BBC Charter Renewal

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Westminster Hall

14:30

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government proposals for renewal of the BBC Charter.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. It is also a pleasure—although not wholly surprising—that the debate is so well attended. We may struggle to get everybody in; I will do my best to help. I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock). She and I have spoken together about media matters many times. It is good to see her back on her former brief. I understand that the Media Minister is otherwise occupied in the House.

It is just over a year since I held a debate in this place on BBC funding. Since then, quite a lot has happened concerning the BBC. We have had major editorial failings around things like the “Panorama” reporting of a speech made by the President of the United States, the coverage of Bob Vylan at Glastonbury, and the documentary about Hamas. We have also seen some shocking revelations about harassment and bullying within the BBC, with the ongoing repercussions of the Huw Edwards incident and then the Gregg Wallace revelations. On funding, which I suspect will be the major topic in this debate, last year we saw a further 300,000 people declare that they no longer needed or were willing to pay the licence fee. All those things, I suspect, contributed to the decision of Deborah Turness and Tim Davie to resign. I was sorry that Tim Davie left his post. I think he did a good job in a very difficult circumstance. It is a sadness that most directors general, rather like politicians, have careers that end unhappily.

We have also now seen the publication of the Department’s Green Paper on the future, which points out at the beginning that unless the charter is renewed by 31 December 2027, the BBC will cease to exist. I had responsibility, in the main, for the renewal of the last charter. I did not want to see the BBC disappear then, and I do not want to see the BBC disappear today. Therefore, it is important that we agree. The charter renewal document is wide-ranging and covers a huge amount of ground. I am sure hon. Members will wish to touch on a number of elements. I will concentrate on two.

The first is the issue of governance and maintenance of standards. The last charter review resulted in the replacement of the BBC Trust, which at that time had overall oversight of the BBC, with a board, bringing together executive and non-executive members. It is worth remembering that the BBC Trust, which preceded the board, was wholly appointed by the Government. In theory, the board has only five Government appointees; of those five, three are in agreement with the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The UK Government actually appoints only two members, so concerns about political interference and independence are misplaced.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

The National Union of Journalists wants an inquiry into allegations of inappropriate interference by current politically appointed board members in BBC editorial matters. The right hon. Gentleman said that there are only two such members. Does he think that an inquiry is necessary to restore public trust in the BBC board?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

No, I do not. I suspect the hon. Lady is referring to the board member for England, who I believe has outstanding experience in the field of BBC editorial independence; he spent a brief time in politics. It is worth remembering that the political appointees over many years have come from both sides of the House. There was a chair who was previously a Conservative Cabinet Minister, and a deputy chair who was previously a Labour Cabinet Minister. If there was ever a concern, it was about the appointment of a former Labour Cabinet Minister to a management position. That seemed to me much more concerning since they had direct day-to-day editorial decisions. At the time, although I got on very well with James Purnell and I worked with him when he was Secretary of State, I did not think that he should have been appointed to a management position. But I have no concerns about political interference at the moment.

On the failings revealed by the Prescott report on editorial standards, clearly there need to be changes to the editorial oversight. As was debated a few months ago, there is a strong case for making the editorial standards committee much more independent. It is also at least worth considering—this is part of the Green Paper—whether the job of running an organisation with around £5 billion to £6 billion can be combined with having overall control over the entire editorial output of the BBC. Those are both huge jobs and I think it is becoming increasingly difficult for one person to hold both of them. That is something that needs to be considered.

The biggest challenge facing the BBC, which I sought to highlight in the debate a year ago, is about future funding. We have seen a steady decline in the number of people who are willing to pay the licence fee. The licence fee evasion rate has doubled so that it is now 12.5%. One in eight who should be paying the licence fee are not paying it because they are avoiding their responsibility. On top of that, another 3.6 million, we are told, have declared they do not need to pay it because they do not use the BBC or watch live TV. The Public Accounts Committee recently concluded that that results in a loss to the BBC of over £1.1 billion, and it will go on increasing.

