(1 day, 13 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 Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
We will start a minute or so early because, as everyone will appreciate, there are a lot of potential speakers and I want to give everyone maximum opportunity to get in. To ensure that no one is disadvantaged by our starting early, let me make it clear that I will also call those who arrive from 3.10 pm onwards.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the funding of the BBC World Service.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Earlier this afternoon, hon. Members may have heard the Prime Minister agree with me that the World Service is a crucial asset of British soft power. Therefore, the debate may be superfluous in some respects, but as we are all here I think we will carry on with it.
There are few institutions in the world that so consistently live up to the values we claim to cherish—truth, independence and freedom—as does the BBC World Service. Together with the royal family, the BBC is one of a tiny handful of British brands known by billions worldwide—and not just known, but trusted. It broadcasts in 43 languages to 400 million people a week, bringing impartial news to some of the most dangerous and controlled places on Earth. It is a beacon for those who are denied the right to free expression, and a trusted voice in a world increasingly awash with propaganda, intimidation and disinformation. It certainly strengthens our hand when we deal with tyrants worldwide. That is why it is so important to ensure its continued funding.
The World Service costs £366 million annually to reach an audience of approximately 400 million people every week—what fantastic value! Across the globe, rogue and authoritarian Governments are increasingly leveraging media to undermine free societies. We see that clearly in Hong Kong, where the Chinese state is targeting journalists who report on the Chinese state’s human rights abuses, and we have seen it in Moldova, where last year’s presidential elections were disrupted by Russian disinformation—false stories pumped on to people’s phones by hostile powers. Those dangers have been only amplified by recent cuts to American foreign spending. The Voice of America was silenced by President Trump.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to intervene on him as the MP for BBC Scotland’s headquarters. Given the context that he has talked about, does he agree that investment in the BBC World Service is in fact investment in the defence of our values and the defence of our ideals as a British nation?
Peter Prinsley
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The Voice of America was established to broadcast truth and liberty into European nations darkened by fascism and Soviet oppression. When the editor of Russia Today heard that the Voice had been silenced, he said it was “awesome”, which only highlights the importance of the BBC and Britain on the global stage. We should encourage the United States to reconsider its decision and restore the funding, but we must prepare ourselves to fill the gap through the World Service. That will mean additional demands on resources.
The World Service is vital in the battle against misinformation, which is a modern fight unfamiliar to those who will recall a world where all media outlets provided trusted and verifiable facts. Misinformation, along with confused or false facts, has become one of the most pressing global threats, fuelling doubt, division and instability.
The BBC World Service excels in countering misinformation. BBC Verify and its language services are being used to rigorously fact-check. They use cutting-edge AI to rapidly tackle and neutralise viral disinformation. Only this week, we heard how AI has been used to establish a new Polish language service.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
This is an important debate. I broadly agree with the hon. Member on the positive influence of the World Service. Would he acknowledge, though, that on occasion—such as on BBC Arabic—standards have fallen below what we would expect, with former Hamas officials put forward as neutral observers? We need to ensure that, exactly as he said, the highest possible standards of international truth and credibility are maintained at the BBC.
Peter Prinsley
I thank the right hon. Member—my recent squash partner—for his intervention, I agree that we must be sure that whatever the BBC says is true; that must be the case. The BBC Arabic service—the language service—disappeared some time ago, and that is to be regretted.
In Pakistan, a video falsely claimed to show the aftermath of an Indian airstrike on Pakistani air bases. That went viral—it was viewed over 400,000 times—stoking widespread fear and heightening tensions with India over Kashmir, but actually it was mislabelled footage of the 2020 Beirut port explosion. BBC Verify debunked the claim and calmed the situation.
In 2023, a false story spread across the internet that alleged that the newly elected President of Nigeria had forged his university degree. There was anger and unrest until a report by the BBC global disinformation team revealed it to be false, which defused the situation.
Those are not isolated stories; they are part of a growing global pattern. The fight is particularly crucial in an era when young people increasingly consume news online. A few weeks ago, I visited a school in my constituency at Bury St Edmunds and asked the children how they got their news. I said, “Do you get your news online?”, and almost every hand went up. Among 12 to 15-year-olds in the UK, only the BBC can compete effectively with the online tech giants. To continue to compete effectively and divert attention from untrustworthy sources, the BBC needs the resources to excel in what a young person recently told me is called the “attention economy”. With appropriate funding for new digital content, the BBC can significantly expand its impact.
In recent weeks, our attention has undoubtedly been drawn to the middle east, particularly to Iran, and the power of the BBC’s digital reach is no clearer than through the work of BBC Persian. It recently reached over 32 million users on Instagram in just five days, despite the platform’s having been blocked by the Iranians. People were so desperate to view trusted BBC news that they risked their safety by using virtual private networks, or VPNs, to bypass Iran’s strict internet censors. Some posts achieved more than 12 million views.
When Iran restricted internet access, BBC Persian increased broadcasts from eight hours to nearly 24 hours a day and launched an emergency radio service. Despite the fact that there were no reporters on the ground, the team diligently verified information amid severe misinformation campaigns. With adequate funding, the BBC World Service always steps up during global crises, delivering a public good for the benefit of a whole country.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
What has been happening at BBC Persian over the past few weeks is a case in point, as my hon. Friend said. It has been narrating events in an accessible way and providing insights that are free from the talking points of the propaganda regime into how people in Iran really feel, and how they are experiencing the conflict. It is a public good for the world. It tackles misinformation and develops our soft power, but it also provides important human empathy in the fog of war. We must bear in mind that BBC Persian journalists and their families are being harassed and threatened here in London. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should celebrate their courageous work and back them with the resources that they need to continue?
