Delivering Quality First 


Interim Findings 

January 2012 

Getting the best out of the BBC for licence fee payers 



Summary 

In October 2011 we published the BBC Executive’s proposed approach to meeting the 
constrained funding of the licence fee settlement agreed with the Government in 2010. 
We put these proposals out to public consultation to test the details against our strategic 
objectives and priorities for the BBC, which are to: increase the distinctiveness and quality 
of BBC output; improve value for money; set new standards of openness and 
transparency; and do more to serve all audiences. 

We have now completed our initial analysis of the Executive’s proposals. This document 
sets out our interim findings, focusing in particular on the overall shape of the savings, 
and the specific areas where we have developed a clear view at this stage of where we 
think changes to the plans are required. 

It is a new experience for the BBC to see its income fall significantly in real terms. We 
understand this has been a difficult process for staff and that some licence fee payers will 
be disappointed by some of the particular choices we have taken as they become 
apparent on air. But we remain confident that the BBC can provide an outstanding public 
service to its audiences across TV, radio and online, and we are determined that this is 
done as well, and efficiently, as possible. 

The key points of our interim findings are: 

• 
Our independent advisers have concluded that the Executive has developed robust 
and challenging efficiency proposals. We are now setting a target for the BBC 
Executive to generate annual efficiency savings of 11 per cent by 2016-17 and are 
putting in place controls to monitor the implementation of the plan. 
• 
We had a high level of response to our public consultation. Most respondents 
expressed specific concerns based on their particular listening/viewing interests, 
although there is a general recognition of the financial constraints faced by the 
BBC and the need for us to make difficult choices. 
• 
We have identified a small number of areas where we have asked the Executive to 
re-think their plans – most notably where we feel that particular proposals would 
have an unduly detrimental impact on the BBC’s journalistic output. 
• 
We are still conducting our analysis in some areas and, with input from Ofcom, are 
examining whether any further regulatory testing such as a Public Value Test is 
necessary. This includes looking at the significance and impact of those particular 
proposals which would require us to amend service licences. 
• 
Otherwise, we are broadly endorsing the shape of the plans proposed by the 
Executive - albeit we will continue to test some aspects of the detail - and will 
proceed next with planning the specific budget for next year. 
We now have a number of further analytical strands and processes to pursue, including: 
further analysis of consultation responses; setting and publishing the BBC’s budget and 
business plans for 2012-13; and regulatory testing. We have also asked the Executive to 
prepare statements, as part of the implementation of Delivering Quality First, about what 
the BBC intends to offer the audience in each of the Nations of the UK. We aim to publish 
our final conclusions in the spring. 

January 2012 


The financial plan 

In October 2010, the Government and the BBC agreed that the licence fee should remain 
at £145.50 until the end of the current Charter in 2017 and that the BBC would fund a 
range of extra broadcasting-related activities including: 

• 
The BBC World Service and BBC Monitoring. 
• 
An expanded partnership with the Welsh language television service S4C. 
• 
Support for new local television services. 
• 
Raising and extending the current ring-fenced sum in the licence fee for digital TV 
switchover from £133m a year to £150m a year to support broadband roll-out. 
The plan developed by the Executive to meet these obligations, as well as providing some 
funding for some targeted re-investment into content and digital development, is to make 
around £670 million a year of savings by 2016-17, equivalent to around 19 per cent of the 
licence fee. The Executive believes that additional savings achieved from the final year of 
the current efficiency programme mean that overall savings will exceed 20 per cent. The 
key components are to make: 

• 
Productivity savings of 11 per cent of the licence fee. 
• 
Content and service reductions of around 6 per cent of the licence fee. 
• 
Additional income from, for example, commercial activity of around 2 per cent of 
the licence fee. 
This settlement is tough for the BBC. But we also believe this is a fair settlement given the 
funding challenges faced by the rest of the public sector, providing the stability and 
security of funding needed to plan for the future, in spite of the uncertain economic 
outlook. 

