people will come and poach people was, is probably the case in entertainment and drama in those areas where the market is very hot or in tech, in this area some people have left but it is much less so. i am content to say to you i got it wrong. where i don't think i got it wrong. where i don't think i got it wrong is on studios and wildlife but maybe we come onto that later. thank you for coming in this afternoon. you're watching bbc news. we will stay with this coverage from the parliamentary select committee, the parliamentary select committee, the media and culture committee. continued questioning of bbc director tony hall. we expect this session to run for quite some time following on from the evidence given by the bbc former china editor carrie gracie. did i know what the disclosure was going to say? i had line of sight of

what individual people were being paid. but actually seeing the range, i think we keep coming back to that, ina i think we keep coming back to that, in a format where absolutely you can compare one to the other, i had not seen it in that format and had not seen it in that format and had not seen differentials in that way. and even then it was quite difficult to make comparisons between cash sums of money paid to people when their work in different ways. of course i knew what was going on. just to say to you between men and women we knew on the top earners, over £150,000, we had more men than women. for the last five years we have been working to lower the amount of money that we are spending on top talent. you knew

that the disparities between people who do similarjobs, equal pay for work of equal value, you knew before it was published but that was there? no, they think we knew what the range was. so you knew you had correspondence? i must be clear, i did not know some of the issues that we now know about because they have come into the public domain. but i knew that people who were earning over £150,000, i knew the issues they were facing. this is something we have been working on for some time. we have been working to try to get this right. james harding had a review of pay i think whenjohn humphrys took a pay cut for the second time. and how long have you been director—general at the point

when this came out last summer question mark is not yet five years. so approaching five years and you had done nothing. i think that is wrong, i really believe in getting women's place in the workplace right. i have been helping to promote more women to seeing your positions and working to get more women on the air. carrie was one of those but that is part of what i had been pushing for. so that is misrepresenting what i have been doing by saying i have done nothing, it is quite the reverse. not to say that i'm happy with where we are. were you aware that the report had been published ? were you aware that the report had been published? i was also aware of the context of the national average of 18% and our own figure was 9%.

we're not talking about the gender pay gap but equal work of equal value. as an organisation you do not understand what that means.” value. as an organisation you do not understand what that means. i know very well the difference between gender pay which we announced in our report injuly gender pay which we announced in our report in july and gender pay which we announced in our report injuly and the stew gender pay which we announced in our report in july and the stew of equal pay which has been the subject of two significant audits. i know very well but the difference is. and they are regularly conflated if i may say so. are regularly conflated if i may say so. they often come together, they are separate issues. on the gender payissue, are separate issues. on the gender pay issue, i'm not asking you about gender pay but specifically the equal pay issue. my view is the same as the director—general. i was surprised by the wits of the range and noted it as our intention to seek to narrow those ranges. but i

also recognised that in the world of on—air talent there is the keyword, tale nt on—air talent there is the keyword, talent and not everyone would be paid the same for similarjob description. and within the report, it sets out clearly that there may be different reasons, many legitimate reasons why people doing similar jobs legitimate reasons why people doing similarjobs are paid different amounts. so the answer is that i was aware of it, the discrepancy between the north american editor and the china editor, which was actually in her favour when she signed the original contract, had to move for reasons we will want to explore and we shall look to carry that out. but i do not accept that we were in any way acting illegally. fran unsworth. we were not surprised because we had

looked at this year before when james harding instituted the cost of talent review which we had started in 2016. and we knew there were discrepancies and particularly among the highly paid men. i think about 17 people in news on the list, just over 20 on the list, 17 i think men and seven women. so we knew that we have a problem. and we said about at that point thinking about what we we re that point thinking about what we were going to do about this. this was when we started to think that we needed rather than put a burden on the licence payer of addressing it in the direction of paying women more, we decided we would try to cut pay off some of the senior men on the list. this is when we spoke to john humphrys and instituted

conversations with the number of others as well. of course it is difficult because in order to achieve a pay cut from people they have to volunteer to do that. and thenit have to volunteer to do that. and then it became a wider issue because of the disclosures list and it became wrapped up in the wider bbc issue of the fact that this was not just a problem in news any longer. i'm quite surprised at your answers, i have to say. but i want to turn to, you have been mentioned in the evidence in the last section quite a number of times and in the previous role to the one you do now i think you were responsible for agreeing pay with a number of the more senior correspondence and journalists, is that correct? i was head of news

