It’s almost a month since I started here, and I’ve been getting to know more of you and of the BBC. I’ve heard your belief in the mission, and your ambition to reinvent the BBC for the future – both of which I’m working on and will come back with more in September. Of course, you also want to know what the announced savings mean for you. It is important to me that you have clarity on this as soon as possible.

The scale of savings requires tough choices, careful work and won’t all be ready at once. We are committed to letting you know as soon as we have plans in your area. All divisions will be making significant savings. Today, some divisions are ready to set out the first phase of these plans, with more to follow.

We have first updates from News, Nations and Content. Together, by the end of this financial year, they deliver £160 million of cost savings, including staff and non-staff costs, and a net reduction of around 550 roles. This is part of the 1,800–2,000 roles announced to go over the next three years.

More savings will be set out in the months ahead, across all divisions. This includes corporate divisions where work is underway – we expect around 700 roles to close in these areas.

Reductions of this scale inevitably mean some compulsory redundancies, though we will work hard to avoid this wherever we can. Many divisions have already opened voluntary redundancy windows; more will be opening today.

We will also have to close some programmes. These are difficult choices and we will apply three guiding principles:

Sustain output with the highest audience value and impact.
Meet audiences where they are, reducing spend elsewhere. For example, we will reduce commissioning spend across Content, News and Nations by around £80 million in 2027–28 and review our broadcast TV channels and radio network portfolio as audiences move online.

Make the BBC simpler and faster – we must reduce duplication, clarify accountability, and increase the speed of decision making. This includes reducing senior leaders by at least 10%.

The News, Nations and Content divisions will set out more details in calls and updates over the coming days. For other divisions, leaders will update you with the latest progress on the size of the savings needed, the opening of voluntary redundancy windows and when you will hear more.

Aside from calls with your own teams, I will host an all-staff session on Tuesday, 23 June at 2pm BST, taking your questions, alongside Kate Phillips, Rhuanedd Richards and Jonathan Munro. Please do join if you can.

We live in very uncertain times. Our audiences rely on us every day to keep them informed, entertained and equipped to make sense of the world. Making savings while fulfilling our mission means a doubly difficult time for everyone. Do speak to your leaders and use the support that’s available. In the meantime, thank you for all you are doing.

After rape allegations on Married At First Sight UK rocked the UK television industry, there has been a growing conversation about how welfare is administered on major reality shows. In this guest column, former welfare producer Emma Pringle reflects on her experiences from the front line of contributor safeguarding.

It has been almost six months since I walked away from my career as a freelance series welfare producer.

From the outside, it probably looked like I had made it. Over 15 years in television, I worked on some of the country’s biggest productions for broadcasters, production companies, and streamers. By most measures, I was exactly where I was supposed to be.

But behind the credits, I was struggling.

I was exhausted. Not because I had lost my passion for television, but because of the emotional weight that comes with working at the sharp end of contributor welfare. The pressure had become relentless, the boundaries increasingly blurred, and the cost to my own wellbeing impossible to ignore.

For the first time in my career, I found myself asking a question I never thought I would ask: Was television still an industry I wanted to be part of?

As I stepped away, I realised my experience wasn’t unique. Across the industry, freelancers were quietly reaching breaking point. Many were exhausted, disillusioned, and questioning whether they could continue. Yet few felt able to speak openly about it.

That should concern all of us.

Recent headlines have prompted difficult but necessary conversations about welfare, safeguarding and accountability in television. For the first time, people are beginning to look beyond what happens on screen and question the systems operating behind it.

At the centre of that conversation is a question the industry can no longer afford to ignore: What is the real cost of outsourcing contributor welfare?

For years, freelance welfare professionals have been trusted with complex safeguarding responsibilities, often supporting vulnerable contributors through emotionally demanding situations. Yet many operate within a system that asks them to carry enormous responsibility without always providing the support that responsibility demands.

Throughout my career, I managed situations that left a lasting impact on my own wellbeing – situations I did not always feel adequately equipped, trained or supported to navigate.

This is not a criticism of any one production or broadcaster. It is a question about whether the industry has fully recognised the level of expertise, support and protection required for those working on the frontline of contributor welfare.

There is another uncomfortable reality that comes with outsourcing welfare to freelancers: the power imbalance.

Television is a small industry and careers are often built on reputation. Future opportunities can depend as much on who is willing to recommend you as they do on your experience or qualifications.

Most freelancers want to do a good job, support their teams and maintain positive working relationships. But when your livelihood depends on securing your next contract, raising concerns can feel incredibly difficult.

Of course, there are routes for escalation. Yet many freelancers will recognise the internal conflict that comes with using them. The fear of being labelled “difficult,” “negative,” or “not a team player” can be enough to keep people silent, even when something doesn’t feel right.

This creates a particularly challenging environment for those working in contributor welfare. The people responsible for safeguarding others can sometimes feel they have very little protection of their own.

What makes welfare work different from many other freelance roles is that the responsibility doesn’t end when filming stops. We are often trusted with people’s most vulnerable moments. We hear their fears, witness their struggles and, in some cases, become the person they turn to when they feel they have nowhere else to go.

That responsibility carries an emotional weight that is difficult to quantify. Unlike many other production roles, success is not measured by ratings or delivery deadlines. It is measured by the wellbeing of real people.

Safeguarding requires more than good intentions. It requires specialist training, clear boundaries, ongoing support and systems that recognise the emotional impact the work can have on those providing it.

If contributor welfare is one of the most important responsibilities within modern television, then we must start treating the people carrying out that work as a critical part of the production process, rather than an afterthought.

So what needs to change?

The answer is not to abandon freelance welfare teams. They bring valuable experience, compassion and expertise to productions across the industry. But if contributor welfare is now recognized as a core part of modern television, then it is time to start treating it that way.

That means investing in clearer professional standards, stronger industry oversight and specialist training. It means creating environments where concerns can be raised without fear of professional consequences. And it means recognising that the people responsible for safeguarding contributors also require safeguarding themselves.

Perhaps most importantly, it means moving beyond viewing welfare as a box-ticking exercise. Contributor care is a specialist discipline and should be recognised, supported and resourced accordingly.

The current conversation presents a rare opportunity for meaningful change. My hope is that we use it to build a system that better supports contributors, welfare professionals, and production teams alike.

Because ultimately, a healthier industry is in everyone’s interest.