Peter Prinsley
I absolutely agree. I first got into this subject when I met World Service refugee correspondents from BBC Persian and BBC News Russian at the Labour party conference. I so admired what they were doing, and it was a real inspiration for me.
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office contributes £104 million a year to the World Service budget of £366 million. The BBC does an awful lot with its licence fee. I was told this week that, for the cost of a cup of coffee a week, it delivers drama, comedy and news across TV and radio, as well as one of the world’s most visited websites. However, money is tight and there are serious fears that its essential work will be chipped away.
Like many, I would describe the BBC World Service as a tool of British soft power. Remarkably, the entire Foreign Office contribution to the BBC World Service is roughly equivalent to the cost of a single F-35 jet. We lately agreed to purchase a whole lot more of those, and that was the right move because we need to boost defence in a dangerous world, but it would be a critical mistake to invest heavily in just one aspect of our security while neglecting another equally essential aspect.
Global inflation and rising costs are putting the World Service in increasing funding difficulties, and without more support there is a risk that it will lose critical technological capabilities, especially among younger audiences. Although broadcast services currently account for two thirds of the World Service’s reach and they remain crucial, the future is digital, and on digital platforms the BBC is not just competing with Russia and China but is up against Facebook, TikTok, Google and the others, so we need sustained investment. Despite all the funding challenges, BBC World Service journalists continue to bravely provide quality journalism in the most challenging circumstances, often at great personal risk. When it comes to Iran we rely heavily on the work of BBC Persian’s brave journalists who face, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) said, threats, asset seizures and passport confiscations just for doing their jobs.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I do not in any way argue with the hon. Gentleman’s tribute to the journalists of BBC Persian, who have endured appalling harassment, particularly of their families still in Tehran. It is also worth putting on the record the bravery of the journalists of Iran International, one of whom was attacked by a thug from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on the streets of London, and who still endure enormous threats and intimidation.
Peter Prinsley
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that remark. The World Service is ultimately about the listener. We must bear in mind, when considering the funding settlement for that service, that there are individuals living under authoritarianism whose freedom of expression is so very restricted. They rely on the World Service to provide an accurate and comprehensive global perspective. Funding the World Service is not just about serving elites; it is about earning respect abroad and safeguarding future freedom. Let us not be complacent when it comes to the funding of the BBC World Service. It is an important source of essential soft power and a way for the country to punch well above its weight on the international stage, to spread truth, to lighten the grip of totalitarianism, and in some circumstances prevent the need for us to use hard power at all. That is exactly what the Prime Minister told us this morning.
It has been said that we could not recreate the BBC World Service today if we started from scratch. There is not the political will and no one would be willing to take such a risk. If we lose the World Service, we simply will not get it back. I do not think we should take that risk. The Government were bold to increase funding for the World Service last year, but a more steady and long-term funding arrangement must be put in place to prevent what I fear will be death by a thousand cuts.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that if they wish to speak they should continue to bob so I can see that they do. If we are going to get everybody in, people will need to restrict themselves to about three minutes, but I am loath to impose a formal time limit. I call Sir John Whittingdale.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Thank you, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) on calling the debate this afternoon, which is extremely topical, and on convening a very helpful panel to discuss the subject a couple of days ago.
The World Service has always been one of the great assets of this country. When we talk about the UK’s soft power, the BBC is right up there at the top. Its reach into some of the most troubled parts of the world is huge. We only have to reflect back on the stories of people like Terry Waite, who, when he was held hostage in Lebanon, spoke of how he relied on the BBC World Service. The service has become all the more important today, for two reasons. First is the huge spread of disinformation—what is called foreign interference and manipulation of information—being conducted by Russia and China.
The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket mentioned Moldova. I was there a few weeks ago and spoke to politicians there who were trying to counter a tidal wave of Russian disinformation on TikTok and Telegram channels, seeking to influence the parliamentary election coming up later this year. The same is happening in China, with independent media being closed down and huge amounts put into spreading Chinese propaganda. That is one aspect.
At the same time, the other reliable voice, which was provided by the Voice of America service, as the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket said, has been undercut by the withdrawal of funding by the US Administration. I hope that that will be reversed. At the moment, it is on hold; we are told it is under review. But having talked to some of the people involved, they are pessimistic. If Voice of America goes, it makes it all the more important that we have a trusted, reliable source of independent news.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), from a constituency neighbouring my own, is right that there have occasionally been questions about the impartiality of the World Service, as there are always likely to be. I heard the complaints about BBC Arabic, and in some cases I sympathised with them, but overall the BBC World Service is deeply trusted.
Until 2010, World Service funding came entirely from the Government. Then, as a result of pressures on public spending, the then Chancellor George Osborne decided to reduce public expenditure, and so asked the BBC to take over the funding through the licence fee. That continued until 2015, when I was Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Government agreed that, although funding was still from the licence fee, the Foreign Office would provide a top-up. That is how it has remained: roughly two-thirds of funding comes from the licence fee, and roughly a third from Government.
But the World Service is now under a double squeeze. The licence fee has been frozen for a time. It is now going up again, but the BBC has had to find savings. The director general, if asked, will say, “My job is to provide value to the licence fee payer, and the truth is that most licence fee payers are unaware of, or certainly don’t listen to, the World Service.” It is a public good. It is for the good of the country. That is why he argues that the Government should take back overall responsibility for funding the World Service. That is an argument with which I have great sympathy.