Underpinning the whole of this plan is our determination to push the BBC to 
make sure its efficiency programme is as ambitious as it can possibly be 

Throughout this process, efficiency has been the starting point - because we have a 
responsibility to require the Executive both to maximise the value for money it offers 
licence fee payers, and to minimise the impact of the financial settlement on the BBC’s 
content and services. The Executive started developing its efficiency and productivity 
plans from January 2011 and gave us regular progress updates over the course of 2011. 

In July 2011 we commissioned independent advice from Ernst & Young to provide 
assurance that the Executive had approached the efficiency programme in a rigorous and 
thorough way. Ernst & Young carried out a series of interviews and reviewed key 
documents throughout August and September 2011. They compared the BBC’s processes 
with a range of other organisations. 

Ernst & Young concluded that the Executive is running an effective DQF programme from 
which robust and challenging efficiency proposals have emerged. In summary: 

January 2012 


• 
The Executive has aimed to set stretching targets while being mindful of 
deliverability. The impact of the proposals on the audience (quality and reach) has 
been considered. 
• 
The programme is based on an informed understanding of performance relative to 
external benchmarks and comparisons. 
• 
The programme compares favourably with similar cost transformation programmes 
experienced by Ernst & Young. 
We are encouraged by Ernst and Young’s findings but also note that further work is 
required to define the detail of the cost saving plans and deliver them in a challenging 
economic environment. Ernst and Young’s report, which we are publishing alongside this 
document, makes recommendations to help achieve this. 

Our focus now is to oversee the implementation of the plan and monitor its 
delivery 

We are now setting a target for the BBC Executive to generate annual efficiency savings 
of 11 per cent by 2016-17. This means that in real terms efficiency savings would reduce 
the BBC’s overall costs by 11 per cent in 2016-17 compared with a 2012-13 baseline. It 
will not be straightforward for the Executive to deliver these savings having already driven 
significant efficiency savings over recent years, and given the tough and uncertain 
economic climate. Meeting our target will require strong leadership and discipline from the 
Executive and staff. 

Our focus from now on is to monitor implementation, in particular to test whether 
efficiency savings are having a negative impact on the quality or scope of the BBC’s 
services. The specific actions we will now take include: 

• 
Following up Ernst & Young’s recommendations to ensure that the Executive is 
well placed to manage the next stages of the programme. 
• 
Where possible, taking assurance from controls introduced by the Executive such 
as the quarterly health checks recommended by Ernst and Young. 
• 
Using the Trust’s existing performance measurement reports to monitor progress 
at a high level, and our rolling programme of service reviews to assess progress 
and impact at a service level. 
• 
Using National Audit Office reports and the Trust’s own value for money 
investigations to examine progress on cross-divisional areas. 
We will also consider carrying out a comprehensive review part way through the 
programme to assess overall progress against the programme objectives. 

January 2012 


Outline consultation findings 

The public consultation 

The public consultation ran from October 6 to December 21 2011 and was run alongside 
separate consultations as part of our service reviews of BBC local radio and the BBC Asian 
Network, which included details of the Delivering Quality First proposals relating to those 
services. In total we received around 18,000 responses as well as a number of petitions 
about specific changes. We also received a significant level of responses from 
organisations, politicians and other representatives. The aim of the consultation was to 
help us test whether the detail of the Executive’s proposals was consistent with the 
strategy and direction we set for the BBC in 2010. 

The consultation focused on the impact the plans will have on the output of each service. 
From this point of view, two of our four objectives are particularly important: 

• 
Increasing distinctiveness, including through an increased focus on the Executive’s 
five editorial priorities: news, children’s, knowledge, UK drama and comedy, and 
events that bring the Nation and communities together. 
• 
Serving all parts of the audience, by ensuring the BBC continues to reach the vast 
majority of the public with distinctive content and by improving the extent to 
which its services resonate with audiences in all the UK’s Nations, regions and 
communities. 
Detailed analysis of responses to the consultations is ongoing - some of the key themes 
emerging from our initial review are as follows: 

