the Committee that—but it is quite the reverse, actually. We care deeply about local. We want local to grow and we want to keep local radio stations. We are just making some adjustments to free up some money.

Steve Brine

We have heard you loud and clear on that. You said in response to the Chair’s opening question that there is not a toxic culture at the BBC, and Mr Jordan said that, “We have an awful lot of support for our people”. Is it toxic to tell long-serving reporters in BBC local radio they can only stay on if they take a substantial pay cut and demotion? Surely that is fire and hire, isn’t it? You would expect that at P&O Ferries, not from our national broadcaster paid for by licence fee imposed by statute with the threat of imprisonment if they don’t pay it.

Tim Davie

I would be very—

Steve Brine

Has that happened? Has that not happened?

Tim Davie

I am not aware of that situation, but you would have to give me specifics privately or raise it. I have been in situations where people are offered jobs that may be in different pay ranges, but that is not the intent. The overall intent is to move to a point where we have people in the pay ranges and paying fairly, but you would have to give me specifics, I am sorry, and we cannot do that here so—

Steve Brine

We cannot do that here and you know we cannot, but what I can tell you here is that at Radio Solent, which serves my constituents, well-known presenters with years of local knowledge were asked in interviews to sell themselves in 60 seconds and told to produce demo tapes. I am told that drop box receipts show that they were never even viewed by the managers who asked for them. Now, a presenter can turn around and do a 60-second clip about a news story, but doing it about yourself in 60 seconds to save your career is workplace bullying, isn’t it?

Tim Davie

I think that what the team has tried to do is set a process that is fair to everyone and level the playing field.

Steve Brine

Is that fair? If I said to you now, “Give me a 60-second clip, Tim Davie, as to why you should stay Director-General”, is that fair? It would be bullying, wouldn’t it?

Tim Davie

When I was interviewed for Director-General, I was given a chance to do a pitch. I was giving a presentation and I did my work. Everyone will have a view on the process. I think the management there are trying to be fair and trying to level the playing field. Is it pleasant to go through? No.

Steve Brine

The 60-second thing is a myth, is it? Have you ever heard that before?

Tim Davie

I don’t know the ins and outs and the specifics of the recruitment process because I am not managing that.

Steve Brine

The BBC was very keen to splash Dominic Raab all over its broadcasts when he was accused of bullying and yet, right under your nose, as editor in chief, I am told that long-serving presenters are given 60 seconds to sell themselves, told to produce demo tapes that are never opened.

Tim Davie

That I just don’t know and you would have to provide the evidence of that because I would expect if people are providing things to interview for them to be seen and heard.

Steve Brine

Yes.

Tim Davie

That is fair. It is a point that we will have to go away and look at. On the specifics of the process, I think you were quoting different things here. If you go through a process in which you are reducing headcount in certain areas of your operation, it is never pleasant. It is difficult. It is really difficult. I agree that you have to do it with some kindness. You also have to have some objectivity to it because we are an organisation that wants to be transparent and wants to be accountable. I would not in any way link that to the cultural concerns you are raising, which are valid but I would not link them in that way.

Steve Brine

I suppose, yes, a process is difficult. The message I am getting from people in my area, who I represent, who work in the BBC who are facing this unpleasant process, is that—you have talked about the modern media landscape and you have to respond to that. That is your job. That is what you are tasked to do by your Chairman, acting or otherwise.

Tim Davie

Not by the Chairman. We are there to deliver value for all audiences who pay the licence fee.

Steve Brine

You are tasked to respond to the modern media landscape, and you have given us a very eloquent explanation as to how you are doing that and how this fits into that. However, I suppose the impression that was given when you visited Southampton was that if they do not like the modern media world they should go and do something else. Do you think that is fair? That is the impression that I have been given by a number of people who were there when you visited Southampton.

Tim Davie

I don’t think that is totally fair. All I would say is that I am empathetic, so if that is someone’s impression that is a fact. I think, if you are in my job, that balance between—it is an interesting question, that balance that we have to strike between driving change and responding to audiences versus people doing jobs they care deeply about and they are passionate about. No one is doing bad work. They are fantastic people, but getting that balance right is something we need to do and we are trying to do it sensitively and respond, and we come—we are here to talk about the work of the BBC—from a position of strength. We are not a failing organisation. One of the things that makes it harder, if I may, is that because the teams are doing such a good job these changes become very difficult. For what it is worth, if that is how someone perceived my remarks then I understand that. I am empathetic to it. As the BBC we are trying to create a kind, empathetic culture but also drive change so that the licence fee payer gets value. That is it. Otherwise, we won’t be funding local radio and that is what I am trying to do.

Steve Brine

Linked to this, may I ask you about—because you said it is about choices—Eurovision, which obviously the BBC stepped up in a big way? How did the finances of Eurovision work? What did the BBC have to put in from licence fee money versus what you got from broadcast partners? What do you make out of selling that coverage? Could you just give me a sense of that?

Tim Davie

Yes. The whole enterprise we would claw back about 60% to 70% of the cost. We are yet to get the final numbers. It will be a few million pounds. It will be a significant amount of money, the net. The whole enterprise is a few tens of million, of which you will get 60% to 70% back from all the various things. I would say, by the way—and Charlotte may want to give you a sense of what that gives you—the amount of reach we achieve, the amount of programme we achieve. I would encourage anyone to go to Liverpool and look at the economic regeneration benefits of that particular spend. The BBC is public money and one of the things I look at is the catalytic effect of that spend. It is off the chart. I think it is really impressive—

Steve Brine

Do you or Charlotte have any idea in cash terms what it cost the BBC?

Charlotte Moore

Again, I think we would have to look at when it comes back because it has so many different funding parts to it.

Steve Brine

I know you are still trying to finalise it.

Charlotte Moore

Of course, it was the biggest ever Eurovision final, the whole programming, when we had “The One Show” going up there, the semi-finals. In terms of return on investment, which is how we look at everything across the BBC, in terms of numbers that it brought to the show and, of course, the huge job it did for the City of Liverpool and working with our Ukrainian colleagues as well, I think that sense of bringing the nation together is—

Steve Brine

Can you put me in the ballpark of what it has cost?

Charlotte Moore

It cost millions but what that will eventually cost to the BBC I think it will be a very good return on investment for the figures that it brought to us over that week.

