9.The Equality Act 2010 states that men and women must be paid the same for doing the same work, like work and work of equal value. In addition, section 149 of the Equality Act imposes an even higher level of duty on the BBC (as a public sector employer) to advance equality of opportunity between the sexes. However, we were told by witnesses that the BBC has failed to live up to this duty.
10.Both ‘equal pay’ and ‘the gender pay gap’ are terms used to deal with disparities in the amounts of pay that women receive in the workplace. However, these are two distinct issues. Equal pay means that men and women should be paid equally for ‘equal work’. The ‘gender pay gap’, meanwhile, measures the average difference between the earnings of men and women across an organisation. Therefore, an organisation with a small ‘gender pay gap’ could still be in breach of equal pay legislation and conversely, an organisation with a large ‘gender pay gap’ may be fulfilling its legal duty under equal pay legislation. The BBC’s 7.6% ‘gender pay gap’ is lower than the national average of 18.4%. However, this does not preclude the existence of equal pay issues for the BBC.
11.BBC Women argued that there was a “culture of gender discrimination” at the BBC. We were told that women with similar skills, experience and profile were working in comparable jobs to men, but earning far less. For example, one anonymous presenter told us that:
I found out that the existing male presenter was being paid 50% more than me per programme. When I asked for the pay gap to be corrected the line manager told me “the BBC doesn’t do equal pay”, and that in raising the issue I was being “aggressive”.
12.We were told that the BBC is unwilling to admit that it has an ‘equal pay problem’ and that it would not discuss equal pay openly with staff during pay revision discussions. For example, BBC Women told us that “the BBC would not speak with us, or publicly about ‘equal pay’ despite this being the requirement under the law. They referred to ‘fair pay’ instead”. Michelle Stanistreet, General Secretary of the National Union of Journalists, argued that the use of this language was “frustrating” and “[missed] the point about what a lot of this debate is about”.
13.We also heard that many BBC women employees have been offered pay rises in response to equal pay complaints, whilst at the same time being told that there were no equal pay issues in their case. BBC Women was concerned that:
Some women with the most egregious cases were offered ‘pay revisions’ which still fell short of equal pay with the men doing the same jobs and included no back pay or pension rights.
The group argue that the BBC’s actions have left some women “feeling worthless or diminished, ground down by an employer refusing to admit any equal pay liability even where it accepts there are unexplained, and unjustified differences between men and women”.
14.Carrie Gracie’s case offers an example of this refusal to admit liability. Gracie told us:
[The BBC] has said it was not gender pay discrimination. They have not called it pay discrimination either.
To make this worse, Gracie was told that her lower salary was due to her being “in development” in the China Editor role:
But the thing that is very unacceptable to me—and I don’t know why they do this—is they basically said that in those three previous years, 2014, 2015 and 2016, I was in development. It is an insult to add to the original injury. It is unacceptable to talk to your senior women like that. I would never have gone to China on those terms. I asked for equal pay at the very beginning [ … ] I have said I don’t want any more money. I am not a fiscal liability to the BBC.
Gracie told us this was an issue of principle:
They are trying to throw money at me to resolve the problem. [ … ] My problem will be resolved by an acknowledgement that my work was of equal value to the men who I served alongside as an international editor.
15.Gracie’s grievance settlement was resolved (one day within its 90-day limit); on 29 June 2018, she was given an apology and a payout (which she stated would be donate to charity). In a joint statement with Gracie, Lord Hall acknowledged that her work was “as valuable as those of the other international editors in the same period”.
