(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future funding of the BBC
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and to debate a subject that I seem to have spent a large part of my parliamentary career discussing, but which has become extremely appropriate to examine once again today. The Minister, who I have spent a lot of time debating over the last few years, last night replied to an Adjournment debate touching on the overall process under which the BBC charter will be renewed, but as she said last night—and she is completely right—the funding of the BBC is a central part of the charter renewal process, and what the BBC does will to some extent be affected by the money available to it and vice versa. I do think it is right that we look at the matter.
I had responsibility less than 10 years ago for drawing up the charter under which the BBC currently operates. That was in 2015-16—only seven or eight years ago—but the changes that have taken place in the broadcasting landscape since are huge and continue to accelerate. At the time of the last charter, streaming did exist, but it was only a couple of years after Netflix had launched in this country, and there were still only one or two other streamers available. Since then, we have seen an explosion, with an enormous number of different streaming platforms that are investing heavily in extremely good content. Most people now enjoy streamed services as well as traditional broadcast, and subscribe, quite often, to several streamers.
Despite the huge range of content that is now available, in my view—and I think the Government take the same view—public service broadcasting is still absolutely necessary, particularly in the core public service content areas of news and current affairs, which are not really provided by the streaming services. I continue to believe that there is a very important role for the BBC in this country’s broadcasting landscape, but my concern is that the traditional method by which the BBC is funded—through the licence fee—is going to become steadily harder to sustain.
Even seven or eight years ago, we saw the beginning of the challenges. At that time, at the request of the BBC, we closed the iPlayer loophole, by which people were viewing BBC content on the iPlayer but not paying the licence fee. We said then, and it remains the case now, that if people watch live television in any form and if they use the iPlayer, they are required to have a TV licence. Other drivers have increased revenue for the BBC over the years, like the growth of single-parent households and immigration levels, meaning that more licences have been issued—but that trend has now reversed, despite the closing of the loophole; each year, fewer people are buying a television licence. In the course of the last year, the number of licences held has fallen by 500,000, and that movement is likely to continue.
If we look at the public’s viewing behaviour, we find that less and less traditional broadcast television is being watched, particularly by young people. Most 16 to 24-year-olds now do not watch any live broadcasts each week—10 years ago, 80% did—and broadcast channels take up only 57% of all viewing, against TikTok, YouTube and all the other streaming services. People are genuinely saying, “We choose to subscribe and pay for Netflix, Amazon, Discovery, Apple and all the other streamers. We don’t see why, on top of that, we should have to pay for a TV licence when we don’t watch the BBC.”
The TV licence does not just cover the BBC; it covers all live television viewing. Nevertheless, a lot of people can watch on catch-up the programmes that are available on the other public service channels. Genuinely, people are not required under the law to have a TV licence, and more and more are choosing not to have one. That will pose an increasing problem for the BBC.
We have seen complaints from the BBC about the fact that the revenue available to it has been cut in recent years—like every other public service, it has been required to find efficiencies—but the director general has talked about the crisis that has been created by the lack of money and his inability to invest to compete. That situation is not likely to get any better if we continue with the licence fee; if anything, it will become steadily worse.
I remember chairing a Select Committee—I think it was about 15 years ago—that looked at the funding of the BBC and the licence fee. At the time, we concluded that although the licence fee had many drawbacks, it was still probably the best available option. It is a regressive tax, it is criminally enforced and it is the case that among the people convicted of failing to pay, a large proportion are women. Those are all drawbacks of the licence fee, but at that time the alternatives did not seem possible. Certainly, advertising is not likely to be beneficial to the BBC or to the whole commercial television sector; there is not that much advertising revenue to go round, and if there were advertising on the BBC, it would result in a reduction for everybody else.
There is an alternative option. A lot of people have said, “Why can’t the BBC charge a subscription, so people can choose whether or not to pay it?” The reason is simple. At the moment, most people still access the BBC and other traditional broadcasters through digital terrestrial television, or Freeview, and there is no mechanism for conditional access—in other words, the choice to receive a particular channel—with Freeview. At the launch of Freeview, the BBC was very keen that that should be the case, because it was worried about subscription, but it means that while a significant proportion of the population continue to rely on Freeview, we cannot move to subscription. But that will change.
Both the last Government and this Government have said that Freeview will be maintained until 2034; it may well be that we need to maintain it for a bit longer. However, the transition to IPTV or internet protocol television—the provision of television over the internet—will steadily increase, and if people have smart TVs, which allow them to choose whether to subscribe to the streamers, it means they could also have the choice of whether to subscribe to the BBC. I think that that option is likely to become more attractive, although it will only really become viable when we reach the point where almost the entire population have IPTV, but for the reasons I have set out, it is important that we start to talk about it now.
The last Government had future funding of the BBC panel, which this Government have not continued. On the other hand, I know that the Minister has set up a future of TV distribution panel, which does not look vastly different. Anyway, I am glad that the Government continue to look at the issue, which is why I think this is the right time to have this debate.
There are certain things that will never be possible to have on a subscription basis, including BBC Radio—I do not think there is any way in which there can be conditional access on radio—and the World Service. I sit on the Foreign Affairs Committee and we are currently examining the World Service, which is of huge benefit to this country. It could not be provided on a subscription basis, as the people it is aimed at are certainly not in a position to pay. The World Service also makes a very valuable contribution to the reputation of the UK and to our soft power, and the BBC has said that it should be funded by the Foreign Office and not by the licence fee. That argument is quite attractive, although I recognise that it would be a big challenge for the Government to take on. The Minister gave evidence on the subject yesterday and it remains an issue that we will want to debate.
With radio, it would be possible to extend advertising, but, as with any advertising on BBC TV, doing so would damage commercial radio. I am also slightly worried about the extent to which advertising is creeping in at the margin, with the BBC allowing advertising through podcast, which is increasingly the way in which people are accessing audio content.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will recognise, as I do, that one big challenge in relation to the BBC is that many of those who are most opposed to its further commercialisation are the other public service broadcasters, who worry about disruption to their own revenue streams, particularly in relation to advertising. That is why it is tricky to come up with an alternative to the licence fee.
Sir John Whittingdale
My hon. Friend is completely right. She and I both had the pleasure of serving as Minister; I was delighted to stand in for her while she was on maternity leave, so we have both looked at the issue for some time. We have to look at the overall television landscape. If we allow advertising, or encourage the BBC to compete, it is likely to have an impact on the commercial sector, which completely depends on advertising revenue. Our traditional advertising-funded PSBs—ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5—are already finding it difficult competing in a world with well-resourced streamers, and this would make it worse.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
One of the weaknesses of the streaming companies is regional and national news coverage and programming. For BBC Scotland, at the moment 99% of the licence fee paid by Scots is invested in Scotland. That is a really important and positive aspect of the current licence fee arrangements that must be protected as we move forward.