Steve Brine

You can see where I am going. You can see why I am linking this because if I just look at the list that I drew up of some of those choices, right: “The Zoe Ball Breakfast show”, Tuesday, the 9th, to Thursday, the 11th. Rich Anderson live in Liverpool. The “Jeremy Vine Show”, live there Friday, 12 May. Scott Mills was live on 10 and 12 May. Michelle Visage, she is obsessed with Eurovision. BBC “Breakfast”, they were live from Tuesday, 9 May, to Sunday, 14 May. “The One Show” was relocated to Liverpool to be the official opening act for Eurovision. Cheryl Baker and The Fizz—who produced some great numbers, I might say, off their Bucks Fizz work—were commissioned to appear in Walford on “EastEnders”. “Saturday Kitchen Live” did a special show on it. The “Pointless Celebrities” Eurovision special—I am nearly done—then we have “Today” and “Newsnight” and the BBC news channel presenting from the city with the “Eurovision Piano Party”. Just a couple more: BBC Radio 1, Dean and Vicky were live there Monday to Thursday.

Tim Davie

They only had to come from Manchester, to be fair.

Steve Brine

“The Archers” had the thrill of Rylan stopping in Ambridge.

Tim Davie

They did.

Steve Brine

Kirsty Wark did a special Eurovision song contest episode of “The Reunion”. “Front Row” were live from the Liverpool Central Library, and the crowning glory, Radio 5 Live reflected the excitement of the song contest broadcasting live from Liverpool. There is something of the Alan Partridge ideas meeting. I was expecting to come to “Monkey Tennis” in this list. When you are firing local journalists who are producing high quality, years of experience, and they see that much going into the Eurovision coverage, could you see how that jars?

Tim Davie

Inevitably, when you look at the balance of the budget, when you are looking at television budgets—we could pick on drama budgets—how we get that balance right is one of the most defining tasks that we have to do.

Steve Brine

They are choices; choices to run.

Tim Davie

Bear with me. What we have done with Charlotte’s budget and others is take the content budget down. We are doing fewer hours. We are making 1,000 fewer hours than we were a few years ago by focusing. In local I am keeping the money flat, okay. Now, overall, you will always be able to—we are not fully driven like a commercial operation on return on investment, like profit. It is a multi-variable gain. I would say, and it is a bit like the top paid talent, the top five hit 40% of our audience. These big-scale moments reach people who are paying the licence fee who are not loyalists, of huge scale. The other thing I would say is that I am incredibly proud of that, by the way, what you have just listed.

Steve Brine

Was it a bit over the top?

Tim Davie

I think the one thing we have learned is when the UK really goes for it, 2012, Eurovision, we do it like no other. The BBC is an incredible part of that in partnership with Liverpool, with all the various people that we got involved with, sitting with the Ukrainians there. It was wonderful, and getting the whole of the BBC to drive against it, create something of scale. The rest of Europe, by the way, are looking at it going, “How on earth did you pull off something so wonderful?” Our numbers are outstanding. I would recommend going to speak to the people in Liverpool about the economic effects. They forecast incremental hundreds of millions of pounds coming into the city and the region, hundreds of millions of pounds. If you look at the city, we had 500,000 visitors over the period; forecast to be 100,000. It has been phenomenal. Part of that is not just turning up and shooting a concert. It is actually getting out there, doing everything, celebrating the British music scene as well. I thought it was wonderful. The other thing is to go and see the local radio station and talk to Radio Merseyside about how they feel about it.

Chair

I am going to move us on because we have—

Steve Brine

It was a choice, but it was a choice that you 100% stand behind. Maybe you could just write to us when the final figures shake down, what was spent—

Tim Davie

I will speak to BBC commerciality and we will give you everything we can.

Steve Brine

That would be great. Thank you.

Chair

Thank you, Steve. Rupa, did you want to come in very quickly?

Dr Rupa Huq

Yes.

Chair

Just before you do, can I say these are all very important subjects but we have a tonne of more really important subjects to cover, so can we have slightly more pithy answers, please? Thank you.

Dr Rupa Huq

On the back of the localism, I know London is seen as being a bit more protected than most but, still, 133 hours to 85 hours—which it will be at the end of all this, if it happens—is a massive slashing. What I wanted to ask specifically is: you keep insisting that there will still be 39 stations, whatever happens. If they are only broadcasting for eight hours a day, how long is it before estate strategy says, “What is the point in keeping on all these buildings for eight hours a day?” Can you assure us that five years from now those 39 buildings will still be fully operational?

Tim Davie

I can assure you under my watch that local radio will be thriving and we want the stations to remain open. I am not going to guarantee all the property strategy because you don’t quite know. What I do believe personally—and people know this—is I do believe in location and this isn’t the same in the commercial world, by the way. Having a presence in cities and towns around the UK is critical and it will be throughout my watch.

Dr Rupa Huq

You said it is not managed decline, but this sounds like it is a sort of gateway to these regional hubs that we keep hearing about.

Tim Davie

That is not the vision we have.

Dr Rupa Huq

Can you tell us that in five years’ time those buildings will still be there?

Tim Davie

You are assuming that I will still be here and other things. All I am saying—

Dr Rupa Huq

Well, whoever is there in your very big shoes.

Tim Davie

I cannot give you a more cast-iron assurance than I have given you, which is: I am utterly committed to local broadcasting from the locality. Across the world we are seeing an interesting trend of people broadcasting from not within the region, and that is not something I want to see the BBC move to.

Dr Rupa Huq

Again, somewhere like Oxford and Brighton—they are very different. They are still in the same south-east region.

Tim Davie

Inevitably, you have the challenge of the regions and the relevance within those regions. That has been there forever. There are some compromises we make, choices in our budget, but no, I can give you the assurance.

Dr Rupa Huq

Okay. Lastly on this, you said that there is not going to be a formal consultation with listeners. Can we have the equality impact assessment? Can you publish that?

Tim Davie

I can share whatever we have. I would need to have a look at what we have on that.

Dr Rupa Huq

Yes, if you would publish that it would be good because we know there are 5.7 million people who still depend on linear all around the clock, and you will have seen, I think, 200 different blind organisations have written. For those people that is their comforting presence overnight, whenever, all that stuff.

Tim Davie

Of course.

Dr Rupa Huq

Okay. So we wait to hear that.

Chair

Thank you very much.

Tim Davie

I need to look at what we have on that because I don't know. I need just to be clear. What we are doing is talking to a lot of people. The BBC has an outstanding record on accessibility. We are talking to the charities. It is a concern. It is really important we do that.

