Four BBC strategic reviews: BECTU response
29 September 2004We welcome the opportunity to provide further feedback on the Strategic Reviews, following our national level meeting on 17th September 2004. We therefore give below an outline of our views on the relevant issues in summary form. We can enlarge on these at a later stage if appropriate. We have paid particular attention to content supply in the light of the specific suggested questions (our reference to Q1 etc. corresponds to the list provided). As background information, we also attach our earlier comments on 'Building Public Value', as provided to the BBC in July.
N.B. Our views are presented on behalf of BECTU members as a whole - specifically including not just BBC staff but also our freelance members working in the independent sector and for a range of broadcasters
Content Supply
Q1. There are significant advantages to the BBC in having a strong in-house production base - as is acknowledged in 'Building Public Value' (BPV). The Corporation is the UK's primary source of original programme production and the most significant employer and trainer in the UK audiovisual sector. As a programme producer rather than a mere publisher, the Corporation is able to command a broad range and a critical mass of creative and technical skills. This in our view guarantees high quality programming across all genres and provides the necessary space to develop talent and innovation. This can be replicated nowhere else in the UK audiovisual sector.Q2. We would oppose any increase in the current 25% independent quota. We support the quota in its current form which we think strikes the right balance between in-house and external provision. As indicated in our BPV comments (para 7), we believe that far from conceding ground to the independents, the time is right for a more critical assessment of their role in British broadcasting. As indicated, their record on employment, training and creators' rights leaves a great deal to be desired - as it does on equal opportunities. Extending employment opportunities in this area at the inevitable expense of permanent employment in-house would be, in our view, a clearly retrograde step. Nor is it appropriate for licence-payers money to be siphoned off for financial benefit of what is now (certainly in terms of the superindies) a powerful and profitable corporate sector.
Q3. Our preliminary view is that an independent quota determined by volume (hours) is preferable as a more transparent and objectively measurable standard. Determination by means of value (spend) is a potentially much less transparent and therefore open to question - which is one of the reasons why this has not so far been used in measuring the European programming quota.
Q4. This model (i.e. a smaller in-house guarantee and the flexibility for both in-house and indies to pitch over and above the 25% quota) poses all the same questions as a straightforward increase in the independent quota and our reaction is the same as set out in response to Q2 i.e. to oppose it. As well as the arguments referred to above, this model introduces an additional element of uncertainty arising from the 'flexibility in the middle'. We suspect that this would result in an increased use of fixed term rather than open ended contracts at the BBC and an additional uncertainty on the part of independents and their labour force about the size of the market they were working in.
Q5. Based purely on anecdotal evidence from members, we believe that at the top end of the production market (e.g. high value TV drama), independents may indeed offer better terms in some respects (including working time). On the other hand, the worst of the BBC is never as bad as the worst of the independent sector - which can include non-payment of contracts and no mechanism or procedures for dialogue on such issues.
Q6. We recognise that we have a comprehensive relationship with the BBC in terms of collective bargaining procedures and agreements and individual rights of representation for staff. We have collective bargaining rights and individual representation in most of ITV/Channel 3 and for our defined category of members working directly for Channel 4. In respect of freelances working directly for broadcasters, our experience has been of greater possibilities for dialogue with ITV than with BBC on issues and problems faced by our freelance members.
Commercial Review
1. Our basic view, as expressed in our initial submission to DCMS on the Charter Review, is that the BBC should retain a full range of commercial activities, which provide valuable additional funding (£141m in the case of Worldwide in 2003/4) for the BBC's role as a public service broadcaster.2. As indicated in our BPV comments (para 8), we trust that the review will not concede unnecessary ground to the self interested commercial critics of the BBC. We certainly hope the Corporation will not even consider selling off any part of its hugely valuable programme archive, which is an irreplaceable asset built up by the investment of licence payers and which should only be exploited to the direct benefit of the BBC. Nor are we convinced that the BBC should withdraw from its website activities, which arguably provide a public good at very little marginal cost to the BBC.
3. Finally, we believe there is a case to re-visit the internal separation of BBC Resources and BBC Broadcast from the core of the BBC. Any benefits seem in our view to be outweighed by the wasteful duplication of administration and related functions.
Value for Money
4. While there may indeed be considerable scope for reform in this area (e.g. in respect of procurement), our core concerns are in relation to the potential implication of this review for in-house production and employment levels.5. As indicated in the response to Q1 above, we support the retention of a strong in-house production base at current levels. We hope that any temptation to seek staff reductions for short term cosmetic reason (i.e. to score points in the Charter debate) will be resisted - whether in the contentious area of multiskilling/PDP or through measures such as increased outsourcing. We believe that the Corporation should consolidate and stabilise its staff and production base in the approach to Charter Renewal rather than engage in further experimentation.
Out of London
6. We support, in principle, an increased emphasis on programme production in the nations and regions - assuming this is genuinely rather than notionally based outside London i.e. using staff, freelances and facilities based locally rather than brought in from the South East.7. The crucial issue, in any such initiative, will be to ensure that the transition to 'a BBC that is less London-centric' is accomplished without job losses and on a voluntary basis in terms of staff relocation. We would expect full consultation in advance on the procedures and terms for any such relocation.