Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee
Oral evidence: The work of the BBC, HC 382
Tuesday 6 September 2022
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 6 September 2022.
Members present: Kevin Brennan; Steve Brine; Clive Efford; Julie Elliott; Damian Green; Dr Rupa Huq; Simon Jupp; John Nicolson; Jane Stevenson; Giles Watling.
In the absence of the Chair, Julie Elliott took the Chair.
Questions 1 - 141
Witnesses
I: Tim Davie CBE, Director-General, BBC; Richard Sharp, Chair, BBC; and Leigh Tavaziva, Chief Operating Officer, BBC.
Witnesses: Tim Davie, Richard Sharp and Leigh Tavaziva.
Q1 Chair: Good morning, everybody. This is a meeting of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee and it is our annual session with the BBC. Can I start by asking for any declarations from the Committee?
Dr Huq: I was an employee a long time ago.
Jane Stevenson: I have attended Proms this year as a guest of the BBC.
Damian Green: I too was an employee a very long time ago and I too have attended Proms as a guest of the BBC this year.
John Nicolson: I worked for the BBC as a youth presenter and then as a news reporter and a news presenter. I too have attended BBC Proms and will be doing so tonight, depending on how this goes.
Kevin Brennan: I have in the past attended various events as a guest of the BBC.
Simon Jupp: I am a former BBC journalist and manager.
Giles Watling: I worked for the BBC on various occasions and I am occasionally in receipt of very small royalties.
Steve Brine: I have, a long time ago, worked with the BBC and attended some events.
Clive Efford: I have never worked for the BBC, nor have I ever been invited to anything by it.
Chair: I have never worked for the BBC either. I have attended events, but not recently.
Good morning, everyone. With us this morning we have Tim Davie, the Director-General of the BBC; Richard Sharp, the Chair of the BBC; and Leigh Tavaziva, the Chief Operating Officer of the BBC. You are very welcome. It is our first session after recess, so we are all raring to go.
I will start by asking a general question. Can somebody give us an update on where we are with the equal pay issue in the BBC, which has exercised this Committee over many years? We would like an update on where we are with the issue, please.
Leigh Tavaziva: I can answer that. We currently have nine pay cases live at the BBC, which is a very small percentage of our total workforce—less than 1%—and just a handful of those will be related to equal pay. In the last financial year, we had 43 employee tribunal claims, of which just five were related partly or wholly to equal pay.
Q2 Chair: There are a small number ongoing?
Leigh Tavaziva: That is right. In the last two years, we have seen a small number. I think we will continue to see small numbers, given the size of our workforce, but, yes, that is correct.
Q3 Clive Efford: Thanks for coming to give evidence to us today. Richard Sharp’s commentary in the annual report indicated that the establishment of the BBC was to address the perceived dangers of broadcasting in influencing the national debate, and that the digital revolution means that we are back to a situation where our national debate is once more in need of an alternative. Does this suggest that the digital revolution makes the BBC more imperative today than it perhaps has been in the recent past?
Richard Sharp: Yes, I think nationally and globally. Obviously the great benefit of the digital revolution is that views can be communicated around the world at the speed of light to global audiences. That is a great opportunity for the BBC, but it also enhances the value of the BBC where our digital signals land around the world—as they do at the moment to about 500 million people—but, importantly, in places like Russia, eastern Europe and Asia.
Q4 Clive Efford: Does the commercial activity of the BBC detract at all from delivering its values?
Richard Sharp: The short answer is no, but behind the question you raise is a very important issue, which is the potential for conflict. That then requires governance to ensure that the values of the BBC are enforced so that any commercial issues are subordinate to the overriding values of the BBC of impartiality and integrity.
Tim Davie: I would make two points. First, I think that not all global activities or activities can be commercialised. You have areas like our language services, Ukraine, Afghanistan, the World Service, where you may be able to do things to help them financially, but you cannot make a commercial model work. It is important to say that there are areas internationally—let alone in the UK—where you need a public funding model.
Secondly, I think we do have a good record. If you take the Natural History Unit or other areas of BBC Studios, we are most commercially successful when we are trusted. The very things that work commercially are often the things that are most in line with BBC values. We have been very focused on ensuring our commercial activity does not pollute the quality of our brand, what we stand for and our editorial values. Everything coming through BBC Studios needs to meet the BBC’s editorial standards and everything that goes on air on the BBC hits the editorial guidelines.
We are very robust on that, but on the idea that you cannot use commercial income and expand commercially alongside a significant public service BBC, I think we have proven over the last few years that we can navigate that course. As Richard said, it is not without its tensions or its need for proper governance and appropriate questions, but I think we are in a good state.
Q5 Clive Efford: On that theme, in the annual report you talked about having a commitment to and a reputation for the high standards of impartiality. Do you think that the BBC is insulated enough from political influence, particularly Government influence?
Richard Sharp: Yes, I do. We cherish the editorial independence of the BBC. The Director-General obviously is the editor-in-chief, and the Director-General has to ensure to the satisfaction of the board—and particularly the Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee—that impartiality is maintained and that the Director-General, in overseeing the executive in how it functions around the different programmes, permits it to operate entirely free of inappropriate political influence.
Q6 Clive Efford: That image of political impartiality has come under criticism, particularly recently from Emily Maitlis, and I am sure you would expect us to ask questions about that. She has suggested that Sir Robbie Gibb, who is very closely aligned with the Conservatives and was recently a Government adviser in No. 10, has been influencing news output. She was particularly critical of the response to her opening address at “Newsnight” when she criticised Dominic Cummings for his trip to Barnard Castle. Did you think that that was impartial?
Richard Sharp: I was at the MacTaggart lecture. I found her lecture where she raised these issues extremely interesting. She was addressing a very important issue, which was a global issue of how news can operate in an environment of heightened political tension. She obviously drew on certain issues related to the United States, and then she turned her comments to the BBC. Just so there is no misunderstanding, it is worth saying that Tim was not Director-General at that time. I was not Chair of the BBC at that time, but obviously I am familiar in detail with the processes. I can say that, while I thought the issues she raised were worthwhile and very good, she was completely wrong on saying that due process was not followed.
To my own mind that probably also reflected the fact that I disagree with her view of impartiality, which may mean that she can lead with her own opinions and follow with the facts. The issue around why it was found by us, and subsequently by Ofcom, that we had appropriately addressed the issue was because she led with her opinions. As a great journalist, it was not that her instincts were wrong. The issue is how the BBC does what it does. We have to provide the facts in an impartial way to the audience and allow them to draw their own opinions.
Q7 Clive Efford: Yes, but she went slightly further than that, didn’t she? What she was implying was that there was a change in the way that these things were dealt with—that it was normal for No. 10 to complain the following morning if something has been—
Richard Sharp: If—
Clive Efford: Excuse me. I will just finish my point and then you can comment on it. She implied that it was normal to receive calls of that nature and that this was not dealt with in that normal way. She implied that that was political interference of someone with a political affiliation on the board who stepped in and reacted, in a way that was not due process in the way that things had been dealt with previously by the BBC.
Richard Sharp: You are conflating two points that she made, which were separate, by the way, just to be clear. What she did say is that she felt it was dealt with inappropriately in terms of the process and the response to No. 10. She was not saying that that came from the board. She was talking about the BBC and its response.
Q8 Clive Efford: No, she did.
Richard Sharp: Did she? I thought she was characterising—
Clive Efford: She actually named Mr Gibb, didn’t she?
Tim Davie: If I may, we are entangling two things here. Sir Robbie Gibb was not around at the time. There are different concerns here. There is one concern, which has been around a while, which is political interference on the BBC board, how that works, our entanglement with Government, both on funding and editorially, and then there is the process by which the “Newsnight” decision was made and whether we were right. They are linked thematically but, in terms of the actual events, they are different.
In terms of “Newsnight”, the BBC is clear: it stands by the decision it made. I was not Director-General at the time, but I think it was absolutely the right decision, unequivocally. As Richard said, our view is that impartiality is not just being able to speak truth to power but doing it by showing a balance of opinion. You do not offer categoric opinion in that way at the top of an item. In my view, we were in the wrong place. Emily is an outstanding journalist and I respect her opinion, but we disagree on this.
The other thing I would say is that it is fairly normal—I am sure this Committee is wise enough to know this. The BBC gets the gift of feedback from high-level offices and high-level politicians on an almost daily basis. I can categorically tell you that anyone that thinks that taking a call from one of the offices leads us to run in a panic and go, “We need to change something”—we reflect on it and we think about it.
There was a question about the speed of correction. We do correct quickly. In fact, I am often sitting here explaining why we took so long to fix something, even under my tenure. If something goes wrong—if we do not properly explain the background of a lawyer on air or whatever—we correct immediately. That is what this case was. If you look through it in detail, which I have, there was a proper discussion at the BBC and the call was made. I am very sorry that we are in a different position to Emily, but that is where we are and that is what happened.
I think you have another question, which is influence on the board. As I say, we have been here before and the Chair can speak to that.
Q9 Clive Efford: You have answered the points, but on this issue about political influence, the answer has come back here many times, “When it was in government, Labour appointed John Birt and he was close to people in the Labour party.” I get all that, but there is a consistency in the appointments—certainly the ones that come before us on this Committee. They are a certain type of person with certain political affiliations in their background. It just seems to be happening on an industrial scale. There do seem to be a high proportion of people with associations with the Conservative party currently in senior positions in the BBC on the board.
Richard Sharp: I would ask you to examine the board members and the recent appointments in more detail than I believe you may have done. If you look at the most recent appointments you will see we have had Muriel Gray, Robbie Gibb, Damon Buffini and Shumeet Banerji. I do not think you can characterise that group as all of one type.
Clive Efford: Okay. I will leave it there.
Q10 Steve Brine: Welcome, everybody. Nice to see you again. I am going to continue on impartiality but broaden it out. Mr Sharp, you said: “Our reputation for impartiality needs to be earned each and every day.” Tim, you said: “Our first priority”—your first priority, therefore, because you are the DG—“is impartiality and trust” and that you must take an “assertive approach to impartiality”. Next month, it will be a year since you published the impartiality action plan. Could you update the Committee and viewers on how you think that is going? Because this is your first priority, I am particularly interested in what you are doing personally on a day-to-day basis to drive that forward.
Tim Davie: I think we are making good progress. There are two things here that sit underneath the numbers, by the way. I am quite focused on how we are doing in terms of how the public perceive the BBC, because there is all kinds of noise around this. If you look at it, we have, “Who do you turn to the most for news you would trust?” and 48% said the BBC, with the nearest competitor 8%. The numbers are basically flat. I am not claiming we are seeing soaring numbers on impartiality, but broadly we are holding our numbers flat. They are massively under pressure.
By the way, every public institution is suffering from trust—what social media brings. I think this Committee should be looking and worried at some of the bigger global data: 73% of the world does not have a free press now; 22% of the world, according to the Financial Times, now has a democracy that is functioning freely. All these things are really critical. Overall, I think we are doing a pretty good job. We are holding our numbers about flat in the midst of all kinds of storms, views, tweets, all of that going on. The BBC numbers are solid.
In terms of what we are doing, there are two things. There is the action plans, which I think—
Steve Brine: Well, the Serota review led to the action plan.
Tim Davie: The Serota review—the very specific things. I could list them, but the thematic review, which I think is really interesting in terms of how we deal with the subject of taxation and public spending; the internal reviews that we are undergoing; the training that we put thousands of people through in terms of impartiality. This is not just teaching them to suck eggs; this is also about some of the dilemmas that you get when you are in the world of social media. This is a skill. Impartiality needs to be learned. It is not easy, and it is a choice that is going to be wrestled with forever by people like myself.
In personal terms, I set the culture in the BBC, with my leadership team. One of the biggest challenges—obviously you have the technical bits that we are doing and I think we are making good progress—is the quality of conversation after a programme closes. If you are the editor of the “Today” programme, who is outstanding, what is the quality of the conversation? How are we talking about what issues we have covered? How do we discuss from every point of view? There is no assumed position.
I think part of my job—which I do—is to speak to teams and editors to make sure that conversation is deployed into the guts of the BBC. The reality of the BBC is often the editor of a particular programme and that discussion. I think my biggest role is to make sure that the clarity of expectation around that is unequivocal and people understand it.
Q11 Steve Brine: Do you get down, sleeves rolled up, into the “Today” newsroom and have a conversation?
Tim Davie: Now and again, but in my job—
Steve Brine: I mean, I get it; you have got—
Tim Davie: Now and again. I think you need to be visible—I was on the news floor last week—but that can only go so far. The key thing you have to do is to keep working with your—I think we have an outstanding set of people in the BBC. The BBC is a model where if you are running Radio Stoke, you have editorial power in that, and it is building the capabilities of those individuals and making sure we have the right people in place. The job I have to do is to make sure that we have the right leaders in place.
Of course, we had a very big public appointment yesterday: Deborah Turness arrived as Director of News. That is the job I also have to do—to choose outstanding people and make sure that they deliver.
Q12 Steve Brine: What conversation have you had with her about this?