I am deeply concerned that, because World Service funding from the Government counts as official development assistance and the ODA budget is under pressure, further cuts are to be made as part of the expenditure reductions currently taking place, even though there was a top-up last October. The latest letter from Jonathan Munro, director of the World Service, states,
“we have been asked to prepare for further engagement with the FCDO on the impact of the reduction in spend on ODA”.
That suggests that there may be further reductions. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government will not only continue to fund the World Service at the present level but look to increase it, because the need for that has never been greater.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. In recent years, we have seen a rise in disinformation, with malign actors seeking to sow division and distrust within communities, across countries and throughout entire regions. One of the key problems with our global information ecosystem is that it takes significantly more time and effort to refute false or misleading information than it does to produce it. That is why continued funding and support for the BBC World Service is not just desirable but essential: it acts as a factual counterweight to disinformation.
There is documented evidence of states such as Russia employing trolls to spread misinformation internationally, in countries such as the UK and India, on platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Twitter. In 2020, Facebook uncovered a Russia-linked disinformation campaign run through a front organisation in Ghana. The operation used fake accounts to post about US social issues such as race, LGBT rights and celebrity culture, aiming to sow division while concealing its Russian origins. Those and similar actions are designed to accelerate societal division and encourage support for illegal and unethical activities such as the invasion of Ukraine.
In contrast, the BBC World Service shares a balanced view of international developments, delivered through news, speech and discussion, on TV, on radio and online, in 42 languages around the world. It is the world’s largest external broadcaster by reception area, language diversity and audience reach, with an average weekly audience of 450 million. It reflects and projects impartial, accurate and independent journalism. In an increasingly competitive global media environment in which authoritarian states invest heavily in state-run media, the BBC stands as a trusted voice globally.
The case for the BBC World Service is about not only the rise of disinformation but the decline of similar global news services, of which the closest in scale was Voice of America, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley).
A striking example of the self-defeating nature of the cuts to such organisations and to impartial global journalism came when Persian-language reporters for Voice of America who had been on administrative leave were called back to work following the escalation of tensions after Israel’s attacks on Iran. Just days after returning, these journalists reportedly stepped outside for a cigarette break only to find themselves locked out of the building, and they were then informed that they had been dismissed. At a moment of heightened geopolitical instability, when their language skills and regional insight were more valuable than ever, the termination of their employment was not just poorly handled; it was a serious loss for factual reporting, both for the region and for the global audience.
That is precisely the role that BBC World Service continues to play. In the absence of other trusted international broadcasters, the BBC must fill the gap. If we do not, others will, and the voices that take the place of the BBC might not be platforms promoting informed and informing journalism. I trust that in her closing remarks the Minister will recognise the role of the BBC World Service and give her support to its continuing existence.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Thank you, Sir Jeremy, for calling me to speak, and it is a pleasure to endorse so much of what has been said today in such a unified way across party boundaries.
The value of BBC broadcasting is to be measured by the risks that people are prepared to take in order to listen to it, ranging from people in occupied countries to people in totalitarian states. From occupied France in the second world war to oppressed Afghanistan today, the BBC World Service is many people’s principal lifeline to the truth. Indeed, its current reach in Afghanistan is believed to be almost a quarter of the entire population. As we have heard today, it reaches well over 400 million people worldwide, including 64 million people every week in the world’s 20 most fragile states. No political estimate can be put on this reach other than its colossal impact for good.
However, resources have not kept pace and we see the consequences in places such as Lebanon, where the Russian Sputnik radio channel now transmits on the radio frequency that was formerly used in that country by BBC Arabic, which had to be closed down after 85 years, early in 2023. By the end of that year, a Russian radio channel had taken over in Lebanon.
Indeed, Russia and China are estimated to be investing between £6 billion and £8 billion in media services across Africa, Asia and the middle east. As we have heard, deplorably, the US Agency for Global Media, which runs Voice of America and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, as well as funding Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia and the Middle East Broadcasting networks, has suffered huge cuts in funding and personnel. Normally, that overarching system of broadcasting by the USA would reach an estimated 427 million people. Are the gaps that will be created by these cuts going to be filled, once again, by countries hostile to western values? It goes without saying that Russia and China are both absolutely delighted with that development in the USA.
As we have also heard, two thirds of the World Service continues to be funded by the licence fee, yet it is primarily a service that benefits the interests of the Government and the nation as a whole, rather than the people who pay the licence fee being the consumers of the service. By definition, their listening in is a bonus; the World Service is meant to promote values and truth overseas.
Because of the three-minute limit for speeches, I will not be able to refer to BBC Monitoring, as I had hoped to, but it is another vital service. Both the World Service and BBC Monitoring used to be paid for by the Government. If the Government decide to pay for them in full again, they can at least put the money required towards the extra contribution of 1.5% of GDP on NATO spending, to reach a target of 5% of GDP, which they have now agreed to accept.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for not mentioning the thing he has just mentioned. [Laughter.]
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing this important debate.
I declare an interest, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the BBC, a recipient of BBC hospitality, and a former employee of the Prospect and Bectu unions, which represent some BBC staff.