gathering at the time when carrie became china editor. gathering at the time when carrie became china editorlj gathering at the time when carrie became china editor. ijust want to get that right, you were responsible for a number of these agreed salaries? for the news-gathering editors and correspondence. so when you are doing that, what benchmarks did you use in awarding salaries customer kari mentioned some of the benchmarks. i looked at for international editors about time, europe, north america, middle east and china. which was a new role. the middle east editor wasjeremy bowen and was based in london because it cove rs and was based in london because it covers 1a different countries. so i looked at europe is both america as the comparators. in setting the salary i had a conversation with carrie and as she said she was keen that for obvious reasons that she

wa nted that for obvious reasons that she wanted me to assure her she would be paid the same as the male editors. and i used those comparators, north america and europe, is the most releva nt america and europe, is the most relevant i thought people to compare with. i offered carrie a salary which was more or less the same as they were on. as she explained in they were on. as she explained in the previous session, she had certain issues about accommodating how to do the job with her life. she explained the issue of their children not going with her to china and she wrote me an e—mail, to me and she wrote me an e—mail, to me and james before accepting the job in which she felt the offer i had made off i think around 120 the time, was not enough and she asked for £150,000. i felt that was

£22,000 more than either north america or europe were on at the time. and we settled on 130 which was still more insight than either the north america or europe editor we re the north america or europe editor were on. £2000 difference. yes. not £100,000. that came later, of course. at the time that we set her pay in that role there was no issue about gender at all. subsequently what happened, and i moved on to a differentjob, there was a new head of news—gathering who came in, a change of personnel. thenjohn sobel was appointed to the job of north america editor. and he came obviously with a different pay history. he had been a bbc one

presenter, he had been a presenter on world news, he was a former political editor of the news channel, a former paris correspondent and he had accumulated a much higher salary than carrie was on at the time as a presenter of the news channel. and we did not cut his pay in asking him to go is to north america. we felt he was the right person for the role. this is when things as we see get out of line. and this is where we should have addressed what the impact of appointing such a highly paid person to that role would be on all the other salaries that we have.|j to that role would be on all the other salaries that we have. i just wa nt to other salaries that we have. i just want to ask to go back a step, where carrie said you led her to believe she was on equal pay when she was appointed. you agree with that? yes because that was a fact. so when jon

sopel was appointed, did he negotiate directly with the bbc or did he have an agent?|j negotiate directly with the bbc or did he have an agent? i think he negotiated directly with the bbc. and who would that negotiation have been with customer i would imagine with the head of news—gathering. and who would sign it off at the top of the organisation? it would have been signed off by the ceo and management remuneration committee chaired by anne. and you would have been aware that the other correspondence were on much less than the amount given tojon sopel? on much less than the amount given to jon sopel? i would've known that it was their... you would have known the salaries. but i would have taken account, i did not know that there

had been an assumption that they needed to be treated as comparable. because jon sopel went into the washington role without a pay rise, he did not take a pay cut, he moved into that role. and there would be no reason for that committee to ask questions about politically —— relatively. i'm happy to take responsibility for that because of course now when we look at it as we do and look at the comparison between them clearly that was the right question to ask. and i apologise for that. apart from apologising surely in an organisation as big as the bbc, with the reputation of the bbc, and bearing in mind this is all public money, that somebody somewhere should have had responsibility to

ensure relative salaries will begin the law. the responsibility for looking at relative salaries was, and we spoke about this before, we have over delegated that down. so the purpose of the approvals has been very much about controlling the costis been very much about controlling the cost is not ensuring equality or fairness. and that has been a mistake. and that is why before we had this report, that certainly having received this report, we need a proper framework so when jobs come up a proper framework so when jobs come up for review you can look at them and make appropriate comparisons. so it is trying to deal with individual approvals, whether corporate level, without context for it and that is what is the cause of the problem. so at the point thatjon sopel was appointed, you approve the salary is

head of remuneration. we noted the appointment, there was no new salary to approve because his salary did not change. you approve the appointment ofjon sopel to this job on the salary that he was on. right. and was there anyone then responsible for looking at the equity across people's pay? that would be done within news. i think we are accepting it was not done within the news team. so who's responsibility would it have been? there is head of director of news, hr. but hr did not seem to play any role in any of these negotiations. that is the first mention this afternoon and we have been here for three hours. are you saying hr were involved in negotiations? obviously hr action... but do they have a role

in negotiations? there are normally done by the manager. so hr had nothing to do with this and stop just an administrative function. so at the time, you have said it would be within the news part that would look at this across the piece, who would it have been at that point? i'm not sure anyone did. it was an oversight. i think it is a bit more than an oversight but an illegal pay structure going on in this organisation, far greater than an oversight but i want to move on. lord hall. your grievance procedure, it has an arbitrary 90 days close in it. why is that? it is not arbitrary, it was agreed with the union. it is not in line with best code of practice. and there's no

