Our thanks to Paul for this. The end of the piece:
A second report, an equal pay audit for within the BBC undertaken by PwC and Eversheds, ruled that there is “no systematic bias” within the BBC on the sole basis of sex, pointing out “mixed” factors at play.
The audit does not take into account senior managers, on air editors, presenters or correspondents, with a separate investigation into on-screen talent pay due by the end of this year.
Specifically, it found that 123 job roles at the corporation had a median pay gap of more than five per cent in favour of men compared with 100 job roles with a significant median pay gap of in favour of women.
Another 162 roles had a pay gap in either direction of less than five per cent. Sir Patrick Elias, a former appeals court judge who oversaw the report, wrote that for pay gaps benefiting both men and women, “there is no justification in assuming that the difference is likely to be the result of sex discrimination”. [J4MB: In pain English, there is no problem. Why then is Lord Hall, director-general, seeking a solution, which can only mean driving up the pay of women regardless of merit and/or reducing the pay of men regardless of merit?]
He added: “The conclusion in the report that there is no systemic discrimination against women in the BBC’s pay arrangements for these staff is, in my judgment, amply borne out by the statistical evidence and is further supported by the analysis of particular cases carried out by Eversheds.”
