BBC director general says huge expenses bills justified

THE expenses of the BBC's top executives are "entirely justifiable", its director general Mark Thompson said in an extraordinary defence of the corporation's lavish use of public funds.

Mr Thompson said executives' use of £363,963 in expenses over the past five years was "reasonable", and that his basic salary of £647,000 was a third of what he would get in the private sector.

"Every one of these expenses in my view was reasonable and was justified," he said.

"I don't believe that I've yet seen any evidence that a single one of these line-by-line expenses has been in any way unjustified."

While Mr Thompson's salary is publicly disclosed, he argued that the wages of the BBC's top stars should not be as it would lead to a "talent drain".

Following numerous Freedom of Information requests, the BBC on Thursday released the details of its 50 highest-paid directors, 27 of whom are paid more than the prime minister.

Expense claims included Mr Thompson billing taxpayers £2,236.90 to fly his family home from a Sicilian holiday to deal with the Jonathan Ross/Russell Brand phone prank row.

Mr Thompson defended this, saying: "I took the car, drove 150 miles to the airport, abandoning my family without a car in a hotel in Sicily. I think, rather understandably, they felt that, given the circumstances, they should come back too," he said.

In 2004 he also chartered a private plane to rush back to the UK to deal with an "urgent staff issue", thought to be an internal investigation into Alan Yentob's expenses, at a cost of £1,277.71.

Another executive – Jana Bennett – claimed £2,000 in expenses in flowers. Yet another – Dame Jenny Abramsky – spent £1,137.55 on a dinner to celebrate Sir Terry Wogan's knighthood.

Despite 47 of the 50 top BBC directors earning between £190,000 to £600,000, Mr Grade said the corporation's staff were paid much less than their private sector peers. "We all accept that we should get paid much less than our equivalents do in the private sector," he said. "It is quite reasonable that I should get paid a third of the equivalent in the private sector."

"I'm afraid that people who are making decisions about whether they should become head of TV for the BBC or head of radio aren't comparing themselves with a career choice about becoming Prime Minister."

He said yesterday's disclosures marked a "step change" in the amount of information being made public by the BBC, with a new commitment to the quarterly publication of the expenses of more than 100 executives.

"Unlike the MPs, we have not been in the courts saying our expenses should not be published," he said. "If you look at what we published yesterday, we haven't redacted it. There is a tiny number of redactions for security or commercial confidentiality.

"We think we are being more open now than any other public sector organisation currently in this country."

But he warned any move to require the publication of the pay of top performers could have a damaging effect on the BBC.

"With freelance artists who work not just for the BBC but for others, who work in an industry where there is no tradition of disclosing – on the contrary there is a tradition of confidentiality – we worry that, if it turns out you work for the BBC, you get your pay disclosed, if you work for ITV you don't, there will be a talent drain," he said.