Tim Davie: Numerous. I mean, hours of it, because it is central to the BBC. I won’t speak for Deborah, but I think she absolutely will lay out very clearly that building journalism that is verified, trusted and impartial is absolutely central. When I hired that job—this won’t be a surprise to you—it was someone who saw that as a real opportunity.
For what it is worth, I think the challenge for us is to not make it a defensive posture. In my job that can often be quite a challenge, based on the amount of noise, but I think there is a real growth opportunity around the world. If you look at the US, we are the most trusted news source. We are growing internationally. I think there is a real opportunity for impartial journalism.
Q13 Steve Brine: How would you describe your new Head of News? How would you describe her background if you were writing the top line of a press release?
Tim Davie: Outstanding editorially. It is as simple as that.
Q14 Steve Brine: Where does she come from? Where is her hinterland?
Tim Davie: Sorry, where does she come from?
Steve Brine: Where is her hinterland? Where does she come from? What is her background?
Tim Davie: She has an unparalleled experience of news operations around the world, in the US and the UK. She just has a fantastic CV on that.
Q15 Steve Brine: You mentioned Radio Stoke. Do you think the BBC has a problem with impartiality at its core—in network news and in national output—as well as in local output? Where does the balance of complaint on impartiality fall?
Tim Davie: I am not sure it is right to judge it by the balance of complaint, but we can debate that one. To be clear, I do not think the BBC had a major problem on impartiality. It had a major challenge. If you go to America now—I don’t want to criticise anyone—you can see the polarisation in the media market. I note in India, NDTV, an independent provider, has just been bought by a billionaire with interests around the world. I think this is why we get focused a little bit too on—the big picture is that we are seeing media operations failing to sustain an impartial position through the culture wars and all the things that are going on. There is loads of evidence of this around the world.
Q16 Steve Brine: I hear you, Tim, but we are the culture Committee of the UK Parliament. We are interested in the BBC. We are interested in the media landscape here. I am not interested in us being judged against the US, which does not have a state public sector broadcaster.
Tim Davie: If I may, the issue is: where do we trend if you don’t take action? If you look at the direction of travel, the evidence around the world—I totally agree with you: I care enormously about democracy here and free media and how that works—is that if you do not intervene, it does not look good. I think we have been active in intervening. That will be a battle, but the numbers suggest we are doing pretty well.
Q17 Steve Brine: No, I would agree. I just want to give you some examples. As I said, it is a year next month, and you will be judged on action on this. You are conducting these individual programme content reviews, so I am interested in exploring them a little bit. I will give you some examples—a couple of notes that I have made over the last year or so.
A presenter described J. K. Rowling as holding a “very unpopular opinion” on gender identity, discussing her in the same context at Hitler and R. Kelly during an edition of “Front Row”.
Tom Sutcliffe asked a guest on a programme, “Do you think there’s a major philosophical distinction between artists who have committed crimes, have been found guilty of crimes, and artists who simply have unpopular opinions? You bring up the case of J. K. Rowling, who clearly has a very unpopular opinion regarding gender identity and has, as a consequence of that, faced severe and serious criticism.” Well, her opinions are unpopular in Tom’s opinion, but there are many people who would take a different view.
BBC News was criticised this summer, right at the end of the session, about a report on NHS pay. Debbie Wilkinson, a well-known Jeremy Corbyn-supporting union rep—she has spoken at Labour conference, so not exactly a shrinking violet—was introduced as “Debbie from West Yorkshire, who has been a paramedic for 30 years” and then laid into the Government on NHS pay.
“EastEnders”, one of my favourite shows—this is a bit of a “get out of my pub” moment. Brexit was likened to covid. After being shown chucking a glass of water into Sam Mitchell’s face, Sharon Watts aggressively told her, “We’ve had Brexit and covid. We don’t need you here.”
Then, bringing us right up to date, Laura Kuenssberg on Sunday. Laura, who is a fantastic journalist, and I would say fairly unimpeachable on impartiality, watching her and knowing her personally—
Tim Davie: Agreed.
Steve Brine: But I would say that her show got off to a challenging start in terms of major appeal outside of SW1, and on this whole issue of impartiality, with the Joe Lycett debacle. He was asked on as a pundit. He did this mock applause after Liz Truss left the interview chair. He was then immediately asked for his reaction and he said, “She was the dregs of what they’ve got available and the backwash of the available MPs.” Now, whatever your opinion, those of my colleagues around this table or of people in my party—it is not really relevant—for a brand-new show that wants to get off to a good start, when you are booking a pundit to go on, Joe Lycett is not an uncontroversial figure.
You talk about the conversations that go on after output. How about a conversation that goes on before output, where somebody says, “You know what? New show, new start, new term—let’s not book Joe, because we know what Joe’s going to deliver”? Somebody who is ungenerous to the BBC could say, “You knew exactly what Joe was going to deliver and that is why you booked him.”
There are some horror stories in those examples. I could go on. Gary Lineker is still tweeting that the Government are voting to pour raw sewage into our waterways. You and I have talked personally in the Committee before about Gary Lineker. You told me that you were calling him to check for his tweets. I care what he thinks about Spurs’ attempt to win the Premier League—it is going very well, I might add—but not what he thinks about water quality. That is not why you pay him.
On these individual programme content reviews, in the context of some of those examples that I have just given, what are the yardsticks against which you are judging success? Many would take those examples I have just given and say you have a lot of work to do.
Tim Davie: We always have work to do.
Steve Brine: Not just across news. “EastEnders” is not news, is it?
Tim Davie: I was going to say that, because I think each of those instances is different in itself—very different. They are different editorially. I think that is really important.
Steve Brine: That is why I picked them—because they are across the output.
Tim Davie: They are interesting, but I have different views on them. In news output, where a journalist is giving a view—where they have assumed a position—there is a problem. By the way, we have hundreds of thousands of hours of output—I will give you that sentence—and, overall, I think we are delivering well. I do think that. It is important that we are proportional about this. Of course, in my job, you are going to get things where you go, “That sentence wasn’t delivered right.”
There is a real question on drama. With characters offering views—Sharon is not offering the views of the BBC. We can debate that at length. It is important that you get drama from different perspectives, different writers and all that, but it depends on the context of that view and how it is offered. I think that is a different example.
Laura is exceptional. We can debate the merits of that particular booking. I do not think it displays BBC bias in the slightest. The audience saw it for what it was, by the way. By yesterday, with a front page and a headline, we had 28 complaints. I just looked at it, and I think we are up to 66 complaints. They saw what it was. It was bemusing. We can debate, exactly in the way you have debated, whether it was the right booking.
Steve Brine: Why go there?
Tim Davie: What I would say is that, as the BBC host, I thought Laura conducted herself in an exemplary fashion in a slightly difficult situation. We move on. But it doesn’t—I mean, the idea that that displays bias.
I think there are examples in what you said where you do say, “Okay.” This is where it gets more interesting for me. When we look at the reviews and we’re doing “Breakfast”, “Countryfile”, English language morning radio news programmes, the real things that I am interested in are those things where I think you have to sanction or not, or take action, Lineker included. We can debate that in a minute; I do not quite think he criticised the Government in that way, but he has to absolutely be within—and I have talked to Gary. He was doing thousands of tweets and, overall, I think he is in a lot better state. He should not be at the standard of a news and current affairs executive, but overall that conversation goes on. I am very supportive of Gary. I think he is a brilliant presenter. It is work in progress in terms of where he draws the line, but we have had a good conversation. I think he understands the guidelines. But I am not—
Q18 Steve Brine: When you had that conversation, did he say, “Okay, yeah. Let’s do this then, Tim. Let’s go through this. Let’s tick this box,” or does he say, “Yeah, I’ve screwed up again”? We are paying Gary £1.35 million. He is down 10 grand on last year, but I am sure he will get by when his energy bill comes in. We are paying him £1.35 million and he is a brilliant pundit on football.
Tim Davie: He is, yes.
Steve Brine: He is entertaining.
Tim Davie: He is.
Steve Brine: I don’t care what he thinks about water quality. Why should we be paying—my constituents are taxed through the licence fee; if they do not pay it, they go to prison—for somebody to give their opinion on water quality?
Tim Davie: With respect, you are not paying him to tweet.
Steve Brine: But he is doing it.
Tim Davie: My view is that overall, if you look in the round, I think people are smart enough to look at this sensibly. Gary and I have had a conversation and I think we have seen a massive improvement from where he was a few years ago in terms of his entry into party politics. I think that banning people completely from getting into any issues-based tweeting is probably the wrong position, but there is a standard there. We talk about it and I am very supportive of him.
Going back on the reviews, if I may, because that is what—
Q19 Steve Brine: Yes, the reviews. What are the yardsticks?
Tim Davie: We are looking at “BBC Breakfast” and “Countryfile”. Where I am interested—there are the cases you made, but I think some of this is deeper—is: what is the topic choice? What questions are we asking? What is the level of interrogation, fact-based analysis and verification? This is supportive to the programme teams. This is with them.
If you take “Countryfile”, rural affairs is a live issue for us all. How are we representing that? Are we properly representing some of those issues? Are we featuring the right topics? They are the things I am interested in. The programme review, in a very qualitative and quantitative way, will look at how that is being done. Our teams will assess that and discuss with teams. The idea is solely to improve the output for the audience. That is it.
Q20 Steve Brine: Finally, on some of the guests that come on the news, I gave the example that caused a bit of excitement about the Opposition activist who was just introduced as “Debbie from West Yorkshire”. Should researchers be asking guests when they are booking them?
Let’s draw back the cover here. For those listening, what happens is that politicians get a phone call or a text from a journalist saying, “Would you come on ‘World at One’?” They reply and go, “Yes, I could do that today.” “Can we have a chat?” We then have a chat. If you say what they think will fit into the programme, they book you. If you do not say what they think will fit into the programme, they say, “I have spoken to my editor and we cannot slot you in today,” so I sometimes think it would be great to say completely the opposite on the phone call and then the opposite when I am on air, but I have not done that yet. It is probably never going to work now. Should researchers be asking when they book somebody for what is obviously a very sensitive political story if they have any active political affiliations?
Tim Davie: They should always be doing the due diligence on appropriate background. Where we have made mistakes, like putting Alan Dershowitz up to talk about Epstein without giving a full background, these are things where my view is that is proper verification. It is contextual, so you do not have to do full background on everything, but appropriate contextualisation of what background is relevant is critical. We have been open about that and sometimes we do not get it right.
Q21 Steve Brine: I could suggest when you are doing these reviews you could push that in, couldn’t you?
Tim Davie: Absolutely right. With respect, that is one of 30 or 40 questions you would have: guest selection; range of guest selection; what voices you are putting on air; are you presenting them in the right way; are you asking the right questions? I could go on and on, but that is what the reviews will do. They are constructive. A programme like “Countryfile” is a national asset and I love “Countryfile”.
Steve Brine: It is a super programme.
Tim Davie: It is super, but we can look to keep improving that.
Q22 Steve Brine: Thank you for what you have said. I would agree the BBC is moving in the right direction. Clearly, like any newspaper will tell any of my colleagues here, they get complaints from one party and complaints from the other and they probably think they are in the right place.
Tim Davie: We have work to do.
Steve Brine: You have exactly the same thing. But for something that is your first priority—we have spent quite a lot of time talking about it in this session, but you are the Director-General and you say it is your first priority, so it is obviously something that you think is important to how the BBC can go forward as a trusted broadcaster that needs to earn that reputation each and every day. I just hope that we can continue the conversation and hear more about these individual reviews.
Finally, will you publish your methodology around these individual reviews with the programmes? Otherwise, how will we have any transparency to that?
Tim Davie: We can provide you with something on that. Let me take that away.
Steve Brine: That will be really helpful. Thank you.
Tim Davie: No problem.
Q23 Chair: Can I just add into the mix there that when you are reviewing “Breakfast”, which I watch every morning—I have the radio on in the kitchen and the TV on in the living room, but it happened again this morning. It is a big day in politics today—there is a change of prime minister; it is a huge day, whatever your politics are—but the royal correspondent factually describing what was happening got it wrong. That happens quite frequently, where they are describing a political process and they get it wrong. What do you do to make sure that whatever process is happening—whether it is that or whether it is something happening in Parliament—they are getting it right? The viewership of breakfast television is a different viewership than, say, the Laura Kuenssberg show or “Newsnight”.
Tim Davie: Of course.
Chair: What do you do to make sure that people understand what they are talking about?
Tim Davie: We do a vast amount of due diligence and we have our editorial policy department, political adviser, all those things that can be consulted to get to the question, and across the thousands of hours of output I think we do a good job on that. Very specifically, I want to know what it is because, knowing the editor of “Breakfast” well, he will take that on board. The one thing I think the BBC should do is listen. We are not going to get everything right every time, but let’s hear it.
Chair: It happens quite frequently. Obviously, as a politician, I am a bit of a geek on process in politics, and I just think, “That’s not right.”
Tim Davie: I would love to hear it, so please give me the feedback. That is great.
Chair: Right. I would rather it was right.
Q24 Steve Brine: Chair, with your indulgence, while we are touching on “Breakfast”, we might just give the Director-General a chance to comment about Bill Turnbull, who you lost last week. I heard your tribute to him, but having been interviewed by him, as I am sure many of my colleagues have, you lost a first-rate journalist there, didn’t you?