We are seeing more and more choice available through streaming services, which people choose to subscribe to. People no longer turn to the BBC in such numbers for news and current affairs. And of course the licence fee is rising. At a time when the cost of living is high, people will consider whether they wish to continue paying it. So the Government are right to look at alternatives, which is something I have been involved in for over 10 years. When I chaired the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, we produced a report on the future of the BBC. I am delighted to see the current Chair of the Committee with us this afternoon. A lot of the arguments that we considered 10 years ago stand today.

There was one thing I was disappointed to see in the Green Paper. First, before considering how to pay for the BBC, we should ask what we want the BBC to do. Let us first of all decide what the BBC ought to be doing and then how to pay for it. Yet the Green Paper rules out this debate. It states that

“we do not believe a smaller BBC”

is in the public’s interest. By making that statement, we are not questioning whether the BBC still needs to maintain eight national television channels and 10 national radio stations, despite the fact that the alternative choice available has enormously increased over the past 10 to 15 years.

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Member appreciate the importance of the BBC’s investment in the devolved nations and regions, which is all the more important given the fact that private and independent media are withdrawing from some of that coverage and production? This year, the BBC will double spending to £100 million on programmes produced in Scotland and other devolved nations. That kind of investment is vital for my constituents and others.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I completely understand that. The Green Paper contains quite a lot about the BBC’s involvement in providing coverage in the nations of the United Kingdom, and indeed in the languages of the United Kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman believes, as I do, that one of the principal purposes of the BBC is to provide content that otherwise would not be available, then that is a good example of where it is absolutely right that the BBC should continue to invest.

There are some things, however, that the BBC does not necessarily need to continue doing, because there is such choice available. As I say, I regret the fact that that does not seem to be part of the debate within the Green Paper. It seems to suggest that the BBC should go on doing everything it does now, but that then begs an even harder question: if the BBC is to go on spending as much as it does today, how will we pay for it at a time when the willingness to pay the licence fee is declining year on year?

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)]

I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s views, as he is a former Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Does he agree that 47p a day represents value for money for nine television stations, 17 radio stations, iPlayer, BBC Sounds and the BBC World Service?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

Whether or not it is value for money is a debate that the BBC has advanced for as long as I have been debating the BBC. The question is: what do we compare it with? Is 25p value for money, or is £1.50 value for money? Unless it is decided what the BBC should be doing, we cannot determine that.

The other big factor is that paying the licence fee is not a choice. People do not have the opportunity not to pay; if they want the BBC, and indeed live television at all, they are required by law to pay the licence fee. Saying, “Oh, it’s fantastic value for money,” is very difficult when nobody has ever been given the opportunity to demonstrate whether they think it is value for money by choosing whether to pay for it.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

One thing I learned recently on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee is that one way the BBC provides value for money is by being one of the only sources—if not the only source—of income for children’s content creators. Without that income, we would not get quality content for our children. There is a way of looking at this not purely from an individual perspective, but as an investment in the future. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I agree that children’s television is incredibly important, and it is a matter of real concern that fewer and fewer commercial channels are investing in children’s TV. It was for that reason that, at the time of the last charter review, we set up something called the young audiences content fund, funded by the licence fee, which allowed other broadcasters to bid for licence fee funding to supply children’s programming. It was very successful. Unfortunately, it did not survive the mid-term review, but it was created in recognition of how important that provision is. I would like to see a revival of the young audiences content fund, because I think it was very valuable.

Every time a Government has looked the licence fee, they have come to the conclusion that it has many flaws but there is no real alternative. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee that I chaired did recommend an alternative; we looked at the possibility of a household levy. While that is not perfect, it has already been ruled out. That too is excluded by the Green Paper, which states of the licence fee that

“we are not considering replacing it with alternative forms of public funding”.

So all those particular options have been closed off. However, the licence fee is highly regressive and hard to enforce. Evidence shows that women on low incomes face prosecution more than other groups. There are a lot of things wrong with the licence fee.