The BBC World Service is the ultimate example of British soft power, having driven influence, stability and security across the world for almost a century. In our increasingly unstable world, with media polarisation and disinformation on the rise, the role of the World Service in countering hostile state narratives has never been more critical. Russia and China are spending an estimated £6 billion to £8 billion to use technology and communications as a tool for influence and disinformation in Africa, Asia and the middle east, and winning audience trust as a result. However, as the world’s most trusted international news provider, the BBC is uniquely placed to counter these forces, reaching an audience of 414 million people worldwide in 42 languages, across TV, radio and digital platforms every week. This includes 64 million people in the 20 most fragile states. It is the only international news media organisation still broadcasting inside Afghanistan, where it reaches 23% of the adult population, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) rightly pointed out.
Independent research shows that 62% of influential global users say consuming BBC content makes them perceive the UK more positively. However, its ability to reach global audiences has been hampered by previous moves to end the full grant-in-aid funding for the World Service. As the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) noted, today, two thirds of the World Service’s budget is met by licence fee payers, with the remainder coming from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. With the licence fee generating 30% less income in real terms than it did in 2010, the BBC cannot ask UK licence fee payers to continue to invest in the World Service at a time when it is forced to cut UK content. That means that the BBC’s capacity to sustain coverage, influence and reach has been stretched to the limit, while that of malign state actors is increasing. Budget limitations have forced the BBC to retreat in some key parts of the world, with others taking their place, such as Russian-backed media now transmitting on the very radio frequency previously occupied by BBC Arabic in Lebanon—a point that we have heard but is worth reiterating, as it is shocking.
It is welcome that one of the first acts of this new Government was to resolve the funding crisis for 2025/26, increasing funding from the FCDO by 31%, to £137 million, enabling the BBC to maintain all of its existing language services and to provide emergency information services to those in crisis in Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine for the coming year. However, enormous pressures remain, with £6 million of savings being announced for 2025/26, focused on a reduction of 130 roles. The recent spending review and BBC charter review process offer the opportunity to put the BBC World Service on a stronger footing. The Government should grab this opportunity with both hands, to meet this dangerous era with the stable and long-term funding mechanism needed to secure the World Service’s future from central Government budgets —as was the case for the first 80 years of the life of this beacon of British values around the world.
Previous cuts to the licence fee, rising costs and the need to keep pace with technology means that the World Service needs investment. A flat funding settlement in 2026 and the years covered by the spending review would leave the BBC unable to retain the breadth of its language services, diminishing its impact and influence. As the FCDO considers how it will spend its allocation from the recent spending review in the years ahead, I urge it to restore full funding for the World Service, recognising it as a beacon of truth and trusted British influence in an increasingly unstable and fragmented world.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for bringing this debate today. For years, the BBC has been the trusted voice of impartiality across the globe. That reputation of trust has been hard earned. We have much to thank those journalists of days gone by, who put their lives on the line to report truth. They stood in times of danger, determined to ensure that the world knew what was happening and were giants in truth. However, with the polarisation of opinion and the politicisation of news beyond what was ever experienced, impartiality is hard won in any news network, and the BBC is no different. We used to have hard-hitting questions that struck to the heart of an issue, but now we often have “gotcha” moments for the sake of vanity rather than pursuit of truth—those moments annoy me. We see the demonisation of one nation while another is extolled, and when true statistics come to light, the correction is a line on a website. Meanwhile, reputations once destroyed are gone forever. This is a weighty burden and a power that should be carefully utilised.
I recognise the good things that the BBC do, but I want to give two examples of where they fall short and why they should be accountable for that. The concerns with the BBC are well documented, and they include its perceived impartiality. The list of top 10 donors to the BBC include the FCDO, as well as several UN agencies, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, Global Affairs Canada, and many others. The cynic in me, and many others like me, questions whether that might affect impartiality. I make no accusations, but if the shoe fits, wear it; in this case, if the lens needs focusing because it is blurred, correct it.
We rely on the global BBC for impartial news, and there is work to be done to restore that. I will give two examples. First, ask any member of the Jewish community whether they feel that the truth about the middle east has been related, and the response will be passionate, but also detailed, with numerous examples of times when impartiality has failed. That simply should not be the case.
Secondly, earlier in the year, the documentary, “Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone”, was pulled from iPlayer after it emerged that a 13-year-old narrator was the son of a Hamas official. This week, another documentary was pulled due to fears about impartiality. It will be aired elsewhere, but clearly the BBC has a real, substantiated difficulty that it must overcome. In my personal opinion, that must happen.
While there is a licence fee, there is a need to conform to the standards. The BBC must become the BBC of yesterday—the BBC that had that reputation for impartiality and for telling the truth without any of the bias that we have seen over the past year and a half. If it can again become that impartial organisation, I believe that it will be welcomed by everyone.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing the debate. He is not only an hon. Friend, but a running partner of mine.
On Tuesday, in Parliament, I had the pleasure of attending a BBC World Service panel, where we heard from the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on many things, such as how he regrets that the Government in which he served insisted that the World Service should largely be funded by the licence fee. The fee, paid exclusively by British residents, must now tenuously cover 75% of the cost of the World Service, a service designed almost entirely for an external audience, but which has huge public benefit to the British people, if not a huge British public consumption rate.
At the time we are debating this subject, Russia and China have invested up to $9 billion in informal soft power, which is quite a bit more than we spend. They do so because propaganda, often disguised as news, works. It works today, as it did in previous decades and indeed centuries. British children spend an average of 127 minutes a day on TikTok, a Chinese app, and we saw Russian propaganda influence in the elections in Poland and Moldova recently. This is not the time for Britain to draw back. I continue to salute the BBC Russian team, which I visited earlier this year with the right hon. Member for Maldon on an Inter-Parliamentary Union visit. That team counters misinformation with impartial and accurate journalism, at significant personal cost.