union representing people at this level in the organisation of the top thatis level in the organisation of the top that is one of the things we have been debating with the nuj in particular and i think that is changing. the grievance procedure is agreed with the union and if it is not absolutely tiptop then we will have a look at it. this report published yesterday, and i watched a lot of news coverage on it yesterday, i spent many hours reading through it. ifelt let yesterday, i spent many hours reading through it. i felt let down by the interviews with both yourself and fran unsworth yesterday because they seemed to be a lack of grasping they seemed to be a lack of grasping the point that the bbc are a major fault here. is that a fair reflection these think?” fault here. is that a fair reflection these think? i think that is an unfair reflection on what i believe. i'm committed to equality within the bbc. i want us to be the

place people come to because were the best workplace for people to give of their best. i also want openness and transparency as i made clear yesterday so people can see exactly where they sit in pay bands, they can question those and ensure they're being paid properly. let me also say in case there is any doubt about this, if we get things wrong then we will say so. i believe that kind of culture and belief in a culture of openness. when we talk about these things in a direct and way with staff. well there was no acknowledgement at any point that you were dancing on a pinhead, you we re you were dancing on a pinhead, you were not admitting there was a pay problem. i have gone through the report, you can see all the markings of inaccuracies, contradictions, things were i did not quite get it.

i would be ashamed and embarrassed to put my name to that report.|j i would be ashamed and embarrassed to put my name to that report. i am happy with that report. just let me say why. i think it provides a much better framework going forward on how to manage this. but it is not just about going forward. i would accept there are quite a lot of things in going forward with a new organisation, bringing in proper systems. but this is about putting right what has clearly gone badly wrong. and that is what there is no acknowledgement of. so can you give any justification for why people acknowledgement of. so can you give anyjustification for why people and particularly the on—air talent, have been paid so unequally, is there any justification for that? as i said

yesterday, as the report said yesterday, as the report said yesterday, there has been a history here of markets being very different for news people versus others. there has been a cultural issue in the bbc where we have traditionally let theseissues where we have traditionally let these issues be discussed at the programme level. that is clear. there has been different sorts of contracts. there has been different payments and allowances for people, different ways of negotiating. but is there anyjustification for it? what we're saying very openly is we wa nt to what we're saying very openly is we want to move forward and get on a framework which is clear that these people... that is moving forward but putting right the historic losses, lack of pension, lack of pay that has gone on for years. what are you going to do about those things? i also said yesterday in that document and interviews and so on, if there are things that are wrong we will put them right. we are committed to

that. i want to make sure if people feel their grievances... if you look at the 18,000 people on this new career path framework which we introduced in the autumn, of those people to 1131 people from the mass of the organisation of the bbc have raised issues to do with their pay and were seeking to resolve them. to me that says there is an open climate where people feel they can come to us with these issues and we will resolve them. exactly the same thing happens with the top talent. you're talking about this career pathway but this is something moving on. and clearly this is the issue with on—air talent, huge, on. and clearly this is the issue with on—airtalent, huge, never on. and clearly this is the issue with on—air talent, huge, never in 25 years have i seen such huge discrepancies in pay between men and women who do work of equal value,

never anywhere in the private or public sector. so there is a huge problem. so what are you doing directly to address these historic concerns and put them right? you cannot say with great respect, what you just said without understanding the framework for pay and this has been something that i have really committed to as a team. what we announced yesterday was the release of data for people to judge where they sit and where they are paid but also consulting on a framework for people tojudge their also consulting on a framework for people to judge their pay going forward and make sure that pay decisions that we make are fair and proper and equal where people do equal work. i attach a huge amount of importance to that. that is what i believe in and what i want to achieve. i do not doubt you want to achieve. i do not doubt you want to achieve it moving forward but you're telling us nothing about what you're going to do about this huge historic problem that you have got at these

huge inequities in pay. and quite frankly what is not compliant with the law in terms of equal pay in my opinion. i'm sorry you think that. what i've been trying to say is that where there are issues to do with pay and individuals, we will look at them. are you suggesting throwing money at things? if we need to raise people's pay because we have not been treating them properly, fairly, then we will make payments to them. we absolutely will. that is the right thing to do. and also looking at pension issues customer this is one of the difficulties that we are trying to reform. and we are trying to reform the way we run the bbc. that is why we are here. and at the moment one of the issues we have, you have some people on certain contracts and others on contracts

with pensions. the final thing contracts and others on contracts with pensions. the finalthing i wa nt to with pensions. the finalthing i want to move onto, in the previous session i raised the evidence that came in in writing from the nuj. point 1a. as part of a move to make presenters work on a three—month basis it is very concerning that many women were pressured into leaving staff jobs many women were pressured into leaving staffjobs and told that otherwise presenting them would be... that was in the evidence and the verbal evidence from nuj said in terms of negotiating for these women, deliberately contracts were let to go out of time so negotiating a contract from the position of weakness. is that an appropriate way

