The Guardian view on BBC pay transparency: right thing, wrong reason | Editorial

Advocates of pay transparency believe it has the power to transform a company’s internal dynamics. They say it can incentivise workers and build a sense of fairness and trust. Its critics believe that it can lead to unnecessary or unhelpful rancour. The BBC finds itself forced to conduct a very public transparency experiment, by critics in government and rivals in the media whose concerns have nothing to do with corporation morale or governance and everything to do with trying to cow an institution that challenges their worldview and sometimes their bottom line.

Forcing the BBC to publish details of what it pays its highest-earning stars falls into the category of things that are utterly fascinating to the public (why is Casualty’s Derek Thompson the highest-paid actor?) without contributing very much at all to the public interest. To most people, even the lowest-paid BBC star earns a sum they can only dream of. The ex-miner who called the Jeremy Vine programme this morning to ask if he thought he was worth the £700,000 that his listeners now know he’s paid raised the most fundamental question there is about salaries: how do you judge the value of someone’s work?

The BBC’s answer is that it is decided by the market, and – despite the secrecy of its rivals in the field – there is certainly some evidence to back the claim: Ant and Dec are reported to have signed a three-year deal worth £30m last year, while Adrian Chiles, back at the BBC for a mere £200,000, went to ITV with a £4m package. Netflix, Apple and Amazon are all in what is now a global market for creative talent. Paul Dacre, the editor-in-chief of the BBC’s leading newspaper critics, the Mail group, is paid £1.5m before he counts his share options. Most people still disregard the likes of Mr Dacre and accept that the BBC overall is good value, at less than £3 a week. But those critics are dug in for the long haul.

While the BBC may be able to ride out the row over how much some stars are paid (and the absence, or underestimation, of others such as David Dimbleby because they are employed through an independent company), the shocking gender pay gap that this limited transparency has exposed should make the bosses hang their heads in shame. It is unforgivable that Gary Lineker earns up to 10 times as much as Clare Balding, or John Humphrys three times as much as his fellow Today programme presenter Mishal Husain. In every sphere where pay has been revealed, the men are earning more than the women, usually a lot more, even when they sit side by side in the studio doing what to most people looks very much like the same job.

In its defence, the BBC claimed the pay gap for its top earners was better than most and much better than the national figure of 18%. The government’s new pay gap reporting website, instituted in April, proves the BBC’s case. But it is not an excuse. Twice as many men as women feature in the list of top earners, and the 10% difference on average is likely to be repeated and magnified lower down the BBC pay scale, particularly among those paid least. Lord Hall, the director general, points to recent more gender-equal recruitment: but that cannot hide the corporation’s deep-seated problem with diversity. Even on screen, the BBC can look pale, male and stale (its election coverage was a notable example); behind the camera, it is much worse. In a speech at parliament’s Portcullis House on Tuesday, Sir Lenny Henry said that while the BBC claims nearly 15% of its staff are black, Asian or minority ethnic, that includes administrative staff and those working for the World Service; the figure for BAME people responsible for making TV programmes is probably closer to 1.5%, he pointed out. The national broadcaster must identify and recruit talent wherever it can.

The BBC is a reluctant participant in this exercise in transparency. Lord Hall argues that it will inflate the cost of talent without achieving better value for the licence fee payer. It is unpleasant for individuals to justify their pay. Its imposition as part of the charter renewal negotiations was clearly politically motivated and will almost certainly be exploited in the future. Yet as a way of tackling inequality, transparency can be an effective weapon – difficult, of course, in a long-established organisation where some traditions, and some staffers, have a history going back over many years, but also valuable. And after more than 40 years, progress on fair pay and equal opportunities is still so slow that anything that advances it must be welcome. The BBC has to fight its corner in a highly competitive marketplace. But that is no excuse for employment policies that are anything less than transparently fair.