Our greatest tool for soft power must be brought back from the brink, because once that point is reached, it will be increasingly difficult for us to recover such international influence.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this form of soft power, the BBC World Service—in particular, the Farsi and Russian services—is a much more cost-effective way to try to create democracy and democratic change in countries than military action is?
John Slinger
Absolutely. Of course, military action would be unthinkable in those cases, but what is thinkable is the truth being promulgated through impartial media.
In that panel earlier this week, we heard, for example, that after closing the Voice of America service, the US Agency for Global Media has failed to regenerate any Iranian listenership, or the amount of Iranian listenership that it used to have, for its broadcasts covering the current Iran-Israel crisis. Presence breeds trust, and the presence of the truth, in my view, is an absolute must.
Currently reaching about 400 million people a week in 42 languages, the BBC World Service is adapting rapidly and becoming more informative, engaging and appealing to a broader audience in an incredibly competitive attention economy. Clearly, the World Service has immense potential to bring people and nations together, and I am delighted that the most recent Budget increased funding by 31%.
Despite the significant budgetary pressures on the FCDO, I wish to use all the soft power that I possess to encourage my hon. Friend the Minister to do all she can to increase funding for the World Service and provide a cast-iron guarantee into the future. This is the crucial moment. We have an opportunity to prevent a diminution in our international power, just as that soft power and our British broadcasting values of tolerance, truth and impartiality are needed most. More than ever, we need to increase and protect the funding. When those values prosper, so do the world, freedom, hope and democracy.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing this important debate.
I thought I would offer some of my experiences of listening to the BBC World Service over the years: from winning a T-shirt from David Lee Travis’s BBC Wild Service, a radio show on which I requested The Stranglers’ “Golden Brown” for my friends, including Kase the Dog, in Kibbutz Re’im in the early 1980s, to sitting in the back of a Land Rover with “UNHCR” painted on the side and listening to Live Aid while I filed my first report from rural Zambia on the Angolan border in 1985, and to countless other times on aid missions across the globe where the Beeb kept me and my colleagues connected with what was going on in the world. BBC World Service: I thank you.
Of course, it is not just about the Brits abroad; it is about the people of the world having a news service they can trust in their own languages. This is so much more important now with the Russians and the Chinese spending huge amounts to get their propaganda broadcast across the world. The BBC World Service is soft power personified, and I salute it.
In a world in which it is all too easy to block websites, shortwave broadcasting is still a thing, and we should continue to keep the Beeb on the air in as many formats as possible. It is our connection with the world, and the world’s connection with us. Long live Aunty!
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing today’s vital debate. I will come on to the concerns and risks regarding the future of the BBC World Service, but I wanted to start by saying something obvious that is not said as often as it should be in this place: the BBC World Service is not only an institution; as the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) said, for those who travel abroad, it is a constant friend. It reaches 400 million people in 43 languages every single week.
As many hon. Members have said, the biggest concern about any potential loss or downgrade of the BBC World Service is the vacuum that would leave behind. The issues in Lebanon, where the frequency was replaced by a Russian network, have also been mentioned by several hon. Members. That should be hugely concerning to us all. Lord Dubs said that
“the BBC World Service is…worth quite a few submarines in terms of the effect on the world and on our position within it”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 June 2025; Vol. 846, c. 465.]
We need a sustainable settlement for the World Service. I recognise my hon. Friends’ points about the increase in funding by this Government, but the service needs a multi-year settlement that would ensure that there was no fuel added to potential claims that this was part of its managed decline.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket for raising the issue with the Prime Minister today, and I thank the Prime Minister for his recognition of its importance. It was a shame to hear a few jeers from Members who did not recognise the importance of its soft power, although I am relieved that we have strong cross-party support on the issue this afternoon. We are at our best as a Parliament when we speak as one voice.
I ask the Minister to ensure that there are no cuts to the World Service and to champion the importance of multi-year funding. Of course, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said, it would be wonderful to see it fully funded by the Government. I was interested in his comments about funding coming from the defence budget—maybe I will quote him on that at a future meeting.
The BBC World Service is more than just a luxury; it is a strategic asset for this country, and more and more vital as we face a more and more uncertain future in the world.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing this debate and for his excellent speech.
Many of the points I was going to make have been raised, so I will keep this brief. It is great to have this debate and reflect on the importance of the BBC World Service and its value overseas as well as in the UK. The BBC is one of the most trusted brand names across the mass audience.
I used to work in the Foreign Office—I will say many years ago—which gave me a real appreciation of the value of the BBC World Service. As we have just heard, the World Service is mostly funded by the licence fee, but the remainder is funded by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Funding the continuation of this service is vital. BBC News, mostly through the World Service, reaches an audience of more than 400 million every week across the world in 43 different languages. It is not surprising that the BBC is the most widely recognised British cultural export and brand.
Recently the BBC started broadcasting on medium wave in Russia, which is a crucial opportunity for Russian people to receive impartial news from outside the country, given Russia’s clampdown on media freedom, both in country and worldwide. By funding the World Service, we continue to have strong cultural soft power across the globe through promoting democracy and neutrality in broadcasting. It is important that we protect the BBC World Service in this current climate of vast disinformation and polarisation in the media. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I thank the hon. Lady and all those who have contributed for their self-discipline and collaboration, which has enabled us to make it through with everyone speaking. I now come to the Front-Bench speeches.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) on securing this timely and important debate.