to treat staff? it is not and let me be clear about that, it is not. the historic use of freelance contracts for presenters is something dating back for a long time. there is not in our organisation a particular bias between men and women in that. there are both men and women who are presenters who have been on freelance contracts for a long time. but putting pressure on people to move on to them when they have been on staff contracts. that dates back a long time. it is not going on now. when did it stop? what has happened in the last couple of years is with the changes in the organisation more people have needed to come onto paye. and that has raised issues of

the contractual basis that they should be on. so when that first came about some people were very unhappy about the change in their status. and did not agree with that. and the cost of moving across and all the rest of it altered things for them. and we introduce some contracts, some new contract forms which were intended to manage the transition. those contracts run, one is similartoa transition. those contracts run, one is similar to a staff contract and the other statutory benefits rather than bbc benefits. and the women on these contracts, but included maternity pay? they had a free choice as to which contract they wanted to take when they moved on. so no pressure to move people onto

these? about 90 people were involved, about two thirds man and one third women and they had a free choice as to whether they went on to a certain type of contract. what then happened over the course of the la st then happened over the course of the last six months is a further change in the application of the new test meaning that many more people around 2000 people, have needed to have their contracts revisited because of their contracts revisited because of the withdrawal of the radio moaners. the majority again men, that is the background to it. and like many organisations we had a great deal of difficulty in rolling this out at the speed we needed to because the new arrangements did not stabilise until august. the way in which that was rolled out, people found it was very difficult in deducting paye for the first time, getting people onto new contractual arrangements. we

worked hard to try to get that right, we did not get it right. we had, we spent time with a number of groups of staff, they talked about some of the difficulties that people we re some of the difficulties that people were experiencing particularly in the english regions, local radio, where people were not necessarily highly paid. we stepped in and we increased the focus on it, we sent people around the country to talk to groups of staff. there were a number of different problems, the first was our obligation to deduct paye getting muddled up with a new contract, and what you do with that. the second problem was in some cases people not wanting to be paid which meant that they disagreed with the tax assessment and did not want to do anything to underwrite that. and ina do anything to underwrite that. and in a couple of other cases, which we fixed, there had been a mistake in

telling people that we needed to sign contracts before they could be paid. going forward, we have looked at the whole range of contracts. we do not think it is right, we think it is too confusing and there are too many of them. so we're going to start consulting with staff on people who are, that we moved to staff contracts, if they are working with us and having paye deducted, if they want a full staff contract that is fine. a more simple approach to work contracts, people working for us work contracts, people working for us for shorter contracts and we need to deduct paye and standardisation of freelance contracts. two additional concerns we also want to speak to staff about, one is the use of fixed term contracts. and being much more rigorous about the circumstances in which people are contracted for two years rather than

ona contracted for two years rather than on a continuous basis. of course we re on a continuous basis. of course were contracts are rolled over there is no particular difference in their employment rights. it gives people an unnecessary uncertainty. different when you're working as a freelancer on a single commission which is going to end. and the additional thing is in some contracts were you have a clause described as creative refresh which of course is relevant if you're working exclusively on a commission. and the commissioners cancelled and the work has gone. but on continuous news it is wrong for some people to have that and not others. cani can ijust come back to the thing i read out about people feeling pressured? i recognise that. ithink thatis pressured? i recognise that. ithink that is wrong. i have heard that from many people i have spoken to, not exclusively women, but many women. i understand it. it is the

contractual arrangements and this sort of renegotiation of people, the idea of a renegotiation with people who have been with us for a long time is wrong. there are two different bits to it. in many ways, the fixed term contract is more of an issue. we think it is wrong, we wa nt an issue. we think it is wrong, we want to reform it, we have proposals that we are going to start talking to people about. and it has been one of the frustrations. and within the proposals to put that right, you said you will be offering people the opportunity to go back on staff contracts. will you be compensating people for their loss over some things many years when they have been bullied onto these contracts when they didn't want to change?” think the definition of loss in those circumstances needs to be worked through, because it depends what work they are doing. worked through, because it depends what work they are doingm worked through, because it depends what work they are doing. if there is proved to be a los... what work they are doing. if there is proved to be a los. .. in all cases, if we have a financial liability, then of course we will need it. but every case is

different, of course, and in some cases, people have had freelance rates that they have received which reflect not having access to those benefits when you look at them in the round. everybody is different. if people are being paid significantly more, and some case less, without the added benefits of a staff contract that would give. so in those cases... we have to look at those cases, and some of those are about mismatched contractual status, and in particular, miscalculation of the two rates. and one of the things that i know you don't want to keep hearing me talk about the future, but it is important for us, one of the things that we absolutely need to do... i've never said it's not important, it is not what we are here to talk about today. ok, but one of the things that we want to be much more rigorous about is keeping