• 
There is a broad acceptance of the financial constraints facing the BBC, and the 
need for difficult choices to be taken. 
• 
Some respondents commented that the BBC should look to improve internal 
efficiency across the organisation prior to reducing expenditure on programming 
and services. The main concerns were about the amount of money being paid to 
senior staff and presenters. 
• 
Some argued that the BBC should be more focused on high-quality and distinctive 
output, and that some of the proposed cuts could undermine this, while more 
mainstream services such as BBC One were seen as being overly protected. 
• 
Most respondents expressed specific concerns about the services and programmes 
which they use. More broadly, some argued that the proposals could adversely 
affect certain groups of licence fee payers, while the degree of protection afforded 
to services like Radio 4 was seen by some as over serving some audiences. 
• 
The proposed changes to local radio in England caused the strongest reaction. 
Most respondents were opposed to the changes, stressing particularly the 
potential loss of local identity, knowledge and experience which could result from 
additional content sharing beyond that which is currently scheduled. The sharing 
of the afternoon slots was the least popular proposal. Additionally respondents 
were concerned about the effect the changes could have on local sports coverage 
January 2012 


and music programming. These views were echoed by those who took part in 
Local Radio Service review consultation. 

• 
Some respondents questioned proposed changes to music output, particularly the 
reduction of live music on Radio 3, and to the BBC Introducing opt-out 
programmes on Radio 1, while others expressed concern that the scale of cuts to 
BBC Four might undermine its distinctiveness. 
We have also received responses from our four Audience Councils in each nation of the 
UK, who raised a number of common themes: 

• 
The central importance of the BBC continuing to focus on broadcasting high-
quality and distinctive content, even if this means doing fewer things because of 
funding constraints. 
• 
Support for the focus on the BBC’s five editorial priority areas, and in particular its 
journalism, although Councils believe there remain areas for improvement - in 
particular in how the BBC’s network news output reflects the realities of a 
devolved UK. 
• 
The need for further details about the longer-term implications for nations opt-out 
programming, in light of the Executive’s proposals to launch a High Definition 
version of BBC Two without HD versions of opt-out programming. 
• 
Support for the BBC’s continued commitment to increasing the volume of network 
production made outside London, while recognising that more needs to be done in 
some areas to develop creative sustainable production bases. 
• 
While recognising that the BBC can only spend a certain percentage of the licence 
fee on distributing content, Councils raised the issue of fair access to the BBC's 
services, and the need to ensure that audiences across the UK are able to access 
relevant BBC services, particularly on newer digital platforms. 
Responses from organisations and other stakeholders 

We received a large number of responses from organisations and other institutions and 
stakeholders, and also held six roundtable discussions with a range of stakeholders to 
explore particular parts of the proposals. A wide range of issues were raised, with the key 
themes including: 

• 
The scale of the cuts to content looked broadly acceptable but some specific 
proposals did not match the underlying strategy. Some respondents commented 
that they believed there was further to go to reform Executive and presenter pay, 
and address working practices across the organisation. 
• 
The local radio proposals could risk local radio stations’ ability to perform key 
functions such as holding local decision makers to account and promoting 
community cohesion. Some also commented that, combined with changes to 
English regional current affairs on television, the proposals could damage the 
BBC’s journalistic offering to an audience not easily reached by others - particularly 
given the contracting local and regional media offer from commercial providers. 
January 2012 


• 
The BBC should aim to be more distinctive. In particular, some commercial 
broadcasters argued that the proposals for the BBC’s more mainstream services 
such as BBC One, Radio 1 and Radio 2 did not match the Trust’s stated ambitions 
for these services to become more distinctive. 
• 
There were some concerns that the loss of coverage of minority sports in general, 
or mainstream sports not covered elsewhere, could be significant to particular 
localities or regions – with particular reference to changes on local radio. 
• 
The cuts to live music on several BBC networks particularly Radio 3, and the 
changes to BBC Introducing opt outs on Radio 1, could be damaging to UK music 
and culture 
Audience research 

Alongside the public consultation we have been able to draw on specific pieces of 
audience research. This has allowed us to test and understand reactions to the package 
of proposals from a representative sample of the public. 