I must say it is a delight to see such unanimity of purpose across the Chamber. Clearly, there is a real will here to support the BBC World Service, which since 1932 has been Britain’s voice to the world. Today it reaches, as we have heard, an estimated 400 million people across some 59 countries, broadcasting in English and 42 other languages on TV, radio and digital.
In today’s uncertain world, the BBC World Service is essential, in not only reaching out to people across the world, but, as we heard from many, building British soft power. It also protects and defends UK citizens wherever they are. Just this week, I spoke to a colleague who currently has constituents stuck in Tehran, and that struck a note with me. As a teenager, I was in Tehran at the start of the Iranian revolution; my father was the naval attaché in the British embassy. I remember evenings when the revolutionary guard would practise shooting stray dogs in the empty lot next to our house, and the power cuts, when people could be heard shouting from the rooftops, and all the time we listened to the BBC World Service to learn what was going on—it was an essential lifeline.
However today, this vital institution is under threat, and has faced cut after cut in its budget, recently losing another £6 million. Since the domestic BBC took over funding for the World Service, the organisation has lost much of its autonomy, which has led to merged functions with centralised BBC productions in some cases. Language services were outsourced to local regions, which has exposed them to pressure from local Governments. Indeed, the Azerbaijani Government recently suspended BBC operations. Compounded by cuts to overseas development aid, this has put UK soft power in a precarious position.
In 2025, the UK fell from second to third in the global soft power index, having been leapfrogged by China. As both China and Russia pour billions into their international media organisations, the BBC World Service is unable to compete at the same level. We cannot keep undermining the BBC World Service, as the Conservatives did with their assault on the BBC. That hollowing out leaves a clear and dangerous information gap in the global media landscape.
China and Russia are pouring billions into their soft power initiatives, all too eager to fill that gap with disinformation and propaganda. They clearly see the value in it—and so should we. The BBC World Service is essential in building and maintaining British soft power and influence, and it requires proper funding. There is a desperate need for unbiased, impartial and fact-based reporting in today’s global information ecosystem.
The World Service must now rise again to meet its historic aim: to inform people around the world with clarity, accuracy and integrity—to be a torch shining a light on truth globally. If we are to preserve the UK’s world-leading global image, standing tall on the world stage, we must revitalise the BBC World Service and invest properly in its upkeep. The Liberal Democrats believe that Britain must stand as a strong voice on the world stage. We must invest an additional £100 million of Foreign Office funds in the World Service. That would help to restore its global reach and give it the certainty of consistent funding to secure its long-term stability.
We need action now. Will the Government commit today to reversing those damaging cuts? Will they guarantee the extra £100 million needed to restore the BBC World Service to its rightful place as Britain’s premier soft power tool? Will they ensure that short-term savings will not undermine our long-term global influence? The world is watching; Britain’s voice must not be silenced. The time for half-measures is over.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I commend the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing this important debate and thank him for his powerful words supporting the BBC World Service. I think he speaks for most hon. Members of the House—in fact, I am struck by how many speeches I have heard that we all agree with. There is a consensus in this Chamber that the BBC World Service is such an important tool for soft power. I know that everyone has spoken with passion, and it is important that we ensure that it not only survives, but thrives and continues to play an important role around the world, because so many people depend on the BBC World Service.
As its name suggests, the World Service is not merely a broadcaster that serves the United Kingdom’s purposes; to some, it is a lifeline. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) mentioned Terry Waite. That was an example when the BBC World Service was a lifeline to someone who was in a very difficult position. Many people around the world depend on that voice of truth, reason and liberty, and that is what the BBC World Service provides, away from so many state-controlled media organisations that promote propaganda and misinformation, which are sadly on the rise today.
It is said that power falls into three categories: military power, economic power and soft power. It is British soft power—our cultural influence, our values and our institutions, not least our monarchy, which the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket mentioned —that has long distinguished the United Kingdom on the global stage. The vehicle at the heart of that soft power and influence is the British Broadcasting Corporation World Service.
In 2011, when I was a relatively new member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, we stated unequivocally that the World Service is a key component of Britain’s soft power. The FAC recognised its invaluable work in
“providing a widely respected and trusted news service in combination with high-quality journalism”
to many countries. We said then, as I will say now, that its value far outweighs its “relatively small cost”.
As we have heard, the service reaches an audience of more than 320 million people each week. It broadcasts in 42 languages and has a profound impact on some of the world’s most repressive regimes. In Iran, 13.5 million rely on the BBC World Service; in Afghanistan, it is 4.9 million; and in Russia, it is more than 2 million. Yet today, this institution is under increasing financial strain.
This year alone, the BBC World Service has announced 130 job losses, seeking to save just £6 million—a tiny sum, measured against the service’s global influence. Meanwhile, its total deficit is expected to rise to nearly £500 million next year. There is a serious risk that the core language services, such as those that serve Iran, Sudan and Myanmar, could face cuts or be scaled back when they are most needed, so we must ensure that does not happen. Indeed, the Foreign Affairs Committee heard clear evidence only in November that cuts to the BBC Arabic and Persian radio services have created dangerous vacuums, which are being filled by hostile, state-backed propaganda, including Russian-backed media in places such as Lebanon. What assessment have the Government made of the consequences of the cuts, and how do they intend to respond to the risk of allowing trusted UK-backed voices to go silent in those critical regions?