Sir John Whittingdale
I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. It is the case that the BBC provides more of the core public service content than the other PSBs—the others do, but not to the same extent. National and regional coverage of the type he has described is absolutely a core part of that. I think that needs to continue, and if the licence fee is not able to fund it, there is a case for it moving across to general taxation. There is a world in which the core PSB content is funded out of taxation, and then people could choose to subscribe to the content that is more entertainment based—a subscription model—but it is too early to say.
These are the kinds of discussions that are fundamental to the next charter. I am delighted that the Government are now beginning to consider that. My purpose today is to flag up the extent to which the existing model cannot be sustained, and to begin having the debate.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
Following the recent developments in Syria, I understand that the BBC World Service will offer enhanced services to audiences across Syria on broadcast medium wave and FM. Would the right hon. Member congratulate the World Service on stepping in to respond to an emergency situation with the utmost professionalism? Does that not underline his point as to why it should be funded from the Foreign Office?
Sir John Whittingdale
I agree. Yesterday, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee took evidence from the director general and the deputy director for news, Jonathan Munro, on this subject. He talked about the way the World Service provides its core language services and can also provide additional coverage quickly. Syria is a good example of where it is doing that. That is an extremely important role for the BBC, and one that I do not think could be funded in any way other than through public money. The BBC make a good case as to why the licence fee may no longer be appropriate, which we also need to consider.
There are a large number of Members present in the Chamber, so I do not want to take up any more time. I hope that I have raised one or two questions that we will need to debate thoroughly over the course of the couple of years that lie ahead for the charter renewal.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. I do not intend to set a time limit, but if Members could stick to five or six minutes, everybody should get to speak.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I refer colleagues to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am the chair of the BBC all-party parliamentary group, a recipient of hospitality and a former employee of Prospect and Bectu unions, which represent workers at the BBC.
I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this debate on such an important issue, not only for the BBC as an organisation, but for all of us who benefit from its mission to inform, educate and entertain. When we discuss the future funding of the BBC, we must understand the need to safeguard its unique role with a funding model that enables it to continue to be independent and universal and to provide the unique content that its audience expects. With BBC iPlayer having been the fastest-growing streaming service this year and with 95% of UK adults using BBC services every month—whether that is its nine TV channels, its 16 radio stations, its streaming apps or the World Service —we must recognise that the demand for the BBC’s services and content reflects what a vital source of information and entertainment it is for our constituents and for people accessing World Service content around the world.
It is also vital to our democracy. In a landscape of bias, spin, the common approach of “Don’t let facts get in the way of a good story” and the rise of unverified content and disinformation masquerading as news on social media, the BBC’s championing of impartial and fearless reporting at home and abroad and its operating without pandering to political or commercial interests is becoming more vital, not less. I am sure that colleagues of all political persuasions agree with that.
The financial challenges for the BBC are stark; when we debate future funding, we must recognise that. It has seen a 30% real-terms decrease in funding for UK services in the past decade, exacerbated by previous decisions around the licence fee and, of course, the hyperinflation in the film and TV industries in recent years. It has also taken on additional financial responsibilities in the past decade, including licences for the over-75s on pension credit. Although I know that the BBC welcomes the new Government’s funding uplift for the World Service in our recent Budget, two thirds of its funding still comes from the licence fee. I know that the licence fee will be in place until at least 2027-28, but given the challenges that have been outlined, this debate on its future funding is timely.
Many funding models have been proposed, but many alternatives to the licence fee would simply not secure the future of our world-leading public service broadcaster and would threaten its ability to create uniquely British content and tell stories, both fictional and real, from across the UK. An advertising model, for example, would not be right for the BBC: it would introduce commercial interests into programming decisions and would force the BBC to compete with other public service broadcasters and commercial radio and TV over ever-dwindling advertising revenue, as the right hon. Member for Maldon pointed out. I would be deeply concerned by the impact that that would have on the BBC’s ability to continue to invest in our world-leading creative industries and talent. It would undoubtedly leave the BBC and the rest of our broadcasting ecosystem worse off.
Similarly, a subscription model would not provide the universal public service broadcasting to which we and the BBC aspire. It would threaten regional programming and investment. It is unsurprising that the Government have committed to a sustainable public funding model for the BBC as part of the upcoming charter review to ensure that we continue to have a BBC that is impartial, universal and accessible, but it is important that we closely examine the licence fee model and consider reforms to ensure that its scope, progression and enforcement are fit for the times we find ourselves in.
We have something very special in the BBC. It has brought the nation together for more than a century for those enormous moments in our shared lives, from sporting triumph to the election drama that those of us in this Chamber all enjoyed this year, and from the latest adaptation of J. K. Rowling’s “Cormoran Strike” books to the upcoming “Gavin and Stacey” Christmas special, which I know will be on in my family’s house. It provides fearless news coverage in our neighbourhoods, from Westminster and abroad, and it invests in creative talent.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
My area has excellent regional news coverage, including BBC Three Counties Radio and “Look East”. However, back in 2022, a decision was taken that has meant that my regional politics programme is now recorded more than 100 miles away from my constituency. Given that all news is local, would my hon. Friend care to comment on whether that is the right starting point for regional news coverage, or whether we might want to do something more local and perhaps better?
Tom Rutland
I agree that it is a shame that some regional political and news programming is being filmed further away than before. Of course, I am not able to answer directly for those decisions by the BBC, but the 30% funding decrease that I mentioned may explain the reasoning behind them. It is a shame that we find ourselves in this position; it underlines the importance of finding a funding settlement and model that will allow regional programming and truly local programming to be safeguarded as much as possible.
As I was saying, the BBC provides fearless coverage in our neighbourhoods—sometimes a little further away than previously—and in Westminster and abroad. It invests in creative talent and programming across every corner of our great country. That is something worth fighting for in a world of media fragmentation. I hope all colleagues will support my push for a future funding model that ensures that the BBC lasts for another century.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this very important debate and for his thoughtful comments. I should make colleagues aware that I am a co-chair of the National Union of Journalists’ parliamentary group.