Insight from research commissioned by the Executive as they were developing 
the proposals found that participants felt the package of proposals was broadly 
acceptable1 

This broad acceptance did not equate to enthusiastic support (as most were not in favour 
of reductions to BBC content and services per se). However, participants considered the 
proposals a reasonable response from the BBC given the constraints of the licence fee 
settlement. Where objections were raised, they were voiced more from a ‘consumer’ 
rather than a ‘citizen’ perspective, expressing concern particularly about the perceived 
impact of the proposals on the content and services that they used. Concerns were most 
likely to be raised if participants did not think that a good alternative existed, although 
there was some debate about what constituted a good alternative, and if a reduction was 
seen to be unfair or disproportionate (for example, affecting a particular group of people 
or a BBC service or genre more than others). 

Most participants felt it was important for the BBC to protect both ‘popular’ and ‘niche’ 
services because of its wider public service remit. In making decisions about savings, 
participants first wanted reassurance that the BBC has taken significant steps to control 
costs before making reductions to content and services. 

Our audience research on local radio tells us that it is held in very high regard 
by its listeners 

We are also able to draw on specific research about local radio, which we commissioned 
as part of our separate, routine review of local radio. The findings of this research, which 
we will publish alongside our final conclusions, show that listeners generally think their 
stations perform very strongly and make an important contribution to delivering the BBC’s 
public purposes. Its particular strengths lie in its localness, provision of relevant news and 

1http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/howwework/reports/pdf/dqf_ipsosmori_audienceperceptions_report. 
pdf 

January 2012 


information, coverage of local life, sport and events. Listeners also tend to have high 
regard for the quality of specific presenters and programmes, particularly their local 
knowledge, and experience. They particularly appreciate hearing local accents and value 
the high degree of listener involvement. 

That said, the research has highlighted some areas for improvement. Listeners sometimes 
find content too trivial or repetitive and the style of music can be off-putting for some, 
while slightly more could be done to ensure audience expectations that local radio 
provides high-quality journalistic output and holds decision makers to account are met. 

We also used our audience research on local radio to test audience reaction to 
the specific DQF proposals 

Our research tested reactions to the various forms of content sharing proposed by the 
Executive, which has allowed us to assess the proposals with a representative sample of 
listeners. The research shows that opposition to content sharing is strongest against the 
proposal to share in weekday afternoons (see Figure 1), followed by weekday evenings. 

Opposition tended to be higher among 35 to 65 year olds (where a majority were 
opposed to afternoon sharing) and away from south east (especially in the south west 
and Cumbria). That said, the research presents a mixed picture: more people surveyed 
were in favour than against sharing at some parts of the off peak schedule - only 16 per 
cent were opposed to overnight sharing with 5 live, with a majority of listeners neutral 
about the proposal. 

Figure 1: Audience reactions to the Executive’s sharing proposals 


Source: Jigsaw, research commissioned by the BBC Trust 

The reasons for support or opposition are broadly consistent with the findings of our 
consultation. Those opposed to content sharing tend to express this more strongly than 

January 2012 


those in favour, and are most concerned about the loss of local identity from sharing, and 
are suspicious that further sharing will follow once introduced. For those who were 
neutral, or favourable to the proposals, there was a general understanding of the tough 
economic climate and the need for all organisations to make savings and take difficult 
choices. For programming out of peak, there was a sense that it is less important for local 
radio to remain local at these times, while there was also recognition that sharing could 
be a way of improving the quality and mix of output. For some, where sharing already 
exists at some parts of the schedule, there was a sense that this tends to work effectively. 

January 2012 


Initial findings on the Executive’s proposals 

In broad terms, we support the direction of travel proposed by the Executive 
and consider that it fits our strategy 

It is not an easy process to decide how to allocate the required savings across the BBC. 
Every service is currently performing well and has a loyal following, and it is very difficult 
for listeners and viewers to accept any reduction in what they get from their licence fees. 