a staff rate and a freelance rate or a staff rate and a freelance rate or a worker rate properly aligned and clear, so that people can understand that if they are working in a different way, they are being paid fairly. i think these reforms are overdue... you are watching bbc news. we are staying with this evidence session to the parliamentary select committee, the digital culture media and sport committee. the previous session overran quite substantially, therefore this session has begun late. but we do want to hear the bottle too much of what carrie gracie had to say. we were just hearing from anne bulford, the bbc‘s deputy director—general. she is sitting next to the director—general tony hall. we will stay with this for now. i do not believe that the bbc is an organisation where we have gone out and said, because it is illegal to do so, that is a woman, we will pay higher less to do that

job. i do not believe that is the way we operate. to go back to the case of carrie, she was being paid less. i have said already that the grievances, the mistakes that the grievances, the mistakes that the grievance procedure has found, i accept grievance procedure has found, i a cce pt we grievance procedure has found, i accept we are wrong and i'm sorry about that. that was a big failure of management, wasn't it? the systems were not in place to deal with that. no, and i think... are you it wasn't a failure of management? what i am saying is, for me, management is always about learning and listing. this is why anne and i began a process two years ago. james harding also looked at theissue ago. james harding also looked at the issue of top talent pay in the news because we knew we had things to get right. it has taken a long time, and as this committee has

heard today, these are very contributed issues. but don't underestimate our desire to get this right. but you have to accept that in the case of carrie, she was being paid less, and your systems were not in place to ensure that any change of circumstances, which happened whenjon sopel took of circumstances, which happened when jon sopel took his job, of circumstances, which happened whenjon sopel took hisjob, that should be addressed. it was your legal duty to be paying carrie equally for work at equal value.” wish to just hold back the notion of different bureau heads or different editors getting different pay because of different skills or different workloads or whatever. but i think what the result of the hearing that was done in the case of carrie shows that yes, there were management feelings, i completely agree with that. —— management failings. and i am working towards a position where these things are not

devolved to the point where they are not spotted, where we are proactively managing equal pay and making sure that people are —— if people have equal pay issues, they are raised, and making sure that we have very clear criteria for why one person gets that and another gets that. my policy on transparency and putting it out there is the key thing. i think we all agree with that comment if there is one thing we have learned from today, it is that we would like some transparency. because i have been appalled at the description of the way that you use the public money we pay to an organisation we all respect and love. i am with you with love and respect for the bbc. and with me on transparency? and actually, i think i have been very honest with you, the whole period of the charter negotiation, i was worried and concerned about too much transparency from the point of view of competition and people being

poached. i now understand that actually, the transparency in this area is the route to trust in the systems of the bbc. we have been learning that lesson two, over this side of the table. i think management is constantly about learning, listening and acting on what you hear, and i hope that is what you hear, and i hope that is what we have done. just to be clear on what you have said, you have been clear that you do not believe that the role of the china editor is of equal value to the role of the north america editor. i hate putting the word value on someone like carrie who is actually an extraordinary journalist. what i am saying is, under the law, we would need to be able to demonstrate that we are not discriminating by gender, but actually by clear factors that this job is worth more than thatjob because there are factors that make thatjob because there are factors that make that job worth because there are factors that make thatjob worth more in a very clear band. andi thatjob worth more in a very clear band. and i am sorry the stubborn

come across yesterday to you. but the framework we are putting forward to everybody, we want to consult with everybody, is to be able to give going forward that clarity of bands and frameworks the way we pay people. it is really important that people. it is really important that people trust that framework and where they sit in the bands. from what you've said so far, attributing different values, which you clearly do, that may notjust be about a journalist's experience, but also about the status of the post as well. is it your policy to see the status of different international editors as different regardless of who is old in the post? there are two steps. the first is the job evaluation. and what range do you have for the jobs which are grouped together? and the second step is the individual that goes on to that job and their experience. and sometimes the combination of that matrix can get you to a very similar number.