The BBC has been at the heart of the UK’s national life for over 100 years, and it is at the heart of my constituency of Salford. Its mission to inform, educate and entertain is underpinned by its funding model, which ensures that it is universal, independent and never at the whim of vested business interests or advertisers. It is there for the people of Britain, not for profit. It has a more important function than just entertaining us; it reaches out to every community in the UK and gives them a voice. It is an intrinsic part of political accountability, holding local and national politicians to account. It strives to provide content in the public interest, not just sensational headlines that offer the best clickbait. From educational resources produced by the BBC that are relied on in schools to fact-checking services that cut through misinformation, local radio and local democracy journalism, it is clear that the BBC’s impact on our communities is profound.
Julia Lopez
Does the hon. Lady agree that the BBC’s unique currency is trust, and that one of the challenges in recent years is that people have lost faith in the BBC as an organisation that produces impartial news? One challenge that I saw in the last Parliament was that the BBC was reducing local and regional journalism, even while protecting some very large salaries for its biggest stars. That is one of the reasons why people are losing faith that the BBC is investing in journalism in the way that it should and in the way that people expect from a public service broadcaster.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I very much agree with the hon. Lady about cuts to local journalism, because it is a fundamental part of holding politicians and local democratic organisations to account. It is incredibly worrying to see cuts to local services in print, television and radio; I hope the upcoming charter review will address and recognise that. I will come back to the theme of accountability and rebuilding public trust for those who may have lost an element of it.
It is also important to recognise the BBC’s impact on the rest of the world and how the world views the UK through its World Service provision, most importantly at a time of great turmoil in certain parts of the world. The BBC World Service has a history of responding to emergency situations globally. Most recently, in November, it launched an emergency radio service for Gaza, which remains on air. In May 2023, during the conflict in Sudan, BBC News Arabic began an emergency radio service. In February 2022 the BBC News Ukraine service extended TV bulletins, following the invasion of the country. BBC News has also responded to the events in Syria with special programming across the week.
Despite the crucial public interest role that the BBC plays, as we have heard, it has seen a 30% real-terms decrease in funding for UK public services in the last decade. Parts of the service have been at risk or have been cut completely, which puts the unique role of the BBC in jeopardy. Most recently, we have heard about the cutting of “HARDtalk” and local radio service provision, to name a few examples.
The forthcoming charter review process provides us with the opportunity to put the BBC on a stable and sustainable footing, recognising its vital role in our society and democracy, its significance as a major driver of the UK’s wider creative economy and its strategic value as a global asset. It is important that we discuss the importance of recognising the various available funding options beyond the licence fee. For example, the World Service is just one element of BBC provision that should be recognised on a department level, not just in terms of the licence fee.
There are ways we could improve the BBC too, particularly in how it engages with the public. The NUJ suggests that starting with genuine engagement and consultation with the public about what they value from their BBC will regain their input into its future funding and direction. It further suggests public and staff representation on the BBC board, improving diversity and reflecting the priorities of licence fee payers more fully. It calls for the reversal of initiatives that have diverted licence fee income away from core work, including the costs of free licences for the over-75s, which should be funded directly by the Government. It also calls for greater independence and the safeguarding of the BBC from perceived political interference, including by ensuring that the BBC boards and its chair are chosen by an arm’s length body.
It is also important to ensure that the BBC better reflects the community it serves, both in its content and in its staffing. It could do that by piloting innovative initiatives to improve local news provision in communities that represent news deserts or near news deserts; opening up access to journalism with targeted training programmes to increase opportunity, including apprenticeships for school leavers; and building and protecting the spectrum of news provision across linear and digital platforms, including through the proper resourcing of local radio news and local radio, ensuring a breadth of diverse content that prioritises quality.
I hope that the Minister will consider those points carefully and will continue to champion the BBC, both in Salford and across the UK. In an era of growing disinformation and political bias in the media sphere, fiercely protecting the values of public service broadcasting and its unique role in the provision of impartial, trustworthy news and journalism is crucial.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I commend the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this important debate. It was good to hear his support for public service broadcasting and his recognition that the licence fee is there not just for live television, but for many of the services that hon. Members have mentioned.
I will start by saying why I feel strongly that we need the BBC, and why it delivers such great value. It still does so many things that the proliferation of streaming platforms do not. From the perspective of UK cultural and economic benefit, the BBC provides a critical role in education, not just through children’s programming, but through ever-informative and breathtaking nature documentaries from David Attenborough and others. Even in this age of streaming, “Line of Duty” managed to secure 13 million viewers a night; many of us were gripped and looked forward to the next episode. The BBC has brought fantastic foreign-language content to BBC 4, including the iconic “The Killing”, which astonished people by hitting 1 million viewers a week as a subtitled programme. Those of us who were alive, albeit somewhat younger, in the 1990s could always look forward to the thrill of “Star Trek: The Next Generation” at 6 pm every Wednesday. For all those reasons, a KPMG report estimates that for every £1 of economic activity generated by the BBC, £2.63 of wider economic value is created.
The BBC is so much more than entertainment. Fact-based and impartial reporting, analysis and investigations are essential, particularly in this age of social media misinformation when we are all trapped in our thought bubbles. We need the forensic interviews on Radio 4’s “Today” programme, we desperately need the local political reporting and scrutiny of services such as BBC Oxford and BBC South, and we need the investigative journalism, domestic and international, that can be found across Radio 4. As the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) said, the BBC World Service plays a key role in maintaining access to free and accurate sources of information in many repressive countries around the world or in countries facing humanitarian challenges, such as Syria, which he mentioned.
Of course, we should recognise that the BBC is not perfect. The salaries of top presenters can be very high indeed, and scandals and crises have not always been prevented or well managed. But what other organisation would create and broadcast a documentary that looks critically at its own failings and weaknesses, as “Days That Shook the BBC” with David Dimbleby did?
Value for money from current funding and potential future reforms are important, but 95% of adults still use the BBC at least once a month. The alternative funding models that have been explored to date would not necessarily create a fairer system without disadvantages, so it is important for the Government to be very clear about our desired outcomes from the BBC and public service broadcasting, and then to work out from that how we fund them. We should consider ways to spread the TV licence cost more equitably, taking people on low incomes into account.
We need the quality, independence and breadth of the BBC now more than ever. It is too important to risk losing through sub-optimal or over-complex funding routes. I am pleased to see that the Government are looking hard at how to sustain the BBC’s future.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for bringing this debate to the House. Today is 18 December, so this time next week, millions of people will be gathered around their television to watch Christmas day programming. It is one minute past 3, so—
Patrick Hurley
Millions will be watching the King’s speech this time next week—on the BBC. People would not subscribe to the BBC on Christmas day to watch the King’s speech, but to watch programmes such as “Gavin and Stacey”, “EastEnders”, or “Doctor Who”. If they subscribed for only entertainment purposes, however, they would miss out on the cultural life of the country and on important issues that they should be exposed to and should consume.