Tim Davie: An absolutely first-rate journalist. There are very, very few people who can do what I think is one of the toughest things to do in our industry, which is move from the lightest of subjects to the hardest of topics and connect with an audience.
If you look at why people value the licence fee, one of the things that is overwhelming is when you have—thank you to the Chair—a habitual relationship, so you spend mornings with someone, you feel incredibly connected to them. Bill had this amazing warmth. I think there are very few people—I think of a few DJs in history that have been legends and this, that and the other—that have that warmth of tone but also that authority, and Bill had it. Frankly, we beat the BBC up and do our things, but when you see someone like Bill—and not only that, but the way he went through his illness and transformed lots of lives in terms of their ability to go and get checked—yes, he leaves an amazing legacy. Thank you.
Chair: He will have undoubtedly saved lives and I think everybody’s thoughts on this Committee and in this place are with his family.
Tim Davie: Thank you very much. I will pass that on.
Chair: We have to remember there is a person, and it is his family we think of.
Q25 John Nicolson: I would like to echo what you said about Bill Turnbull, who was an outstanding broadcaster.
Thank you very much indeed for joining us. Can we return to Emily Maitlis’s speech, which got so much attention? I heard Mr Sharp’s comments about the speech—where he agreed with it and where he disagreed with it—but, since we are talking about impartiality specifically, perhaps we can focus a bit on the person that she described as an “active Tory agent” within the BBC, and that is Sir Robbie Gibb. It might be helpful, Mr Davie, if you tell us what role Robbie Gibb plays at the BBC. What is his job?
Tim Davie: He is a board member.
Q26 John Nicolson: What does that mean? We know what that means, but a lot of people watching this will not know what that means or what his job entails.
Tim Davie: Dare I put my Chair forward? As the Chair of the board, I think he can articulate it. I can give it a go, but I have talked a lot.
John Nicolson: Give it a go.
Tim Davie: The board oversees the BBC on behalf of the licence fee payer. It sets the strategy with the executive and the executive deliver and are fully responsible for day-to-day operations and editorial leadership of the BBC. This is not cryptic. The board members, through things like the Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee, can oversee our performance.
Q27 John Nicolson: Would you regard him as impartial?
Tim Davie: I think everyone coming to the BBC on the board that I deal with puts the BBC first and absolutely understands and supports me personally and the executive team to deliver impartially, yes.
John Nicolson: That is interesting.
Tim Davie: By the way, I do not think anyone personally comes, in any walk of life, with total impartiality. That is one of the joys of the challenge, Mr Nicolson. When you come to the BBC, you focus wholly—it sounds very worthy—on a higher purpose, and that is to deliver impartial journalism. That is critical.
Q28 John Nicolson: Indeed. We have covered this before. We pointed out that you are a former Conservative candidate and Mr Sharp is a very generous donor to the Conservative party—he has been in the past. We have covered that and we know that, but when Mr Gibb comes to the BBC, one of the roles I understood he played as a board member was to enforce and encourage impartiality. Would that be fair to say?
Tim Davie: As part of an overall team. In terms of supporting the Director-General’s No. 1 priority, I think that is totally appropriate.
Q29 John Nicolson: Right, which makes it all the more extraordinary that after he was appointed he liked a tweet from a Conservative Member of Parliament, Andrew Bowie, who said, “What a shambles—very pleased this will be the SNP’s last few years in government”. Why was Sir Robbie Gibb liking a tweet that was so blatantly party political?
Tim Davie: I will let Richard talk about the action.
Richard Sharp: First of all, I would like to take a step back to some of the things we were talking about earlier: the BBC’s approach to mistakes and impartiality.
John Nicolson: We can go back to that, but will you specifically address that tweet and why he felt that was appropriate, and how you responded to it?
Richard Sharp: I will come to the tweet. First of all, the issue is not that the BBC makes mistakes. The BBC has made mistakes in the past, it is making mistakes—maybe—today, and it will make mistakes. The question is: what is the reaction function of the organisation? How does the governance operate so that we drive towards impartiality, look at mistakes, correct them and have the right degree of accountability? In that context, what is the role of the board and what is the role of the non-execs?
Clearly, a bright dividing line between the non-execs and the execs, which needs to operate, is that the non-execs challenge the executives. Robust challenge takes place not just at the board but at the committees to see where the executive are executing, as they should do, in line with the strategy. As we have discussed, strategy No. 1 is to preserve and promote impartiality.
As part of that, there is a critical sub-committee, which is the Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee. We have our editorial guidelines. Those are the guidelines that Emily Maitlis chafed against, as have others. The sub-committee of the board, with the non-execs, scrutinises the output after broadcast and after—this is the critical point—it has been executed by the executive. The committee does not get involved before.
The committee has to challenge certain things. It has to challenge group-think, it has to make sure the culture of the organisation is appropriate and it has to ensure that the editor-in-chief operates with the right degree of control. Obviously a critical member of that sub-committee now will be Deborah Turness, who has certainly made it her mission, coming in, to weaponise impartiality. Robbie Gibb sits on that committee, and Robbie Gibb certainly has an experience of working at the BBC, as you have. I can only imagine, Mr Nicolson, that when you were at the BBC, although you had political views, you also operated with impartiality.
John Nicolson: Yes, but I would never have dreamed of liking a tweet that was party political like that. It would have been quite improper.
Richard Sharp: As an executive, exactly. Sir Robbie Gibb is not a broadcaster. He does not get involved in—
Q30 John Nicolson: So it’s okay for him to express party political views, is it?
Richard Sharp: Well, non-executives should seek to avoid getting involved in matters of controversy. They should seek to. They are not required to by the governance of the BBC, but they should seek to, and certainly that is—
Q31 John Nicolson: It is hard to imagine something more blatantly party political than that. We return to Emily Maitlis’s point that he is “an active Tory agent”. For him to like a Tory MP’s tweet that says he is very pleased that this will be the SNP’s last few years in government—wishful thinking, I think—and for him to think that it was a wise thing to like that tweet and to be so blatantly party political reinforces Emily Maitlis’s point. You are saying that is okay because of the role he plays on the board?
Richard Sharp: No. First of all, as it happens, until you raised that tweet I was unaware of it. What I am saying is, first of all, you need to distinguish non-executives and executives. It is a critically important point.
Q32 John Nicolson: I take the distinction, but can I pin you down? Was it acceptable for him to like that tweet, yes or no?
Richard Sharp: Well, the code of conduct for the non-execs—
John Nicolson: What is your view?
Richard Sharp: The code of conduct for the non-execs is they are entitled not to—they are not governed by the same code of conduct.
Q33 John Nicolson: I know that—you have told me that—but what is your view?
Richard Sharp: I would prefer that non-execs refrain from tweeting around controversial or partisan issues. Now—
Q34 John Nicolson: But we know what he thinks. I will move on to Tim, if I may. To address your point, Mr Davie, he is clearly not leaving his political opinions at the door, is he? He is letting the whole world know what his political opinions are, which is he wants to get rid of the SNP Government.
Tim Davie: I think, in terms of the board oversight of the non-execs, it is not something that the board needs to manage. In my role, it is really straightforward: first, do I face inappropriate editorial intervention; and secondly—this is what the audience really care about—does that influence our ability to go about the work I need to do?
Q35 John Nicolson: People have accused him of inappropriate editorial interference and Emily Maitlis says that he is an active Tory agent, and he is doing his very best to prove Emily Maitlis correct with his behaviour.
Tim Davie: With respect, my concern is that any construct of the board—everyone comes to the board with lots of opinions, by the way; that is the joy of a board. The acid test for me as editor-in-chief is: do I have power with the editors running the programmes, are they interfered with in any way inappropriately, and are we not delivering on our mission of impartiality, day to day?
Q36 John Nicolson: Yes, but you can understand why people like Emily Maitlis will feel that she is on to something when a member of the board—who already comes with all the political baggage that you have described—feels free to continue displaying open political bias once he has been appointed.
I think we have slightly exhausted this. What did you think of Laura Kuenssberg’s first programme?
Tim Davie: I thought it was fresh. I thought the interviews were outstanding. I thought she was really good. I thought her timing was good. I thought she is a world-class journalist. I was very proud of it. On a new programme you try lots of things. Many of the Committee members have worked at the BCC, so you know you tend to throw everything at it. I thought it was a first-class programme.
Q37 John Nicolson: Did the comedy part of it work? Did the Joe Lycett bit work?
Tim Davie: I think it was slightly bemusing, frankly. Let us not over-egg it. Live television brings with it all kinds of joys. You can debate the merits of the booking. It may not be the next booking we make.
Q38 John Nicolson: The Daily Mail has gone absolutely tonto about it. It has run a whole front page about a comedian taking the mickey out of the new Prime Minister.
Tim Davie: Yes. What’s your point, Mr Nicolson? Sorry, I am lost. I have 28 complaints. I take these things seriously. We know that on a bit of live television some of it was slightly bemusing. It does not affect the world-class job that Laura does. I think we’ve got ourselves a very good programme. I am proud of the team. You are not going to get everything right as you select guests. I am lost on what the point is.
Q39 John Nicolson: My point is that you are under pressure over it, obviously.
Tim Davie: Have you seen this job over the years, Mr Nicolson? Honestly, if I started reacting to every news item, I would be half-dead by now. For goodness’ sake.
Q40 John Nicolson: You are under pressure from board members, you are under pressure from newspapers—you are under a lot of pressure, certainly. Will you change the format because of that? Are we likely to see Mr Lycett back again?
Tim Davie: The one thing I have learned in life is to give a great producer and a great team the guardrails, give them feedback when you need to, but they make the decisions. They will keep learning. They will adapt stuff. It is normal business. Let’s move on.
Q41 John Nicolson: Did Robbie Gibb complain about that, out of interest?
Tim Davie: I don’t know who the 28 complainants are. Well, currently it is 66 complaints.
Q42 John Nicolson: Did he complain to you internally?
Tim Davie: I do not think I have had one complaint internally.
Q43 John Nicolson: Okay. Good. On a general point, finally, don’t you think it is good for political programmes, like any other programmes, occasionally to tweak the nose and mock the powerful? Isn’t that quite healthy in a democracy?
Tim Davie: More than quite helpful; it is essential.
John Nicolson: Thank you.
Q44 Simon Jupp: Good morning to the panel. I cannot comment on the timing, but, just as this meeting started, Nadine Dorries tweeted out her letter of resignation to the outgoing Prime Minister. How do you think this will affect licence fee negotiations, Tim?
Tim Davie: That particular bit of news?
Simon Jupp: Yes.
Tim Davie: When Nadine came in, everyone asked me to second-guess what the effects would be. A rather cheap line, if I may, but I said, “I’ve had 10 Secretaries of State in 10 years, so it is very difficult to predict.” I don’t know, is the answer. The BBC need to be very clear—and we can come to it. Even today, we published some principles about what we think about funding the BBC. I would say the stakes are high. The stakes are high to the UK creative industries, what kind of media we have, things like the media Bill and what prominence we have, what sports rights we list—I could go on. All these decisions are incredibly important to how we shape our media, our national discussion, the events, local journalism—we may come on to that. All these things are really important.
Q45 Simon Jupp: How were negotiations going?
Tim Davie: On what, sorry?
Simon Jupp: On the future of the licence fee and everything else in relation to the fee that taxpayers pay.
Tim Davie: Well, it is relatively clear. We obviously have a licence fee for two years flat and four years CPI, as this Committee knows only too well, but the Government announced that they were interested in a review where they were looking at options of how you could fund the BBC. Richard can speak for the board, but we absolutely have some clear principles, which we have set out because we think it is really important that we preserve things like our impartiality and the mission of the BBC, and we grow the creative industries.
It is not as if we are saying everything is open. There is a framework here that is really important: the impartiality and independence of the BBC. What we were waiting for at that point was the announcement around who would lead the review and that process. That has obviously stalled due to all the changes that have been going on, so we now wait for a new Secretary of State, and I look forward to working with them.
Q46 Simon Jupp: Do you expect the review to take place, and do you still welcome it?
Tim Davie: Overall, it is right that we look at it. It is a subject that many have returned to. As this Committee said, I think in March ’21, “We looked at everything and the licence fee is the option at the moment,” but there is no doubt the market is changing rapidly. By the way, the idea that the BBC has its head in the sand or is intransient is ridiculous. We are looking at the changes in the market. It is appropriate that we look at what is the right funding mechanism for the BBC. Having said that, I do believe in a mainstream public service intervention and the things that are precious about the BBC.
I took the earlier point that we should focus on the UK, but now and again it is worth having a look at the rest of the world and seeing what happens when you have market failure of public service operations. I have been here before and I will keep banging that drum: it is not a coincidence that we have strong creative industries.
Q47 Simon Jupp: Can we discuss the fact that the licence fee has been frozen for two years? You have already outlined a series of steps you are taking to cope with the impact of that decision on services. We have seen inflation and the cost of energy bills go up. For all your buildings, that must be an absolutely nightmare, given that you have many dotted around the country. Do you think those cuts have to be reviewed? Do you think you will have to go further and faster in looking at the services you provide and perhaps disappoint more viewers and listeners?