To address those issues, the BBC has called for the Government to fund the rise to £200 million as part of a three-year settlement. In the longer term, it is proposed that the Government assume nearly all of the £400 million budget after 2027. The Foreign Affairs Committee, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the International Development Committee have echoed the calls for long-term financial certainty.
Lord Collins has indicated that a decision will be taken as part of the Government’s 2025 spending review. However, the FCDO’s own efficiency plans, published alongside this month’s review, exclude the BBC World Service from projected savings, citing uncertainty around the transition of the ODA budget to 0.3% of GNI by 2027. The Minister needs to address that concern in her remarks. I therefore say to her: have the Government set any efficiency targets for the World Service? Can she clarify what scale of reduction in direct grant funding is being considered as part of this transition?
I often discuss the wider debate about the BBC’s domestic funding with my constituents in Romford, and I am sure all hon. Members have similar discussions. I would welcome having that discussion in this House too, but the World Service is different; it stands apart. It is not a domestic broadcaster—it reaches all parts of the world—so it cannot be lumped together with the BBC’s domestic broadcasting. The World Service needs clarity and certainty if it is to continue its vital work across the globe.
One proposal raised during the FAC’s oral evidence session is for a clearer funding distinction. English-language services should continue under the licence fee, while language services should receive dedicated Government grant in aid. Do the Government support that proposal? If so, would the Minister consider, as suggested by the former director of the World Service, Jamie Angus, allowing parliamentarians to oversee and scrutinise the work of the BBC World Service?
The previous Conservative Government rightly recognised the strategic importance of the BBC World Service and took meaningful steps to support it. The £20 million boost announced in the 2023 integrated review helped to safeguard all 42 language services through to the end of 2025. That followed earlier, targeted injections of £4.1 million in 2022 and £8 million in 2021, designed to counter disinformation and expand digital engagement. Those were timely and effective interventions, which strengthened the World Service when it was most needed, but what is now required is a long-term, sustainable funding settlement that builds on that solid foundation.
Funding is not the only challenge. Modernisation must go hand in hand with financial stability to ensure that the product is viable for the future. Is the BBC doing enough to engage younger, digitally native audiences across the world? Can it continue to evolve while maintaining the editorial depth and credibility for which it is rightly respected? Do the Government have confidence that the current digital strategy is sufficiently robust to meet the demands of this new age?
On the other hand, radio remains vital in many regions, particularly where internet access is limited or non-existent. Do the Government acknowledge the ongoing strategic value of traditional radio services, and will they ensure that they are not sacrificed prematurely in the rush towards digital-only broadcasting?
There is also the question of political neutrality, which is one of the BBC World Service’s greatest strengths—I hope; it is not always the case in the UK, but I hope it is the case with the BBC World Service. Its global reputation rests on its independence. It must never speak for any Government, but it should, proudly and without hesitation, reflect the values, culture and identity of the United Kingdom. That does not mean becoming a mouthpiece for Westminster, but neither should it shy away from showcasing our constitutional monarchy, our democratic institutions or our national symbols—the Union flag or the national anthem.
There is a balance to be struck, and I ask the Minister what representations the Government are making to the current BBC leadership to ensure that balance is struck. Alarmingly, the 2025 global soft power index shows that the UK has fallen to third place, behind China for the first time. Following the announcement of the Soft Power Council by the Foreign Secretary and the Culture, Media and Sport Secretary earlier this year, will the Minister tell us what role the council sees for the World Service in its work? What progress has been made to date, or has the initiative been quietly set aside?
The British Isles, Great Britain, England, the United Kingdom—however the world sees us—have always been more than just a geographical place on the map. We have been an idea, forged through sacrifice and struggle, to uphold something unparalleled: a set of values, rich in customs, traditions and ceremony; a way of life that millions admire across the globe. The BBC World Service projects that very idea further and more effectively than any embassy, high commission, foreign aid programme or Minister ever could. If we allow the World Service to become a casualty of bureaucratic inertia or short-term budget trimming, it will be not Britain’s voice that falls silent, but the voice of reason, truth and liberty, in places where those things are in short supply.
As the former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, once stated, the BBC World Service is
“possibly Britain’s greatest gift to the world”.
That gift has never been more needed. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I urge the Government to ensure that it remains the gift that keeps on giving to peoples around the world, in every continent, who look to Britain as a beacon of freedom, a nation that always upholds liberty, and one that will stop at nothing to defend the right of free speech.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
I look forward to serving under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, for what I think is the first time in Westminster Hall. I am really grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing this important debate. It has been a really good debate, with lots of consensus across all parts of the Chamber, and I will do my best to respond to the points raised. As we are not at the exact moment of decision making, I am sure that if there are further representations to be made or particular points that remain unanswered, we will have a further opportunity to fine-tune those in the coming weeks.
Few institutions command the respect and admiration that the BBC World Service does, and I have seen that up close. I have had the privilege of visiting the World Service both as an Opposition MP and in my current role; and when I was a student in China, it was my constant friend, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) said. The hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) described how it was a very big part of his life as well. Each time, I have come away not just more fond of the BBC World Service, but struck by its professionalism, reach and impact. That impact is rooted in its independence, which is key to its success and one of the reasons it is the world’s most trusted global broadcaster.
That is why the BBC World Service is a vital part of the UK’s soft power, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) said so eloquently in her speech. It does not just reflect the UK to the world; it builds trust in our values through high-quality, impartial journalism. I was very pleased to hear the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) really supporting the role of journalists, who do such a difficult job and are so brave. I was aware three or four years ago of the journalists in the Persian service, who are under tremendous pressure. The right hon. Member for Maldon told us of an awful example of transnational repression on the streets of London, and that is just appalling. I know that from this House we all want to thank the journalists who do that important work day by day, even though their livelihoods, their lives and the lives of their families are at risk.