A subscription service that unwittingly creates such a taxonomy of programming, and divides content between public sector broadcasting and entertainment, would fall foul of reducing the consumption of important content. The best way to ensure that the BBC continues to provide its services, therefore, is through the continuation and maintenance of the licence fee model, rather than general taxation for public sector broadcasting or subscription services for entertainment.
Julia Lopez
Would the hon. Gentleman accept that, whether or not he is a supporter of the licence fee, fewer people are choosing to pay it, so we have a problem that needs to be dealt with, regardless of one’s view on the licence fee and its future?
Patrick Hurley
I thank the hon. Lady for the question. Fewer people are willing to pay it, but there is a way around that. The BBC can make efficiency savings that will help to rebuild trust in it. If its content can be improved or its reach can be extended, that will lead to a regaining of trust, which the hon. Lady mentioned earlier, and to more people supporting the BBC financially through the licence fee.
I want to come on to an issue that the BBC has struggled with in recent years: trust. BBC Verify is a new service to combat the disinformation that we are seeing online. BBC Verify can be improved, both in content and in tone, as I have raised directly with BBC executives. I have also raised the fact that it is not perfect, but it is a good start in combating the disinformation and misinformation that we see online. I hope that more effort can be put into improving Verify’s output in the months and years to come.
I turn to the importance of the World Service, which many Members have already discussed. I support the Government’s recent uplift in funding for the World Service, but I favour returning this funding to the Foreign Office to relieve financial pressures on the BBC’s domestic coverage, enable sustainability and stability in the long term, and help to support Britain’s soft-power role in an increasingly dangerous world.
The BBC’s cultural impact is crucial to supporting the creative economy in the UK. The BBC strives to represent and serve all communities across the UK, and invests over half its funding outside London. The UK creative sector is a continuously developing area. The BBC’s £5 billion investment each year supports a unique entertainment output and provides world-class exports for viewers abroad. I want the BBC to be able to invest more in its cultural output so that it can extend its provision in that area. For those reasons, it is incredibly important to maintain the BBC’s position at the top of the electronic programme guide, so that public service broadcasting continues and survives in years to come.
Finally, although the Government should monitor the BBC funding situation, the current system of charter renewal, whereby the BBC continually diverts attention and resources to the upcoming charter review, is less effective than it should be at supporting the BBC to deliver as a public service. I therefore ask that the system be changed to allow a permanent charter for the BBC, which the Government and the BBC, in concert, could alter as and when required, rather than after a mandated medium-term period.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to putting the BBC on a stable financial footing, and look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell—my first time serving under a fellow Scottish MP. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this important debate and for his learned contribution. I declare an interest as an office bearer on the BBC all-party parliamentary group and as the husband of a journalist and former BBC employee.
I will not gild the lily of the contributions that so many Members have already made; I will give a personal view. Of course, nothing is free; when we consider the new model, we need to remember that, and my remarks will address that very point. More than most, perhaps, I—along with at least one other person in the room—know the value of the BBC, because I lived, studied and worked for 30 years in a society riven by conflict, division and hatred, at times verging on civil war. It was vital during those times to have faith in an organisation that provided reliable and trustworthy news and unbiased current affairs coverage. For the most part, the BBC fulfilled that function, in both its television and its radio coverage, and for that I pay tribute to its courageous and award-winning broadcast journalism. In an ever more divided society, the need for this role is all the greater.
Throughout my life, I have been a fan of much of the BBC’s output, and now, instead of being simply a viewer or listener, I occasionally find myself, as an MP, in the position of a contributor. I place on record my admiration for the work that it does, often in challenging circumstances and environments. I believe that it continues to be faithful to its commitment to inform, educate and entertain. It continues to enjoy a high level of trust and confidence, not only in these islands but across the world.
Alas, there are also challenges. There are too many to list in one speech, but I want to put down a few markers, as each of them relates to future consideration of the licence fee system and charter renewal. First, especially in Scotland but perhaps further afield, as the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) already referred to, there is a widespread and growing perception that editorial policy is not always fair or impartial. For example, on too many occasions, audience members in political debates are not who they purport to be—that is, ordinary members of the public.
On other occasions, contributors’ political perspectives are not properly introduced. Recently, for example, a so-called independent commentator turned out to be a fully paid-up member of a political party. Nor do those failings always result in public remedy or apology. As Elton John famously said,
“Sorry seems to be the hardest word”.
That is a problem for programme editors, not necessarily presenters, but it is a vital component in retaining the trust and confidence that I spoke of. It is not good enough to wring hands and say that everyone complains equally. I do not believe that is true.
Secondly, in what is obviously a personal view, I do not think that it is only politicians who should not be double-jobbing; that should extend to the so-called talent within the BBC. Too many times, we see high-profile individuals turning up as hosts on a wide variety of programmes, with their enormous salaries offered as justification for that triple or quadruple job-holding. The BBC should recognise its responsibility to bring forward up and coming journalistic and other qualified talent from a wide range of local broadcasters, whose careers are currently being effectively blocked or blighted as a result.
A final marker relates to the growing number of instances of unacceptable or illegal behaviour—often sexual harassment, or worse, of female colleagues or guests—by BBC employees or agents working on the BBC’s behalf through subcontractors. I spoke about that recently on a BBC programme. It is not good enough to divert responsibility to external production companies. The BBC needs to own that and to commit to an urgent internal review of its policies and a renewed training programme, especially for the so-called talent, where the problem often lies and where managers have been reluctant to act. That is a cultural problem that must be addressed at every level. I personally wish to see a commitment to a simple “no training, no screen time” approach.
In conclusion, I look forward to an informed debate on the licence fee system, including a deep dive into potential alternatives to the licence fee, such as opt-out advertising models, as we already see in the marketplace; a pay-per-view system; and certainly a funding model that provides a much more socially just system, in which the vulnerable, the elderly and those in poverty pay much less than the current licence fee. This is a changing world and the BBC must change with it.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I, too, would like to speak up for the BBC World Service and the brilliant people who work there.
The World Service describes itself as the world’s radio station. That is right: we are lucky to have it and must do whatever we can to support it. It offers 42 language services and is a beacon for democracy around the world. We know the truth when we hear it from the BBC. In a world of endless rolling information and disinformation, it is surely significant that the Arabic service alone saw a 9% audience growth to 35 million a week just last year. There are places in the world, especially where internet connections are restricted and local journalists are fearful, where conventional radio remains crucial. Abuse and state malfunction are called out, and the powerful are held to account. There are 318 million listeners every week.