Tim Davie: Yes, we are under very significant pressure due to the decision to keep the licence fee flat, which we did not want. Leigh, you might want to give a little bit of flavour to that, in terms of some of the numbers and what we are looking at.
Leigh Tavaziva: Yes, absolutely. We said at the time when the licence fee was announced that we would see an income gap by 2027-28 of £285 million. We have seen the cost of living and inflation rise since then, and as Tim has rightly said, that does put further pressure on that income gap, as a result of having two years of that.
We talked in May about further transformation that the BBC will need to be going through. We announced a £500 million savings and reinvestment plan, which related directly to further cuts we would be having to make of £200 million, and then a further £300 million looking at our content and services, prioritising where we would have to stop content and services and where we would look to make reinvestments.
In the current environment, which is challenging for many people across the UK, higher energy bills, which have already been mentioned today, absolutely do put pressure on our cost base at the BBC. It will require us to continue to look for more productivity efficiencies, and it will stretch into some of our content and services as well.
Q48 Simon Jupp: Thank you. Tim, back to you. What decision do you expect you might have to make? Are we facing a bleak future for some services? We have heard about the changes to the BBC news channel, the closure of Radio 4 Extra on DAB, for example, and the closure of the Oxford and Cambridgeshire TV news programmes. Can you see any further changes along those lines that viewers will notice?
Tim Davie: Possibly, yes. Just to get the numbers really clear, because you miss two years of inflation, our initial forecast was that by the time you got to 2027-28, the end of the charter, you will have a £285 million gap. Our principles as a leadership team—both of us have worked in the commercial sector, working through this—are really clear: how do you take costs down as far as you can in any area you can without affecting the audience that is sensible? That requires restraint across the board, looking at every single cost, benchmarking that. Deloitte has done lots of work. We are getting there. Public service organisations do have reputations sometimes where there are costs there. We have gone after everything pretty hard, and you still look at that. You look at: what is your operating model? How do you structure things? All of that comes first. Then you get to more painful decisions, and you have listed pretty much spot on some of the decisions that we have had to make.
By the way, there are other mitigations. The commercial arm is doing really well. I know we get lost in all the various issues, but one of the things you see in the annual report is a stellar year for the commercial arm of the BBC. That helps us mitigate some of the problems we are talking about here.
But there is absolutely no doubt about it: the job for us now is to say, “Okay, we’ve got £285 million of savings. We now think the landing zone is £400 million to £500 million.” Obviously, this is a moving feast, to a point. “What other actions would we take?” All I will say is that it is way too early to say, “This is where it would fall,” or, “This is where it would go.” We will do all we can to try to mitigate audience impact. My strategy is really simple: to give you great value for the £13 a month. That is why that settlement is so painful for us, because anything that detracts from that value undermines the BBC, let’s be really clear about it.
Q49 Simon Jupp: One of the concerns that I have always had with the BBC, as a former employee but now as a Member of Parliament covering a very rural area, is that it often cuts services closest to those who pay for it—local services, be that “Inside Out”, the Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire ops for local TV news, or things like that. Why is that? Why are those services the ones you target? They actually have very loyal audiences.
Tim Davie: I know there are a couple members of the Committee who rightly feel extremely strongly about this. The local services themselves—the local imprint of the radio stations in a region—are absolutely critical. People know that I talk about the most successful TV show in Britain being the 6.30—fact. We could also talk, by the way, about pushing stuff out of London. That has been extremely successful over the last couple of years.
To your point, the area where we have ringfenced and not cut funding is local. To be really clear, we are not cutting. The decision around the Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire op is we believe that, if we don’t spend more money on having an effective digital office locally, if we don’t reskin the offer, we are going to be so out of line with the market that we are in trouble in terms of our reach numbers, and then the thing begins to be less potent. If I did not have the pressure of the budget being cut, we would not have to do that so quickly and those choices could be different. But we are not cutting money in local.
Q50 Simon Jupp: You say that the 6.30 is the most successful TV programme in the country. If you are living in the areas where these Cambridgeshire and Oxford ops were, how relevant will that news be to those audiences? The reason those ops were created in the first place was to target the audiences that are there, whereas now the news will come from Southampton if you are living in Oxfordshire, or Norwich, which is completely different.
Tim Davie: There is always a tension in those regions, in terms of where you stop and start and what is relevant. I am outside Oxford, so you get different stories. We will still be covering those areas. Remember, we also have a strong online offer. Journalists will still be in Oxford and Cambridge.
Q51 Simon Jupp: You are not cutting journalism numbers, are you? You are just cutting actual programme output.
Tim Davie: Right, and our investment in local remains strong. We need to continue to invest and grow our local offer. I think it is an absolute key strength of the BBC.
Simon Jupp: I will hold you to that.
Tim Davie: Thank you.
Q52 Damian Green: One last trip around impartiality. I am struck that most of the flak you have been taking this morning has been from the left, based on Emily Maitlis, whom I suspect some of my colleagues might regard as an active Labour agent for at least part of the time. She was at the BBC, certainly, when she was doing that famous—or infamous—monologue. You have heard this morning from John and Clive, and from Emily Maitlis before, criticism of Tory influence on the BBC. Many of my colleagues have it as absolute article of faith that the BBC is full of metropolitan, latte-drinking lefties and suffers from group-think of the liberal left. The BBC’s traditional attitude has always been, “As long as we are getting flak from both sides, then we are probably doing it right.” Is there a modern version of that? Do you still think that is true?
Richard Sharp: Can I comment first? I would like to clarify something with Mr Nicolson. Robbie Gibb did not, in fact, like that tweet. Although you are correct in terms of the data element, what actually happened was that—I told you I was unaware of it; I am now aware of what happened—in scrolling through tweets, his finger passed over that particular area of the telephone, which meant that the heart got pressed. But he did not like that tweet specifically. I just wanted to address that.
John Nicolson: It can happen to anyone.
Richard Sharp: Secondly, I did not come back to you on the agent point, which is absolutely wrong. To be categorical, he does not operate on the board as an agent of the Conservative party. That was completely wrong. It was one of the errors that Emily Maitlis made, and I am very disappointed that she made that particular point.
Let me address Mr Green’s point, which I think has been raised by a prior DG. I do not agree with that point. You have to look at complaints on their merits, and I do not think the BBC should just take comfort if it gets a complaint from both sides that it has got things right. This goes to the earlier point on governance. In addition, we have two external members of the Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee, so the BBC, in a natural and instinctive defensive way, should not be defensive. It should be open and evaluate what the criticisms are and what the complaints are. It may be that if the same situation gets complaints from both sides, that may well reflect the fact that it was impartial, but we should look at each individual complaint on its merits and not take comfort if we are getting complaints from both sides that we are getting it right.
Q53 Damian Green: Thank you. That is quite interesting and is an update. For the purposes of accuracy, I have gone on to Robbie Gibb’s Twitter feed and discovered that he clearly does not tweet a lot. His last tweet was on 22 May this year, rejoicing at the news that Leeds United had stayed up. Looking at that, it is literally about one tweet a month. I can believe that, scrolling through, he pressed the like button at the wrong time.
On the wider issue of impartiality, the Director-General said that you were getting 48% trust levels. Does that differ from people who broadly describe themselves as left-wing politically or right-wing politically? Is there any change in that?
Tim Davie: It is marginal. The data says you are marginally less likely to be aligned with the BBC if you are on the right, and then you have a lot of people who do not know. It is not overwhelming on one side or the other. It is marginal.
Q54 Damian Green: For either of those groups—broadly left and broadly right—is there a trend, or is that flat as well?
Tim Davie: There are not overwhelming trends. The societal trend that we are worried about is losing trust in everything. This is a bigger issue. The really worrying data is not currently that; it is the 16 to 34s. I saw a number that 67% don’t believe any news source can be trusted. You will see the communication with Deborah Turness coming on—this idea of showing people our workings. Deborah mentioned yesterday transparency—how we verify, the process by which our teams in Ukraine look at their sources and all of that. We have a real job to do on that, and that sits almost above what you are talking about. There is always going to be the puts and takes of the political parties, but there is a bigger topic here, which is verification. Those programmes are getting more valuable: “Reality Check”, “More or Less”—all these programmes. There is a real need for us to be at the centre with proper data. That is what we have to do.
Damian Green: Do you have a strategy for saying to 16 to 34-year-olds, “This is why you should trust us rather than TikTok or Facebook”?
Tim Davie: That is what I am saying. That is probably one of the next phases of the work. The answer is: we need to be more front-footed about that.
Q55 Damian Green: Okay, thanks. You just mentioned the commercial income. It is clear in the wider atmosphere of a frozen licence fee that this commercial income is going to become more and more important, and indeed it has gone up. Is that a trend, do you think? What are your predictions for the years ahead?
Tim Davie: There is real potential for the commercial arm. We have to be careful—this Committee has been a good and nuanced discussion—that that does not lead to a scenario in which you can abandon the licence fee. You are not close to that, but it is hugely material to our ability to mitigate some of the things we talked about earlier and to invest in programming. You know about some of the ridiculous episode prices—you look at “Lord of the Rings”, and I heard the price for “Stranger Things”. It is really difficult. The good news is that our drama is on rather spectacular form and doing well, but the short answer on the commercial arm is: yes, we see real potential, both on the production side and on the direct-to-consumer side.
Q56 Damian Green: What was the thinking around moving global news into BBC Studios?
Tim Davie: Simply put, there was a lot of duplication in terms of the ad sales capability, HR departments—just back office. Global news was essentially a break-even-at-best business, but by selling the channel as a package—by the way, the editorial control through news remains. It is just simply that it made a lot of sense to do that. I think that is a no-brainer, frankly.
Q57 Damian Green: And your aim for that is to break even, is it?
Tim Davie: I think over time you want to see some margin from that and use the efficiencies to get to profit. I do not think you are looking at transformational numbers to the BBC’s finances—put it that way. Is that a fair summary, Leigh?
Leigh Tavaziva: Yes, that is correct.
Q58 Damian Green: You make the point that the editorial control stays as it was. I have a related question about children’s productions, which are now inside BBC Studios as well. Clearly, children’s programming is an area of real danger in the new world that we all know is here—particularly children’s programmes that have a British voice. This seems to be one of the prime things the BBC should be doing, so is there any effect there on the editorial content?
Tim Davie: None at all. Just like natural history, the BBC commissioner who is spending our money to find the right programming is fully empowered to buy from the production side of the BBC. The logic of Studios is really straightforward. You could not have put it better: I think we are under real pressure in terms of British children’s programming and retaining talent.
I urge you, if you want to visit—there is an invite—to go to Bristol to the Natural History Unit. A few years ago, they had about 400 people working there. On last count, we had about 800 people on our books—that is not all full time. We are doing projects. We have attracted the talent and kept the talent. By the way, watch “Frozen Planet II”, which is just coming, and see how we are delivering for the BBC. It is sensational.
My view is that model does not erode our capabilities. Quite the reverse: it builds our capability to keep talent and do the very things you are talking about.
Q59 Damian Green: What is the equivalent? You have given us the numbers on natural history. What are the equivalent children’s numbers?
Tim Davie: I cannot remember. I can give you them. We are at the foothills for this one because we have just done the transfer. What you do is you take across the children’s department, and then they can win work for the BBC and beyond as a British production house. We will be in the midst of that change at the moment and sorting out what it looks like in Studios. We are not at the point of that growth. Who knows where that goes in the future in terms of the growth it can deliver.
Q60 Damian Green: Do you think children’s programming can become a profit centre for the BBC?
Tim Davie: Without a doubt. The commercial arm would not take it unless it could see a rich profit, just so you know. Part of what we do, as you know, is that we have clear EBITDA targets in terms of return. This is a fully-functioning commercial arm that needs to deliver profit. It is not a subsidy operation, and the board oversee that from a fair trading point of view, absolutely. So no, Studios is not forced to do this stuff. Studios, under strong leadership, looks at things as a business case, and it is convinced by it.
Q61 Chair: I want to go back to something you alluded to earlier. Let me start off with having axed “Inside Out”, which we talked about on your first appearance here, via Zoom. I raised issues then about its replacement not having investigative journalists. That has now been axed. The lack of investigative journalists probably was a big factor in the disaster that “We Are England” was. You now seem to have abandoned any guarantee of a future dedicated series of regional current affairs programmes on BBC One. Do you think you have an obligation to licence fee payers in the regions to provide primetime airtime to cover issues that are specifically relevant to them?
Tim Davie: Yes, but not necessarily always in a bespoke 30-hour format in the way we have done. I don’t think that does—
Q62 Chair: How do you see that panning out?
Tim Davie: How I see that panning out? By the way, you are right: it has been a journey.
Chair: I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so.
Tim Davie: It links to the point about local and some of the choices that we are making. The good news is that in the future, we are looking at a team of 80 people in terms of investigative journalism. That is up from 45 who were working on “We Are England”—we can talk about the exact scope and this, that and the other. That is 11 investigative teams. By the way, it is quite exciting for us to have 11 investigative teams doing nothing but proper investigative journalism. When they have those stories, the biggest—
Q63 Chair: Where are they going to be based?