16.Despite its eventual resolution, this appeared to us to be a highly distressing and protracted ordeal for Ms Gracie. Other witnesses agreed that the BBC’s failure properly to address the equal pay issue had resulted in a loss of trust between the women involved and BBC management. BBC Women was concerned that many women have been deterred from coming forward, due to a lack of faith in BBC management and because of the stress and fear involved in challenging their employer. It argued that this has led to many women accepting “ad hoc revisions” that fall short of their right to equal pay. Carrie Gracie told us that there was now a “a toxic work atmosphere” at the BBC. She said that the BBC’s response would not “stand as a piece of BBC journalism,” stating:
We have standards. It really pains me and hurts me that the corporate machine is not living up to our values. There are 90,000 people in the BBC. We are loyal. We are dedicated. We are responsible. If they honour us with the facts, and give us transparency, we will sort it out. The BBC has not sorted it out for decades, and the current leadership has not sorted it out for five years. As some people may remember, I declared my pay on air in 2009. [ … ] We are nearly a decade later. Look where we are. This is damaging the credibility of the BBC in a completely unacceptable way.
17.Witnesses raised concerns that it had taken the forced publication of the salaries of those earning over £150,000 for the BBC to take action on pay. Michelle Stanistreet argued that:
The BBC has obviously known about the scale of this problem and the reality of this problem and [ … ] it has only been under the glare of the public gaze that it has started to act.
We put it to the Director-General of the BBC that he should be able to give a convincing reason for the development of pay disparities of this magnitude, and that the corporation needed to accept corporate responsibility for the fact that mistakes had been made. But Lord Hall could only give us small pieces of the jigsaw, for example that too much responsibility had been devolved to programme editors and divisional directors.
18.We also received concerning accounts of BBC presenters being offered immediate and unexpected pay rises just before the salaries of top earners were publicly announced. For example, a TV news presenter told us that:
Just before the BBC published pay over £150,000, I was called [ … ] and offered an immediate pay rise. It became apparent that for nearly three years I had been sitting next to a man doing an identical job who was being paid tens of thousands of pounds more.
19.We were highly concerned to hear allegations of equal pay discrimination at the BBC. The experience of former China Editor Carrie Gracie shone a light on this practice. Ms Gracie deserves great credit for using her protracted and distressing ordeal to make points of principle for other women. As a public sector broadcaster, the institution should be setting an example for other organisations, but its approach to pay has been extremely poor. The corporation was unable to give us a good reason for why or how pay discrimination has been left unchallenged for so long.
20.The BBC did not help itself by declining to attend our second evidence session on BBC Pay in March of this year. The DCMS Committee is the corporation’s only line of accountability to licence fee payers. As a recipient of public money, the BBC should make itself available when requested, especially on a subject such as pay discrimination, a key issue for the nation.
21.While the publication of the salaries of staff earning over £150,000 has gone some way towards improving pay transparency, it is regrettable that it took the forced publication of this list and the resultant publicity to push the BBC into action on a longstanding problem. The BBC’s reluctance to tackle this issue has resulted in a loss of trust between staff and management. Unless the BBC takes urgent action, many more women may be deterred from coming forward with equal pay complaints.
22.The BBC must take urgent action to remove discriminatory pay practice and its legacy from the organisation. This is necessary to start to rebuild trust between staff and senior management. It should publicly acknowledge that it has a pay discrimination problem and set out a comprehensive series of steps, with dates by which those steps will be met, to resolve the pay discrimination. This should include a deadline by which all grievances will be dealt with. The BBC Board should require the Director General to report progress to them on those steps as discriminatory pay is a serious risk issue that the Board should be overseeing.
23.The BBC must ensure that robust and transparent structures are put in place to prevent a recurrence of these issues. Management must work to create an environment where staff feel supported and empowered to come forward with equal pay complaints. Where staff come forward with complaints, management must refrain from using unhelpful terminology and talk about these cases in terms of ‘equal pay’, rather than using euphemisms such as ‘fair pay’, ‘oversights’ and pay ‘revisions’, in an attempt to avoid the issues at hand. The BBC must comply with its equal pay legal duties and ensure that all managers who make decisions on pay understand those legal duties. Training should be provided by BBC HR to ensure that they do.