Dr Rupa Huq

Are you doing stuff to bring the digitally excluded online because we all get emails from—

Tim Davie

We are doing a vast amount. Again, to the Chair’s comment, we are doing a vast amount. We can share that with you, a lot.

Chair

Perhaps you can write to us on that. Thank you, Rupa.

Kevin Brennan

Tim, were you as surprised as The Daily Telegraph that a Welsh-speaking, state-educated woman was deemed appropriate to be appointed as interim Chair of the BBC?

Tim Davie

Not surprised at all. I know Elan. She is an outstanding candidate to be Chair.

Kevin Brennan

I am very pleased to hear that, because it was an extraordinary headline. I do not know if you saw it in The Daily Telegraph.

Tim Davie

I saw the headline, but I did not go much further.

Kevin Brennan

Can I ask you about the orchestras and the BBC singers? Can you briefly give us an update on where we are at since the suspension of the proposed cuts?

Charlotte Moore

That is probably one for me. I will start by reassuring everyone that we are absolutely committed to our classical music and our performing groups provision at the BBC. We have been the biggest commissioners of music and we are one of the biggest employers of musicians in the country, and we have been that for some time. It is our intention to carry on doing that. We spend £60 million annually on classical music, so this is all framed in our commitment to this role continuing.

Kevin Brennan

You said you have been but that there is a commitment for that to continue?

Charlotte Moore

Absolutely. Everything that we are doing is to ensure that we are fit for the future and our performing groups and our commitment to classical music can continue.

Kevin Brennan

Some people think that after the Proms all these cuts will be back on the table and the suspension will have been proved just to be a little bit of an interim move. Is that wrong?

Charlotte Moore

This is absolutely wrong. This is all about us trying to find a new model for our performing groups and classical music that is fit for the future. The classical music review that we did last year came out with some very good recommendations that the musicians’ unions and in fact most of the classical music sector approved of. We felt we could have a greater impact with education, that we could partner more with orchestras and performing groups across the UK, including amateur and professional choirs, that we wanted to open the classical music industry to more people, and also that we wanted to look at how we can grow classical music audiences. We are in a crisis in the classical music sector, and for the BBC to look at what role we should play in the future that fits our public service mission I think is the right thing to do. I was horrified that our review revealed that only 15% of state school children have any access to classical music education. We need to think about how we use the money that we spend on classical music and with our performing groups to increase education, to increase the impact that we can have across the UK. It is not just digitally that we can do that. I genuinely think that live music is something that is so inspirational for new audiences and for young people, to realise that this is a sector that you can be part of.

Kevin Brennan

I am glad you are expanding the education side. It will be difficult to replace the hollowing out by the Government in the last decade of music education in our schools, but I am glad you are doing that. Can you, perhaps to save a bit of time, write to the Committee confirming the total amount that the BBC and its performing groups spent commissioning new classical works since 2019 in each year and the budget for commissioning in 2023, so that we can have a little idea? I agree with you how important this sort of commissioning is in the sector. It is hugely important.

Charlotte Moore

New commissions must be an enormous part of that.

Kevin Brennan

The BBC’s role in music more broadly is hugely important and Tim Davie will know my concerns as well. I have raised this before here, about how some of the structural changes in the BBC might affect the BBC’s record on commissioning and on ensuring that composers and performers are well and reasonably remunerated. Could you write to provide that information to the Committee, which might save us a bit of time with further questions on that topic? Tim Davie, I have asked you about this before, about the future of Maida Vale studios. Originally, the BBC tried to get it delisted, but that did not happen. As I understand it, it went out to tender, potentially for people to take it. That seems to have disappeared.

Tim Davie

The sale price is ongoing.

Kevin Brennan

Why has it taken so long?

Tim Davie

Finding the right buyer at the right price. I cannot talk in depth, but that process is happening and ongoing. Separately, we can use the proceeds as part of our overall budgets to do this. I think East Bank is going to be stunning as a real hub for classical music, for music performance, and I am very encouraged by it. The frank truth is I am as sentimental as you are about Maida Vale and some of those studios, but the rebuild cost was off the charts so we have made the right decision.

Kevin Brennan

I am not sentimental about it, and I would welcome the right decision being taken that ensures that it does not get turned into a block of flats, which I do not think is going to happen now since that previous plan was headed off. I do wonder why, since as I understand it some months ago the tenders or rather the things were in place. When can we expect some kind of news?

Tim Davie

I cannot confirm exact timing.

Kevin Brennan

Will it be this year?

Tim Davie

Hopefully, yes. I want the right deal for the BBC, and I am confident we will see that through.

Kevin Brennan

I am not going to press you further, but I think it is extraordinary that you cannot even say that it will be this year.

Tim Davie

The reason is that for any of us who have sold a house, I will be celebrating on completion, put it that way, but we are working our way through.

Kevin Brennan

I am not going to go into the impact of the licence fee settlement because I think you have outlined quite a bit about what the impact of that has been, but the outgoing Chair, Richard Sharp, said last August that the BBC was reviewing alternative funding models alongside the licence fee. What have been the findings of that review?

Tim Davie

We have not completed a formal review.

Kevin Brennan

Is there a formal review under way?

Tim Davie

Let me explain where we are. We do quite a lot of work looking at people’s preferences around the licence fee, and support of the licence fee. That is ongoing and as we move towards the next charter there is no doubt that we need to look at how the BBC is funded. Lucy Frazer was referring to the Government doing some work on BBC funding. That is appropriate. I cannot remember the exact words, but she said that the BBC is funded appropriately. That is right, and that we get the right funding for the BBC. We track very carefully support for the licence fee and how that is working. As we move towards the charter, it is absolutely the right question to go into 2027-28 and ask what the right way is to fund universal public service broadcasting, which has never been more important in the world.

Kevin Brennan

Are you worried about what impact the cost of living crisis is having on the affordability of the licence fee for licence fee payers?

Tim Davie

Without doubt. You are preaching to the converted on this, in that my strategy in the top team is very clear. We want to offer outstanding value for £13 a month. This is important. What we find is around us price is being driven by competition, as you know, all other utilities way ahead of the BBC. We have, and Charlotte can talk about it, inflating costs in drama and delivering that. There is a tension, because at the end of the day you must offer that value for the people. We are there to serve and that value is critical. In terms of our review of the year, the return on investment we are delivering with our content is extraordinary. We have had an outstanding year on content. Think about drama; two years ago, this Committee was asking whether we were even going to be in the game on drama. Thanks to Charlotte and the team we have had an excellent year on drama. I would say there is no doubt we are conscious that it is a tough environment for families and households out there.

