May 2011 27

New Research: BBC and S4C spend millions on private healthcare18

The TaxPayers’ Alliance has uncovered that the BBC and S4C, the Welsh language channel, have spent more than £2.3 million on private health insurance for staff in the last three years.

The figures were revealed through Freedom of Information requests to both organisations. S4C provide health insurance for the majority of their staff.

The key findings from these Freedom of Information requests were:

  • In 2008 544 BBC staff received private health insurance, total spent was £697,520 - equivalent to 5,000 TV licences
  • In 2009 530 BBC staff received private health insurance, total spent was £705,469 - equivalent to 4,951 TV licences
  • In 2010 532 BBC staff received private health insurance, total spent was £761,438 - equivalent to 5,233 TV licences
  • In 2008-9 129 S4C staff (from a total of 167) received private health insurance, total spent was £50,551
  • In 2009-10 123 S4C staff (from a total of 171) received private health insurance, total spent was £52,310
  • In 2010-11 122 S4C staff (from a total of 171) received private health insurance, total spent was £48,111

Matthew Sinclair, Director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said:

“It’s crazy that the BBC and S4C have spent millions in recent years on private health insurance for staff.  Viewers already pay for the NHS through their taxes and if it’s good enough for us then it’s good enough for them.  Cutting costly healthcare perks would be a quick and painless saving.  Expensive extras like this are unaffordable and should be scrapped; both organisations need to acknowledge the wider financial crisis and tighten their belts several notches.”

This information came from freedom of information requests to the BBC and S4C; their responses are below:

BBC FoI response

 

S4C FoI response

Related Posts

  • Pingback: Why the TPA report on BBC’s healthcare bill falls flat | Liberal Conspiracy

  • PT

    Surely, private health insurance should be a complete anathema for anyone who is being financed out of the public purse. How much longer are the already privileged taxpayer trouncers going to get away with what is nothing short of demanding money with menaces from the hard-pressed taxpayer? 

    • dh

      “what is nothing short of demanding money with menaces”
       - really? perhaps you should check out the legal situation in a bit more detail when you have calmed down. You might also check out “slander” whilst you are at it.

      • Anonymous

        “slander” dear oh dear is that what the call free speech these days, what dark times we live in.

      • http://twitter.com/ukgoldbug Gold Bug

        Demanding money with menaces is exactly what the BBC do. I continually get threatening letters for an industrial lock up with no electricity let alone tv and recently had an aggressive enforcer turn up to try and get their payoff. If you think PT was slandering the BBC read on. The BBC is staffed by hypocritical, champagne socialist, public sector leeches who need to try and earn a living in the real commercial world and stop being parasites.

        • dh

          Let me get this right, are suggesting that the BBC in asking for your TV licence are in breach of Section 21 of the 1968 Theft Act?

           - would you extend that to include Sky TV who demand a subscription to receive satellite channels?

          If you do see such a breach, then you must raise this matter with the Police, otherwise you might be considered by them to be an accessory to the crime you are alleging.

          I appreciate you may have a difficulty with going to the Police as they are some pinko state funded quango. But the law is the law

  • Lee

    I pay for a TV licence and if some of the money is used towards Private Healthcare for the BBC staff I am happy to pay it. If the BBC were doing things that ITV, Sky, Ch4 or Ch5 weren’t doing maybe there would be a point to this  story. Once again the TPA anti public service agenda is clear for all to see.

    • Anonymous

      Not anti public sector as you’d no doubt love to see but pro-taxpayer value for money, that’s how I read it. In this day and age of dismissive, snarling public authorities at least someone attempting to fight our corner. 

      • Lee

        I see quite the reverse. The Freedom of information act and other regulatory bodies ensure the you have this information. What’s missing is context. Focusing emotion on those organisations which do provide this extensive information misses the materially significant number of companies which hide the equivalent information and therefore our context. It leaves us no choice but to focus on those that do. Let’s put this in context. If these numbers above are right, we’re talking about 0.02% of the total TV Licence income being used on healthcare. That means just 3.2p of the TV licence money is used for this. Is this really worthy of this report? Our licence would drop a whopping 3 pence. Admittedly that’s each year! Quite frankly I’d want someone fighting a more productive corner.

        • Fred Cook

          Hi Lee

          you miss the point entirely, as an idividual, I cannot afford Private Health care like BUPA, so why should I have to pay for soemeone else (employed with my Money) an employee, have a better benefits that I can afford.
          ITS a bit like taking postage stamps/tlephone usage  from your employer for your personal Xmas cards or whatever, it is THEFT, you can dress it up as anything you like, but the FACT still remains THEFT.
          It is time everyone is responsible for their own actions and if the LAW (laugh ) was not run by idiots and dogooders it used to be so. Even politicians some are just common thieves and should loose ALL benfits and priveledges, for crossing that line, as should ALL civil servants public servants and anyone. Perhaps a dose of SHARIA law for a year ( assuming you could get rid after that period) would be a good thing! 

  • dh

    surely the £580,000 just spent tarting up Cameron’s pad and office at Downing street is a more scandalous abuse of Tax Payers funds?

    Your dig at BBC / S4C confuses insurance with private health charges, which either a stupid error or a deliberate act of deceipt on your part.

  • Guest

    That’s because NHS is really not good enough. Any candidate of a professional job will demand a private medical cover. Instead criticising BBC over this, why not abolish NHS and cut taxes so everyone can afford to pay for their own insurance.

    • fred Cook

      Hi Guest, Yes I agree that the NHS as opperated is a parasite, but unfortunately when you abolish anything it is rarely replaced properly. The NHS is a good idea but needs spliting back to individual County Health Boards and doctors and other NHSemployees past or present  should be resrticted to no more that 25% of the Health board, as they only vote for the status quo. The Mangement in the NHS is crap and needs culling, stop providing cars, only vans should be provided. Airedale Hospital has as many white collar as nurses, how can that ever be sustainable. The Old battleaxe matron, ruled her domain, there were no nurses stations where they clack amongst themselves, there were no dirty floors, soiled beds or your life was not worth living. This splitting of responsibilities does not work, as everybody and nobody is responsible, give one person responsibility and the power to remove the lazy, without all thsi silly Health & safety stupidity and teh Unions look to what is their concern, not protecting unsuitable incompetent employees. Finally stop all defined benefit pensions, you should benefit from you own contributions only and not mine as an overtaxed individual

  • PT

    Sorry to be late in responding (travelling on business in Bosnia), but I’d just love to know what ‘job’ DH has in the public sector.
    For individuals like him/her there is no comprehension whatsoever of the real world!!

    • dh

      I don’t work in the public sector, but in “the real world” as you see it. I don’t like the assertion that if I did work in the public sector, my argument would be somehow less valid: Judge me by my words and deeds not by what you think I represent.

      Actually you seem to confuse the real world for the monied economy. In fact the real world is a marriage of the market economy and the big society. There are some things the market place fails to deliver directly (national security normally being the least controversial, sewage being another), and many other things that communities, councils, volunteers and friends are less good at than the market place.

      If the TPA does its job well, then it will promote good practice as well as expose the bad practice of local authorities, governments and quangos. If it’s desire is simply to be a voice for all that is bad about quangos etc, then it has nothing constructive to say. Its influence will be minimal.

  • Pingback: The death-throes of Welsh Broadcasting – but is anyone watching? | Gogwatch

  • Pingback: On planet Tory, hackgate shows the real problem is... The BBC | Left Foot Forward

  • Pingback: Cameron fuels right's hate fixation on the BBC | Left Foot Forward