In 2022, the World Service announced 382 job losses and the complete loss of the Persian radio broadcast, which was so important in its coverage of the protests against the Government in Tehran. In Lebanon, Russian state-backed media are now using the frequency suspended by BBC Arabic. There is news and there is fake news, as we have all learned. While we debate the funding of the BBC, let us therefore remember the World Service, which Kofi Annan described as
“Britain’s greatest gift to the world”.
Presently, about three quarters of World Service funding comes from the licence fee and about one quarter—about £100 million—comes from the Foreign Office. Previously in this Parliament, I said that amount was about the same as an F-35 jet, and we have 75 or so of those. As I said then, I ask whether some of us might agree that the vital soft power of the World Service is equivalent to at least one of our jets.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for setting the scene so well. I want to make some positive points, and then I will outline what some of my constituents are telling me in relation to bias, because I want to have those comments on the record.
First, as the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) said, this time next week the King’s speech will just be over. The nation will sit and watch that, because it is one of the good things that the BBC does, and it does it well. I am also a fan—my age gives it away—of the two Ronnies and of Morecambe and Wise. What humour—old-fashioned humour, by the way, but the kind that I was brought up with. I could tell some of their stories; I will not, because we would be here all day telling jokes, but their humour is incredible. I also endorse the excellent World Service, and agree that it needs to be upgraded and enhanced.
I wish to shine a light on the elephant in the room. The BBC has long prided itself as a national broadcaster, funded by the public and mandated to serve the public interest, yet my constituents tell me that the BBC is biased. Time and again, we see a pattern of behaviour that alienates a significant portion of that very public. The BBC is no longer viewed as the impartial institution it once claimed to be. I will give three or four examples just to have them on the record. They have been proven; I am not making them up—I do not do that sort of thing.
The BBC has adopted a tone and an editorial stance that all too often align with a narrow view. Whether or not Members are in favour of Brexit, let us look at it as an example. Many of us in the House and across the country will remember that the BBC approached Brexit not with curiosity or indeed neutrality, as the public rightly deserved, but with scepticism and outright hostility. It was not reporting the news; it was trying to shape the news.
The same bias has extended to issues affecting Northern Ireland. The BBC cannot even name our country correctly, referring to its correspondent as the “Ireland correspondent”. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) will know how absurd and wrong that is, because it is the Northern Ireland correspondent. Those who understand the constitution of Northern Ireland will understand that it is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, yet the BBC cannot get it right. If Welsh reporters can be “Welsh correspondent” and Scottish reporters can be “Scottish correspondent”, Northern Ireland deserves no less.
Bias is not merely a matter of perception; it has tangible consequences. Public trust in the BBC has eroded, and I have to say that it is no longer the broadcaster it was once heralded to be. As Government Members will know, my politics lies to the left—a fair bit to the left, I suspect—but that does not take away from where I am. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) faced a hostile audience on “Question Time” and Dame Andrea Jenkyns, a former Conservative MP, was booed before she had even opened her mouth on “Have I Got News for You”. My goodness. That is not organic debate; it is bias in practice.
I will echo something the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East referred to. The BBC selects its audiences, sets the tone and consistently marginalises voices on the right of politics. I am not on the right of politics—I never will be—but I make that point to have it on the record for those who have a different opinion. I respect other people’s opinions, by the way, even though I may not agree with them, because that is the person I am. I hope others are the same.
Julia Lopez
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this gets to the nub of the challenge? The BBC has a unique social contract with the public. It has the licence fee because people trust it to produce high-quality, impartial, trusted content. That is precisely the reason we have the BBC. If there is a sense from the public that that trust is being lost, that is a fundamental challenge to the BBC’s future. With Russia and China putting ever more money into their own state broadcasters, this represents a much wider challenge than just one for us here in the UK.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. She has highlighted an issue that I wished to highlight too, but she did so better than I could, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. I should have welcomed the Minister to her place, by the way. She responded to her first Adjournment debate last night and did extremely well, and I know that she will be exceptionally good when it comes to answering all the questions that we pose today.
The BBC’s funding model must also be examined. The licence fee is compulsory, paid for by households across the United Kingdom regardless of whether they feel the BBC reflects their values or serves their interests. It is not a secret that I am an Ulster Scot. I am very proud of my history and the fact that my ancestors came from the lowlands of Scotland to Northern Ireland. When I look around this room, I look upon the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East as my Gaelic brother, and there are probably others across the Chamber who are similar; if we go back far enough in our history, we will find out. Ulster Scots heritage programmes risk being squeezed out of the BBC’s cultural programming. I think that is disgraceful. The BBC should focus on delivering programming that matters to all parts of the United Kingdom. Instead, we see money poured into political agendas and overpaid presenters, while those cherished culturally significant programmes receive less attention.
I have one last one example, Mr Mundell: the BBC’s clear bias in its coverage of Israel and Hamas. My goodness—cast your mind back to all that. It is no secret that I am pro-Israel, but I believe in decency and justice for everyone in the middle east. The BBC refuses to describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation. They are murderers, rapists and baby killers. That is who they are—that is the Hamas that we know—yet the BBC could not bring itself to call them what they were: terrorists. That undermines the BBC’s credibility as a news source. What message does that send to the victims of terrorism?
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing the debate. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as someone who was supported by the Musicians’ Union, and I am the son of a videotape editor for the BBC, so I spent much of my childhood on the cutting room floor of Pebble Mill in the west midlands.
We hear about bias from all political parties and all sides. I heard from my Liberal Democrat colleagues earlier today about their frustration that the leader of the Reform party has appeared on the BBC far more times than any Liberal Democrats have. I heard the concern about trust expressed by the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), a former Minister, but several high-profile leaders of the BBC are former Conservative members or advisers. Many people who worked for the BBC are now prominent Conservatives on my local council.
We are talking about the funding of the BBC. We will all be unhappy with its output at some stage, yet the public still put it higher than most news outlets and other broadcasters. On the issue of funding the organisation, which is still one of the best in the world, does the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) agree that if we put a subscription process in place, not everybody would take it up, which would drive up the subscription fee, and then the BBC would have an even bigger funding problem?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Member for that. He is right to put forward a point of view. I did not speak on behalf of the Reform party, because it is not my party. The point I was making is that if someone is derided on TV because they happen to represent a political view, that is wrong.
I mentioned Israel and Hamas. That is a supreme example of where the BBC’s bias carried over in such a way that it could not even name what Hamas were: terrorists and murderers. They are the people that hide behind women’s skirts and children whenever they carry out their atrocities. I expect the BBC to present the news in the way that it is.