Kevin Brennan

This Committee concluded when it did its review into public service broadcasting a couple of years ago that you cannot propose scrapping the licence fee without having an alternative proposal in place. I presume that is an assertion that you still strongly agree with.

Tim Davie

I think that makes sense.

Kevin Brennan

Can I ask you about BBC Studios and the commercialising of some BBC programming with that? Are there other areas of output that the BBC is considering commercialising beyond where it has gone already?

Charlotte Moore

Are you referring to the audio production?

Kevin Brennan

Yes, and any others that might be on the cards that we do not know about.

Charlotte Moore

Audio production is the one we are looking at, at the moment, subject to regulation. This is moving about 10% of our production teams in audio to take the opportunity that we can see in the growing global podcast market. We think there is a real opportunity for some of those programmes and podcasts that we think have global appeal, but also a longer on-demand shelf life. This is the juggle of how we spend our money on our content. It is about keeping our radio stations strong, but also thinking about this very fast-growing podcast market. We have some of the best speech producers in drama, in factual and in entertainment in the world. How can we ensure that we use the opportunity for a small percentage, between 60 and 70 people that we would look at, going to studios and also to grow a mixed genre audio production unit there, with the view that that will bring money back in that can then go towards keeping our radio stations really strong?

Kevin Brennan

Will commercialising more and more programmes in this way ever replace the licence fee?

Tim Davie

No. Not for decades.

Kevin Brennan

What is the maximum revenue share?

Tim Davie

We have been through this a few times. It is important, because people do come to me and say, “You make billions on it.” The commercial arm has been an outstanding success story, as you know. It has doubled its revenue in the last five years and the EBITDA margin is strong versus its competition. It is good, but it gives you a couple of hundred million pounds. Say we doubled it, and audio is not going to get you there, but doubled the studio’s business. You would get to £400 million. The licence fee gives you £3.7 billion, so that is £100 million to collect. Some of the conversations that we had about the precious things we do, there are two thresholds, to answer your question directly about what goes into studios. First, are we facing serious talent drain? Keeping people in the public service, the best natural history programme makers felt they were being restrained in what they could personally get as their reward and also their projects, so this is about creative exploration. When Netflix, Disney and all these wonderful companies enter the scene you begin to lose some talent.

Kevin Brennan

Some people might say that is just a way of hiding the salaries you are now obliged to publish.

Tim Davie

Of course not. That would be a superficial and ridiculous way.

Kevin Brennan

What is ridiculous about it? It is true, isn’t it? The BBC did not want it to be made public in the first place.

Tim Davie

Bear with me. It would be ridiculous to move people into a commercial entity that has to be commercially viable just on the basis of some transparency thing, that we are not trying to hide what we have in public service. It is simply that when you constitute a studio, if you are competing in the market, we would then be in a totally uneven position if we are pitching for projects. If one person’s salary is revealed and another is not it becomes impossible commercially. It is nothing to do with us corporately, to be very clear.

Kevin Brennan

It is not a way either of, as we were just discussing, not paying, for example, composers their royalties, rather than insisting on buy-outs and using commercial pressure to do that?

Tim Davie

No. I am not sure that relates to studios. If I may finish very quickly, Chair, there are two criteria, because it is direct to the question, by which things move to studios. Are we facing talent drain in the UK and at the BBC by people moving out? Secondly, can you be a commercial business? The commercial arm is not a subsidy project. You must make it work. That is why on audio we have been very selective and said that there is a particular area of the market where we were losing people, around podcasting, international audio, and we have taken just 10%, but there is no way you are going to take everything into the commercial arm because it must make a margin. It does not work like that, and we are being very selective. I would say that it has been phenomenally successful. Thank goodness we did it to secure supply. I cannot tell you how important it has been to make that structural change.

Kevin Brennan

Does this trend pose any threat whatsoever, in your view, to the BBC’s public service obligations?

Tim Davie

All our commissioning power, and the people who choose all that you see and watch, are sitting on the public service side of the fence and they do not have to buy from BBC Studios. That is how the thing is constructed. That is its structure. The second thing is having run BBC Studios, as you know, one of the key selling points of BBC Studios is we are driven by the BBC’s values, and we are a public service entity at our heart. That is why we are so successful commercially. We are not trying to beat Netflix or Disney. We are doing something different. What are the most successful titles for BBC Studios? They are natural history titles, “Strictly Come Dancing”. They are the things that we value as licence fee payers and that will continue. I want to protect some of those podcasts that we have done.

Charlotte Moore

I would also say that the commercial sector and the indie sector gives us some of our best programmes, from “Once Upon a Time in Northern Ireland” to “Best Interest” last night to the Michael Tippett show that we had on last week. I do think the public service values are led by what we commission and where we spend our money and the integrity of the pieces that we are commissioning. Therefore, that can come from the commercial sector.

Kevin Brennan

Thank you, and I congratulate you on “Once Upon a Time in Northern Ireland”. I have watched that, and every Member of Parliament should watch it. It is a brilliant programme, and I also congratulate you on Eurovision.

Clive Efford

Thank you for coming to give evidence today. Can I take you back to the complaints system and the impartiality? According to the figures that we have Ofcom received 594 complaints in 2021 about the due impartiality of the BBC. Roughly 20% of those, 55, were not pursued because Ofcom did not consider that they raised issues warranting an investigation. Two were referred for investigation and the other 537 were referred back to the BBC. Could you take us through what the process is there and how you deal with those? Is it every case of a complaint of due impartiality that goes to Ofcom to sift through before they come back to you? The way these figures are laid out seems to suggest that they do.