In terms of alternatives, the Green Paper suggests one or two options. It talks about the possibility of extending commercial activity, which I certainly welcome, as it already contributes quite a large amount to the BBC’s income.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

S4C’s headquarters are within my constituency. It employs 2,500 people across Wales, and contributes £7.6 million to our economy in Caerfyrddin itself—that is without the Welsh perspective. Although I am glad to see that consultation is discussed in the Green Paper, it needs to be more than a tick-box exercise. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that any consultation must be meaningful for the people of Wales and for S4C?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I visited the S4C headquarters, and I am a strong supporter of S4C, which is often overlooked in debates about the licence fee. Of course, it is funded by the licence fee, and that is something we sought to preserve when I had responsibility for it. It needs to be taken into account. I was glad to see that the Green Paper talks quite a lot about S4C and, indeed, MG Alba, which supplies Gaelic broadcasting in Scotland.

The issue raised in the Green Paper that is causing most concern to other organisations is the possibility of advertising. Advertising on the BBC would obviously change the nature of the BBC but, as is acknowledged, it would also have a huge impact on all the commercial broadcasters that rely on advertising. If the BBC took advertising, I suspect one of the consequences would be that Channel 4 would immediately go bankrupt, because Channel 4 is still completely dependent on advertising for its income. Although some people doubt it, I do want to see Channel 4 survive. It is not just Channel 4: ITV depends in large part on advertising, as does, of course, the whole commercial radio sector. If advertising were introduced on BBC TV or radio, the impact on the commercial sector would be enormous, and not something that I think the Government would want to see. The Green Paper acknowledges that there would be an impact, but it still suggests it is one option under consideration.

That leaves only one alternative for the future: subscription. The last charter stated that the BBC should trial a subscription service for additional content on iPlayer. That never happened—the BBC was not very keen on it—but it was there. In the longer term, it becomes a more and more realistic option, not only because the alternatives look less and less attractive or acceptable, but because in due course it will become technologically possible. As I have suggested many times, it is not currently realistic to talk about the BBC moving to a subscription model, because a large number of people in this country still rely on digital terrestrial transmission to receive television services. If someone has DTT—Freeview, as it is known—they cannot switch it off. If they cannot switch it off, it cannot be charged for, because people cannot choose not to pay. Until everybody receives their television online—through the internet, rather than through DTT—a subscription model is not a realistic option.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and demonstrating why he is such an expert in this policy area. I reiterate the point about turning off free-to-view terrestrial television, which is obviously a live part of the licence fee discussion. Some, such as ITV, are arguing strongly that terrestrial television should be turned off. For my constituents, many of whom do not have access to good broadband connectivity, being entirely dependent on a fee-paying service is not an option, because the connectivity is just not there. Does my right hon. Friend understand that such communities would be deprived of a TV service if that option was adopted?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend perfectly illustrates why I do not think it is realistic at the moment. Until we reach the point at which everybody in the UK can access TV online—I recognise that that is a bigger challenge for my hon. Friend’s constituents than for those in many other parts of the country—it is not realistic, but we should begin to prepare for that time now, which is why we need to consider the option suggested in the Green Paper. The moment will come when it becomes possible.

I realise that many other Members want to speak, so I will draw my remarks to a conclusion. I welcome this opportunity to debate the BBC charter renewal, and I regret that there has not been one before now. A number of options have been set out, and I simply say that the one that is not an option any longer is the status quo. I look forward to the contributions from others about what the future should hold.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to bob so that I can ascertain who wishes to speak. I will be imposing a time limit. Sir John was very generous in taking interventions, but we need to keep interventions and responses much shorter to allow everyone to speak.

14:50

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I will be brief. I want to address the main points made by the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale).

First, the issue of funding is critical, but it is not just about the decline in the number of licence fee payees; some of the damage has been inflicted by recent agreements around the funding. Those of us who were around for the previous renewal of the charter and the related discussions should remind others that Government decisions have inflicted a 30% cut on the BBC. Year after year, decisions have led to below-inflation settlements. We had the imposition of the over-75s licence, and then the imposition of funding the World Service. A lot of the financial crisis has been generated by Government, although I agree that there needs to be a longer debate. I preferred the idea of the household levy, which was a good idea on which the Select Committee did good work, and I regret that the Government are not considering it. I understand that some would argue it is just another level of taxation, but the same argument is made about the licence fee anyway.

Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of governance. I have heard many Members introduce speeches on a whole range of different issues by saying that we are living in a politically dangerous moment. I agree with that. The danger is that we now have a politics in which some politicians—not just in this country, but elsewhere, in particular—cannot determine between truth and fiction, or truth and a lie, so we need an independent source of information, and it is certainly not social media.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

I spoke to representatives of BBC Arabic in Amman in the summer, and they talked about the fact that when cuts to the BBC meant that BBC Arabic radio was turned off in 2023, Russia’s Radio Sputnik stepped into that space and started broadcasting false and fake news in the English language. That is very worrying for us all, so we need a successful BBC renewal process that supports the BBC around the world.

[John McDonnell]

My hon. Friend very eloquently makes the point for me. It is also about local radio, on which a lot of our constituents rely. They cannot rely on social media. If Members want to see the independence of social media, they should look at my Twitter account. The abuse levels are unbelievable—and that is just my constituents!

If the issue is the level of independence, it therefore comes down to governance. I have always been opposed to Government appointments to the BBC trust or board; it should be done by an independent body. The argument then will be: “Who appoints the independent body?” My view is that even if the independent body is Government appointed, at least it is a bit arm’s length.

I would like to see much more worker representation on the board. I am secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group. We have been arguing for years that there should be at least 25% worker representation on the board, and that perhaps we should also introduce some form of election to some positions. Currently, there is not a view that the board is independent. There is the argument that different Governments have appointed different people at different times. I think that those individual appointees—certainly the one referred to in the Select Committee—have interfered in the BBC’s editorial decisions at different stages. That is unacceptable.

Finally, if we want independence, we of course have to have a properly funded body, and the funding should be independent of Government. We cannot go through decisions like this time and time again. There also has to be a truly independent board. We cannot allow the BBC to be endangered in the future because, as people have said, we desperately need it in this dangerous political moment—not just for truth in our own country but, exactly as has been said, because truth is being denied in so many other countries across the globe. That is why we need the BBC.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. I will call the first Front Bencher at 3.28 pm, so there is now a three-minute time limit on all speeches. I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sports Committee.

14:54

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

Thank you, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing the debate. I cannot think of anyone more qualified to kick off this conversation. The Select Committee will almost certainly look closely at the charter review, but today I will pull out a couple of topics for discussion.

The Government have set out a number of lofty ambitions for the BBC in the Green Paper, but it is clear that it all hinges on a charter review that finds a long-term, sustainable funding future for the BBC. As we have seen, there are a number of challenges. The BBC provides so many different TV channels and radio stations, as we heard from my right hon. Friend. It does all that and more in an incredibly and more and more challenging commercial environment in which the licence fee looks increasingly like an anachronism. The extent to which the public no longer see live TV as the cornerstone of their viewing habits is reflected in the number of households not renewing their TV licence. We have heard that evasion is rising and is now at 12.5%. In real terms, the BBC lost over £1 billion of revenue in the decade from 2013.

I was disappointed to read that certain options regarding the BBC’s size, scale and funding are not even on the table in the charter review. On the licence fee, the Green Paper says the Government

“are not considering replacing it with alternative forms of public funding, such as a new tax on households”.

I would be interested to hear why the Government are not even considering some options, some of which are employed across Europe to fund public service media. There are obvious challenges around some of the options that are under consideration. We have already heard about the issue of advertising. The BBC chair told my Committee that

“we are absolutely clear that advertising and subscription is not the right approach. It goes back to universality and back to that old phrase, ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune.’ If subscribers are paying, they will call the tune on what we make. If it is advertising, it is advertisers.”

Will the Minister say more about why the Government have chosen to explore some funding models and take others off the table at this vital stage?

The BBC is the most trusted broadcaster both at home and abroad, but there is no doubt that, as our national broadcaster, we hold it to a higher standard. There has been a significant loss of confidence in the BBC over recent years. The Reuters Institute suggests that between 2018 and 2025, the proportion of people in the UK who trusted “most news most of the time” fell by 7%, but that over the same period trust in BBC news fell by 15%. We should therefore welcome the Green Paper’s commitment to discuss the provision of trusted news.

Finally, the Government said they want to consider how to uphold the BBC’s independence, which includes its being transparent when it gets things wrong, how it changes its services, how it is governed and what its board looks like. There are fundamental questions for the Green Paper to address: what is the Government’s future vision for the BBC? What role should a public service broadcaster play in the current age? How can we continue to ensure that our national broadcaster remains independent, trusted and valued in this increasingly unstable and divided world?