However, it is our job to make the difficult choices needed, and we believe the approach 
taken by the Executive is broadly the right one. In particular, it seeks to: 

• 
protect the five editorial priorities and areas where the BBC most clearly 
distinguishes itself from other programme makers 
• 
maintain investment in those parts of the BBC that bring the greatest value to the 
greatest number of people: distinctive and high-quality programmes in the peak 
schedules of the flagship network television and radio services. 
For the most part, we are content for the Executive to take forward its budget planning 
on the basis of the plans drawn up, although we have to undertake further analytical 
work and regulatory testing in some specific areas. 

The consequences, however, of having to take these difficult choices mean that some 
parts of current output will be scaled back, or removed altogether. We support the 
Executive’s approach which has tried to reduce spend in content areas that fall outside 
the editorial priorities (such as some sports rights and lower-value entertainment 
programming), remove or re-cast less-valued parts of the schedule in daytime and 
overnight, and take some money out of the BBC's smaller channels, but we understand 
that some people will be disappointed by some of the decisions that will be taken. 

We have identified a few specific areas where we have asked the BBC 
Executive to re-think their proposals because we are concerned they would 
disproportionately affect the BBC’s journalistic offer 

We regard the BBC’s journalism - as expressed through high quality and impartial news 
and current affairs - as the single most important priority for the BBC, and the core of the 
BBC’s public service remit. Both in the UK and around the world, the BBC is very closely 
associated with its news, and current levels of audience reach, appreciation and quality 
are very high. 

In general we are supportive of the proposals put forward by the Executive concerning 
journalism. Overall content savings in this area are lower than others, and the proposals 
aim to sustain the BBC’s commitment to core journalistic output - its live breaking news, 
its main news bulletins on flagship networks, and its longer form investigative current 
affairs for both the main television and radio networks, as well as output specifically 
aimed at audiences in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. 

We support some of the limited reductions in output proposed, and the targeted reinvestment 
in investigative resources for Panorama and some foreign newsgathering. We 

January 2012 


also support the proposal to increase the amount of international current affairs on BBC 
television. 

However, we do not underestimate some of the challenges the BBC’s journalism faces in 
the coming years, in particular to integrate its domestic and international news 
operations, set against the backdrop of rapidly changing political and economic 
environments, at a regional, national and global level. We will therefore monitor the 
impacts of changes in this area particularly closely in the coming years. 

Our analysis of the proposals has convinced us however that some of the proposed 
changes - to local radio and some current affairs output - are likely to have too much of a 
detrimental impact on the BBC’s journalistic aspirations and reputation. 

Local Radio 

It is right to look for ways to cut the costs of Local Radio as elsewhere in the 
BBC 

The proposals put forward by the Executive are designed to focus spend on peak-time 
programmes - breakfast, mid-morning and drivetime - sport, and faith on Sunday 
mornings; while reducing costs in other parts of the schedules, mainly through increased 
levels of sharing between stations in off-peak slots such as weekday afternoons and 
Sunday afternoons and evenings. On weekdays between 7pm and 10pm, the Executive 
proposed that all stations would share a single all-England programme, while all stations 
would broadcast Radio 5 Live from 1am until the start of their breakfast programme. 
Within all shared programming, individual stations would continue to provide local news 
bulletins as at present, and would be able to opt-out of shared schedules in times of civil 
emergency or bad weather. 

In total the proposals, combined with proposed efficiency savings which are mainly 
targeted at reducing the costs of local newsrooms, would save around £15million of 
current expenditure. 

We are asking Executive to find ways to scale back the proposed changes to 
BBC local radio 

There is very sound logic behind the Executive’s proposals in the context of the financial 
circumstances faced by the BBC. Content sharing already exists in some areas at some 
times without much of an apparent effect on the quality of output, and it is clear that 
listeners are generally less concerned about the need for a local service to remain local in 
off peak times such as overnight. The emerging findings from our audience research, and 
that conducted by the Executive following sharing trials last year, suggest that it is 
possible that some sharing of content, in some areas and at some points of the day, may 
be an effective way to increase the quality of output. 

However, the findings from our consultation, audience research and other analysis have 
shown us that local speech radio is an area of almost total market failure; that it brings 
something unique and intimate to its audience, many of whom tend not to use many 
other BBC services beyond mainstream TV. To some, particularly away from the south 
east, local radio is seen to provide balance against perceptions of a metropolitan and 
centrist BBC, and above all, listeners value most the localness of their particular station. 