David Jordan

No. We operate what is called a BBC first complaints process and that means that complaints about BBC output must come to the BBC for an attempt for us to resolve them before they ever end up with Ofcom. We have a stage 1 process where we essentially give people, if we can, a precise answer to their complaint, but in general an industrialised answer to complaints, because we often get many complaints about the same subject. We offer them an opportunity to come back to the BBC if they find that answer insufficient and our stage 1b process where they get a more bespoke answer if there is some aspect of their complaint that we have not taken up. After that, in the BBC first system, the complainant can move on to complain to our executive complaints unit, which is independent of all our programme makers, and they come to an independent view about whether that complaint is merited. In an average year the BBC receives between 200,000 and 250,000 complaints—we had a couple of very unaverage years a couple of years ago, but in an average year. By the time it gets to the ECU we are down to about 700 or 800. They then assess those and make an independent view, some of which are upheld, but anybody who is not satisfied with that decision can then appeal to Ofcom. By the time you have reached Ofcom you have narrowed down the numbers very considerably from that 200,000 or 250,000 total that we started with. We are talking when you get to Ofcom of about 300 or 400. Some of the figures that you are talking about are ones that have gone through that process and are on appeal. The others are people who have mistakenly gone to Ofcom first, rather than to the BBC, so what Ofcom does is then refer them back to the BBC so that they can go through the process that I have just described.

Clive Efford

The executive complaints unit in 2021-22 upheld 14 cases, of which only three related to impartiality. Is that right?

David Jordan

In 2021-22?

Clive Efford

Yes. That is similar to the figures of 2020-21.

David Jordan

In 2021-22 they dealt with 654 individual complaints and 95 were either upheld, partly upheld or resolved.

Clive Efford

Okay, so not 14 cases as the figure I have here?

David Jordan

No.

Clive Efford

How many were upheld on due impartiality?

David Jordan

On due impartiality at the ECU level we do not have data, but in 2021-22 about 20% of our overall complaints were about impartiality and bias of all the total complaints that we received.

Clive Efford

That were upheld?

David Jordan

No, just the total number of complaints.

Clive Efford

Right. The figures that we have is it was just three for that year and the previous year. I am trying to get a picture of where we are in terms of complaints about BBC impartiality. How many thousands of news items would the BBC deal with in a year?

David Jordan

I do not think it is just about the complaints process, because what we do is we try never to get to the complaints process if we possibly can. If we have a lot of complaints about something that people think is not impartial, and we agree with them, then at that point we go back to them saying that we agree. We do not have, therefore, people going through the complaints process because we said we agree, and there have been outstanding examples of that in the past few years. It is not just about people who have gone through the whole process. We may well have said, “Yes, you are right; that was not as good as it should have been” and that is the end of the matter, so it would not show up in the figures that you are talking about. What is critical is that in the period since 2017 when Ofcom took over the responsibility for accuracy and impartiality complaints, as well as everything else, Ofcom has upheld one complaint that has gone through that process that I have described in all that time on impartiality.

Clive Efford

Was that the case of Ruth Davidson?

David Jordan

Correct.

Clive Efford

It appears to me as though that is a miniscule number compared with the number of news items that the BBC would deal with in any one year.

David Jordan

Yes, it is, but that is what we are aiming for. If that figure were zero all round, we would be delighted, because that would mean that people were not finding fault with our impartiality process and were not finding fault with our complaints process and that would be the ideal situation. They do not always accept that our answers are right, and they do not always think that our output is impartial, but they are satisfied with some of the answers that we give them when they complain.

Clive Efford

When we asked the Secretary of State whether the BBC was impartial, she was emphatic that it is. Where do you think she gets that from?

Tim Davie

Well, she said “on occasion” if I may. Is that right? Let us just get the clarity of the words.

David Jordan

“We were biased on occasion”, I think, were the words of the Secretary of State when she appeared before you.

Clive Efford

She said it several times, so it depends on which phrase you take.

Tim Davie

What phrase are you referring to, so that we can respond?

Clive Efford

“…I think the BBC has been biased and I want to raise it with them, I will speak to the director-general about it.” That seems to consider that she thinks there is a serious problem. I think that is pretty clear.

Tim Davie

Constantly in my job the question of impartiality and due impartiality gets raised, which is appropriate. I think linking that directly to complaints is important and helpful, but it is a broader topic than just complaints. What I said earlier, and I will not go on, is that in terms of our record on delivering against our editorial guidelines and against the code from an Ofcom point of view, we are doing well and the numbers speak to that, so I take your point.

Clive Efford

When the Secretary of State raises it with you, can you enlighten us about what you might say?

Tim Davie

If anyone raises it with me, I do what I have already done in this Committee, which is, first, I take you to the overall data. We are serving the public and audiences. There will be enormous noise around the BBC continually. We go to the public and what they think and, overall, our numbers are pretty solid on impartiality. I share the data. The second thing I do is accept that the BBC is not perfect. Sometimes it is more than just technical impartiality. It is deeper than this. How are we covering taxation? How are we covering local democracy? These are not technical questions of whether we got a report finely balanced or whether we can pass our own very tough tests on editorial guidelines. They are about whether we are doing a world-class editorial job. We are, by the way. We are doing outstanding work and I thank you for your comments, because we are doing well, but I think any complacency is misplaced. It is just wrong. I simultaneously hold those views. I think that is what you should do in my job and that is what we should do as editorial leaders. Just being wholly defensive as the BBC is the wrong thing, but our record—and the complaints record speaks to it—I think is exceptional based on the pressure around us. It gets to our processes, the editorial guidelines and what we do as the BBC, and I think we should be very proud of it.

Clive Efford

Yes. Your review of impartiality on the coverage of taxation and public spending also found that there was no wilful bias, but what it did find is that there is general ignorance on the subject matter. I want to mention a pet hate of mine, so indulge me. I listen to the “Today” programme in the morning and I am an avid listener. We get the journalists on the programme questioning an expert and then they question the politician, or whoever is coming on, on the subject matter. What you do not get is the excellent journalists like Ben Chu, Chris Mason, or Hugh Pym questioning, in the case of Hugh Pym, the Secretary of State for Health or our shadow Health Secretary. Why is the expert journalist not the person who does the interview?

Tim Davie

We deploy both tactics. That is what I would say, but I note your feedback and I am more than happy to pass it to the newsroom.

Clive Efford

I have got that off my chest. I will ask you about the counter disinformation unit. Does the BBC have any contact with the counter disinformation unit?

Tim Davie

We did have an attendee who went to some meetings to talk about disinformation. The person who attended, and this is deliberate, was not directly from the newsroom. I looked at it and it seemed perfectly appropriate. It was to look at information, rumours circulating during the crisis, and it was absolutely fine.

Clive Efford

On the communication from the counter disinformation unit, has there been, for instance, any indications that there are any individuals that they would rather you did not interview or have on air?

Tim Davie

I have not seen that. By the way, we would not take guidance from that kind of body on who we interview.

Clive Efford

I wanted to give you that opportunity to say that.

Tim Davie

That would not be appropriate, and we would not consider it.