sometimes the combination of that matrix can get you to quite different numbers. but we would not normally expect to see the sort of range we have seen here. but the principle of pay ranges is very important. a couple of very quick things on that point. talking about equality and equal sharing ofjobs between women and men. the original publication of the salaries, which the government asked the bbc to do, revealed that two thirds of the people are earning £150,000 or more are men. so that kind of highlights the fact that, is it equal? you know, how could that possibly be the case? because it can't be right that only men are good enough to be paid to those salaries. —— to be paid to

those salaries. i have spoken and said that we want to see changes to that. there are additional issues around the disclosure. the disclosure is a list of what people are paid in the year. as we spoke at the time, it is what people are paid ina yearfrom the time, it is what people are paid in a year from the licence fee. so one of the things that we are seeking to do in this work, and it is one of the reasons it has been so challenging, and the pwc report speaks about it, is to normalise comparisons so that you understand what you are dealing with. because people do quite different patterns of work, so we have people who are ona of work, so we have people who are on a rate for the show, paid actually really at a higher or lower level, but you wouldn't necessarily see that byjust comparing somebody who has done ten a year to somebody who has done ten a year to somebody who is an everyday. but he blazed to believe that a lot of those,

particularly men, on higher salaries, were earning even more than that because they were on these personal tax arrangements, which we have just covered. they were getting other money in addition, which meant they weren't paying the right amount of tax. there is no gender bias that we can see in any data that we looked at on contractual status or arrangements. i just want to put it to you, were next week, we are celibate in 100 years of voting for women, and equality at all the work we do in parliament, i suggest this isn't a great week for the bbc to be coming out with all colours blazing, because blatantly, we have heard today, a great catalogue from carrie gracie and from the union representative, about how all of this is. you are too patriarchal, it defies credibility, we don't trust you, the bbc have belittled and marginalised as, that's women. this

doesn't stand up as journalists, and we are in the business of truth, this is a caste system, so this is got to be based on something. could ijust got to be based on something. could i just replied by got to be based on something. could ijust replied by saying, when you look at the domination of men of the very high paid positions on that list, that is wrong, and we have got to resolve that. and we are trying to resolve that. and we are trying to get more women into dominant positions on tv and video, and more women into management. we have now got 42% of our female readership as women. is that good enough? know, wa nts women. is that good enough? know, wants to get to 50%. 48% of people at the bbc are women. and i have set at the bbc are women. and i have set a target, because a lot of this comes from representation, from being 50—15 men and women on there, we are looking at contributors as well, by 2020. and one of the things

i have said yesterday...” well, by 2020. and one of the things i have said yesterday... i think you have said that before, my final point, you have got paid principles identified by the bbc on this bit of paper. it says they are fair, these are crucial, pay fairness and equality are enshrined in law, consistent clear and equal pay decisions, transparent reporting on pay, more than what is required in law, competitive and clear. and i suggest that from a lot of what we have heard, you haven't been adhering to that to the point that the head of finance didn't know what people were even being paid. so, can we have assurances this is absolutely going to be addressed? you have heard today we have moved from a system which was fairly decentralised, a high degree of

flexibility passed down, and a high degree of pragmatism as we move people around. and we are going to move towards a system which is more centralised and more transparent, with ranges for each of the jobs, and above 150,000, those will be public. that even those below 150,000, they know the cohort they are in, and they will be able to see where they stand within that cohort. i think, just to go back to the pwc report, there is some very uncomfortable reading in it. while it does conclude we do not discriminate on the basis of gender, there were also discussing a whitewash. the two things we have reflected here that are in the report is that the bands were much too high, we are doing that, we observe that by bringing down some of the top men, and by moving up some of the people, actually quite a numberof men as some of the people, actually quite a number of men as well as women, who we re number of men as well as women, who were paid below the proper grade of

the job. and the second thing we are seeking to do, and we on the board will be encouraging this, is to be better at explaining to people where they stand, so there is much greater transparency for the individual. and just finally, are you just hoping that all the men will volunteer to ta ke that all the men will volunteer to take less money? 0r that all the men will volunteer to take less money? or are you going to set a proper structure in place? because one would suggest that is hardly the way to go about solving the problem. i think we know what the problem. i think we know what the law is. once the ranges are established in the consultation process we discussed, there will be some men and perhaps some women who are above that, and we will certainly encourage them to move down. if they do not move down, they are not prepared to do that voluntarily, we will have to wait until their contract ends in table be read line for that period. we will act with them law. but what we put out yesterday was the framework

and the banding system that we want people to then consult on and see how they fit into the structures.“ i may, a quick one on this. it is the style of management that i'm interested in here. it would seem that yesterday, you published your intention to be open, and it seems to me that it is the case that there is no leadership. you are following events, not being proactive, being reactive. would you agree that in the five years, lord all, you have been there, you let the bbc down on your watch? -- lord hall. no, we have been proactive. we have had to wina have been proactive. we have had to win a charter, get the charter done, and once we have done that, we wa nted and once we have done that, we wanted to bring in big reforms, the terms and conditions, the way people are paid, and sort out things we