The question is: how do we justify the licence fee? The BBC must uphold its obligation to impartiality, fairness and transparency. Some would say that it has a left-wing bias. A compulsory licence fee cannot be justified if a large section of the public feels misrepresented, ignored or, worse, derided.
We must demand that the BBC prioritises voices and programming that matter to all parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—the BBC does not know where Northern Ireland is. That means that Ulster Scots programming must be given the platform it deserves, and that coverage of Northern Ireland must reflect the reality of our place within this great United Kingdom, which I am proud to be a member of—I say that all the time. The BBC has faced calls for its defunding. It can either reclaim its role as a trusted, impartial broadcaster that unites the nation, or it can continue down its current path, alienating viewers and losing its purpose. The public and Parliament have noticed a bias, and the BBC must acknowledge that and act to restore trust.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for the opportunity to discuss the future funding of one of our nation’s most cherished institutions. The BBC has been at the heart of our national life for more than 100 years. It embodies a mission that is simple yet profoundly important: to inform, educate and entertain. The BBC is not just another broadcaster; it plays a vital role in our cultural life and our national identity. It is universal, independent and unparalleled in its reach and influence, and it remains the most trusted broadcaster in the world.
From BBC Bitesize, which has educated millions of children, to the drama, music and comedy that enrich our lives, the BBC has no equal. Unlike global streaming services, which are motivated by profit and primarily serve international markets, the BBC exists to benefit the UK public. Public service broadcasting ensures that content is produced for everyone, regardless of wealth or geography. It brings us together, whether to watch the coronation, follow the Olympics, enjoy the sounds of Glastonbury or tune in to local radio to hear about issues in our communities.
A Netflix-style subscription model would be divisive and exclusionary. It would force the BBC to focus on content that attracts paying subscribers, sidelining the universal services that make it so valuable. The BBC’s services serve all audiences, not just those who can afford to pay. A subscription model would drive up costs for consumers and reduce the money available for investment in content.
The notion that the BBC’s entertainment content should be put behind a paywall is misguided. For many households, including the digitally excluded, that would make BBC services inaccessible. It would also result in the loss of free access to well-loved shows such as “Strictly Come Dancing”, “Match of the Day”, “The Traitors” and world-renowned drama. The proposal also ignores the reality of subscription-based financial models. Since its launch in the UK in 2012, when it charged £5.99 per month, Netflix’s standard plan has increased to £10.99 month, and its premium plan to £17.99—increases of 83% and 200% respectively. Consider the impact on a young person from a low-income household who might discover a passion for science through a BBC documentary, or be inspired to pursue their dreams by a BBC film. Those transformative experiences would be lost if access were restricted to only those who could afford to pay.
An advertising-funded BBC would be equally damaging. It would siphon advertising revenue away from commercial broadcasters, weakening the entire UK media ecosystem. Worse still, it would compromise the BBC’s independence by exposing it to commercial pressures. That would push the BBC to prioritise more generic, mass-appeal programming over distinctive, high-quality British productions. It would also undermine the BBC’s ability to deliver the rich, global and multicultural programming that has become its hallmark.
The BBC’s current funding model guarantees universality and independence. For just over £3 a week, households gain access to a treasure trove of content, including nine TV channels, 39 local radio stations, and online services such as the BBC iPlayer and BBC Sounds, yet the BBC has faced a 30% real-terms funding cut over the past decade, forcing tough decisions and service reductions. We cannot continue with perpetual uncertainty about the status of the BBC. The BBC’s current charter ensures the licence fee model until at least 2027, but beyond that we must commit to a funding model that is sustainable, fair and fit for the future.
Part of that future must include stronger support for the BBC World Service. This unparalleled institution is not only a vital source of impartial news for 450 million people globally, but a key pillar of the UK’s soft power. Whether it is exposing corruption, raising awareness of public health challenges or championing education and human rights, the BBC World Service not only projects British values but does real good in the world. However, recent funding cuts forced the closure of language services. This is unacceptable. We must restore full funding to the World Service through the Foreign Office budget to allow it to continue its invaluable work.
The BBC is also a driver of the UK’s creative economy, contributing nearly £5 billion annually. It commissions more independent productions than any other broadcaster, invests in research and development, and supports apprenticeships and training. At its heart, the BBC’s mission is to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output. In a media landscape dominated by billionaires seeking to engineer narratives that align with their personal interests and agendas, the BBC stands as one of the few institutions committed to impartiality and serving the public.
Tom Rutland
We have heard, not just today but over the years, accusations of political bias. I have friends on the left who accuse the BBC of being biased against them, and family members on the right, with whom I am sure I will have conversations over Christmas, make the same comments. Does the hon. Lady agree that if both sides—and indeed, I am sure, the middle—have complaints about it, perhaps the BBC is getting something right?
Liz Jarvis
I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Does the Minister agree that the BBC’s funding model must not be a Trojan horse for those who seek to undermine its editorial independence and pave the way for figures such as Elon Musk, whom we have little opportunity to scrutinise or hold to account? Liberal Democrats are committed to a strong, independent and well-funded BBC that continues to reflect the diversity of our nation and serves all audiences.
Sir John Whittingdale
I do not disagree with a lot of what the hon. Lady has said about the value of the BBC, but the problem is that more and more people are unwilling to pay the licence fee, and that has to be addressed. She wants to see a strongly financed and funded BBC, but she is going to have to come up with an answer to the fact that the revenue is going to go on declining under the present model.
Liz Jarvis
I do not disagree that there needs to be a plan, but at the moment I do not see one on the table. The next charter review is the time to have a serious, evidence-based discussion about funding, but any changes must strengthen, not diminish, the BBC.
Through the BBC we see things about our nation and the world that we might never encounter in our own lives. As Sir David Attenborough has said, the world would be worse off without our stories. It must be taken with great pride that the British public has a direct role in providing the platform needed to nurture and share the genius of so many British individuals in the creative industry. I hope we can continue to protect public ownership of the BBC, to preserve the voices and stories that make us who we are.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. Let me start by wishing all Members and you, Mr Mundell, a very merry Christmas. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this valuable debate, which has been a spirited one with some interesting points. I will pose some questions to the Minister in, as it is Christmas, the most constructive way I can.
The BBC plays a fundamental role in the lives of the vast majority of people in the country, and its scope is impossible to underestimate. The National Union of Journalists estimates that 91% of British adults use BBC television, radio or online each week. As a number of Members have pointed out, its global reach is equally important: 426 million people access the BBC every week via the World Service and its worldwide and global news services.