Tim Davie: They are across the country. I can give you the list of cities, but they are across the country. They are certainly not sitting in London. Those stories will then feed into the 6.30s, feed into online. If we get a big story, we can give them half an hour and a programme. I stick to my view that what did not work for “Inside Out” was having hours and hours of real estate to fill. I would much rather have 80 people looking at investigative stories and doing the work.
We may come to this in other areas, but most people are getting their news, by a country mile, through the mobile phone, through online. We need to make sure those stories are going through those.
Q64 Chair: It is not just news, is it? It is those investigative stories that were relevant to regions.
Tim Davie: I totally agree.
Q65 Chair: If you are just going to show them on the news every now and again and not on primetime BBC One, that isn’t really fulfilling your obligation, I don’t think.
Tim Davie: We need to do full justice to the investigation. You have seen the BBC do some investigations over the years, and even recently. There are various formats. Whether we go for a half an hour programme or whatever, we will do justice to those investigations and those teams. That is what we have to do. What I do not think has worked for “Inside Out” or “We Are England” is having vast amounts of BBC One real estate and just the objective to fill it, as opposed—to your point—to going out and getting those investigations done. Then we can decide how we publish them. That could be long reads, it could be features on the 6.30, it could be a half an hour programme on BBC One. That flexibility is the right thing. The key is investigative capability. I really believe that.
Q66 Chair: Have you asked Ofcom to allow you to abandon or reduce your minimum quota of regional current affairs minutes on BBC One?
Tim Davie: I would have to check that. I do not know where we are with Ofcom on that, actually.
Q67 Chair: Can you advise the Committee?
Tim Davie: Yes, we will come back to you on that one.
Chair: That is a very serious point and we need to know whether you have asked Ofcom that. I think what you are proposing is actually in breach of what you currently should be doing. I don’t think it is in line with it at all, so if you could let us know that—
Tim Davie: We will send a note back to you on that, of course.
Q68 Chair: Great. You have talked a lot about growth opportunity around the world, the deficit in democracy—all these things—and the appointment of your new Director of News this week, yet the BBC announced in summer this massive change of getting rid of the BBC news channel. Why are you closing that domestic BBC news channel when it is charged under the operating licence to cover more local and regional news than its commercial rivals?
Richard Sharp: Let me make an overarching point, which I think the Committee needs to grapple with. We as a board are grappling with it. This is an organisation that has had a 30% reduction in real terms over the last 10 years, and then, on top of that, it is now facing, in real terms, probably another 13% this year and then another 10% beyond.
Chair: Hang on a minute—
Richard Sharp: No, I am coming to it.
Chair: No, I am in the Chair.
Richard Sharp: I beg your pardon.
Chair: I asked a question, which I would like answered, and then I am happy for you to come in with the financials. It was a very straightforward question: why are you closing the domestic BBC news channel when—
Richard Sharp: I was explaining that there is a financial aspect to some of these decisions we are having to take, which will cover this area. There are difficult financial decisions we are having to make as a result of it, including consolidation.
Chair: It is not consolidation. This is closing the BBC domestic news channel, which is a huge thing to do.
Tim Davie: If I may, we are closing the news channel and the global news channel, and we are launching a live channel that will go into the UK. It will be broadcast from London throughout the day, by the way.
Chair: But aimed at a global audience.
Tim Davie: We will have a UK stream and a global stream. By the way, I am utterly unapologetic—sorry. Having two completely separate organisations in a world in which I think yesterday 18 million people came to the news site—we have vast amounts of volume coming through online now. These changes are fundamental. If you look at how many people are actually consuming linear news, it is reducing fast.
Q69 Chair: You have an obligation under your operating licence.
Tim Davie: And absolutely we will deliver on that. Now, what will you see in the UK? By the way, many of these pressures come because we have had to move fast, based on some of the funding issues we have. But if you go to any newsroom in the world, the idea that we are just going to sit investing that amount of resources on linear and not have any capability to invest in digital would be wrong.
Then you get to your question directly: what is the provision in the UK? We are working through that—we are in consultation—but just to be clear, UK audiences will have a stream. There will be an overwhelming amount of UK content. Obviously, you have “Breakfast”—you have strands that we already put across both news channels. We will have a team that can handle new and breaking news.
Q70 Chair: But they will not be there in the studio ready to act the way the BBC news channel would be.
Tim Davie: We will have a small team that can always react to any major—
Q71 Chair: But will they be in the studio ready to go when something happens?
Tim Davie: They will be able to go into the studio.
Chair: They will be able to go into the studio?
Tim Davie: Yes. They will not be sitting in the studio because we may be doing an opt-out—
Q72 Chair: So the reaction to live stories will be less than it is now, if people are not already there doing the job. It has to be.
Tim Davie: It is marginal.
Chair: It depends where they are travelling from, I would suggest.
Tim Davie: Just to be clear—this is really important because this model is around the world—there will be a news live team there, who are able to react to events.
Chair: Who will be called in to cover the story.
Tim Davie: No, they are on the ground.
Q73 Chair: But when you have a live 24-hour news channel, you have people there working on it, you have the back-up, you have everything there. If something breaks—the BBC has been very good at this—and starts to unfold, the presenters are talking about it straightaway. The people are there, following it up—the backroom staff, whatever roles they play.
Tim Davie: Sure, and we want to continue that.
Chair: It cannot be as reactive if you do not have a team already there, broadcasting.
Tim Davie: Let’s just go through a day. You have “Breakfast”, where we are reacting, so what are we talking about here? Then we propose that Nicky Campbell, which I think will be a good show, will have phone-in. I think getting more voices on that channel rather than—
Chair: That is just broadcasting the radio.
Tim Davie: What is wrong with that?
Chair: It is not news. That is broadcasting a radio programme. That is not news.
Tim Davie: I understand that, but Nicky Campbell is a fantastic journalist who can break a story on air. The fact that he is sitting in a radio studio that can be visualised versus a desk—it is for UK audiences. That is what 5 Live does every day. That is how the media will work. I think it is absolutely appropriate that we make these decisions.
Q74 Chair: What percentage of this new, global-facing programme is going to be devoted to news? What percentage is going to be regional and local news?
Tim Davie: When you say regional and local, you mean the local?
Chair: Yes.
Tim Davie: I do not know yet. We are working through and are in consultation. It would be premature of me to say exactly the hours as we go through.
Chair: You must have some idea of where you are aiming this.
Tim Davie: We have all the various strands that we do. You’ve got “Breakfast”, you’ve got the six, you’ve got the one, you’ve got the various gaps. When you have a global show, you will have advertising time that you can give regional and local stories in. The idea that we invest more heavily in linear at this point, when I need the capability to make sure—the audiences in the daytime for the news channel are important, but they are much smaller.
Q75 Chair: You have just invested £16 million in doing up the studios for news and that is linear, yet you are saying linear is not important.
Tim Davie: I am not saying that linear is not important. I am saying that in terms of the way the market is moving—this is not me driving the market—a linear news channel will only get you so many people. If you talk to people outside in the street, we are not seeing big audiences coming to the news channel; the big audiences are for live and breaking stories—
Q76 Chair: Do you think the big audiences will come when you go global facing and you are reporting more stories from around the world?
Tim Davie: No, I don’t. I think the structural challenges for broadcast linear mean you are not going to see vast growth in people watching broadcast news, day to day. I say that with a somewhat heavy heart because I am a traditionalist to a degree, but people will be looking at their phones, as they do in the Committee. They will look at a stream and they will look at those live streams, and we need to make sure they are world-class and invest in them.
Q77 Chair: Are you seeking to have the operating licence diluted?
Tim Davie: No.
Q78 Chair: You’re not?
Tim Davie: Well, we are talking to Ofcom. As you know, Ofcom has put out a statement saying it wants to keep an eye on the plans but does not see it as a material change.
Q79 Chair: How do you justify sanctioning what will amount to a democratic deficit, in my view—as pointed out recently by the TUC—when you cannot properly cover issues that matter to the UK but not to the rest of the world? That question is really important, bearing in mind what you have said to this Committee this morning about democratic deficits.
Tim Davie: It is critical. Just to be clear, this does not affect our news-gathering capability and all the thousands of journalists in the BBC who are doing brilliant work, generating stories locally, regionally and nationally. They will do their work. We are talking about a distribution platform. We are not talking about the commissioning of stories. That is not materially affected by this proposal.
Q80 Chair: Have you been up-front with Ofcom about this being a material change that would require a public interest test, or a licence fee—
Tim Davie: We are being very clear with Ofcom. We are briefing them on what we are doing.
Q81 Chair: Have you said that it is a material change? I think it is a material change.
Tim Davie: I have not said it is a material change. That is for them to judge. What my team has described is what we are doing.
Q82 Chair: Richard Sharp, do you think it is a material change? Are you comfortable with this?
Richard Sharp: Yes, I am comfortable.
Q83 Chair: Do you feel you are getting all the information from the organisation that you need to make a judgment on this?
Richard Sharp: Yes. There is a process in the plans. As the Director-General has said, they are formulating the plans and they are consulting with the teams involved. It is a painful process and, as I was trying to explain, we will have to continue to have painful processes at the BBC as a result of the funding.
We have to ensure that we maintain the standards of output so that when the final plan is brought to the board, in terms of the execution, we will be looking at the issues you raise. I am quite happy to communicate with you where we get to on that, because you raise a very important point. We still want to ensure that the domestic consumer is receiving the information—the news—in a timely fashion and in a way that is effective with the domestic audience.
Q84 Chair: Do you not think it would have been more appropriate to wait? You have just appointed this new director. You have had an interim director. Would it not have been more appropriate to wait for the person who is going to be responsible for news to come in, look at what is going on and then propose changes than to do this while you have somebody interim and come up with these ideas that I have to say I am very worried about? I am very worried about them.
I am not opposed to having global news. I am very interested in foreign policy, but I worry that people in this country rely on the BBC for that very factual local, regional, national and international news, and if this domestic programme is now not going to be there and it is going to be globally faced, I think you are going put audiences off, not draw them in. I do not think the vast majority of people in this country want to see lots and lots of global news. They are much more interested in what is going on in their own surroundings, their own regions and their own country. Would it not have been better to wait to do this properly and perhaps take wider counsel on what is appropriate?
Tim Davie: We are in consultation and we are also talking to the new director of news, but I think we are set on this plan. Your concerns are concerns that we wrestle with internally. They are absolutely the right concerns.
Chair: I am not opposed to modernisation.
Tim Davie: They are absolutely the right concerns. I want to be clear about this. They are absolutely the right concerns. This is what the board can oversee: are we providing a service that is relevant to UK users? There are questions: does visualised radio really dilute? What does that look like? We are very sensitive to that, but we are facing enormous market changes. There is not a newsroom in the world that is not going through radical modernisation.
We are looking at the numbers coming to the news channel versus those coming to online. People say we could do with better resources for our online capabilities, news on iPlayer, and we have a 30% cut in real terms over 10 years, and we are not closing a UK stream. The question is: what results from these changes and what does it look like for UK audiences? Ofcom has said it is not a material change on a first look, but it has said—you can have a look at the letter—“Absolutely, look at what the changes look like. We need to keep an eye on this.” The board will see the final proposals. I think we are all healthily worried in the way you are about that. We are just trying to find an answer that makes sense.
With respect, what I do not think is right is having two completely separate operations. This is not a criticism of any individuals, who are outstanding, brilliant people. I was on the floor; they do wonderful work. This is not a criticism of anyone, but having completely separate organisations doing completely separate things with no sense of where you overlap—there is some sharing of programming, but we are way away, in the modern world, from having a properly effective operation to deliver 24-hour news. I think the new director of news will be supportive of that.
Chair: We will wait and see. I will be interested to see the information you send us.
Q85 John Nicolson: Can I pursue that a little bit more? I sent out a tweet, as I often do, to ask BBC staff and others what they are most concerned about and invited people to send me direct messages. Since I have been on this Committee, the three issues that have most exercised BBC staff are equal pay; the over-75s licence settlement, where BBC staff were clearly right and the management was wrong, because you have had to make serious cuts because of that; and now this issue of the merging of the channels.
From a journalistic perspective, how do you provide news that is as relevant to Kyiv as it is to Carlisle on a channel, on an ongoing basis?
Tim Davie: It depends on the story, Mr Nicolson. You have a variety of output. You have two things, actually. One is that you look at your line-up. As the Chair said, there are relevant global stories—by the way, we do it already with programming, where we share with global news. There are programmes—international business and other areas and topics—that I think are very useful to UK audiences. You also have to set that in the context of the UK audience to linear news channels and what that looks like. That is the first thing.
The second thing is we are building into the schedule—with respect, we will have to go through the consultation and see what that schedule looks like, but I think there will be a lot of space for UK coverage and our ability to do that.
Finally, if I may, you have capability to deal with breaking stories. The BBC has good capability in that and being able to break them. That was the Chair's fair concern: when a big story breaks, how do we get it out there? That is what we need to look at.
