Savage pay cuts for BBC fat cats

A new non-executive chairman will be installed to act as a board-level watchdog pushing through wide- ranging reform, including the privatisation of its commercial subsidiary BBC Worldwide.

The new super boss would have a completely separate role to Sir Michael Lyons, current head of the BBC Trust, the corporation�s independent governing body.

The bold move, which would effectively give the corporation two chairmen, is likely to face strong opposition from senior BBC executives determined to keep Government interference to a minimum as well as protect their generous salaries and perks from what amounts to a bloodbath of spending cuts.

The non-executive chairman would directly challenge the authority of director-general Mark Thompson, who is the most powerful figure on the executive.

He also tops the salary league. Thompson is paid �834,000 a year and the total salary bill last year for the nine executive directors totalled �4.6million. Caroline Thomson, the BBC�s chief operating officer, received �413,000.

Other top earners included the deputy director-general, Mark Byford, who pocketed �485,000, and Jana Bennett, head of BBC Vision, who received �515,000. The move could also see further cuts in the big fees paid to top stars.

At the last count this figure was running at �54million for talent earning more than �150,000 and a further �16million for presenters paid between �100,000 and �150,000.

The new chairman may also push for the salary packages of such highly paid stars as Jeremy Clarkson and Graham Norton to be made public.

The secret plan to appoint a non- executive chairman has been revealed by the former Thatcher minister Lord Fowler, who is the former chairman of the influential Lords Communications Select Committee.

Lord Fowler said: �Jeremy Hunt [new Culture Secretary responsible for the BBC] has indicated that the BBC Trust will not be broken up at this point and that he has no intention of tearing up the BBC charter until the next renewal discussion.

�What he can do is put a non-executive chairman into the executive board. You currently have the executive going up one side with Mark Thompson at the top, then you have this other body, the BBC Trust, operating in parallel. The aim would be to have a board structure like any other company.

�Now, when the BBC hits a crisis, the chairman of the trust is unable to come in and explain and support because he�s the person who�s got to judge on it.

�A fundamental reform is required but that may come at the next renewal of the charter. In the interim, however, you will find that the executive will have a new chairman, and therefore will have a new input in that way.�

Salary levels would be one issue, he said, that a new chairman could address. �If you have a new non-executive chairman you might find that this issue is one he would want to revisit. That would be a decision for them in line with other decisions being taken elsewhere in the economy.�

Asked how director-general Mark Thompson would respond to such a move, he said: �I don�t know at all. I don�t think the executive board will mind. I think the people who might mind are the trust, because they will say: �Are we going to have two chairmen?� The appointee could be an outsider or a professional from television.�

Asked about Michael Grade, the former ITV and BBC chairman, Lord Fowler said: �I doubt that he�ll be making another appearance.� Lord Fowler said the privatisation of BBC Worldwide would make millions for the Exchequer.

�Even the last Government said there was a strong case to privatise this organisation and I think the new Government will feel that the case is overwhelming. BBC Worldwide is restricted in how it can develop because it hasn�t got the investment, so I think a scheme of bringing in private investment would have the support of those working there.

�You�re talking about raising quite a considerable amount of money, most of which could go to the public coffers. At a time when the Government is concentrating on raising money to combat the national deficit, then something like this is a glaringly obvious step to take. This could be like one of the mem�orable privatisations from the Eighties.