24.We were told that pay structures at the BBC are currently unfair, opaque and unclear. Witnesses were concerned that responsibility for setting salaries at the BBC had been inappropriately devolved to individual managers or programme editors. For example, Michelle Stanistreet of the National Union of Journalists told us that decentralisation had permitted “misuses of managerial discretion” and resulted in “pay inequalities across the piece”. A review carried out by PwC in January 2018 reached similar conclusions, noting that the BBC’s pay structure lacked central oversight, clear frameworks and pay market anchors. This lack of central review was evident in Carrie Gracie’s case. Despite Carrie being one of only four international editors, the BBC maintained that she had been ‘inadvertently underpaid’ for years. If Carrie Gracie’s underpayment was in fact ‘inadvertent’, it shows a concerning lack of oversight from senior BBC officials.
25.The National Union of Journalists argued that “unnecessary secrecy” and a “lack of transparency” have helped to normalise an approach to pay that is both “discriminatory and unlawful”. We were told that many BBC employees were “deliberately misled by BBC management over their salary levels, in some cases despite explicitly querying whether they were being paid equally to male comparators”.
26.The publication of salaries of individuals earning over £150,000 has gone some way to increase transparency amongst high paid staff. However, staff raised concerns that the system still lacks adequate transparency for those earning less than £150,000. For example, BBC Women told us that:
Following the transparency in the pay of managers earning above £150,000 the incoming female Head of News is being paid the same salary as her male predecessor. This transparency is now needed across the board.
27.We were told that the lack of transparency was exacerbated by the BBC’s pay scales, which “mask whether more men than women were at the top of the band/grade” and create “lack of clarity about how staff progress within their band/grade”. Michelle Stanistreet argued that:
It is important that [ … ] much greater transparency is achieved with individuals not just knowing what their own salary is within a pay band, but that they can see how they compare with others.
Other witnesses agreed with this recommendation, emphasising the need for the BBC to achieve “full transparency”.
28.Since our January hearing, the BBC has introduced a reformed pay framework. Under this new ‘Career Path Framework’ (CPF), staff will receive information on the distribution of salaries within their job family and pay range. The BBC argues that this “will provide a level of transparency for staff on pay that is among the best to be found in the UK”. An example of the information that will be given to staff is shown below.
29.Individuals will now receive information as to whether they fall within the lower quarter, middle half or upper quarter of their pay band. They can also see the percentage of staff receiving salaries above the maximum of their pay range. However, staff are unable to see the numbers of men and women in each quartile. This means that the new framework will be of no use in helping women compare their salaries to those of their male colleagues doing equal work. We were also told, in confidence, that staff have little faith in the CPF. Staff raised concerns that the system simply acts to defend existing inequalities rather than accurately reflecting the work that people do and value that they add.
30.Witnesses also argued that the CPF did not go far enough to provide transparency. Under the CPF staff are only able to see the distribution of salaries with their ‘job family’. However, some of our witness wanted all available information to be made available to everyone at the BBC. Michelle Stanistreet argued that this would enable staff to better see “precisely where they are [ … ] in comparison to everybody else that the BBC employs [ … .] to see where the progression lies”.
31.We were told that there was a lack of clarity over the factors that the BBC consider when determining salaries. Fran Unsworth provided some information, telling us that the factors considered included “how often [the programme] [ … ] is on the air, how interested the audience is and where it appears in prominence in running orders”. However, we were offered no clarity on the weight afforded to each of these criteria. Further, some of the factors the BBC considered were deemed unfair, for example BBC Women noted that:
We cannot accept that factors cited by management such as ‘audience recognition’ can be a justification for glaring inequalities of pay [ … ] In effect the BBC is saying they selected men for the positions, they are on air and therefore exposed to the BBC’s audiences and are now recognised by those audiences so should be paid more.
32.However, BBC officials argued that there was a need for differentiation within salary bands. For example, Lord Hall told us that there was a difference in the “scope and the scale” of the international editor roles that justified some difference in salaries. However, he did agree that the differences between those jobs had, in the past, “been too big”.