Q86 John Nicolson: If I am sitting in Kyiv, I am simply not going to be interested in what the rainfall is in Carlisle. I am not. I am not going to be interested in the road conditions in Liverpool. The danger surely is—
Tim Davie: But we are not going to be giving you that. We will have the global stream. They will come together at certain parts, but there is a global stream. We are not going to give people the traffic in Reading if they are sitting in Montreal. That is not going to be happening, to be very clear.
Q87 John Nicolson: Just to try to understand it, I know that you are going to simulcast the big news programmes—“Breakfast”, presumably the BBC 1 o’clock news, and so on—throughout the day. But if it is outwith those times—if it is 3 o’clock, say—and there is a major traffic accident outside Liverpool, are you saying that you are not going to cut away to that?
Tim Davie: No, I have just told you exactly the opposite. I said we will have a new news and breaking team available to go on air.
Q88 John Nicolson: Am I going to be watching that if I am in Kyiv?
Tim Davie: No.
John Nicolson: No?
Tim Davie: Well, unless you’re—no.
John Nicolson: We are just all trying to understand how this is going to work.
Tim Davie: No, because there is a global stream. We do not need to switch the global stream across.
Q89 John Nicolson: Right. So throughout the day, if there is a breaking news story, you will cut away from whatever is on and go purely domestic. Is that correct?
Tim Davie: Just to be clear, there are two streams. They are managed by one team. It is not a merger. You are closing both channels. It is not a merger; you are closing the channel and then you have two streams. The streams can be managed by one operation and they can make the sensible editorial decisions that you are only too aware of and you have done in your past.
Q90 John Nicolson: That is interesting, because your own staff do not seem to think this is the way it is going to work, including some of your own presenters—some of your own on-air staff—from both channels.
Tim Davie: There are plenty of valid concerns but we are in consultation.
Q91 John Nicolson: That seems such a simple thing to explain to them. It is extraordinary that these journalists, whose job it is to interview people and understand relatively complicated issues and to distil them, seem to be labouring under such misapprehensions about this. Why do you think you have not managed to persuade your staff of how this will work?
Tim Davie: Because we are in consultation and wanted to talk about those things and see how the streams would work. But I take your point and thank you for the feedback.
Q92 John Nicolson: How many journalists are going to work on this and what job cuts will be involved?
Tim Davie: Overall, we are looking at cutting 46 roles. We currently have 162 roles across the news channel and world news. That will be 116 roles. Linked to that—it is also pretty tough—we also have 33.5 roles on other teams supporting. The net change will be closure of 79.5 roles. We are creating seven new roles in Radio 5 Live so the net is 72.5. For what it is worth, we are also creating 20 new roles in Washington, but that is not going to help unless people want to move. Overall, we are looking at 72 to 73 role closures. Then you get into how we can redeploy. People are moving across the BBC. We do everything in terms of reskilling. How do we make that work? That is the challenge for us.
Q93 John Nicolson: Am I correct that adverts will continue to be run on the international broadcasts?
Tim Davie: Yes.
Q94 John Nicolson: As we know, you cannot use any part of the licence fee for commercial purposes of this type. Am I right in that?
Tim Davie: You can only use it within fair trading guidelines and then cost recover. It is quite complex. As long as the commercial arm pays fair value for what it is getting, then public service programming—natural history programming or news—may be used in commercial services. But there has to be a fair price paid for it.
Q95 John Nicolson: Are you concerned that some of the BBC’s competitors are going to say that this is not fair competition and that they might have a point because they will say there is cross-fertilisation—that you are using licence fee money to help news broadcasts that compete directly against them as commercial broadcasters?
Tim Davie: All I would say is that we have a very robust fair-trading regime overseen by the Chairman and the board and they can address any concerns, but I do not think I have concerns in that area.
Q96 John Nicolson: On the question of staffing, it is not a lot of journalists, is it, to handle a big breaking news story as it comes in? I did 11 September at the BBC and I just remember one of the great strengths of the BBC was you were suddenly surrounded—because for the first 10 minutes we knew nothing, and then later on we almost knew too much. There was so much coming in to be processed. One of the great strengths was the people—the journalists. If you are sitting there as the news presenter, people are coming in to help you. Are you comfortable that with staff pruned back to that level, setting aside the question of different editorial priorities, you could cope with a major breaking news event?
Tim Davie: There are two points. One is that 136 people—that is the 20 in Washington and 116 in London—to run the news broadcast streams is a good number. I do not think it is quite as simple as that, because the news-gathering operation—Chris Mason and all the political reporters—are there to serve news. It is not as if they are sitting there without support. We have hundreds of journalists in our news-gathering operation that fill our outlets.
By the way, the biggest tension for most people is not that—where you are going. It is the demand on those journalists to fill online streams, radio programmes and all of that. That is the biggest tension for the news channel—who they get on air. That does not change. The hundreds of journalists who are there in our news-gathering operation are there to serve the news streams, the channels, the live; they are all there. Do I think 116 people—136 in total—versus 162 can manage it? Yes, I do.
Q97 Giles Watling: I would like to go back to the licence fee. The licence fee trust statement said that in 2021-22 licence fee evasion had risen to 8.93% compared with 6.95% in 2019-20. That is nearly one in 10 evasion. How much is that figure to do with the change in the age-related concession?
Leigh Tavaziva: Do you mean in the over-75s?
Giles Watling: Yes.
Leigh Tavaziva: You are right: it has increased over the last two years by a couple of percentage points. There are a number of reasons that drive that. Of course, there is changing behaviour—media market behaviour and watching behaviour—which we have talked a lot about already. Over the last two years, including in the last year, we have also seen fewer visits—fewer of our visiting officers attending households—and that will have some level of reduction on enforcement.
Specifically on the over-75s, when they were receiving free licences they were not evading at all, so they were 100% covered. We have seen similar levels—you talked about one in 10. Nine in 10 addresses remain correctly licenced, and we see the same trend across the general population in the over-75s now as we do more generally.
Q98 Giles Watling: This is a very serious issue, isn’t it, because it undermines the entire licence fee argument? As we know, that argument is up in the air at the moment—people are calling for it to be abolished and so on. What are you going to do about enforcement? You say there is a lack of enforcement. How do you beef it up? One in 10 are evading now.
Leigh Tavaziva: Well, the 90% of addresses across the United Kingdom that are correctly licensed is still a very significant portion of people who watch the BBC and who have continued to correctly pay for their licences. Evasion is challenging for the BBC. We pay particular attention to that. We work particularly hard with the TV licensing unit to ensure that where we are making visits, we are following them through. We are ensuring that those who do genuinely pay their licence fee are not subsidising those who choose not to. That is important. The licence fee is not perfect but it does need an enforcement mechanism. I think that is right, because by far and away—90%, as I just described—people are paying their licences correctly.
Q99 Giles Watling: We have the cost of living crisis coming down the road at us very fast indeed. Some measures must be taken to ensure that you receive the moneys that you should be getting through the licence fee, but how do you help people access the BBC?
Leigh Tavaziva: The cost of living challenge is hugely difficult for many people. Of course, the licence fee is being held flat over the next two years, so that is not increasing, and we are seeing increases in competitors who are putting up their prices despite those challenges. We also see that the licence fee remains very good value for money. We talked last year about how we did some analysis showing that if you were to get an equivalent set of subscription services for the range of the services the BBC offers you across radio, online news and television watching that was advertising free, last year that would have cost you £450, in comparison to £159 a year on the licence fee.
The licence fee remains good value. Absolutely critical to us is ensuring that we continue to deliver that value for audiences, and that audiences see themselves—portrayal—and enjoy and value those services. That is central to the strategy that we continue to run and will focus on.
Q100 Giles Watling: Do not get me wrong, I am a fan of the licence fee. I feel it helps with impartiality and all the other issues we have been discussing. It is just that it has to be dealt with evenly and equitably, as you say. Is technology helping you chase the evasion of the licence fee?
Leigh Tavaziva: There are some places where technology will help us—email matching for those who watch the iPlayer, for example. We will be able to use technology to identify where people are watching the iPlayer. But of course, one of the reasons why we still have the licence fee is that there is no gating process for linear TV watching across the United Kingdom. Until we have technology that enables us to gate linear TV services, and match and directly link a person in a premise with watching linear TV, then that continues to be a challenge on enforcement.
Yes, we use technology in small areas, particularly around digital watching where we can, but on broadcast linear TV services we do not yet have the technology across the UK to gate those.
Q101 Giles Watling: Can I just bring in a very personal part of this? At one point I had a flat in London where I did not have a television and I did not watch television; I just used it as a crash pad. I was bothered by the enforcement on a regular basis and eventually had an interview. They just could not believe that I would not be watching television on any of my devices in the flat. I was just literally using it as a crash pad. Eventually they accepted my argument. This must go on and cost a fortune. I imagine that introduction of accurate technological back-up would be vital to make sure that you get this right.
Leigh Tavaziva: One of the absolute challenges for linear broadcast television and access to BBC services, and our ability to gate those, is a fundamental requirement to changing the funding model. That is absolutely something that we will be looking at.
Tim Davie: It is a very interesting point. One of the flip-sides to this is that the access of open broadcast services—DTT—means you do not know who is watching. You then have the effort of collecting the licence fee, which is curiously effective in that, and the team do an excellent job. I apologise for the chasing, but the wheelspin is somewhat minimal in terms of the way the team work. We do not have gated technology. One thing you can say is that the BBC is open access. The wonder of this model is that once you have paid you can just get everything.
You are right to raise the concern. This is grade 1 issue for the board in everything: are we offering people enough value? Not many people thought that in 2021-22 we would be taking more in receipt from the licence fee than the year before, which was good news. That is the good news. There are a lot of encouraging signs. Close to 90% of people in the UK are still using the BBC every week.
We are reviewing the annual report. This summer we had the jubilee, the Euros—I know we go through all the issues, but creatively and editorially we are in really good form. Those numbers hold up. The reason I am going there is that usage relates directly to payment.
Q102 Giles Watling: The graph is going the wrong way, is it not, inasmuch as evasion is increasing? We do not know where it is going to go and you must take measures to ensure that it does not get worse.
Tim Davie: One hundred per cent. All we can do is make sure that we are running a highly efficient licence fee operation and where there is evasion, we are closing that off in the right way. Absolutely right. That is fair.
Q103 Giles Watling: Including visits to my flat. I would like to move on to the local democracy reporters scheme. I gather that the scheme has recently increased from 150 to 165 local democracy reporters.
Tim Davie: Yes.
Giles Watling: But there was a very critical evaluation of the scheme, the Cairncross review, about the management. Do you think you need to alter or improve the management of the scheme in any way?
Tim Davie: I think, overall, it has been an incredibly successful scheme. There is lots of debate, but to have those 165 reporters—I have met some of them. There were some things that we wanted to keep looking at, including—I have talked to the NMA and others—are we making sure we are supplying a broad range? The answer to your question is that, obviously, I think we can keep improving, but I see it in the context of significant success in addressing the democratic deficit of some of the reporting of council meetings and all the work that was going on. I think they have done a really good job. I am very proud of the work the BBC has done there. They are supplying a lot of outlets. I think we are in a good state.
We need to keep doing the work we are doing. In my view—you might have different thoughts in terms of how we keep developing—one thing is to ensure that we keep the supply base wide. The market is quite consolidated outside the BBC. I looked at it: we have increased the number of LDR contracts from 68 to 118, and the maximum size of each individual contract from six reporters to three. We have tried to atomise it a bit so that more people get served. The number of supplier organisations increased—I know this was a concern for everyone—from 10 to 18. The short answer to your question is: I think it is a very successful scheme but we need to keep working on it.
Q104 Giles Watling: You did say in January that not every area of the BBC has protected status. Did you mean that perhaps this scheme is under review?
Tim Davie: Not that I am aware of as Director-General. I am a big supporter of the scheme. I think it is excellent.
Q105 Giles Watling: It was also stated in the report that LDRs are displacing existing reporters.
Tim Davie: We have not seen evidence of that. If you have specific evidence I am all ears, but we have not seen evidence of that. I will just say that.
Giles Watling: That was part of the Cairncross review.
Tim Davie: No, I understand it. I am just saying that I asked the question. The simple point is we do not want that to take place. This is meant to be filling in gaps that were not being served and there was a democratic deficit. If there is specific evidence of that happening now we are all ears. What I know is that we are widening the supply base and making sure that the local market is served across all the various companies. The problem is 83% of all local titles are controlled by six publishers, so it is quite centralised anyway. That is where I focus. There is concern about displacement but I have not seen hard evidence.
Giles Watling: If we find it we will pass it on to you.
Tim Davie: Thank you.
Q106 Giles Watling: The other question is that as it is funded it works like a franchise, I gather, so you fund it but you use Newsquest, Reach or whoever to operate it. Does this drive down the wages in that sector?
Tim Davie: No, I do not think so. We have looked at the wages. The original minimum salary—because you have a minimum—was benchmarked against industry standards in 2018. There is a minimum but there is no maximum. It has increased every year. There is no intent at all from our side, apart from to be paying in line with market and have the right minimum. Again, I will look at the data. There is always concern about the minimum pay, but it looks like we are in roughly the right place. If I am right, the current minimum salary outside London is £23,700. That is the minimum. Again, I am all ears. We just want to make the scheme work. I would say, by the way, that this has value to the BBC as well because it has generated 273,000 stories that would not have been told. It is pretty impressive. We, as the BBC, can feed off that as well—it is not just the commissioning organisation.