14:57

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing this important debate, and thank him for his support for broadcasting in minority languages and for making programmes that would otherwise not be made.

It was satisfying to see that Gaelic merited seven mentions in the Government’s Green Paper and public consultation on charter renewal. That is about one mention for every 10,000 speakers—that is how perilous the language is—but that represents only a tiny fraction of the viewers that Gaelic content attracts on the BBC and elsewhere. The most recent example is “An t-Eilean”, a gripping crime thriller filmed on location in Harris. It was the most successful of the BBC’s Gaelic programmes, drawing 1.6 million views on iPlayer, which was almost 20% of a record breaking 8.1 million total views for Gaelic content in the last year. Of course, it is not just about murder; it is about the children’s programmes, music and learning for the Gaelic communities and the worldwide diaspora that the BBC and BBC Alba—the channel co-funded by the BBC and MG Alba—provide.

I will turn to funding in a second, but I am glad that the Green Paper acknowledges the importance of Scottish Gaelic as a cultural transmitter and a keystone of the language, as it does for Welsh. The Green Paper states:

“Partnerships between the BBC and S4C have been a cornerstone of Welsh language media”.

Similarly, BBC Alba has become the principal broadcaster for Gaelic speakers—except that in truth there is no similarity, because the UK Government generously funds Welsh language broadcasting while giving little or no support to Gaelic broadcasting. This year, the gap in the annual funding for Gaelic and Welsh television will widen to £100 million. Admittedly, there are more Welsh speakers—850,000 and counting—but even if we look at it proportionally, we have to ask why that remains the case.

A previous Conservative Government set up the Gaelic television fund in 1991, with £9.5 million a year, and nowadays the UK contribution would be £25 million. But funding for MG Alba, the successor organisation, has been frozen for 10 years, and the UK Government contribution has fallen to zero.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I am MP for Rushcliffe in the midlands. Is my hon. Friend aware that, according Equity, the midlands generates 25% of the licence fee income, but less than 3% of it is spent in the region? Does he agree that regional disparities need to be looked at in the charter renewal process?

[Torcuil Crichton]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I also echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) about the £100 million spent in Scotland and elsewhere to make sure not just that all voices from across all parts of the UK are heard and seen on the BBC, but that the production value, the jobs and the creative content are made in the regions. The BBC does quite well at that. As I said, it contributes £10 million a year, and the Scottish Government grant £14.8 million, including an extra £1.8 million, perhaps because the Deputy First Minister is a Gaelic speaker—tapadh leat for that, Kate. In reality, the budgets for Gaelic broadcasting have been frozen for 10 years, and in the case of Gaelic radio—the real mainstay of Gaelic-speaking communities —budgets have been worse. That means that in two years’ time, Gaelic broadcasting budgets will be worth just 50% of the launch budget.

S4C receives £7.5 million a year from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for the transition to digital, while Gaelic gets nothing. In Ireland, TG Ceathair has €20 million for digital transmission; we have nothing. I do have hopes, though, because this is not about a begging bowl. Gaelic has created 320 jobs, and for every £1 invested, £1.34 comes back to fragile communities. I hope that the Culture Secretary and the charter review stay close to the language of the Green Paper, which promised to consider options to provide MG Alba with more certainty on its funding as part of the charter review.

I do not require a figure, but I would like guarantees from the charter review and the Government that there will be certainty of support for the Gaelic broadcasting service, not just as an incredible cultural asset but as an economic dynamo that will help the language and broadcasting to continue and allow us to tell our stories to the rest of the world.

15:02

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I must know a different BBC from most MPs here today. The BBC is a service that people are forced to pay for, even if they do not use it. That is not fair. People can even go to prison for not paying the fine; those people are normally young, single mothers. As we all know, the BBC has been riddled with scandal for the past 100 years, but more so in the past few decades.