33.The BBC pay structure lacks central oversight and allows for too much managerial discretion over salaries. Pay decisions for senior positions appear to be made on an ad hoc basis: someone in the executive team agrees a pay settlement, without consideration of what the decision means for others that sit within that same band. The BBC’s insistence that Carrie Gracie’s underpayment was ‘inadvertent’ points towards a concerning lack of oversight from senior BBC officials, particularly as there were only four international news editors at the time. This culture of invidious, opaque decision-making must end. In order to prevent misuses of managerial discretion, the BBC must look at the system by which it makes pay decisions. It must ensure that sufficient oversight takes place, and that decisions are based on transparent, objective criteria rather than on the basis of individual personalities, and that managers making the decisions understand the equal pay legal framework within which they must operate.
34.While slight differences in salaries may be warranted when individuals do similar jobs with different responsibility levels, the pay bands at the BBC have historically been too wide. Despite senior executives’ assurances to us, a lack of clear pay structures and guidelines has left individuals lacking clarity about why they earn what they do, and the ability to make comparisons with colleagues. The publication of salaries has gone a long way to improve equality for those earning over £150,000. While we recognise that it is not feasible to publish every individual salary at every level, we urge the BBC to introduce greater transparency across the board. In particular, staff at all levels should be able to see the numbers of men and women in each quartile so that women can compare their salaries to those of their male colleagues doing equal work, unless those numbers are so small that they would lead to the individual staff member being obviously identifiable. To satisfy staff concerns about equal pay, all of this information needs to be made available to everyone working at the BBC.
35.As part of the new transparency rules introduced in 2017, the BBC is required to publish a list of all staff earning over £150,000. When the list was first published in 2017 its significant imbalance between men and women generated large amounts of criticism. The BBC has, however, made some progress with this year’s high earners list. The number of women paid more than £200,000 has doubled, while the number of men paid more than £500,000 has fallen. The BBC predicts that further progress will be made this year, and by 2018/19, it anticipates that 40% of the highest earning presenters will be female, up from 25% in 2016/17.
36.However, at the highest end of the list, there is still a very significant balance in favour of men. This year, all ten of the highest paid presenters were men, and only two out of the top twenty high earners were women. When we put this to Lord Hall he told us that:
I am targeting the top ten and the top twenty of names to get a proper gender balance there for the future. It takes time when you are dealing with contracts that are over many years to make these sorts of changes, but be in no doubt myself and the team want to get to the point when the top twenty is equally distributed between men and women.
37.Many of those earning over £150,000 have also been removed from this year’s list, as their shows are now produced by BBC Studios, which, as a commercial arm of the BBC, is not covered by the transparency rules. Senior BBC officials told us that, despite equal pay concerns, BBC Studios should continue to be exempt from these transparency rules. Lord Hall argued that as a commercial organisation BBC Studios must be “treated equally to other independent companies”, and therefore not be forced to disclose the salaries of its top paid staff. This however misses the point. It has not been suggested that only BBC Studios should be required to publish the salaries of on-screen performers who earn over £150,000 a year, but that this should apply for all programmes commissioned by the BBC, regardless of who makes them. Ultimately, BBC programmes are made with licence fee payers’ money, and it makes little sense to say that the salaries of the presenters of long-running shows like ‘Strictly Come Dancing’, ‘Songs of Praise’, or ‘Question Time’ should be excluded from publication where they qualify, just because they are now made by independent production companies.
38.The BBC has made some progress in improving the gender balance of this year’s high earners list. However, at the highest end of the list, there is still a very significant balance in favour of men, with all ten top earners being men. This is shocking. The BBC needs to commit to concrete targets to ensure that the pay of its high earners has absolutely no discriminatory element to it. We expect the BBC to set these targets by December 2018 so that next year’s annual report can set out measurable progress towards these targets.
39.BBC Studios, as a commercial arm of the BBC, is not currently covered by transparency rules. This means that staff employed by BBC Studios do not appear on the high earners list, effectively creating a loophole that means the BBC need not disclose the salaries of its top earning talent. This has done little to improve confidence in the BBC’s commitment to non-discriminatory pay. In order to restore its credibility, the BBC must commit to publishing the salaries of BBC Studios staff in their 2018/19 Annual Report, and also those of high-earning presenters of other programmes made for the BBC by independent production companies.
