Morning:
14°c
BBC's top stars turn on Thompson
Alexa Baracaia, Media Correspondent18.10.07
BBC director general Mark Thompson faced sustained attack by some of TV's biggest figures in a behind-closed-doors meeting over planned budget cuts.
He was grilled by his own attack dog John Humphrys, who accused BBC bosses of stamping on dissent over the proposal to cut 2,500 posts and spending across services including news and factual programmes.
Other stars complained of "too many executives" at the BBC, poor pay for many staff and plummeting morale.
Last night's meeting was convened by Mr Thompson to give big name presenters - including Humphrys, Six O'Clock News anchor George Alagiah and Front Row host Mark Lawson - an advance briefing on the outline detail of cuts to be announced today.
But he faced fury after unveiling details of 2,500 posts to go across the corporation, 1,800 of which will be straight redundancies with the others covered by redeployments and "natural wastage", not replacing staff who quit.
Big savings will come from cutting original programming by 11 per cent in the factual department, which makes flagship shows such as Timewatch, Horizon and Planet Earth.
There will be "fewer, better" commissions, insisted Mr Thompson, with the cuts saving an estimated £100 million a year over three years.
So-called "efficiency savings" will see budgets in news and current affairs slashed by 15 to 20 per cent. Television Centre, the corporation's west London HQ, will be sold to developers.
However, after insisting he wanted a "debate" on the issue Mr Thompson was slapped down by Today host Humphrys, who has already spoken out against the cuts but been warned to "stay out of" the argument by BBC chairman Sir Michael Lyons.
A source told the Standard: "Thompson said he welcomed a debate but Humphrys was clearly not happy, hitting back with 'when we do speak we get shot down'."
According to insiders, Mr Thompson - who was joined at the meeting by BBC head of marketing Tim Davie, head of finance Zarin Patel and Sir Michael - faced a "serious grilling" from angry presenters desperate not to see their departments suffer.
"Mark Lawson was complaining that there were too many executives in the first place," said one senior source.
Presenter Professor Robert Winston was also furious over the cuts, insisting, said one onlooker, "that the BBC exploits young people by not paying them enough and doesn't look after their morale".
Lord Winston added that there was already a "big morale problem" in the BBC's factual department which would only get worse.
Mr Thompson defended the most controversial cuts which will hit news - with the online, TV and radio operations set to be integrated - insisting there were glaring inefficiencies at the BBC.
The cuts are to deal with an estimated £2 billion funding shortfall after the below inflation licence fee settlement from the Government.
But they have provoked a huge outcry from BBC staff who claim they are already facing unprecedented pressure because of the axing of some 4,000 jobs less than three years ago.
The unions say the quality of services will suffer and strike action looks inevitable with compulsory redundancies highly likely.
According to insiders, anger within the BBC is worse than it was in 2005, when 11,000 staff took part in a 24-hour walkout to protest at the cuts. That action brought key news services to a standstill.
Mr Thompson was due to brief union leaders this morning and the rest of BBC staff later.
But the unions are already unhappy at revelations that redundancy letters had been written and signed even before the governing BBC Trust yesterday gave its "unanimous approval" to Mr Thompson's budget saving plans.
The letters seeking voluntary redundancy are set to be posted out to thousands of staff tomorrow.
Unions say it shows the BBC is riding "roughshod" over staff concerns and has never had any intention of entering into " meaningful negotiations" over job cuts - making strike action more likely.
Unions may decide to ballot staff today and any strikes could take place within weeks, affecting flagship shows including the news, live entertainment ratings winners such as Strictly Come Dancing, live sports coverage and, if the action is sustained, even long-runningserials such as EastEnders. The job cuts are likely to be divided in the main between the news and factual divisions, with factual reportedly losing up to 735 posts - probably translating into as many as 660 redundancies.
News in London will see up to 490 post closures, resulting in up to 370 redundancies.
Both BBC3 and Switch, the just-launched new service for teenagers, will face £10 million budget cuts each.
BBC2, BBC3 and BBC4 will broadcast more repeats, although the Trust has demanded that management ensure BBC1 does not.
There are also fears today for the future of some flagship programmes such as Arena, Timewatch and Storyville.
Horizon and Natural World are reported to be safe from cuts but there was no mention in advance briefings yesterday of the others.
Reader views (3)
The BBC is one of the last bastions of overmanning and tight union control of staffing levels. The production teams of many factual programmes are too big and news and current affairs duplicate each other - eg, a press conference shown by ITN which had THREE BBC camera teams and FOUR - yes, four - BBC reporters covering it for different broadcasts.
Of course, there are also too many 'suits'- too many executives who are paper-shuffling and devising 'strategies'. And finally, too many vastly overpaid presenters - Jonathan Ross and his obscene £6m a year salary - nobody's worth that; Graham Norton on £2m a year and so on. Why should licence payers fund these enormous salaries? They should be capped at a certain level and if these presenters threaten to leave, let them - they'll find they can't all get jobs on ITV or Sky!
- Paul, Tooting, London England
The BBC will still be twice as big as it ought to be even after these minor cuts.
- Jonathan Miller, Surrey
The BBC is using moral blackmail by concentrating their cuts on the news departments, hoping that the Government will give in to public outrage and restore the 'funding cuts'. There's more than enough rubbish on BBC TV - why can't they chop that instead? Left to the BBC the television licence fee would sky rocket without limit; in the 21st century it is an anachronism. If the BBC wants to cut the news etc but keep the commercially competitive garbage then why not do away with it altogether and arrange for all TV watching to be pay per view?
- Geoff, Wandsworth