I agree that the BBC has made some great programmes over the years—documentaries, environmental programmes and so on—but it has also produced a raft of dodgy TV personalities, which probably nobody in this room will mention. I’ll tell you what: they do mention them outside in the real world. Those personalities include Jimmy Savile, Huw Edwards, Chris Denning, Jonathan King, Chris Langham, Stuart Hall, Rolf Harris, Phillip Schofield —a whole raft of perverts who stalked the corridors of the BBC. None of these here will talk about that—not one of them. Mark my words, those creatures are still stalking the corridors of the BBC. In future their names will come out. [Interruption.] Would the hon. Member like to intervene? I thought not.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. I will have no chuntering from a sedentary position, please.

[Lee Anderson]

Thank you, Mrs Harris. Look what they did to Cliff Richard: filmed a raid on his house when he was an innocent man. Look what they did to Princess Diana. Look what they did to Donald Trump, our closest ally. Bob Vylan were on stage shouting, “Death, death to the IDF.” What about the Gaza documentaries? What about the dodgy reporting of the bank accounts of my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)? The list goes on and on.

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

The hon. Member mentions bank accounts. Would he like to declare how much he has received in earnings from another broadcast media channel in the past year in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?

[Lee Anderson]

I am quite happy to declare that; it is on my Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is £100,000 a year and it is probably more than the hon. Member will ever get paid for appearing on TV, if he gets paid anything at all.

I am not paying my licence fee. I have not paid it for around 10 years. I am not paying to subsidise the pensions of people like Huw Edwards. Some people in this room—probably all of them—may think I am being a bit unfair on the BBC, but I challenge anybody in this room to get on their phones right now and find evidence of another broadcaster that has been riddled with as many scandals as the BBC.

People should not be forced to pay for a service that they do not use. Yes, it still makes some great programmes, but it should be a subscription service.

[Torcuil Crichton]

Does the hon. Member watch or listen to the BBC because, if he does, he is obliged to pay his licence fee?

[Lee Anderson]

I do not listen to the BBC at all and I do not watch live TV. I do not get enough time, as a Member of Parliament and a TV presenter. All my time seems to be taken up with that.

I will finish with this: I hope the Minister agrees with me and the vast majority of the British public that people should have a choice. It should be a subscription service, and then people can decide whether or not they watch it and whether or not they pay for it.

15:06

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as someone who has received BBC hospitality and formerly represented BBC workers at a union.

I was going to cover the enormous contribution made to the economy by the BBC, but other Members have covered that, and beyond economic value, there is the value to our democracy that comes from the trusted, independent and impartial news provided by our national broadcaster. Of course, the BBC has got it wrong in some stories on occasion, but so too do all media outlets, and the BBC’s commitment to getting it right without fear or favour is second to none. That really matters.

One has only to look at the broadcast media landscape in the US to see how difficult it is for people to access news without a slant or an agenda. It is not good for public discourse or democracy when people cannot come to an agreement on the facts of a matter. I worry that certain broadcast outlets in this country are now blurring the line between news reporting and editorialising. Beyond broadcast media with an agenda, we must also contend with the increasing amounts of disinformation and misinformation on social media.

It is critical that we have a trusted national public service broadcaster able to get the facts into people’s feeds and allow them to their own views on the basis of those facts and unbiased, balanced reporting.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that those who question the BBC and try to undermine it could well have an ulterior motive, in that the very point that he is making about having a trusted public space is precisely what they do not wish this country and other parts of the world to have?

[Tom Rutland]

Without doubt. It is right that charter renewal will seek to deliver a trusted institution that is rooted in independence, accountability and transparency.

When it comes to future funding, some options being considered are not necessarily suitable. It is right for the BBC to try to generate more commercial revenue when proposals to grow BBC studios to top up funding have merit, but we have to be careful to avoid overreliance on income generated through some of that activity, such as the selling of international rights of programmes, so that we do not get into a situation where the demands of streaming platforms and foreign markets’ audiences hold too much weight in BBC content creation decisions.

The BBC produces content that reflects British culture, and its current funding model allows it to do so and to tell stories that international streaming giants would not have a financial incentive to tell. I have concerns around carrying advertising, which would reduce market competitiveness and negatively impact commercial broadcasters, while also introducing commercial pressures and incentives that could affect editorial or content decisions.