Giles Watling: Very focused on local democracy—
Tim Davie: Totally focused. I am interested in feedback. I am very supportive. It relates to the earlier challenge from another Committee member around local. This is all part of the jigsaw.
Q107 Giles Watling: Thank you. Something occurred to me when we were talking about reorganisation of the BBC in general. You will be delighted to know that we are moving on to the performing arts side of things. In the days of Marmaduke Hussey and—I have forgotten his name? Was it Michael Checkland, who was the DG, way back?
Tim Davie: Probably. They come; they go.
Giles Watling: Absolutely. We had the rehearsal rooms in Acton, the seven storeys with a cafeteria on top, and we had the doughnut with the executives at the top of the doughnut in Shepherd’s Bush. There was an enormous amount—the words were used just now—of cross-fertilisation at the BBC in those days. You had writers, actors, directors and producers all working together in those rehearsal rooms. From personal experience, I know that incredible things were created out of that. The BBC split and divided and we all went off to village halls to rehearse. How do you ensure creative cross-fertilisation within the BBC?
Tim Davie: I recognise the challenge, because I think that is how a lot of great creative work happens. One of the things we have seen in Broadcasting House are all these hubs. They are—forgive the jargon—multi-genre. There is a buzz in good BBC buildings editorially. If you go to Cardiff or other places, you sense it. Live broadcasting is there. I think everyone feeds on each other.
I still think if you go to the radio drama studio in New Broadcasting House, or you go to other places, you get a bit of that buzz. I do not think things have disintegrated completely.
Q108 Giles Watling: We have not thrown the baby out with the bathwater?
Tim Davie: I do not think so.
Q109 Dr Huq: My heart always swells with pride when I hear the word Acton. I worked at the BBC when everyone was paid from Ealing. Villiers House was on all our payslips in those days. This is my first outing at this annual thing, so it is nice to meet the three of you. Tim Davie, I am guessing there is no danger you will be on the ballot paper in College Park and Old Oak ever again?
Tim Davie: There is no danger of that.
Dr Huq: Good, because it is coming into my seat.
Tim Davie: It was quite a few decades ago. It tells you about the voodoo of it—I mean, it was quite a few decades ago.
Dr Huq: It was the last century for all of us.
Tim Davie: I am glad others are active in that area.
Q110 Dr Huq: I want to ask about the on-air talent bill, and then I have a little bit about the other stuff people have been talking about what might be for the chop with this painful financial process that Richard Sharp described. The wage bill for on-air talent this year is flat, isn’t it, but the number of £150,000-plus people has gone up? How did that happen? Was that by cutting middle management or something?
Tim Davie: Are you talking about on-air talent or are you talking about the—
Dr Huq: On-air talent. The figures we have are that the overall—
Tim Davie: No, you are absolutely right. Overall about flat; the senior people slightly up. I have to say that if we took everyone down to £150,000—I know this is highly sensitive territory—that would save the BBC £5.1 million out of £3.7 billion. I am in no way being flippant about it because they are sensitive and it is important we show restraint, but the numbers are quite small.
Q111 Dr Huq: But the number over £150,000 has gone up. Isn’t that right?
Tim Davie: Yes. I am coming to that. I am just giving you the quantum to start off with, which is about £5 million of spend: if you took everyone down to £150,000 you are into quite small numbers. That top talent—I think it is about 74 of them—are in the programming that delivers about 40% of our impacts. From a purely ruthless perspective of how you get audiences, it is a very effective way in which we spend our money. Having said all that, we are trying to show as much restraint as possible.
The market is as lively as it has ever been. I have been in this Committee many times being told, “Mr Davie, you’ve got no market for news talent.” I do not think we can quite say that at the moment. The other thing we have is globally people are trying to poach talent. US salaries are going through the roof and you have inflation running pretty high. I think overall we have done a pretty good job.
We have seen that marginal increase in the top tier. We have restrained some of the very top salaries. It remains a sensitive subject. I think overall, the record of the BBC over the last couple of years since I have got to grips with it is pretty good, actually.
Q112 Dr Huq: There is another side to it as well. People say that it is a poacher’s charter—that if it is that transparent, then the opposition knows how much to pitch at to try to lure someone away.
Tim Davie: There lie the joys of transparency.
Dr Huq: I know people who say the opposite.
Tim Davie: Yes, but it absolutely presents risks to us. We are in a very competitive market and it is sensitive, but people really value great talent. I think we are doing outstandingly well. There is all this noise around movement and this, that and the other. Actually, we have had about 3% voluntary redundancy in terms of our presenters. We have an incredible base of talent. We have always been a place where you grow talent as well, and we should see fresh talent coming through. Obviously there is always noise when we refresh our line-ups. We have seen a bit of that but, overall, I think we are doing a good job in very tough circumstances.
Q113 Dr Huq: There has been a bit of an exodus. Emily Maitlis’s name keeps cropping up, and there are a few people who have gone to these right-wing channels with zero viewers. Can you see why, to the public—we have mentioned that there is an almighty cost of living crisis, fuel crisis, whatever—it looks unjustifiable to have anyone on £500,000 a year in a public sector organisation? There will always be people who do that job. A few years ago, with “The One Show”, did they not have a clear out and get people who were half-price? Now they are household names.
Tim Davie: I think we have a good record of doing that, but there is a balance. I absolutely know this is incredibly sensitive. I do think we are in a competitive situation that is different from, if I may, being in a Government Department or something. We are competing with very live direct competitors who want to poach our talent. We have kept the numbers fairly restrained. We are below inflation. I think we have done a good job. But I take your point. By the way, you can always make the argument, and it is valid, that someone can present a programme, but we talked earlier about presenters who have that connection. They are worth a lot. If you are paying the money, you want things you value. I think we have the balance right. It is sensitive, it is difficult and we are showing restraint.
Q114 Dr Huq: Is the way it is going, if you do your Mystic Meg bit, that you will have to fund inflation from this very tortured settlement that you have? Is it going to be going downwards?
Tim Davie: The pay bill?
Dr Huq: Yes.
Tim Davie: I do not necessarily think that is the case, because we will keep—I use the word “restraint”. But we are in a market, and keeping the best talent is one of the bigger priorities for me. It is right up there. On a budget of £3.7 billion of public service income—I do not want to be flippant about it in any way, shape or form—this is a relatively small amount of our budget. It is highly sensitive, quite rightly so. I actually think investing in that talent is the right thing to do, so I would put that high up my priority list. They are the people who have a connection with audiences and they are the people that people want to spend time with in the morning, on the radio, on the television and others. I do take your challenge that we should be bringing new people through as well, definitely.
Q115 Dr Huq: With the gender, disability and LGBTQ pay gaps going down, is that not a bad look to the public?
Leigh Tavaziva: Do you mean the pay gap is increasing?
Dr Huq: Yes, and I think there has not even been a report since the one that was 2019 and 2020 on gender pay. That has not happened for this—
Leigh Tavaziva: No, our gender pay gap reporting is included in our annual report and accounts.
Dr Huq: There used to be a separate thing.
Leigh Tavaziva: Yes. We have the full gender pay gap reporting included and published in the annual report and accounts, and then an equality information report, which is published online. All that information continues to be available.
Q116 Dr Huq: Are you addressing the fact that these things look to be going backwards?
Leigh Tavaziva: We have seen changes in our pay gaps. Our pay gaps are relatively low, particularly when compared with the national average and compared with our media competitors, across all the diverse characteristics. When they get low and you are looking at small numbers, movements in and out will move those pay gaps up and down slightly. We are seeing that across many industries as well.
That does not mean at all that we are complacent about it. We manage and monitor our pay gaps. They are part of our regular monthly reporting. They are changing because we are seeing different characteristics coming in at different layers in the organisation. As we drive more to create greater diversity across the BBC—we have talked a lot about 50:20:12. As we progress and move towards those numbers, we are seeing that we are bringing greater diversity into the more junior levels of the organisation, particularly to increase talent and invest in the future talent pipeline. We could do more to bring in more diversity at senior levels and that would also help us.
Q117 Dr Huq: I am just having a flashback to when “Blue Peter” presenter Konnie Huq was being paid less than her male compatriots at the turn of the century. I am hoping it is being addressed, because I think she was awesome.
Tim Davie: I think the earlier question about equal pay is critical.
Dr Huq: Yes, true. They are two different things, as any trade union rep will explain.
Tim Davie: With respect, that is why I bite, because equal pay is non-negotiable, legal, and we are not—
Dr Huq: Yes, it has been going on for a while in your organisation.
Tim Davie: I just want to be clear. We gave you the numbers earlier, and we are watching them. We have driven that down—in an organisation of 20,000 people we are at a handful of cases. One case is too many but you get my point. I think we have done a good job—that is thanks to work before me as well—on equal pay.
On the pay gap we are better than the media industry by a mile and better than the national one. But—I am going to say something slightly contentious—it is not just about the gender pay gap. It is about what is happening within that. What you do not want to do is restrict yourself in bringing junior people in and driving talent in the organisation by looking solely at that metric. It is important that we can share this, looking by level at what is happening. Our overall diversity numbers are moving in the right direction.
Dr Huq: At the boardroom level as well?
Tim Davie: You can talk to the board, but the answer is yes.
Richard Sharp: Yes.
Q118 Dr Huq: My cousins in Bangladesh used to always say to me that they listened to the BBC when they wanted to hear the truth. Do we have any assurances from this new Prime Minister, who as Foreign Secretary was a cheerleader for the World Service, that that is going to be protected? Do we have clarification?
Richard Sharp: Before the last licence settlement a conversation I had with the Secretary of State was that if it was flat it was going to put extreme pressure on the funding of the World Service from the BBC licence fee payers. Specifically, our duty, as we have discussed, to provide a valued service to domestic households and to have them pay for content that they may not be consuming themselves is going to be extraordinarily challenging, particularly given the amount—a quarter of a billion or so—coming from licence fee payers. That is a serious issue that I look forward to discussing with whoever the new Secretary of State is and, potentially, with the Government, because there is jeopardy now where there was not before.
Q119 Dr Huq: Because again, your international reporting from Kiev and all that is world beating.
Richard Sharp: I understand, and it is a tremendous asset for the UK. It is a tremendous success story for the BBC. It is more valuable now than ever, but there are these very difficult financial issues that have been created by the last settlement.
Q120 Dr Huq: Lastly, with the young audience content fund gone, I think the BBC is one of the—Damian Green touched on it—last British international-standard producers of children’s programmes. All our childhood we remember “Why Don’t You?”, “Blue Peter” and all those things—and “Doctor Who”, which is a crossover. Is it really the right thing to put CBBC online only in the next three years? We all, as constituency MPs, have seen throughout the lockdown that not every family has a plethora of devices whereas everyone has a TV set with whatever—cathode-ray—
Tim Davie: I think we need to tread cautiously. Having said that, anyone with children of that age knows that consumption of—there is no closure of CBBC. We will have CBBC. It is just a question of whether you are paying for linear broadcast distribution and the numbers you are getting on that. All the programming needs to be protected. “Newsround” is doing 3.3 million a week but way beyond the channel.
Q121 Dr Huq: We can all cite examples of people that do not have a lot of—do you know what I mean? The kiddies cannot get online, but everyone has a TV set.
Tim Davie: Absolutely. One of the great challenges for us is paying for the online distribution, but you also have all the broadcast legacy. Welcome to the world of transitioning. I think we need to be careful about how we do that.
Q122 Dr Huq: It is BBC Four as well, is that right? It seems with BBC Three you went the other way; it has come back on the telly.
Tim Davie: We are a little bit shameless on this. What I mean by that is we just want to get to the audience. At the moment with the audience, there is benefit in having the BBC Three shop window in linear, but the numbers for that particular age group on linear television are extremely small. We just have to be led by the data. We want to protect children’s output. There is no scenario in which the BBC is not offering CBBC—a full service, all of that. The question is just distribution.
Q123 Dr Huq: Okay. Can the Kuenssberg thing get better opening titles? I used to like the “On the Record” ones. The snarly dinosaur—bring that back!
Tim Davie: I will pass that on, along with lots of other added value I have had over the last day or two. Thank you.
Q124 Jane Stevenson: I would like to turn to the BBC’s direction on sports coverage. Lots of my constituents have concerns about the licence fee, and when they see some presenters’ salaries, that does cause an issue. However, for those big national moments of sport, the BBC has always had a place. The women’s Euros football final this year was one of those great national moments: 17.4 million people tuned in to watch the final. How is women’s football? I know you have a deal to show coverage until 2024, with Sky showing some matches and the BBC showing some matches. Where is women’s football going to fit into your scheduling?
Tim Davie: It is central. I am really proud of this summer, I have to say, and for the midlands as well—the Commonwealth games. Boy, if you wanted cheering up, a visit to the Commonwealth games and a visit to the Euros was the antidote to a lot of woes. I thought it was sensational. It also critical to the BBC, with value ascribed to the licence fee, but also I think the sports bodies see the idea of having—and thank you for the listed events, because we have the Euro finals and the women’s World cup finals as listed events. That is critical.