knew has to be done. but we could not do that at the same time as winning a charter. it'sjust feels as if you are being brought by events to where you are now. no, we we re events to where you are now. no, we were absolutely set on this pace of reform at the organisation. one of the first things i said mckinnon was i want to southern vipers organisation, i want to do make sure we can justify every pound that we spend for the licence fee payer. i set about simplifying it. this is one part of the big reforms is a book by the organisation and to bring clarity to it. and just an interesting question about style. i wa nt to interesting question about style. i want to listen to people, wants to consult. we are an organisation where people demand that of ours, which is good. i believe in very clearly the ship and clear emphasis on the values. but when it comes to working through these in detail, we wa nt to working through these in detail, we want to consult and involve people, not just the unions, want to consult and involve people, notjust the unions, but other

affected groups as well. and some of the things affected hair have come out of conversations, here being the document we put out yesterday, but also conversations with a woman's group over the last few months. anne andi group over the last few months. anne and i have been seeing the women's group monthly, apart from december, but in january. group monthly, apart from december, but injanuary. the style has been clear where we want to get to. thank you. i wanted to ask a couple of questions if i could. yesterday on the radio for programme, you told carolyn quinn, "we have asked men to be generous about this." . i listened to what had been said, but is this the bbc approach to dealing with this problem? you were to wait for individual male employees to ta ke for individual male employees to take a pay cut in order for individual management to bring the bbc within the law? —— radio four.

no, that is not our strategy. but we have in news a handful, and it really is only a handful of people who are paid on salaries that we thought are not acceptable in terms of justifying it to thought are not acceptable in terms ofjustifying it to the licence fee payer. and those are the people that we are looking that. justifying it to the licence fee payer, justifying it against the law? because what i have heard today in terms of what you would be putting forward as genuine materialforfactors in differentiating between the china editor and the north america editor,, suggest i don't think that difference in the those factors would justify paying somebody over £100,000 more? i think we have accepted that. we say that it wouldn't be justified for the differential to be that great. but where it becomes a matter of debate is, and we have alluded to earlier,

is, and we have alluded to earlier, is there any differential which is justifiable? and we think that there is. of course there is. and we think that this is based on... obviously not based on gender at all, but it is based on the status of the job, how often it is on the air, how interested the audience are, where it appears interested the audience are, where itappears in interested the audience are, where it appears in prominence in running orders. etiquette is fair to say that there are a couple of these on—air jobs that there are a couple of these on—airjobs which are incredibly tough, incredibly tough, such as the political editor and the north america editorjob at the moment. and probably the europe editor, too, but those, the north america and the... but that is a very subjective view. however even to demonstrate that objectivity? —— how are you going to? i accept that it is

objective, but not entirely subjective. if you would the data of on—air appearances, that is not necessarily the whole story, because of course carrie was extremely articulate about the difficulties of working on the china brief, but if you take the north america job, this is on the air three times a week, at the moment. certainly, since donald trump was elected, this is one of the busiest briefs. he is not only on the air three nights, and we have run the numbers on it. even in the busiest period last year, when we looked at when the china editor was on the airand looked at when the china editor was on the air and when the north america editor was on the air, it is twice as much in peak time. and that is when, at a busy time in the china story. it is a differentjob, the china job. it is a more features based agenda, not on the relentless treadmill of something like the north america editor's job treadmill of something like the north america editor'sjob is. and

we think that that is not necessarily a subjective reason... that you are looking forward, and you have presented what you propose to do to try to resolve this situation. i am looking at what has happened previously, and what struck me yesterday when i read the on—air report, and i will today statement the bbc had issued to accompany it, the bbc had issued to accompany it, the report says there is no evidence of gender bias in any decision—making that we have not found any evidence of pay decisions being based on gender. but in your statement, it says, the lack of peer review mentor was no regular opportunity to address these issues u nless opportunity to address these issues unless the question was raised by an individual. this meant we were not a lwa ys individual. this meant we were not always able to explain to individuals why decisions on pay we re individuals why decisions on pay were made. if you cannot explain why a decision on pay was made on the way it was, why can you say it was not based on gender? —— how can you say? because the methodology in the

report has gone back and look at different cohorts argue that men in those cohorts and women and those cohorts... did you taught anyone who was actually doing the job? the pwc report has looked at the data... but he didn't talk to anyone who was actually doing the job? it has looked at different factors as to why people are paid differently in each cohort. length of service as a factor... i understand that, buti am just asking, did they talk to anybody that do the job that are the subject of this report? —— the jobs? in orderto subject of this report? —— the jobs? in order to look at the past and the future, and make recommendations for the future, and we asked pwc to do both, they developed a framework which showed us where we had, helps us which showed us where we had, helps us to develop frameworks to the job... could you answer the question, please? did they talk to anybody who does the job that the reporters do? they spoke to... we