January 2012 


We therefore think the scale and impact of the cuts, although lower in financial terms 
than for many other parts of the BBC, is disproportionate to the value of these services to 
their audience and have asked the Executive to consider again the shape of their 
proposals, set against a clearer overall strategy for local radio as a whole. We will work 
with the Executive over the coming weeks to model various options, using the findings of 
our consultations and research as a guide. Our overriding principle is that local radio must 
stay local for most of the time to continue to have an impact and to stay distinctive. Local 
radio must also be appropriately resourced to do this, and we would expect any revised 
proposition to include a scaling back of the efficiency savings identified for local 
journalism to make sure that such local content is always distinctive and of high-
quality. Our more specific priorities are to ensure that: 

• 
The great majority of local stations should remain as local as they are now in the 
afternoons, and should be supported with sufficient journalistic resources. 
Audience reactions have been strongest against the proposal to share across 
regions during weekday afternoons. Among the various sharing proposals, this is 
also the time of day at which more people listen, and when the need for local 
content is higher (than off peak), although we recognise that sharing in some 
areas at this time might still be the most appropriate way forward. 
• 
Ways are found to continue to protect more specialist and distinctive local content 
out of peak. Alongside local news and information, the evening and weekend 
schedules of many local radio stations carry unique or specialist local content that 
is of particular value to their audience – for instance sports coverage that has a 
particular resonance in a particular area such as rugby league and football, 
specialist music and emerging artists, or other minority and community output. We 
consider it important that local radio keeps investing in these areas, and we 
recognise this raises some questions about the all England sharing proposal given 
that stations will likely have to opt-out of such a programme on a regular basis. 
We don't expect that the answer will be the same answer for every station 

Local radio is not the same everywhere. It means different things to different 
communities in terms of news, sport, culture, identity and music. The changes should 
reflect this, and look to give station managers some discretion to be flexible and run 
stations with regard to the particular needs of their audiences. 

Current affairs 

We are also asking for some amendments to the proposals on current affairs 

In light of the changing, and uncertain, domestic and global political and economic 
situations we have reviewed in detail the Executive’s proposals to make changes to longer 
form journalism and current affairs output. In overall terms, our view is that the changes 
look reasonably well grounded, aiming to protect core programming and strands on both 
radio and television and minimise their audience impact. We are supportive of changes on 
network television and will retain the specified quota for peak time current affairs output 
at its current level to safeguard against possible declines in such output. 

January 2012 


The BBC must continue to provide a strong regional current affairs offer as part 
of its commitment to UK journalism 

BBC television’s English regional current affairs is mainly delivered through the Inside Out 
strand. The Executive’s proposals are to reduce expenditure by around 40 per cent, with 
the savings allowing protection for other regional output, including the regional news, 
from making significant changes. Inside Out would reduce its regional presence from the 
current 11 regions to between 5 and 7, while retaining current patterns of scheduling and 
frequency. The Executive has told us that some flexibility for current regions to broadcast 
as now would be retained in certain circumstances, although the proposal would mean 
most episodes broadcasting to significantly larger regions than currently. 

We remain to be convinced that the savings for regional current affairs can be 
achieved without undermining the BBC’s journalistic aspirations 

Regional current affairs output is an area of market failure which makes an important 
contribution to delivering original journalism at a regional level, and offers something 
different from other BBC output to help deliver the BBC’s journalism priority. Our analysis, 
set alongside some of the reaction to our public consultation, suggests that audience 
interest is relatively strong. 

We can see that some flexibility to share content across regions as proposed could be 
effective, and indeed some episodes of Inside Out are currently shaped along these lines. 
However, we believe the proposals, as presented, will put at risk the ability of the 
programme to deliver output that remains relevant and impactful on a consistent enough 
basis, and we have asked the Executive to re-evaluate whether more funding should be 
made available to safeguard this important output. 