Clive Efford

For instance, on the Daniel Kaszeta story that was covered by “Newsnight”, where he was disinvited from a defence conference where he was a speaker, I commend “Newsnight” for covering it but there has been no comeback from the Government about the item that you covered on Mr Kaszeta, for instance.

David Jordan

No, not that I am aware of, but I think the Government know what the answer would be, if they queried that.

Clive Efford

Clearly, they might think otherwise. You are required to alert Ofcom of any potential serious editorial breaches. Have there been any in the last year?

David Jordan

There have been some in the last year, yes, and we have notified Ofcom of one since we entered into this agreement with it. All our serious breaches are reported in our annual report every year in full as part of the report of the Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee because they are all reported when they occur, which is thankfully not that often. When they occur, they are reported not just internally to the executive committee that deals with this, which I chair, but also to the Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee chaired by Sir Nick Serota, which is the board committee on the subject, and they are then in turn reported to the board. We take those very seriously and we also take the actions that we need to take as a consequence to ensure that something similar cannot happen seriously as well.

Clive Efford

My last question is about Gary Lineker. Do you regret how it was handled? Is there anything you have learned from the Gary Lineker affair?

Tim Davie

It was certainly a busy weekend. I regret that audiences were impacted, at the end of the day. The idea that we did not put out a full programme I will always regret. Do you look back and ask could you have done things slightly differently at different points? You always do in these affairs; of course you do. That is where I am.

Clive Efford

You are happy with how he has tweeted since?

Tim Davie

That has not been a concern of mine. What has been a concern is getting the social media review to a point where it can be delivered flawlessly. That is not easy, and John Hardie is doing his work and we expect him to report back to us as the executive pretty soon.

Chair

Can I quickly take you back and ask again whether there were any potential serious editorial breaches since the annual report was published?

David Jordan

No, there has not been. They are all going to be reported in the next annual report, up to and including the last one that has happened.

Chair

I want to talk very briefly about the Chair of the BBC. Can you tell me what has changed since the BBC did its independent review into the conduct of Richard Sharp since his appointment?

Tim Davie

I am now speaking as a unitary board member, because the Chair is my boss. I will put that caveat in. Very specifically, the unitary board, the board of the BBC, the Nominations Committee, had some process recommendations, if the group have read that report, which specifically detailed greater attention paid to disclosure of relevant personal and professional interest at the start of meetings, making sure that is utterly robust, looking at setting the board’s code of practice and guidance to make sure that they were clear enough that personal and political as well as professional and pecuniary relationships should be considered for disclosure. I am just checking the wording is perfect on that, and to make sure that the diarising of board members meeting senior political figures, including social events, were diarised and notified to the BBC so that all the records are perfect. It was essentially some process points around the Nominations Committee. Those are now being implemented through the board. As a board member I will take a paper on that implementation imminently.

Chair

That was nice and brief. One of the things that does not appear to have changed is the leakiness, in the sense that Richard Sharp was widely briefed in the media as the Government’s preferred candidate prior to 2020 and we were all well aware that Dame Elan was likely to be the interim Chair about a week before that was made public. Where is that coming from and what is the impact of that on BBC staff?

Tim Davie

I do not know where it is coming from, and it is unhelpful.

Chair

What is the impact of that on BBC personnel and staff?

Tim Davie

Leaks are always unnecessarily unsettling. If you work in the BBC and public life, and the members of this Committee will be only too aware, it is not ideal to have processes that are not confidential throughout. Do I know where they come from? Absolutely not, and the BBC has a vested interest to keep total confidentiality in these things.

Chair

Are there no plans to have any review as to where that came from?

Tim Davie

No.

Chair

Looking ahead to the recruitment of the new Chair, what are the quality and skills that the BBC needs?

Tim Davie

Again, I do put that caveat in that we are talking about the person who is going to manage me, but as a board I think this is an incredibly precious institution, globally admired, complex, right in the heart of the public eye. It needs a world-class Chair, and we need an outstanding candidate to do that. From a board point of view, we absolutely believe that a transparent process is critical. It obviously must be someone who can champion the impartiality and the independence of the BBC. That is utterly critical. I think it is useful to have demonstrable experience in the sector, and we have had this in the past, and that they understand this industry, and appropriately, I am sure, DCMS will consult us as a board as part of the process. That is where I am. I think this is an incredibly important job and it is also a special job. We want a world-class person to run the BBC.

Chair

We would all agree with that, but are you confident that the Government are going into this recruitment process with the right approach?

Tim Davie

If you look at the report, the technical process was well run. I am only looking at Heppinstall’s words. Overall, I cannot speak for the Government, but I think it is best that I just leave it that this is where the BBC board wants to be and this is what we want to see happen. Personally, I look forward to that process being run properly and absolutely by government.

Julie Elliott

I want to move on to a completely different area: women’s sport, which is completely different to what we have been talking about. I think Barbara Slater has done an amazing job in recent years in having more women’s sport on TV and more, crucially, at watchable hours. What are your plans to grow viewership of women’s sport as we head into major tournaments across sport this summer?

Charlotte Moore

We have been a massive supporter of women’s sport for the last decade or more. As you say, Barbara Slater has done a fantastic job, not just in getting the rights but also covering women’s sport across all our online radio, TV, whenever we can, even if we do not have the rights. That is incredibly important for us going forward, that we focus on that. Growing women’s sport across that decade from going from BBC Two to BBC One, giving it greater prominence to thinking about how we can grow women’s sport so that it is right at the heart of the schedules, is something that Barbara and I have been focused on. Thinking about how we do that beyond women’s football as well, we have Wimbledon coming up, the cricket; rugby we have supported. Going into next year with the Olympics again will be a big moment, thinking about how we can have equality for our coverage for women and men, and thinking about that in terms of our presenters and our expertise and how we talk about women’s sport editorially has been a big part of what we do. I would say we have been at the forefront and that is something we are committed to continue.

Julie Elliott

This year yourselves and ITV have not been able to agree a broadcasting deal with FIFA for the women’s World Cup and we are five weeks away from it. Do you think that is an acceptable place to be?

Charlotte Moore

I cannot discuss commercial negotiations like that in detail, but safe to say we are big supporters of women’s sport and, of course, we are always trying to have properly competitive bids to ensure that we can cover as much sport as our budgets will allow.

Julie Elliott

If we look at the last men’s World Cup, that was agreed eight years out and we are five weeks away.