40.We were told that the grievance process at the BBC leaves much to be desired. The BBC has chosen to resolve as many grievances cases as possible through an informal process. Where this informal negotiation fails, cases progress to a formal grievance process. Those who had raised a grievance expressed little confidence in the process itself or in its outcomes. They argued that complaints were often subject to large delays and bureaucratic confusion.
41.Anne Bulford, Deputy Director-General of the BBC, told us that the informal process was “extremely rigorous”. However, we were told, in confidence, that BBC staff did not agree with this statement. Some members of staff felt that informal grievances often resulted in much smaller pay increases than could be achieved through a formal grievance process. The BBC itself acknowledged that there were some flaws with the informal resolution process, Anne Bulford told us that:
The speed of getting back to individuals is not always good enough. There has been delay for some people that they found unacceptable, which has got them to the conclusion they need to go through to [formal] grievance in order [ … ] to get attention to their case.
42.The formal grievance processes can also be subject to large delays. The BBC’s Grievance Policy states that formal grievances will be concluded within 90 days, unless exceptional circumstances apply. However, to date, of the 78 formal grievances that the BBC has received, only seven have been resolved, while 68 are left outstanding. Over 15% of formal grievances lodged have failed to meet the 90-day deadline. Carrie Gracie was told that her own grievance request would be expedited, yet the case was not resolved until day 89 of 90. Witnesses expressed concerns over the prevalence and length of these delays. Michelle Stanistreet argued that:
One of the big problems [is]… the sheer length of time that many of these complaints take. Sometimes it goes far beyond the 90 days and 90 days is [already] a really long period of time [ … ] the pressure and stress on the individuals involved cannot be overestimated.
43.We heard that the process from informal complaint to grievance and then to appeal could take over a year, with some cases still unresolved after that length of time. The stress caused by the process has deterred many women from seeking redress. Anne Bulford told us that delays occurred because:
Some of these cases are very complex, go back over a long period and involve looking for comparators and checking the history of people named as comparators back through different parts of the BBC over a long period.
In order to reduce these delays, BBC officials told us that they were considering appointing full-time hearing managers to deal with grievances (rather than following the current practice of asking senior staff members to handle grievances alongside their day job). Anne Bulford said “We have just over 200 cases that are in informal resolution stage. Of those, 70 or so we have done the work; we are in conversations with people about what the result of that is.” It was of concern to us that the BBC so readily admitted to having 70 employees awaiting a confirmed outcome. Further, the tone of the Deputy Director-General (for instance, her use of the term “conversations”) seemed overly relaxed.
44.Witnesses raised concerns over the methodology and the independence of the grievance process itself. The BBC’s grievance hearing panels comprise a BBC hearing manager (who is separate from the business area the complainant works in) and an independent appointment from the company Croner. In the event of a dispute between the two members of the panel, the Croner representative receives the casting vote. However, we were told in confidence that BBC women did not feel that Croner was acting impartially. Carrie Gracie told us that:
[Grievances] don’t work because we don’t trust them. The grievance handling just has to change. We have to have independent managers in charge of grievances. All the money that has been wasted, this is money that could be spent on saving jobs, saving programmes and making good programmes.
45.Further, BBC Women was concerned that, despite it being a right under the law to name salary comparators of her choosing during a grievance case, the BBC has either “resisted any discussion of comparators, talking instead of cohort” or “it has sought to introduce other comparators”. The BBC’s grievance process also fails to include independent job evaluation. We heard that these flaws have deterred many women from coming forward with equal pay complaints.
46.The grievance process—both formal and informal—at the BBC leaves much to be desired. Complaints are often subject to long delays and bureaucratic confusion. We understand the good reasons for resolving grievances informally where possible. However, informality is no excuse for a lack of rigour. Informal grievances must be an internally assured process involving individual managers, HR and, where appropriate, legal advice. We were surprised to hear that 70 informal cases are currently unresolved, with what the BBC called “the work” done, but with no result. In order to make the informal grievance process worthwhile, BBC women need to have confidence that it will produce similar results to those that could be achieved through formal grievance. Where women choose to progress with informal complaints, the BBC must commit to dealing with cases efficiently and thoroughly.