It is not our role to dictate a specific level of funding for this programme, and we can see 
that it might not be possible to maintain quality and impact if it were run along current 
lines, but on a smaller budget. However, our aspiration is that the Executive’s revised 
proposal should look to achieve any savings from regional current affairs output: 

• 
without unduly diluting its regional character and identity so that output remains 
relevant to audiences. 
• 
while continuing to play an important role in helping the BBC meet its journalistic 
aspirations by providing a strong core of investigative journalism as well as a mix 
of ‘lighter’ human interest and consumer type stories. 
We will assess the Executive’s revised proposition against these principles. 

We do not agree with the Executive’s proposal to decommission dedicated 
weekly current affairs on 5 live 

The Executive proposed to decommission its weekly one hour current affairs programme 
on 5 live, replacing its slot in the schedule with an extended football phone in, and 
instead running some current affairs output within the existing parts of 5 live’s schedule. 
We have assessed this proposal in the context of our service review of 5 live, which we 
will publish later this month. 

January 2012 


We see current affairs as an important part of the journalistic offer of 5 live and 
something that contributes to BBC radio’s overall distinctiveness. The proposal would 
leave the station, which is primarily a news service and contributes to the BBC’s editorial 
aspirations for its journalistic output, without a dedicated current affairs/investigative slot. 
In light of this, and the relatively small financial saving the proposal would make, we have 
asked the Executive to retain dedicated current affairs output and re-think plans in this 
area. 

Alternative savings 

We believe the changes outlined above should cost no more than £10 million a 
year and have encouraged the Executive to find ways to fund this without 
further impact on services and content 

We estimate that the changes we are asking the Executive to pursue will require the 
Executive to find no more than £10 million a year. We have asked the Executive to try 
and fund this through a combination of further efficiencies or other non-content savings, 
although we recognise this will be challenging given the extent of savings already 
proposed. We note that the Executive has commissioned an external adviser to review 
ways of working in local radio, and we anticipate that some of the savings needed may be 
found from this review. 

January 2012 


Next steps 

This document presents our interim findings based on an initial review of consultation 
responses and other analytical work. Over the coming weeks our focus will be in four 
principal areas. 

Firstly, we will undertake further analytical work on the Executive’s proposals, including 
further analysis of the findings of the public consultation, and completing our on-going 
service reviews of the Asian Network and BBC local radio to refine the future directions for 
these services. We will also review the Executive’s additional work where we have asked 
for changes to the plan. 

Secondly, we will use our interim findings as a guide for our analysis of the BBC’s budget 
proposals for the coming years, which we intend to approve in March 2012. 

Thirdly, we will put a number of the detailed proposals through our regulatory processes. 
In particular, we have started regulatory testing on the proposed changes to: 

• 
children’s output, where it is proposed to remove such programming from BBC 
One and BBC Two following digital switchover. 
• 
Radio 1 and 1 Xtra, including the changes to share news bulletins between the two 
stations and replace the nation’s opt-out programmes on Radio 1 with a single UK 
wide strand on Radio 1. 
• 
the BBC’s High Definition services, including the proposed closure of the BBC HD 
channel and planning to make BBC Two an HD service. We are aware that the 
move to provide channels in HD raises a number of questions regarding opt-out 
programming - a matter raised during our public consultation and in discussions 
with our Audience Councils. We will explore these issues in more detail with the 
Executive prior to agreeing any changes to the current strategy and approach to 
opt-out provision. 
These tests will include an assessment of the likely impact on audiences and users as well 
consulting Ofcom on the impact on others including the market. 

Finally, we have also asked the Executive to prepare statements, as part of the 
implementation of Delivering Quality First, about what the BBC intends to offer the 
audience in each of the Nations of the UK. These statements, which will be published 
alongside our final conclusions, will set out the strategy and proposals for each Nation of 
the UK, including: 

• 
The relevant national, political and broadcasting context 
• 
The BBC’s role within each Nation 
• 
A high-level overview of how the BBC is currently performing in each Nation 
• 
A plan for Delivering Quality First in each Nation to 2016 
• 
The strategy for network production in each Nation to 2016 
We intend to complete and publish all this work in time for final conclusions in the spring. 

January 2012