The BBC’s reach and reputation is rightly a source of pride for people in the UK. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon pointed out, as we approach the renewal of the BBC’s royal charter in 2027, there is no denying that the Government must recognise some of the challenges that the organisation faces, not least in respect of its sustainability, with decreasing licence fee uptake and decreasing revenues.
The issue of trust has been brought up. The social contract that exists between the licence fee payer and the BBC is fundamental. Unless we ensure that people have faith in the BBC and its role in society, endless questions about its relevance and importance will continue to be a factor in public discourse. Failure to address that will undermine trust in the BBC.
The BBC is one of our great institutions. Since its founding, it has promoted the very best of Britain at home and abroad. It has guided our nation through war, economic and political crises and much more. It needs to be trusted, especially as we see our adversaries like Russia and China bolstering the reach of their own state broadcasters. We also see the concerning impact of AI and misinformation domestically and around the world. We must emphasise the issue of trust. We are clearly seeing a trend in the questioning of the BBC’s credibility, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), who was an excellent Minister on these issues, as was my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon.
Recent funding figures are a cause for concern. A 2015 report by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee found that some view the licence fee as “anachronistic” and
“harder and harder to sustain”.
Its conclusions are verified by the fact that licence fee income between 2022-23 and 2023-24 went down, and there were fewer licences in force at the end of March 2024 than the end of 2023. That clearly suggests that more people are reluctant to pay the licence fee because they are not believing in the BBC or trusting it. This is a foundational challenge for the Government. This country needs the BBC. The challenge is for the Government and the BBC to make that case. I hope the Minister will recognise that in her response.
We must also recognise that the way that people, especially our younger generations, engage with media has altered dramatically in the past decade. The covid pandemic accelerated some of the trends that have dramatically transformed the media landscape. It led to a surge in online streaming companies, which now dominate the market. As we approach the review of the royal charter, we cannot ignore the radically different media environment that the BBC is operating and competing in compared with that of just 10 years ago. The Government must understand that unless there is genuine reform of the BBC and how it functions, it will continue to be an analogue service in a digital world.
There is no denying that the licence fee model was conceived at a time of linear viewing, when watching programmes at the time of broadcast was commonplace. The reality is much different now. The BBC competes in a far more crowded market—a market that can be accessed at any time, anywhere. Licence fee payments will not increase if the BBC does not continue to strive to adapt to the rapid changes in online media that we all have to interact with. What discussions is the Minister having with the BBC to ensure that its funding remains sustainable over the next 10 years, in the light of a radically different media landscape? I acknowledge that these are not easy questions; they require leadership and clarity, so I hope the Minister can provide some of that in her remarks.
The issue of local radio has also been brought up, and the Government should seek to engage constructively with the BBC about its future. The BBC has 39 local radio stations that currently reach 5.7 million listeners. Under the terms of the current royal charter, the BBC has an obligation to reflect the diversity of the United Kingdom in both its output and its services and must meet the needs of its regions and communities. As the National Union of Journalists sets out, local radio is a lifeline for often-isolated rural communities and provides an invaluable source of news and education for so many, especially elderly people in our communities. At a time when elderly people are feeling more and more marginalised, it would be wrong to make further cuts to local radio, which provides essential information and entertainment for millions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon made some excellent suggestions in that regard, and I hope the Minister can address his concerns.
I want to turn to Ofcom, because the question of BBC funding raises other issues that have been brought up in a number of different ways when it comes to the BBC’s impartiality. As Ofcom is the broadcasting regulator and has the role of challenging broadcasters, especially in an ever more competitive environment, there are clearly questions that the public will want answers to. In the past decade, the BBC has had many new competitors, and I want to raise the issue of GB News. Ofcom recently fined GB News £100,000 for its programme with the former Prime Minister in February this year. Many people believed that was not correct, and I also question it. The Government should question Ofcom’s remit, its scope to deny freedom of speech, and whether its fines are proportionate in the circumstances, as we enter an ever more competitive media landscape that is fundamentally different compared with the previous decade.
I wish you a merry Christmas, Mr Mundell, and I thank all Members for their contributions; I hope they have a happy new year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I echo the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), in wishing a merry Christmas to everyone present, and congratulate the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing this important debate. He and I have had a lot of opportunities to debate the BBC together this week.
Let me start by responding to some of the points that the shadow Minister and others made. First, the right hon. Member for Maldon pointed out that it is a good time to have this debate. He opened by talking about the importance of public service broadcasting today. We spent many hours debating the Media Act 2024, which is legislation that goes to the heart of these issues and now falls to this Government to implement.
The shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) pointed out how many people access the BBC—over 90% every month—but also the fact that there are lots of important and challenging issues about BBC funding and the charter review.
It has been a good debate, and Members have rightly shared their own experiences and memories of the BBC. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) spoke about the shared experience we have as a country, and how the BBC brings us together. A week today we will all be watching the King’s speech and, of course, “Gavin and Stacey”—or at least I will be.
Members from all parties, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), spoke about their passion and support for the World Service. The right hon. Member for Maldon serves on the Foreign Affairs Committee, to which I was pleased to give evidence. I am pleased that three Select Committees are taking such an interest in the topic. There are a lot of questions and challenges, but it is important that we put on the record our support for the World Service.
The shadow Minister asked questions about engagement with the BBC; the Secretary of State and I have met with the BBC and will continue to do so. The shadow Minister also asked questions about local radio. It is important to state that the BBC is operationally independent, but when I was in the shadow Minister’s place I made my views very clear, as did the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), who was the Minister at the time.
I will speak more broadly about the BBC before addressing some of the wider funding issues. For over 100 years the BBC has been a cherished British asset, making a vital contribution to our national life. It supports our democracy, brings our communities together and helps to shape and define our nation by telling the stories of people in all parts of the UK. The BBC has an almost unique role as a source of trusted news, both in the UK and to millions of people across the globe, as well as being a provider of cutting-edge programming and educational content for the nation’s children. It is so often the first to invest in the skills, the physical assets and the creativity to boost the creative industries in all corners of the country.
The media environment has of course changed over the BBC’s long history. Even since the start of the current charter period in 2017, when the Government were bringing iPlayer into the scope of the licence fee, the market has significantly evolved—a point that has been discussed. The right hon. Member for Maldon knows all that very well, not least because he served as Secretary of State for DCMS during the previous charter review.
The world is changing and, as the right hon. Member for Maldon outlined in his speech, for the first time half of 16 to 24-year-olds now do not watch broadcast TV on a weekly basis. We are seeing audiences increasingly turn to on-demand content, and more than two thirds of households subscribe to streaming services, compared with about a third at the start of the charter period.