Charlotte Moore

It is important that we continue to have those negotiations in the right way, but we want to do everything that we can, thinking about value for money for our audiences and whether tournaments are live in peak or through the middle of the night and where they are placed. We take a huge amount of care and detail about how we make sure that we do not overinflate the market but we help the market grow. We are looking at that.

Julie Elliott

From what I understand, the bid has been less than 10% of what was agreed on the men’s World Cup eight years ago. I know you cannot commercially comment on the exact figures, but it has been well reported so I would suggest we are in the ballpark arena. Is that really how we equalise the coverage?

Charlotte Moore

We look at fair value for everything that we do, and the BBC has a strong track record in paying the right price for things and market assessing and audience assessing and looking at the variants for each bid that we put in. That is our promise to the audience and licence fee payers.

Julie Elliott

I want to make a comment on regional political programmes, which we have talked about extensively over the years in this Committee, and the problems of live versus recorded. This weekend was a classic example of why live broadcast is better, because the “Sunday” programme in the north-east was recorded at 4 pm on Friday. We had the former Prime Minister resign as an MP, we had another MP resign during what would have been, if it had been, a live broadcast, and the former First Minister of Scotland was arrested. The programme put out on Sunday was perfectly fine but bore no relevance to the politics of the weekend. Whenever you do look at that in the future, it is things such as that you need to focus in on. I am just saying that as a comment.

Tim Davie

Noted.

Julie Elliott

I want to move on to something else. I loved Eurovision, by the way. I thought your coverage overall was brilliant and knowing Liverpool very well, as one of my daughters lived there for many years, I thought you captured the atmosphere and feel of Liverpool perfectly. The other big event that you have covered this year was the Coronation. Your coverage was excellent; I have no issue with the coverage. However, I watched the programme on the Saturday morning that deals with complaints from viewers, “Point of View”, which I often listen to. There was overwhelming discontent with the amount of coverage on all channels. Virtually every viewer whose comments were read were complaining that there was just no choice and there was not any choice for hours. Most of these people wanted to watch the coverage, but the person who was responding from the BBC was basically saying there is choice, there was choice, and there absolutely was not. I went back to look at the programming and there absolutely was not choice. I think it is a good programme on a Saturday morning, where points of view are raised, but it is always defensive from the BBC. Why is that the way you handle that? You can say you think it was the right decision to have this blanket coverage on every channel, but to say there was choice, when there clearly was not, was wrong. Why is the approach so defensive from the BBC?

Charlotte Moore

I do not know the specifics of that, and of course the choice they might have been referring to was iPlayer, which has lots of choice and on-demand choice at any time. The decision that we took on that Saturday was that we had an accessible signed version of the Coronation on BBC Two, so it was a decision to ensure that we were as accessible as possible with this big national event. I think you make a fair point, and I will look into the spirit if you think that is defensive.

Julie Elliott

I do think if people take the time to complain in a light way, not going through the formal complaints process, the BBC should not be so defensive and engage sometimes and listen.

Charlotte Moore

It is important that we listen to it, yes.

Tim Davie

I take on board what you are saying on tone. I think it is important. We are there to serve. This is me being defensive about defensiveness. I think we have changed our tone quite a lot in the last couple of years. I have been working on it personally in terms of how we respond to people. I often think people just want to be heard, they want to be listened to, as opposed to frankly being told they are wrong in every regard. Your point is well taken. When it comes to that particular issue, by the way, I think the fact we did an accessible version on BBC Two, I do think we learned quite a lot through the two momentous funerals we had to cover in terms of what I call the clutch control of how much choice you offer. You are never going to get it perfect. Broadly, based on the level of incoming we received for the Coronation—I am incredibly proud of our coverage. Remember that we had to deliver the concert the next day—the BBC did that with DCMS—and then Eurovision. It was incredible. No broadcaster in the world could have pulled that off. I was so proud of the teams. We have talked about complaints and, broadly, it was contained and balanced. I thought we showed a lot of perspective in the right way. I take your point more broadly on tone and I think it is a good one.

Chair

I thought the coverage of the Coronation—and, of course, you can never have too much Eurovision as far as I am concerned—was all very excellent. Can I take you back very quickly to women’s sport, just talking of tone and defensiveness? It is widely known that the deal for the men’s World Cup was nailed down eight years before that tournament took place. Here we are just over five weeks out of the women’s World Cup and still we are not sure we are going to be able to watch those games that take place over in Australia and New Zealand. What message does that send out about how our national broadcasters, not just the BBC, value women’s sport?

Charlotte Moore

We all share the intention to get these things nailed down because for productions it is incredibly important. I think it is in everybody’s interest to sort these things out, but I cannot comment on commercial negotiations that would affect those decisions.

Chair

Let us have your thoughts on the way that you value women’s sport at the BBC.

Charlotte Moore

We are absolutely committed. We are doing everything that we can to ensure that we obtain the rights for as much women’s sport as we can within the budget and the funding envelope that we have. We make those decisions across the year, and we go into negotiations at the right time when those bids come up and we must go through a system. We do not always dictate the speed of that financial situation, but from our point of view rest assured that it is in all our interests to make sure that we get to that deal as soon as we can so that we are fit to produce any event. This is obviously not just a BBC negotiation. It is across many countries all trying to come to the right decision. We are doing everything we can to make those deals go through, but I cannot dictate the pace of that, which is very difficult for everybody.

Chair

Yes. It feels quite distasteful, not least because we are much more likely to come home with some silverware from that competition.

Charlotte Moore

It is not something we have had before.

John Nicolson

Can I begin by looking at the issue of unequal pay and women at the BBC? It is an issue we have raised many times as a Committee. We all noted that your former presenter, Donna Traynor, went to an industrial tribunal in Northern Ireland, which was settled. She received compensation. Have you now won any case at all against any woman?

Tim Davie

There has only been one that was taken to tribunal that has gone all the way and has been won against us. That is a number I know, which was Samira Ahmed. The situation on equal pay is a good story for the BBC.

John Nicolson

I do not think the women think that.

Tim Davie

That is because, as you know, we had to do an enormous amount of work, sort through the issue, and we are now at the point where we have eight equal pay cases open internally within the BBC. These are working through to see if there is any issue. That is an achievement versus where we were. We also have the pay frameworks in place. We have good systems. When we get to a situation where we go to tribunal, no one wants that. All we are trying to do is make the right call in terms of what is the right thing to do with licence fee payer money, and that is what we did in this case.

