The head of Factual and Learning, John  Willis, has admitted he feels "torn" about the 4,000 job cuts prpoposed by DG Mark Thompson.

Willis wrote this piece for the Media Guardian:

Independent spirits

The BBC is slashing hundreds of jobs as it prepares to take more programmes from independent producers. John Willis defends the plan and supports the calls for better employment practices.
by John Willis
Monday May 23, 2005

Television production by independents is usually described as a cottage industry, but when I started at Channel 4 in the late 1980s there were so many small indies, the sector would more accurately have been described as a garden-shed industry. In the past seven years, however, the landscape has been transformed. We look for news of our favourite indies not in the television reviews but in the City pages. RDF, All3Media and Endemol jostle for space as they float or buy. So the indictment of employment practices unveiled in MediaGuardian must have come as a rude shock to observers of a sector that has become a runaway train.

The scale of the response to the story was a reminder to us all - the BBC is not immune from criticism - that the whole of television must develop a well-trained, fairly employed workforce to ensure the long-term sustainability of one of Britain's most successful industries.

These revelations were given added timeliness by being tossed into the sharp-elbowed debate about the appropriate balance between in-house producers and external suppliers at the BBC. The proposals for a new deal, embracing the current 25% indie quota, a BBC 50% in-house guarantee and a 25% Window of creative competition (Wocc), sit on the post-election political table.

Personally, I feel very torn. At Channel 4 I worked with a huge range of independents and I am a passionate supporter of the sector. Whether it is the entrepreneurial skills of Celador breaking into the fortress of US network television or the singular commitment of documentary makers such as Nick Broomfield, the impact of independents has been transformational.

On the other hand, I now run one of the BBC's biggest production divisions, Factual and Learning, stretching from Auschwitz to What Not to Wear. We employ more than 2,000 staff, but over the next few months we will begin the process of losing 421 posts, many to make way for enhanced independent access into the BBC.

Maybe the BBC deserves it. Until the BBC's s efforts to drive independent access over 30%, the corporation has bobbed along just above or below the statutory 25% quota for a decade. Plainly, that was unfair. Reducing in-house production capacity significantly to make space for independents will bring it to an end. More importantly, intensified competition across a quarter of the BBC's schedules should lead to stronger programmes for the licence-fee payer. In-house producers feel that competition is already sharp but enhancing the chal lenge is not something that confident programme-makers are afraid of. For BBC staff, many of whom will show their feelings by going on strike today and next week, this debate is about something that cannot be measured by quotas or Woccs. Like nurses in the NHS or teachers in state schools, many BBC staff are passionate about public- service values. To them, this is a battle for the future soul of the BBC.

Yet some commentators question whether the BBC needs to make its own programmes to fulfil its public aims - after all C4 and Five function perfectly well purely as commissioning houses.

The answer is that future audiences will be best served by a mixed production ecology, balanced between a vibrant independent production sector, the important freelance community and a critical mass of in-house producers inside both BBC and ITV.

BBC in-house production is vital, a giant oxygen bottle blowing out training, investment and creative competition throughout the industry. From Lorraine Heggessey and Peter Salmon moving to run big indies, to BBC-trained researchers migrating out, the BBC is the cornerstone of training a world-class culture. The indies' own training survey, by Spectrum, reported that although £31.5m was claimed to be spent on training, almost all of that was on-the-job learning. In fact only £2.3m of that sum is spent on formal training compared with over £40m spent by the BBC (including radio).

As Professor Patrick Barwise pointed out in his report on BBC Digital TV for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Pact (the independent producers' association) does not "address the concern that reduced in-house production and increased independent production might lead to a cutback in training and reinforce the casualisation of production in the UK".

A significant in-house production department enables the BBC to be certain of fulfilling its public purposes without over-reliance on the ebb and flow of the market. With sufficient scale in-house the BBC can spread creative risk, whether it is long-term investigative journalism such as The Secret Policeman or supporting public service genres through lean times. Thus, in natural history, when the international interest in wildlife collapsed, the BBC continued to support an important genre, maintaining strong in-house expertise, while ITV was forced to close Survival after decades of success.

In the digital world, ownership of rights will be ever more critical. The BBC will not be able to unlock the full potential of its astonishing archive or embrace the on-demand world if it does not own a significant amount of its own programme rights via in-house production. A critical mass of BBC in-house production is also an important safety net because the independent sector is changing so fast. Consolidation is happening rapidly, creating the risk that a small number of producers dominate the market. So in terms of delivering public value for the licence-fee payer, a production strategy needs to embrace indies that resemble corner shops as well as those that resem ble supermarkets, a plurality of supply enabling a range of voices from all over the UK to be heard.

The BBC has had a halo effect on cities like Bristol and Glasgow. In Bristol, facilities houses and independent producers specialising in wildlife have sprung up in the fertile ground created by the BBC's long-term commitment to building a centre of excellence.

Some of television's finest talents such as Adam Curtis (The Power of Nightmares, pictured above) and Laurence Rees (Auschwitz) have thrived in the secure world of the BBC where risk-taking does not threaten the bottom line. Other BBC-trained stars such as Stephen Lambert and Peter Bazalgette have found the more entrepreneurial world of indies a place where their skills have blossomed. Britain's creative economy needs a subtle balance between both sectors, competition on a level playing field between independents and in-house, both equally healthy, if British television is to continue to be a major exporter of output to the rest of the world.

Of course, this will all sound like special pleading to some independents who would like to see a punishment shooting for the BBC's past failures. To others any concern must seem faintly absurd; after all, BBC in-house will be sitting on a 50% guarantee, enough to make any venture capitalist salivate.

There is a risk, however, that BBC in-house will be irreparably weakened. Clearly there is a danger of a "tipping point" as large independents, smelling blood, circle BBC in-house's key talent. But I believe that once we get through the pain of so many job losses, we will be able to offer production staff an unmatchable depth of training and work.

Beyond the BBC's Charter Review I would like to see a completely new cultural contract between the BBC and independent producers. There will still be an intense competition for the best ideas and the most commissions. That is good. But we have as much that unites us as a production community as divides us as creative competitors. We all need a well-trained, highly skilled industry - not just well-heeled, middle-class kids on work experience - that can unlock future value for our audiences; we all need to ensure regional, national and cultural diversity and we must join hands to fight the future threats of piracy to copyright. So in the longer term we must work together to ensure that British television continues to be a world-class industry, recognised for its quality, whoever makes the programmes.