26 January 2005
BBC
Media Centre,
Media Village,
201 Wood Lane,
London W12 7TQ.
AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE BBC’S STAFF UNIONS ON REORGANISATION PLANS
Dear [Name of Governor,]
On 17th January I wrote on behalf of the three unions, AMICUS, BECTU, and the NUJ, requesting an opportunity to address a meeting of the Governors on the subject of the Director-General’s proposed reorganisation. So far we have not had a reply.
Since it appears we will not be invited to address you in person at this stage, the purpose of this letter is to set out why many thousands of union members at the BBC are concerned over the proposals coming out of the DG’s four reviews. We believe that the impact of these reviews could do irreversible damage to the BBC in its role as the cornerstone of public service broadcasting.
While you have received the contents of the reviews, neither the unions or members of staff directly affected have been able to put their views and suggestions to you. Even at this late stage we are still seeking to discuss matters with you before a final decision is taken.
Out of London
We support the idea that as a national broadcaster the BBC should be seen to be devolving both parts of the commissioning process, and more programme-making, to all parts of the United Kingdom. We welcome the increase in funding for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This begins to reverse the trend of the last ten years which has seen the BBC pulling back to London, as with, for example, the loss of the main studios at BBC Pebble Mill.
However there are some questions about the proposal that need to be asked. The central element is the proposal to move several departments to Manchester, which is said to be dependent upon a ‘satisfactory’ licence fee settlement (since the cost is likely to be around £500 million pounds this is a sensible precaution). However the licence fee will not be fixed until the issues around charter renewal are resolved, which is unlikely to be before the end of 2005. In the meantime the level of uncertainty is very distressing for staff.
The project requires the building of a new state-of-the-art production centre in Manchester, but no thought seems to have been given to the existing well-resourced production centre in Television Centre in London, which, despite the flippant comments of the Director General, is in full working order. Taking Sport, Childrens and 5Live to Manchester will make it impossible to run Television Centre efficiently as there will be insufficient programmes being made there. Does that mean it will have to close?
What will be the future for Television Centre and the remaining staff there? The new Broadcast and Media Centres are barely 2/3 full. Once the expansion to Broadcasting House is completed, along with the suggested moves to Manchester, there will be an excess of unused office space with obvious costs to the BBC. How is this going to be handled; what are the costs going to be; and how will they be paid?
The unions also feel that proposals to uproot departments from London will need further discussion as to exactly how this proposal can be progressed without causing damage to morale, programme output, and, most importantly, staff. We are concerned that people are being asked to commit themselves and their families to a move at a time when they are uncertain what facilities will be available, and what role they will be expected to undertake. Yet again the BBC appears not to have allowed its staff - the corporation’s most important asset - to have a say in its own future.
Content Supply Review
The plan for a 25% window of creative competition is one of the most damaging proposals tabled by the DG, since it seems to accept that it is appropriate for the BBC to reduce its programme making role, and divert more of the licence fee into the profits of independent producers. There is also an assumption that BBC Production is not good enough to make 75% of BBC programmes. The DG says that the statutory independent production quota of 25% will be treated as a floor rather than a ceiling.
By setting aside, on top of the existing 25% quota, a further 25% of production for ‘creative competition’ and cutting back the staff to the point where there will only be enough people employed to make 60% of BBC production internally, the BBC has, in effect, accepted that the independent quota will rise to 40%. This takes the BBC nearer to the point where it will be a publisher only rather than producer of programmes.
There is also a serious risk that talented members of staff would leave the corporation as the outlet for their creativity is diminished. We have evidence that, already, members of staff are leaving the corporation with guaranteed contracts to provide services to the BBC as independent contractors.
This means that public money from the licence fee will become part of the profit margin for people who are currently BBC employees. This has to be wrong and in our view, indefensible.
There is also a very serious danger that, despite having made such a huge concession, the Government will see it as a first step and go on to impose an even higher level of independent production. We do not hear the Director General insisting that the BBC’s production divisions, which have made many brilliant award winning programmes, should be allowed to remain as the centres of excellence it they are, providing a critical mass of programme-making and serving as the training ground where creative programme-makers can learn their trade.
Value for Money
The proposal to outsource or dismiss more than 10% of the BBC’s staff in so-called "back office" posts is draconian. These are areas which have faced job cuts in the last few years, with Finance losing 700-800 jobs due to the introduction of new software systems, and Human Resources losing 25% in a recent reorganisation. There is no evidence that these people are not fully employed, nor is there any suggestion that the BBC will cease to require these services. It seems to be a given that where posts are closed other staff are expected to pick up the work associated with them, despite already being fully stretched. If the BBC is intent on reducing its headcount, then it should be honest enough to declare what activities it no longer requires, rather than dumping extra work on staff who are already working very hard.
Two and a half thousand of the posts are an area called Professional Services, and comments in the press, together with views expressed by some managers, have led its staff to believe that they are considered somehow as being less important to the BBC than programme-makers. However, in reality, they are key to the efficient and safe working of the entire Corporation. To take an example, the Health and Safety Department (Occupational Risk Management or ORM) is facing severe cuts, despite the fact that the BBC was the subject of a very critical report from the Health and Safety Executive only last year. The intention is to reduce the numbers in ORM through redundancy by more than a quarter (28 out of 108) and then to outsource a further 27 staff. It begs the question of how committed the BBC is to the safety of its staff and contributors when it proposes to carve up the department in this way.
The further Value for Money proposal to reduce programme budgets by 15% over three years can only lead to more redundancies amongst programme-makers, and an expectation that those left behind will have to work twice as hard to do the work that remains.
Commercial Activity
Last October the BBC sold BBC Technology Ltd for £150 million. Now it is proposing to sell BBC Broadcast Ltd and BBC Resources Ltd. It is difficult to understand the commercial rationale for either sale.
When BBC Broadcast was set up as a wholly-owned commercial subsidiary the BBC assured the staff working there that this was necessary to secure significant amounts of commercial work. Two and a half years on, that work has not materialised, but, rather than admit they were wrong, the management are now proposing to sell BBC Broadcast in order to secure the absent commercial work which, it is claimed, is just waiting to be picked up. By the BBC’s own admission BBC Broadcast is competitively priced, produces a very high quality product, and its contract guarantees a reduction in price to the BBC every year.
It seems to many staff that the only reason for selling the company is to reduce the headcount of the BBC. The only thing that can make it attractive to the market is the guarantee of seven and a half more years of work from the BBC contained in its current contract. When that contract expires and the BBC wishes to re-negotiate, it will be at the mercy of the market.
Similar points can be made about Resources Ltd, with an even bigger question mark over its future work because of the drive to move programmes out of London. Outside Broadcasts will be less affected by this move, but Post Production, and crucially TV Studios, will face a very uncertain future. The BBC will find it very difficult to offer to a new owner of BBC Resources the kind of guaranteed supply contract which made Technology, and could make Broadcast, a desirable proposition.
As you can see your staff is very concerned about the future of the BBC as the ‘cornerstone of public service broadcasting’. The short term approach of selling strategic assets to raise as much money as possible, whilst reducing the headcount, is a policy fraught with danger.
The joint unions believe that, before you endorse these major proposals flowing from the DG’s four reviews, you should allow representatives of the unions’ BBC National Joint Council the opportunity to have a significant input on behalf of staff to inform your decision-making.
Yours sincerely,
Luke Crawley
Secretary
Joint BBC Unions
On behalf of Amicus, BECTU, and NUJ