John Nicolson

Why do you keep fighting cases that you lose?

Tim Davie

We did not lose; we settled.

John Nicolson

We all know you lost. You had to pay her a lot of money. She would have settled before the tribunal, but you took it right to the wire and the BBC lost.

Tim Davie

We did not lose the tribunal.

John Nicolson

Your lawyers agreed on a form of words whereby you did not accept responsibility. We had a rather strange walking, talking interview from the big boss there in Northern Ireland, which was less than gracious, but none the less the BBC staff think you lost. You had to give her a lot of money. She would have taken that money if you had offered it to her privately, but you chose not to. I have the amount that you spent on lawyers’ fees. In September 2021 the BBC told this Committee that it spent £1.1 million of licence fee payer money fighting equal pay cases, an extraordinary waste of money. It is our money; it is licence fee payer money. Can you update us on that figure? How much have you lost now?

Tim Davie

I do not have the figure in front of me for 2022-23 but we will be able to give you that.

John Nicolson

We would like to know that, because that is a very important case. Can you understand how angry this makes licence fee payers, apart from the distress for the women concerned, who have to battle you year after year, this incessant battling with the BBC over something that is a matter of natural justice? Licence fee payers think this is an extraordinary waste of money.

Tim Davie

We never want to spend money in dispute with the staff; it is as simple as that.

John Nicolson

Well, do not do it.

Tim Davie

What you also need to be is fully accountable and as transparent as you can be. I cannot talk about individual cases, but you want to make the right calls in terms of whether you think you have done wrong, whether you have not done wrong, and making it right. I think the BBC has done enormous work in making sure its employment practices, equal pay, the way in which we are paying people within published bands now, is transformed.

John Nicolson

We had to drag you kicking and screaming towards this position. It was this Committee that recommended the presenters’ pay be published. I know that Mr Jordan was against that at the time and said that it was a poachers’ charter and that it would result in a massive departure of BBC staff. Your predecessor, Tony Hall, said that the BBC had got it wrong. It was this Committee that had recommended it. It is not a good use of public money, and it is an area where you have agreed as an organisation that you were wrong.

Tim Davie

I stand by my comment, which is that, first, we have made significant progress. We can all go through the history of where we are at, but I think the BBC now is an exemplary organisation. As leader of the organisation, I can tell you I do not want to fight. There is no point in fighting legal cases where you think you have an overwhelming chance of losing. You take legal advice and you make a call. We are very conscious of spending public money.

John Nicolson

How many people are you still fighting against?

Tim Davie

We have equal pay cases of eight. That is it. I am not sure on the tribunal number. I would have to send you that.

John Nicolson

Mr Jordan looked surprised when I raised his name. Mr Jordan, would you accept that the BBC was wrong, that you were wrong, and that the pay should have been published?

David Jordan

I am not aware of having made a comment about that. I think the previous director-general made a comment about the poacher’s charter, to my recollection.

John Nicolson

Okay. As you know people tend to drop me quite interesting emails about their situation. I have it on good authority from several sources that several of your presenters are sitting at home, being paid by you on full salaries, on gardening leave. Can you confirm that is the case?

Tim Davie

I am not going to talk about specifics of presenters.

John Nicolson

Talk about a group.

Tim Davie

What we will do is often in a reorganisation there will be people where you are working out where they are going to go in the organisation, and they may be paid for a very short period. You never want to be in a position where you are wasting public money.

John Nicolson

This is not a very short time. They have been sitting at home for quite a long time and here is the extraordinary thing. You have that group of people. They are disproportionately women, by the way, and they are disproportionately, interestingly, people who have challenged you about equal pay. Several of them feel, not unreasonably, that they are being punished. While they are sitting at home and we as licence fee payers are paying you to pay them to sit and do nothing, you are hiring freelance people to sit in the studios and to present the news.

Tim Davie

News management will always make a balance call that says, “Are we doing the right thing for the licence fee payer?” I am not going to talk about specific cases, and I think it is right that I do that. I can say categorically, by the way, that there is no question that anyone would ever be punished in the way that you are talking about. That is not how we work. That is not how we work, categorically.

John Nicolson

Can you confirm that you have a group of presenters who are sitting at home on full salary?

Tim Davie

I am not going to go into specifics of presenter arrangements.

John Nicolson

At the same time as you have a group of presenters sitting at home on full salary, doing nothing, at home, you are hiring and paying for freelancers to go into the studio to do the job that the group of people at home are not being allowed in to do.

Tim Davie

You are referring to a very small number of people where specifically we are having discussions about their future. I am not going to go into that with the Committee. I understand the point. I think we need a fair, good conversation with those individuals to make sure they are settled. That is where we are at. While we do that, I am not going to get into the specifics, because I do not think it is fair. In terms of why we are doing these things, you are always going to have scheduled bits where you are going to use freelancers.

John Nicolson

Not that small a number, but you are not denying this group of people exists?

Tim Davie

What number are you talking about?

John Nicolson

I think the problem is if I start to identify them, it is more than five and under 10. I have heard from several different sources, not necessarily within that group but outwith that group, that this is true. I also have it on good authority that they are disproportionately women. I also have it on good authority that a good number of them disproportionately are fighting you over equal pay for women. I notice you are not denying any of that. Can I confirm, since you are not denying that, that while these people are sitting at home you have taken on freelancers to do that job?

Tim Davie

I am not getting into specifics about individuals and their contracts. Separately, I think for anyone in a situation that you are describing, the key is that the BBC deals with that fairly, to its values, and comes to the right conclusion for the individual and their career. That is what we should be doing. Meanwhile, if there is work going on of that nature, then in any circumstance and any new schedule you will be using freelancers to fill some of the gaps, absolutely.

John Nicolson

It is clearly absurd to keep people sitting at home who want to work who are not being allowed to work a job that they have done for a long time, that they are very experienced at doing, while you hire freelancers to do exactly the job that they are qualified to do. Let us move on to the issue of the BBC Chair. What do you think the fallout in terms of reputational damage has been for the BBC over Richard Sharp?

Tim Davie

I think we have had an effective two years of the BBC under Richard Sharp’s leadership. This has been a well-led organisation and in his dealings with the board and myself he has acted with integrity. There is no doubt that when he chose to resign—he refers to it himself—the perception of impartiality is material to the BBC. Perception is material, in effect. Once you get a situation in which that has been questioned, then rightly you reach the decision that Richard did.