had information from a number of staff, we had information about, dealt with it through managers. now that we have a framework, that is for consultation, and the next stage is to go through a detailed process with, to use your phrase, the people who do the jobs. it is not done completely in isolation, and this particular aspect to the job evaluation framework, which job school where, how do they go together, has been subject to consultation of the trade unions over re ce nt consultation of the trade unions over recent weeks. but the trade union doesn't cover the whole of the bbc, does it? there are two separate things. the 18,000 career path framework that was published in october, that has been thought through with the staff extensively. and we have had feedback and indeed the report here identifies a group of staff who made very articulate statements to us, that even though

they had been classified as broadcast journalists, they had been classified as broadcastjournalists, for a they had been classified as broadcast journalists, for a high proportion of their time on there, they needed to be carrie. we have listened to that and dealt with it. so the approach we are taking to the on—airgroup, including so the approach we are taking to the on—air group, including the hype a group, is to take the proposals, thought the union about it, understand the general issues, and then speak to staff at speed. and i am hopeful it will help us, because one of the difficulties we have had is that, particularly in trying to resolve some of the issues that have, on equal pay and other paid questions, as in the absence of a framework to talk to people about it, it makes it extremely difficult that they can have confidence in your discussions. ok, on that point, you'll talk a lot about management discretion and how you wonder where ata discretion and how you wonder where at a senior level, i think described it as devolving responsibility for agreeing pay, the people who are making decisions to offer different salary levels to different people, did they receive any guidance at all

about what their obligations were under the law? and not to discriminate between men and women? yes, i think people understand their obligations. know, did they get any guidance from you? —— no.” obligations. know, did they get any guidance from you? -- no. i believe so, i would guidance from you? -- no. i believe so, iwould have guidance from you? -- no. i believe so, i would have to check what it was. it couldn't have been very good, could it? i think was. it couldn't have been very good, could it? ithink there was. it couldn't have been very good, could it? i think there are two problems. one is people looking at people within groups, individuals within groups, and not necessarily looking at everybody they should be. and the second problem is looking at relativity between programmes. so what makes sense for a group here in terms of balancing meeting obligations, being sure that you have got objective reasons for paying people differently, first of all, if you do not size the group, if you do not shake the group properly and miss people, then you have a problem, and then the second

challenge which comes through, which is why we dispense much time doing with the framework is just looking at individual programmes doesn't do it, you got to look at the way in which a loss of this has been managed at programme level with programme budget, you also got to look at the jobs across the whole organisation. ok. have any of the men who have taken pay cuts being offered any form of compensation for coming to that agreement, either financial or otherwise? no, not that i'm aware of. none at all? thank you. lord hall, language ask you some questions now. there has been a big focus on bbc news and equal pay. in the past 25 years, every director—general apart from one, which i think was greg dyke, has a background in bbc news. given what we have heard today, is there a danger that this is perpetuating an

old boys network? i do not believe there is an old boys network, i believe in equality of opportunity. igo believe in equality of opportunity. i go back to what i said earlier, which is wherever i can, properly, we have been trying to appoint women to key roles in the bbc, key roles in news, key roles as correspondence and reporters in news. but not paying them the same as men? well, i disagree on that. that's what this report says. sorry, of course we haveissues report says. sorry, of course we have issues with individuals which we are going to resolve. bus to go back to it, no, the idea of some old boys' club, i carrie. i do not believe that is the way the bbc should be all is. and the progress made in news, the people running news is now a 50—50 split between men and women. and we have increased

the numberof men and women. and we have increased the number of women in senior management positions in the last 15 years. so there is progress being made. yes, i can see there are greater numbers. my problem is i think it is having your cake and eating it. so solving the problem of putting women on screen, which you have tried to do, but at the same time, saving money by paying them less tha n time, saving money by paying them less than the men who were on—screen before them. it is taken with one hand and giving with the other. but lord hall, how were you appointed? how did you come about being appointed director—general at the bbc? i was extremely happily running the royal opera house, divers headhunted, and asked if i would apply to comment the bbc. —— i was headhunted. is that equality of opportunity? i was offered the job, the bbc was in crisis, and ifelt it was my duty to go back to the bbc

and help sort out the bbc, which i hope i have done since i came back. and do you think the bbc is in crisis now over this? do think its reputation can survive, you can surround? the bbc has an amazing future, this is not the role of us versus netflix and so on. but the bbc stands for an enormous amount of creativity. as carrie was saying earlier, what it stands for in terms of journalism is ofjournalism is more essential than ever, and i profoundly believe in the values that people who work for the values that people who work for the bbc stand up for. i also believe in learning, i do not believe that any organisation gets to a perfect state. you've got to listen, learn, change, adapt and reform, to ensure the of things you believe in. this line of questioning requires a