I would say—I know all the broadcasters feel this—that not including some degree of digital rights in that is a problem. If you are asking me what our plans are, we want to make sure that we can get digital rights, because otherwise you literally are just sitting on a linear island and you do not have enough.
With regard to women’s, we continue to have the investment with Sky as a partner. They are a great partner. That works. We have the competitions. I wish Wales a good match against—I think they are playing Slovenia tonight, aren’t they? We are hoping for a win against Slovenia so we get that through. I am sure Mr Brennan will be cheering them on. That is good. In Scotland, we have done a deal to show 26 live Scottish women’s premier league games, which is a question I was asked previously at a different Committee.
The short answer is we spend a limited amount of money on sports rights versus some of the behemoths that are now coming into the market—Amazon and others, which are huge companies with massive budgets. There are two things, I think. The listed events construct is so critical and needs to keep fresh. This Committee has an enormous part to play in that. The second thing is the fact that sports bodies know that doing the kinds of things we have talked about are really good for their sports—think about cricket and what we have done with The Hundred. The short answer is we are in good shape. We are fighting a good fight based on very limited funds, but we need the regulatory support.
Q125 Jane Stevenson: Is the BBC going to lead or follow on women’s football?
Tim Davie: Boy, have we led! I tell you what: we were there putting it on mainstream BBC One. I had a few people going, “Are you sure?” We were sure, and we will continue with that.
Q126 Jane Stevenson: Are you getting grumblings? I have been a football fan since I left the cradle, practically. Are you getting push-back on whether you are cutting the amount of men’s football?
Tim Davie: Not any more. It was a revelation this summer. We were vindicated for our editorial decisions. We get a hard time when we take risks and get them wrong. We did not feel it was a risk. We thought the quality of the game, the professionalism of the game and the punditry were first class. We are there. We want to lead. The only question will be budgetary. There is no lack of intent; it will be about money, and also—
Q127 Jane Stevenson: Is it useful to have women’s football currently, I would imagine, significantly cheaper than men’s?
Tim Davie: It is critical. We could not be more there, basically.
Q128 Jane Stevenson: I agree with you about the Commonwealth games. It was fantastic for the west midlands and I would be remiss not to mention it. Is the BBC too football-focused?
Tim Davie: I don’t think so, no.
Q129 Jane Stevenson: Do you feel your role in the health of the nation and educating the nation takes in more niche grassroots sports? I tried to get Wolverhampton as a kabaddi centre for the UK. Lots of people say, “I used to watch that on Channel 4. You know, get back from the pub and watch.” Do you feel we are not making the most of those opportunities of other sports to get more people involved?
Tim Davie: To be fair to us, I think we do more than anyone. Take the Commonwealth games. We have those moments where people come into different sports—curling at the Olympics and all of that. Talking to those sports bodies, that is critical.
I am going to say the obvious: there are limits to our budget in terms of how much we can do and the airtime we can provide. It is not just about the rights. Often the rights are more achievable for us, but then you have to film them, curate them and do them to the right quality. Having said that, there are some opportunities with digital technology. I have been talking to the sports team about this. With livestreams and the iPlayer, we can begin to think about offering more streams and partner with more sports bodies. I am interested in that.
It is a fair challenge. We start at the top of the class but we have work to do.
Q130 Jane Stevenson: What are the crown jewel sporting events? Is women’s football now firmly going to be included in that ongoing programme of things we all tune in for?
Tim Davie: Hopefully.
Jane Stevenson: Absolutely. I will leave it there.
Q131 Kevin Brennan: Happy centenary to you all. I am interested in the broader picture of what all this means. You have the budget problems or challenges—whatever you want to call them—there are the structural changes that are going on in the BBC; and there is the point you were making at the beginning about whether all of this, including the commercial pressures, undermines the essential values of the organisation as it enters its second century. As a strong supporter of public service broadcasting and the idea of public service media, I am concerned by some of these trends. I want to explore that, and some of the decisions and whether they will prove to be the right ones.
It is very interesting that BBC Three has been brought back on to linear—that is a service principally aimed at young people, who we are told do not watch linear—and BBC Four, a service we know is predominantly watched by older audiences, who are the very people who watch linear, is being taken off linear.
You have told us about the process that is going on in the news channel, when other news channels are emerging on our broadcast landscape. To what extent will the BBC find that some of those competitors will fill some of the gap with their content, which does not meet the same standards, in my view, that BBC news coverage does in terms of impartiality and the things we have been talking about?
We talked about children’s television and what is going on there, and BBC Studios. To what extent is BBC Studios being used as a way of simply hiding the pay that talent is receiving, since you do not have to declare their salaries? They are still being funded by the licence fee payer, which is the principle behind why those high salaries were made public. By outsourcing them into BBC Studios, and so on, you are avoiding transparency and scrutiny.
I will not go on too long, but you see the picture I am trying to paint. I am concerned that some of the direction of travel, understanding all the commercial pressures and the technological changes that are going on, could, down the line, affect the values of the BBC and ultimately undermine its case as a public service broadcaster. What would your reaction be to that?
Richard Sharp: We have to start with values. The world is full of commercial media organisations. The BBC could be a commercial organisation. The question is: if it were a commercial organisation, would it be fulfilling its public service remit? The values of the private sector overlap but they are different in aggregate from the values of a public service organisation, not just delivering many of the services but taking the kinds of risks we were just talking about—in women’s sport, for example—that are incredibly important for society.
We are conducting a strategic review because we are having to see how we can fulfil our remit and succeed, which is the value proposition—not just the values but the value proposition, where you are end-consumed. Clearly, at the heart of that is forward-looking thinking about digital and about delivery to where people are. It is not so much that TikTok is a competitor—it is for time—but that we can be present there. We can be consumed through TikTok. We can be consumed through different platforms.
On localism, one of the great things that I have discovered since I joined the BBC, which is gratifying in the context of the discussion we have had here, is how important and significant our local content is. It is not just that we produce it; to the consumers, it is one of the most valued things that we do. That fits very neatly with our public service remit.
In conducting this review, we are going to address those issues, and at the same time the industry itself is challenged domestically. You only have to look, as a litmus test, at the share price of ITV, which is roughly at a 52-week low and probably a quarter to a fifth of where it would have been 10 years ago. It is a £2.5 billion market cap for the entire infrastructure system. That shows that the commercial sector is under significant pressure. We have Channel 4 subject to potential change as well. Yet this is a creative industry—the BBC is the wellspring of that, as another important feature of what we do—that is, in gross value added to the UK, larger than aerospace, defence and life sciences combined.
Q132 Kevin Brennan: On that point about gross value added and the importance of BBC to the creative industries, which I completely accept, I have concerns about this outsourcing process, if I can call it that. The special thing the BBC has always brought is the ability of creatives to maintain their IP and to be properly treated by an organisation that respects creative people and their intellectual property. Yet the BBC recently conducted a new content deal with Moonbug, which I am sure you are aware of, that includes the relicense of new episodes—this is in the children’s television area—of a number of programmes. I must confess I have not seen them, but it includes new IPs to the BBC such as “Blippi Wonders”, “Little Baby Bum”, “Gecko’s Garage” and “Lellobee City Farm”, which will be available on BBC iPlayer. “Gecko’s Garage” will also be available on CBeebies, the free-to-air preschool children’s channel.
This is a company that is highly controversial in the way that it negotiates with composers who provide the music for these programmes, because it aggressively pursues buyouts. You would not do that directly as the BBC. If you were commissioning a piece of music, you would not attempt to pickpocket the creator’s IP, but these companies that you are now dealing with at arm’s length are not operating with the values of the BBC, which has made a significant contribution to the creative industries of this country. What is your response to that?
Tim Davie: We have always been in the market where we have sourced outside news and sport. We have sourced in house and out of house. Remember the window of creative competition and the 25% ringfence on indies. If you look at our supply side, it is not radically changing. What you are trying to do is underpin your in-house strength in Studios.
For what it is worth, I do not think the move to Studios is in any way, shape or form driven by trying to cover up salaries. That is the last thing on my mind there. What is in my mind is protecting talent and keeping people who want to develop creative ideas in the BBC. There are just so many opportunities for them. If you had a drama project and you were stuck at the BBC in-house in public service, and you could not sell it to anyone else, you left and formed an independent company. Guess what? A lot of value was lost and a lot of those companies went to Americans, and so on. That is why we are trying to do it.
In terms of the IP, we deal with—I am going to sound technical—outside entities. I do not think it is for us to judge. They need to run their businesses legally and within the boundaries of anything that has been agreed with Pact on the rights and the IP. As the BBC, we act fairly and rightly, certainly versus some others.
Q133 Kevin Brennan: Do you have a specific policy about the commissioning of music as an organisation?
Tim Davie: What do you mean “a specific policy”?
Kevin Brennan: A specific policy about the manner in which these negotiations take place.
Tim Davie: I don’t know, actually. I would have to take it away and look at it.
Q134 Kevin Brennan: There is an increasing trend, as you are probably aware, of trying to pressure people into giving up their IP. Michaela Coel, who did “I May Destroy You”, specifically came to the BBC because it did defend people’s rights to hold their IP whereas Netflix would not.
Tim Davie: That was exactly my point. The BBC will deal with people without having to capture all the rights. Having said that, there is so much value extracted on things like the iPlayer over time that we had to close the old way, in which we just got a small window and then it floated off to Netflix in the UK. We are not doing that any more, but we are certainly much more porous in terms of our ability to share rights. That Michaela Coel example is a fantastic example, where we did not demand all the rights—and we offer a bit more creative freedom sometimes. We are not driven by algorithm; we are driven by great editors, and so on. But I would have to come back to you. I think we are just playing with—
Chair: Will you find out and come back to the Committee?
Tim Davie: Yes. Being blunt, I need to understand the question a little bit more.
Q135 Kevin Brennan: I would like to know what the BBC’s policy is specifically when it commissions music in relation to IP and also whether it has any kind of standards in relation to who it is commissioning outside organisations and what their approach is towards IP and creative people.
Tim Davie: Okay. We will give you a note on that, no problem.
Q136 Kevin Brennan: It has been said somewhere that, when the BBC moves programmes into Studios, that gives it the advantage of not having to declare those talent figures. All I am saying is that the more that that happens, the more it is likely to generate the original concern that existed about lack of transparency. I know the BBC was very reluctant to reveal these talent figures. If it becomes the case that almost all programming where these salaries are paid is locked away in a dark cupboard so we cannot see the facts, then that will generate future concerns. I am just flagging that to you as an issue.
Leigh Tavaziva: I think also, where licence fee payers’ money is used to pay salaries, it is fully disclosable.
Q137 Kevin Brennan: Yes, I know, but the problem is that this has been avoided because the licence fee is indirectly paying the salary rather than directly.
Leigh Tavaziva: In the commercial environment, which is not using the licence fee payers’ money at all to pay those salaries, and on an even footing with other commercial organisations, it would be commercially detrimental to expose those salaries in the current climate.
Kevin Brennan: But the more that you go to this model where programmes are being commissioned in this way, by definition, the less disclosure there will be of those salaries that are being paid for indirectly by the licence fee. The licence fee payer should be entitled to know where their money is going. It will not make any difference to the viewer whether Gary Lineker is being paid directly by the BBC or by Match of the Day Productions Ltd, ultimately. That is my point.
Q138 Chair: I have one last question. The inference of a lot of what you have said today is that basically you need people watching your programmes or listening to the radio. That is right, isn’t it?
Tim Davie: That is the basis of the job, yes.
Q139 Chair: So why oh why have you cancelled the “Steve Wright in the Afternoon” programme on Radio 2, which I am a big fan of—if I have a day off work I like to listen to it—when it is hugely popular, has huge listening numbers, to be replaced by what? Your record on changing radio programmes has not been great in recent years. Why is that decision being made?
Tim Davie: Because I think it is appropriate to refresh the schedule at the right point. We are editors and we judge it to be the right point. Steve is a legend; he has done a brilliant job. We have an amazing line-up at Radio 2. We have had changes, to your point, that have worked; others have been forced on us. I employ people to refresh the network. Scott Mills is an outstanding broadcaster—world class.
Q140 Chair: If listener figures go down, are you happy with that?
Tim Davie: It depends on its market performance versus the rest of linear radio, how it is doing and how distinctive it is. It is not just simply on the numbers. It is not as binary as if the number goes down a bit. It is Radio 2’s position, what its playlists are, whether it is value by its audience. The connection that a broadcaster has with its audience is critical, as per our earlier conversation. I recognise that these things are not easy. We are in no way trying to lurch to youth or just do things that are stupid, but—
Q141 Chair: Will you be happy if the listening numbers go down?
Tim Davie: I always like to see a good performance on our radio stations. I will leave it at that.
Chair: I shall come back to it. Thank you very much. You have answered a very wide range of questions this morning. We look forward to receiving the information on the various issues that you have agreed to send to us. We look forward to seeing you at the next session, whenever that is. Thank you very much.