47.Those grievances that do make it to formal processes also seem to become mired in delay. At the time of writing this report, just seven of 78 formal grievances received by the BBC had been resolved. Over 15% of formal grievances lodged have failed to meet the 90-day deadline. These rates are unacceptable. Staff going through these procedures are currently spending unnecessarily long periods enduring anxiety about outcomes.
48.We heard about further shortcomings that must be urgently resolved, for example that the failure to acknowledge named comparators ignores employees’ legal rights. Managers must change their approach to this.
49.Delays and confusion mean that BBC staff lack confidence in the process itself and in its outcomes. For women who are trying to secure redress for past inequities this is particularly damaging. Many women will continue to be deterred from bringing their complaints forward unless the grievance process is made less bureaucratic, more efficient and more independent.
50.The BBC must act urgently to restore confidence in its grievance processes. In order to do this, the corporation must commit to upholding the independence of the process, by placing independent managers in charge of grievances. They should act swiftly to speed up the complaints process by appointing full-time hearing managers. The BBC should state publicly how many grievance cases are still awaiting resolution, and how many of these are claims regarding a lack of equal pay, rather than waiting for FOI requests or Committee inquiries. The BBC should also commit to have completed the grievance process for all existing cases, including making any financial settlements that may be owed, within the next six months.
51.We noticed some common themes across equal pay and the use of PSCs, and thought it worth highlighting these. Staff raised concerns over the BBC’s internal communications structures during our sessions on both PSCs and equal pay. We were told that when it comes to these types of issues, the BBC’s communications were “laughable”. One presenter told us that
The changes made to my pay have never been preceded by an explanatory email, phone call—or warning. I only discover the changes in my tax status and pay through the amount that hits my account.
52.The BBC has continually relied upon on staff to come forward and bring these issues to their attention, rather than being proactive. Paul Lewis, the BBC presenter, told us that “It is sad to us that it took [BBC presenters coming forward] to arouse the BBC to say what it was saying late last night about an inquiry”. Similarly, Michelle Stanistreet noted that “It has only been under the glare of the public gaze that [the BBC] has started to act” on equal pay issues.
53.Many staff also felt that they had no one to turn to when it came to raising concerns within the organisation. Liz Kershaw told us that:
“There is nobody to go to [ … .] Your producer is not interested. If you went to your line manager, executive producer or head of station [they would say] “I don’t deal in money” [ … .] HR, you do not belong to them, they do not want to know”.
54.The BBC has failed to act on both equal pay and PSCs, launching remedial measures only after receiving both media and public pressure. The corporation has continually relied on individuals who work for them to come forward and bring these issues to their attention. In the future the BBC must operate proactively, rather than waiting for media pressure to push them into action. The BBC must improve internal communications and ensure that its HR service is sufficiently well-resourced that it is available to everyone, so that it can help presenters to raise these kinds of issues.
55.The BBC has conducted two reviews to investigate differences in pay between men and women doing equal work. In October 2017 the BBC published its Equal Pay Audit, the review concluded that “high-level job role data” showed no evidence of “systemic gender discrimination” at the BBC. An additional evaluation was carried out for on-air staff in January 2018 which concluded that there was “no evidence of gender bias in pay decision making” but did recognise that “the BBC’s approach to setting pay [ … ] historically has been far from perfect”.
56.Despite staff concerns over the independence, methodology and conclusions of these reviews, the BBC stands by the conclusions of its equal pay audit and insists that “there is no systemic gender discrimination in the way the BBC pays its staff”. It does however acknowledge that “there are issues for the BBC to address”.
57.However, BBC employees told us that they lacked confidence in the outcomes of both these reviews. We were told that staff “don’t trust [these] reports. We don’t trust management”. Staff criticised both reviews for failing to consult staff adequately. For example, BBC Women noted a lack of trust in the BBC’s review of On-Air Talent, stating that:
From the outset we asked to be consulted about its scope, terms of reference and methodology but the BBC went ahead without our input or involvement. Only [ … ] six months into the process [ … ] did the BBC agree—not to consult us but to have ‘listening sessions’ with all women involved.