We have already heard about the challenges around subscription and paywall models. I would be concerned about introducing a subscription paywall for the BBC World Service due to the soft power it projects abroad on our behalf. The British Broadcasting Corporation is the world’s best public service broadcaster, and we are lucky that it is ours. We would miss it if it went and, having benefitted from it for a century, we have a responsibility to safeguard it for the next hundred years.

15:09

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for setting the scene incredibly well, as well as those who have made contributions so far. I have long spoken of my frustration with the BBC and its role in the new generation of media. A Netflix bill paid some years ago was £4.99; it is now £9.99. Sky TV is no longer a one-stop shop, and for many people, the BBC certainly is not either. If someone likes sports, they pay for the sports package; if they like “The Real Housewives”, they pay for Hayu. You pay for what is important to you. The difficulty is that, for some unknown reason, that does not apply to the BBC. The everyday man who refuses to watch the BBC is tied to paying the bill, and the subscription is more expensive than most streaming prices.

It seems simple: if someone does not like something, they do not purchase it. With the BBC, there are a number of people who do not like it, do not watch it and who are vehemently opposed to its biased reporting on Northern Ireland, on Israel, on trans indoctrination, and on a host of other of moral values pushed by the BBC, but these people, including me and my constituents, have to foot the bill. In a world of subscribe or unsubscribe, too many people wish to unsubscribe from the BBC.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend touches on Israel. Only last week, we heard that the BBC is now about to fork out £28,000 to an Israeli family whose home Jeremy Bowen went into in the aftermath of 7 October, without getting permission to do so. We are going to have to pick up the bill for that as well.

[Jim Shannon]

I read in the paper about the fine on Bowen in relation to that intervention. Going into that house without permission is completely unacceptable.

For too long the BBC has had carte blanche in terms of payouts to staff, with no accountability. The prime example would be, of course, Gary Lineker, and the antisemitic posts he supported. The amount of time it took for him to no longer be the highest-paid pundit simply would not have happened in the private sector.

The latest disgraceful example of biased reporting is posed by the internal memo report that highlighted Palestinian influence and anti-Trump bias, combined with the fact that the management who resigned urged their staff to continue to do what they had been doing. There is no restoration of the BBC to the impartial, internationally respected bastion of journalism that it once was.

In terms of Northern Ireland, from the refusal to train staff to refer to Northern Ireland, or the association of the flag of the Republic of Ireland, as has become the norm, to the outright republican leniency delivered by programming, there is no salvation in the coverage of today’s politics and of legacy issues.

The BBC was once upheld as a gold standard. Now, it cannot even refer properly to Her Royal Highness Catherine, Princess of Wales, when reporting on the Remembrance Day services. It repeatedly referred to her by her maiden name and a forename that she no longer uses. It underlines the disregard not simply for our monarchy but for the principle of trusting the BBC to carry out good reporting, which, quite clearly and evidentially, it does not.

The charter renewal is a multifaceted decision, and it will take a lot of persuasion for me, and more importantly, for my constituents, to believe that the BBC can once again be a trustworthy, impartial service. That view is replicated in constituencies across the United Kingdom. It is time for an “unsubscribe” from the BBC.

While I may be tempted to continue to subscribe to watch “Strictly Come Dancing”, which I love, or “Call the Midwife”, which I also like, I also believe in the principle of getting what you pay for. I simply do not want to pay for what we are currently getting.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member agree with the principle that just because he does not like something, that does not mean it should not be produced? There is a wide variety of BBC productions that we may not watch, but that does not mean that we do not think they should exist.

[Jim Shannon]

If the hon. Lady had been following the thrust in my speech, I gave a number of examples of where BBC reporting has fallen down drastically, including in relation to Northern Ireland and to the monarchy. There are programmes and drama programmes that I like—I gave two examples—but the point that I am making is that when it comes to impartial reporting and journalism, the BBC falls down badly. For that reason, I believe that the contribution put forward by the right hon. Member for Maldon and others is one that I agree with.

15:14

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as chair of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group.