As the Minister responsible for the Indo-Pacific, I was particularly moved by the World Service’s response to the devastating earthquake in Myanmar. In a country with exceptionally low media freedom, the BBC scaled up its output and dramatically increased its reach. It provided accurate, timely information in a moment of crisis. That is the BBC at its best and it is not the only example. Let us take BBC Persian, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead and by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), who, by the way, represents the home of BBC Scotland. BBC Persian has been operating for over 80 years, with more people than ever relying on it in a time of uncertainty. Some of you may have heard just this morning on the “Today” programme Lyse Doucet’s report, in which she mentioned the different restrictions that there are today on reporting on the important elements of conflict that are ongoing in Iran. She mentioned the particular restrictions that there always are on the BBC. I thought that was a very timely mention, given today’s debate.
There is also the work of BBC Verify, which works in partnership with the World Service. As the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), said, there are so many competing channels now, which is why BBC Verify plays such an important role. I saw that at first hand on my recent visit to Broadcasting House. Due to the widespread use of mobile phones throughout the world, we see so many different videos all at the same time and sometimes with conflicting messages. That is why it is so important that we have the work of BBC Verify and the journalists who do it. During recent tensions between India and Pakistan, the BBC exposed viral videos as old footage, cutting through misinformation when that mattered most.
There are not just international audiences. Here in the UK, 500,000 people tune in to the BBC’s Urdu service. There are also the emergency, pop-up services. In Syria, the BBC launched a service just five days after the fall of Assad. That speaks to the issue of the Arabic service, which many have mentioned this afternoon. I think what we saw there was the closing of a licence and other providers stepping in. That represents a very important message for decision makers, as we approach funding over the next few years, about how we ensure that something like that does not reoccur, but that we protect the vital ecosystems of the BBC World Service and do not allow other providers to come in on top.
The Gaza service reaches 700,000 people each week, also in an environment where it is very difficult for journalists to enter, and, in Sudan, the Lifeline radio service reopened in March, responding to humanitarian need. These services are often the only way for people to gain access to accurate information in times of crisis. That is why this Government value the BBC World Service and are helping it to deliver strongly on its goals.
Despite a tight fiscal context, the FCDO provided a funding uplift of £32.6 million this financial year. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for recognising that increase, and recognising the difference that a new Government can make—the window that one has to really make a difference. That uplift takes the FCDO’s total contribution to £137 million, enabling the BBC to modernise and innovate.
Just this week, the BBC launched its newest service, an AI-driven pilot in Polish, with our beloved Tomasz Schafernaker, the meteorologist we all listen to in order to hear whether we can leave our washing out, or need to water the pot plants before we come to Westminster for a few days. Here he was, both in Polish and in English, doing the news. This is what we have with the BBC’s Polish service: the first new language service since 2017, delivering news in text and video across digital platforms, including Facebook and Instagram—a vision of modernity.
Audience surveys consistently show that the World Service is the most trusted international news broadcaster. That trust is built by relentlessly exercising accuracy, impartiality and fairness. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tom Rutland) emphasised that point, particularly in relation to BBC Arabic and how difficult it is to replicate it after it was defunded by the former Government.
We recognise the concerns raised about future funding. The World Service’s grant in aid funding for the next three years will be decided through the FCDO’s budget process up to 2028-29, but our focus is not just on the short term. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow made the important point about multi-year funding, which allows an organisation to modernise and innovate because it can see through to the medium-to-long term.
We believe that the upcoming BBC charter review is the right moment to look at potential future World Service funding mechanisms for the longer term, and potentially bring in some of the other funding suggestions that have been made in this debate but are not formal yet. That will ensure that the BBC can continue to reflect the UK’s culture and values—so eloquently described by the Opposition spokesman—to the world, through high-quality, trusted journalism.
The BBC World Service is not just a broadcaster; it boosts UK soft power, promotes the UK and our values, exposes disinformation, supports our creative industries and provides critical safety and security information in conflict zones. It is trusted, agile and essential. The Government are very proud to support it, and we will continue to do so.
Peter Prinsley
I thank all hon. Members who have come here this afternoon for what I think has been a very interesting debate. It strikes me that there is more or less universal support for what is, I hope, a universal service. I was pleased that there was an increase of £32 million in the grant this year; I do not know whether that has anything to do with an interaction I had with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the Labour party conference.
I went to an event put on by the BBC and listened to Katya Adler and some of the journalists there, and I was very moved by it, so I stood and asked a question about the £100 million cost of an F-35 jet, which seemed to me to be the same as the funding given by the Foreign Office to the BBC. I stood up and asked, “Do you think that we’d be better off with one more F-35, or should we just look after the BBC?”
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I were in a coffee queue about an hour later, and he asked me whether I was enjoying the conference. I said, “Well, I was.” I explained about what happened, and he said, “Oh, dear. This conference is working very well, because you’ve just been to the BBC and they’ve just told you their story. Now, you’ve just told me that, and now I shall have to give them some more money.” I am hoping that Parliament continues to work in that way, but I agree that we need to have a long-term funding solution for what is one of our most precious resources. I thank everyone very much for coming this afternoon.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We have finished early, so now everyone can get into more coffee queues with Ministers.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the funding of the BBC World Service.