58.We were told informally by people within the BBC that presenters questioned the conclusions, validity and methodology of the Deloitte review, which investigated the BBC’s use of PSCs. They also questioned whether presenters were ever consulted. The review may therefore present only a partial view of BBC practices regarding on-air talent engagement.
59.The BBC has failed adequately to consult their staff during its reviews into both equal pay and Personal Service Companies. By failing to involve those individuals directly affected, the BBC’s reviews have also failed to gain the buy-in and confidence of staff. Reviews without staff engagement will not result in impactful conclusions.
60.The individuals affected by these reviews need to be consulted from the outset and throughout. In order to gain the buy-in of staff, all reviews should be truly independent, with staff and recognised Trades Unions shaping their scope, terms of reference and methodology.
16 Ibid, Section 149
17 BBC Women (), Q 40
18 BBC, , June 2018, p 3 - 7
19 BBC Women ()
22 BBC Women ()
24 Q 16
25 BBC Women ()
27 BBC Women ()
28 Q 9
29 Q 9
30 Q 9
31 Joint statement, 29 June 2018
32 Q 78, Q 45
33 BBC Women, evidence to Women and Equalities Committee inquiry into ‘Enforcing the Equality Act’, ()
35 Q 44
36 Q 15
37 Q 27, BBC Women ()
38 Q 27
39 Q 90
40 BBC Women ()
42 Q 67, Q 84, Q 90, Q 168
43 Q 37
44 PwC, , 30 January 2018
45 Q 86
46 National Union of Journalists (), para 8
47 Ibid, para 12
48 BBC Women ()
49 BBC Women ()
50 National Union of Journalists (), para 12
52 Q 45
53 BBC Supplementary Evidence ()
55 Comments made in confidence to the Committee
57 Q 30, Q 36, Q 45
58 Q 30, Q 36
59 Q 30
60 Q 182
61 BBC Women ()
62 Q 82
63 Q 82
64 Department for Culture, Media and Sport, , Cm 9365, December 2016, p 19
65 BBC, , June 2017, p 102–103
67 Ibid, p 101
68 Ibid, p 102–103
69 , HC 993, Q 83
70 Ibid, Q 84
71 Ibid, Q 84
72 BBC Women, evidence to Women and Equalities Committee inquiry into ‘Enforcing the Equality Act’ ()
73 BBC Women, evidence to Women and Equalities Committee inquiry into ‘Enforcing the Equality Act’ (), Q 59, Q 45
74 , HC 993, Q 47
75 Ibid, Q 73
76 BBC, , April 2018, page 2
77 Three grievances are currently on hold.
78 , HC 993, Q 50
79 Q 7
80 Ibid, Q 59
81 BBC Women, evidence to Women and Equalities Committee inquiry into ‘Enforcing the Equality Act’ ()
82 BBC Women, evidence to Women and Equalities Committee inquiry into ‘Enforcing the Equality Act’ ()
83 , HC 993, Q 50
84 Ibid, Q 51
85 Ibid, 48
86 Q 45, comments made in confidence to the Committee
87 , HC 993, Q 50
88 Q 45
89 BBC Women, evidence to Women and Equalities Committee inquiry into ‘Enforcing the Equality Act’ ()
90 BBC Women, evidence to Women and Equalities Committee inquiry into ‘Enforcing the Equality Act’ ()
91 BBC Women, evidence to Women and Equalities Committee inquiry into ‘Enforcing the Equality Act’ ()
92 Q 290
93 BBC Presenters ()
94 Q 252
95 Q 27
96 Q 265 [Liz Kershaw]
97 BBC, , October 2017, p 1
98 PwC, On-air Review, January 2018, p 3
99 BBC Supplementary Evidence ()
100 BBC Supplementary Evidence ()
101 Q 45
102 BBC Women ()
Published: 25 October 2018