BBC Radio 4 'seriously threatened', say unions

Quite rightly, after protests from MPs and listeners, it looks like the proposed cuts to BBC local radio are to be scaled back. But there is another battle brewing at Broadcasting House about cuts to Radio 4.

When Mark Thompson announced his package of cuts, 'Delivering Quality First', on October 6, he was keen to stress that Radio 4 - alongside BBC One, children's programmes, News and the devolved nations - would be largely safe from the cuts. But this pronouncement - which saved Thompson from predictable criticism in the serious print press - is based on the kind of sleight of hand that could only come from BBC management.

Thompson has divided the upcoming BBC cuts into two categories: 'productivity' and 'scope'. A 'scope' cut means saving money by the BBC stopping doing something (for example, no more new daytime shows on BBC Two). A 'productivity' cut means saving money by carrying on doing exactly the same thing, but doing it with fewer people or a smaller budget.

(One small aside: a very senior BBC manager said to me privately the other day that Lord Patten's supervisory BBC Trust, currently consulting on the cuts, can only suggest changes to 'scope' cuts, not to 'productivity' cuts. That's presumably because 'productivity' cuts are operational decisions for Thompson and his management team, not policy decisions for consideration by the Trust. A convenient distinction for management, but one which - as with so many other Trust processes - might not get the best deal for licence-fee payers.)

It is easy to protest against a 'scope' cut - the proposed changes to, for example, local radio schedules were clear to see. It is much more difficult to argue against a 'productivity' cut, because the idea is that listeners and viewers won't see any difference. And, of course, the serious print press traditionally says that the BBC is overstaffed and inefficient, so any increases in productivity should be welcomed by commentators like me.

And true enough, very little in the way of 'scope' cuts are planned for Radio 4, so nothing to worry about, eh?

The true picture is murkier than that. Even though Radio 4, for example, is supposed to be protected from the cuts, 50 staff will lose their jobs in the departments that make its programmes. Can all of those be truly characterised as making the BBC more 'productive', or does there come a point when a cut is simply a cut?

The unions - predictably but, in this case, convincingly - say the latter. 'Radio 4 is seriously threatened,' says a document prepared by the NUJ's Radio and Technology chapel. It goes on to say that the Audio & Music Production department - which makes Desert Island Discs, Start the Week, etc 'proposes to force all its c. 130 Producers and Senior Producers to apply for a newly-defined 'Producer' role – with at least 30 fewer posts but no reduction in R4 output.  Those who are unsuccessful face redundancy or demotion.  Many, but by no means all, will be replaced by so-called 'Assistant Producer' posts – a euphemism for 'underpaid producers'.  There are no proposals to cut management jobs.'


The document finishes by saying 'Is losing so many expert production staff really "the best way ahead"?  If this is "special protection", what would swingeing cuts look like?'

Up to 110 jobs to be lost at BBC Salford

I hear that up to 110 of the jobs that have been moved to the BBC's new northern hub in Salford (mainly from London) will be lost as part of director-general Mark Thompson's Delivering Quality First cuts programme - with up to 60 of those coming from the News division.

All of which leaves people who have moved north out of love for their current BBC job feeling rather anxious.

But, when I interviewed Peter Salmon, the boss of the BBC's Salford project, for the Daily Telegraph a few weeks ago, he said that anybody who has moved up from London to do a BBC job in Salford will almost certainly be found another job, if theirs is made redundant.

'We don't foresee there being any enforced redundancies of people who've moved up from the south of England, supported by the BBC,' he said, pointing out that an additional 1,000 jobs would move to Salford as part of DQF (though the nature of those jobs has yet to be specified).

'The most important element is anybody who's moved from the south of England to the north of England. They will be put in a place of some preference for job opportunities. Secondly, wherever the BBC can redeploy staff from across the BBC, we have a commitment to making redeployment work.'

The unions will be watching carefully to see if Salmon's predictions come true on the ground.

• In other Salford news: the provisional date for BBC One's Breakfast programme to start broadcasting from the new site is 4 April 2012.

Staff - well, those that are going - will move up in earnest during March, following colleagues in Sport, Radio 5 Live and CBBC.

Sofie Gråbøl: 'I have Pernille Birk Larsen's chairs and lamps in my flat'

As the entire British nation girds itself for tonight's return of The Killing (BBC Four, 9pm), I thought I'd christen my new blog with a little titbit from its star - though this one is for diehard fans only.

I interviewed Sofie Gråbøl for Hello! magazine, but this bit didn't make it into the print version…

I suggested to Gråbøl that the second series would be different at least in part because the story doesn't have the predominant family element of the Birk Larsens' grief, which was such a major part of series one.

'You won't have that,' said Gråbøl. 'Not in that sense.'

No kitchen table, I said.

'Not that kitchen table,' she replied with mock frustration. (At least, I hope it was mock.)

Then she laughed, and added: 'I actually have the chairs at home, and the lamps.'

From the Birk Larsens'?

'Yes. I don't have their kitchen table, because they didn't sell their kitchen table when we ended the shooting,' said Gråbøl. 'They were selling out all the furniture, and I had just moved, so I said: "I want to buy the chairs and the lamps."'

No news yet as to where the Birk Larsens' kitchen table actually ended up…