The shadow Minister asked about some of the challenges that go to the heart of this debate. As an institution, the BBC has often needed to adapt, renew and grapple with an ever-increasing pace of change. That is something that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) spoke about in his contribution.
Next year, the Government will formally launch charter review with the need for adaptation in mind. We intend to use charter review to think through the operation of the BBC and how it thrives for not just the next 10 years, but well into the latter half of this century. We know that any reform to the BBC, particularly when it comes to funding, could have a major impact on the whole sector. We will consider that carefully as part of the charter review. We want to have a national conversation to make sure that the BBC truly represents and delivers for every person in this country, wherever they come from and whatever their background. That will include the opportunity for stakeholders and audiences across the country to respond to the charter review public consultation before the new charter comes into effect in 2028.
Our thinking will also be informed by my Department’s wider work. We are undertaking a project on the future of TV distribution to analyse how people receive their television now and through the next decade. That will help us to ensure the continuity of a sustainable TV ecosystem and the best outcome for audiences.
As we address vital questions about the future form of the BBC head on, we must also ensure that there is a sustainable funding model that is fair to those who pay for it. These are undoubtedly complex issues, on which people hold strong opinions, but this Government want to have an open and honest discussion about them in the public’s best interests.
We are fully committed to retaining the licence fee for the rest of this charter period, but we cannot ignore the fact that challenges to this funding model in its current form are increasing, as has been highlighted in the debate. The media market is more competitive than ever, with the emergence of streamers and social media platforms operating on a global scale. That has meant less money for the BBC to invest in our creative industries, in talent and skills, and in telling our stories. It has also resulted in cuts to BBC services, which the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) spoke about.
The Secretary of State has announced that we will take forward work on BBC funding as part of the charter review process to bring together the linked issues of what the BBC does, its future role and how it is funded. The Government are keeping an open mind about the future of the licence fee.
The right hon. Member for Maldon referred to his chairing of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. More recently, the Committee’s 2021 report on the future of public service broadcasting found that there are a range of options for funding the BBC, but none are perfect.
Julia Lopez
The Secretary of State has talked about her support for mutualisation, but it has never been clear to me what that actually means. Could the Minister give us more details?
Stephanie Peacock
I will happily ask the Secretary of State to write to the hon. Lady. However, in talking about mutualisation, which the Secretary of State made some comments about some years ago, I think it is about having a greater role for the public in BBC accountability and the public feeling more ownership of it. But we will happily write to the hon. Lady with more detail, as I do not want to speak on the Secretary of State’s behalf.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for her response; she is always very positive and very enthusiastic. In last night’s Adjournment debate on the charter review, she referred to complaints and how they will be handled by Ofcom or other organisations. However, the people who come to me with the examples of bias that I referred to are some of those who do not have a BBC licence and will not buy one. If the BBC has a better system, where people who have complaints about bias, whatever they may be, have their complaints handled in a good, honest and transparent way, that might draw back some people who have decided not to renew their licence. Will she assure us that that will happen?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Of course, we spoke about this issue in the debate last night. There is the complaints procedure through BBC First, and complaints can be escalated to the executive complaints unit and then to Ofcom. But I appreciate that some people have simply decided not to buy a TV licence, and we want to explore the issue of trust and confidence in the BBC as part of the charter renewal process and the review. There will be a public consultation, in which his and my constituents, and the constituents of Members across the House, can take part.
We are not in the business of reform for reform’s sake. We will think in the broadest sense about the options for the BBC’s funding and structure, and nothing is off the table, as the Secretary of State said in evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee last week. It is clear that there are limits to the amount of money that the BBC can raise from commercial sources, particularly given its obligations as a public service broadcaster. We firmly believe that the unique obligations placed on the BBC demand continued and sustainable public funding in support of its vital work.
In the meantime, we must ensure that the BBC is properly and fairly supported for the remainder of this charter. That is why we have announced that we are increasing the annual cost of a TV licence from April 2025 by £5, in line with consumer prices index inflation, which is less than half as much as last year’s increase. For the BBC, that will provide additional and proportionate funding that will allow it to continue to deliver world-class educational and engaging programming. We always take decisions on funding to provide certainty and stability for the BBC while ensuring that those decisions deliver the best outcomes for licence fee payers.
The Government have already noted the ongoing concerns about the impact of TV licensing enforcement action on vulnerable households. I am acutely aware of the financial difficulties faced by some households, and we are committed to supporting them to spread the cost of a TV licence. We recently announced an expansion of the simple payment plan to all unlicensed households facing financial hardship to help more people pay in flexible instalments, rather than them having to find a greater amount of money up front. We will also look at enforcement issues as part of the longer-term funding work we take forward at charter review.
The provision of trustworthy local and national news is vital for democracy and to hold elected representatives to account, especially at a time when misinformation and disinformation are spreading at rapid speeds. Local journalism, in particular, also helps to foster community in areas like mine in Barnsley. By reporting on stories that matter to local people, the BBC helps people to feel connected to the place they call home. In the past few days alone in my area, the BBC has reported on a new sculpture that will be placed on a roundabout in Goldthorpe, a local Christmas tree that had to be taken down due to dangers related to wind and vandalism, and a new specialist care home being built in Barnsley. Those kinds of varied local stories matter to local people, and they enrich their understanding of the issues affecting their neighbourhoods. I know Members from across the House will have similar stories to share.
Ultimately, the BBC has a huge role to play in telling our country’s story, creating great jobs and opportunities and driving growth in the creative economy. We are determined to get the forthcoming charter review right to future-proof the BBC and to ensure that we can all continue to enjoy and benefit from it for decades to come. The right hon. Member for Maldon has made an important contribution, not just today, but through his years of public service, and I thank him for that.
Sir John Whittingdale
I begin by thanking all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. A number of criticisms of the BBC have been expressed, and I have my own criticisms; nevertheless, everybody recognises the value that the BBC brings to the UK and our society, and the importance of ensuring that it continues to play that important role. But there is a problem: the current model is looking harder and harder to sustain. I therefore suspect that we will continue to debate this issue over the coming weeks and years during the charter renewal process. I look forward to continuing my discussion with the Minister and others. I thank everybody for their contributions and join the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), the Minister and all others in wishing all Members a very happy Christmas.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I am surprised that nobody has mentioned BBC Parliament, on which this debate will appear. I understand that it is available over Christmas, when it shows highlights from parliamentary proceedings—of which I am sure this debate will be part.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future funding of the BBC.