Many colleagues have made the point about fair funding. It is critical. Ultimately, the BBC must remain universal and it must serve everyone. That means no subscription model, no two-tier system and no paywalls locking people out of so-called premium content. Public service broadcasting works only when it is genuinely public, and that universality must be protected through a funding model that is fair, sufficient and free from political interference. It is clear that sustained cuts and closed-door licence fee freezes have weakened that principle, and that has to end. The BBC has experienced 14 years of sustained real-term cuts—a 30% reduction in its funding—lost experienced journalists, hollowed out training and stretched its workforce to breaking point. It is no surprise that mistakes are more likely when journalists are overburdened and under-resourced; we cannot demand world-class journalism on a shrinking budget.

Nowhere are the consequences of cuts clearer than in regional and local news. Cuts to BBC local radio have stripped many communities of genuinely local programming, and that has particularly affected older audiences, disabled people and ethnic minority communities, who rely most on trusted news. These damaging cuts should be reversed, with renewed investment in live local radio and digital journalism in news deserts where no other local provision exists.

The same principle of proper funding applies globally. The World Service is one of the UK’s greatest assets, reaching hundreds of millions of people across more than 40 languages. It presents us to the world. In a world where journalists are threatened and independent media is silenced, the World Service provides trusted, impartial information, yet repeated rounds of cuts have reduced its reach and handed ground to state-backed outlets from authoritarian regimes. Long-term, secure funding for the World Service is firmly in the national interest and must be restored.

Finally, the BBC is a powerhouse of creativity and economic growth, and nowhere demonstrates that better than Salford. The BBC’s presence there has transformed the city and the wider north-west economically and socially, creating skilled jobs, anchoring creative clusters and proving that world-class broadcasting does not have to be London-centric or the preserve of a wealthy elite. Media City shows what public investment can achieve, and weakening the BBC would weaken Salford and the wider creative and media investment we have seen in the north-west in recent years. That must not be allowed to happen.

15:17

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. The BBC is rightly regarded as a national treasure. For more than a century, it has been trusted at home and across the world as a benchmark for accurate and impartial journalism. That reputation matters, and it is precisely because of the global admiration for the BBC that its recent failures, particularly with respect to its coverage of Gaza, must be confronted.

A comprehensive report published in June 2025 by the Centre for Media Monitoring examined more than 35,000 articles and broadcast segments over a 12-month period from October 2023. Its findings amount to a devastating indictment of the BBC’s claims to impartiality. On a per fatality basis, Israeli deaths received 33 times more coverage across articles, and 19 times more coverage on television and radio. To cite other equally damning statistics, BBC presenters shared Israeli perspectives 11 times more frequently than Palestinian perspectives, and the words “massacre” or “massacred” were applied almost 18 times more frequently to Israeli victims.

Headlines such as “Israel says Rafah crossing to open soon to let Palestinians leave Gaza via Egypt” amount to whitewashing of the ethnic cleansing and forced migration inflicted upon the Palestinian people. As the Centre for Media Monitoring report outlines, the term “war crimes” was mentioned in only 3% of articles in relation to Israeli violence against Palestinians. This hierarchy of language dehumanises Palestinian livelihoods, masking grave human rights violations behind a false notion of balance.

Internally, more than 100 BBC staff and 300 journalists and media professionals wrote a letter complaining that the corporation has become a propaganda platform for Israel, citing examples such as the BBC’s shocking refusal to broadcast the documentary “Gaza: Doctors Under Attack”. They wrote:

“Much of the BBC’s coverage in this area is defined by anti-Palestinian racism.”

This is not balance, but distortion. It is not impartiality, but systemic bias. Palestinian suffering is treated as less newsworthy, less human and less deserving of scrutiny or outrage.

Consequently, serious questions must be asked about the BBC’s governance. The continued influence of figures such as Robbie Gibb undermines public confidence in the BBC’s ability to report without fear or favour. The Government must ensure an end to partisan appointments and resist politically motivated attacks on reporting. They should meaningfully engage with trade unions and the National Union of Journalists throughout the charter renewal process. If the BBC is to retain its reputation for courageous, high-quality journalism, it must urgently reckon with its shortcomings, and this Government must stop looking the other way.

15:20

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for bringing this important issue to Westminster Hall.

In the short time I have, I want to make only one point: the BBC is distinctly British. What do I mean by that? It is a service—a service for all, like the NHS. It is a human organisation; it is not perfect, as we have heard in the debate. That, dare I say, is a good thing, and we are having a debate about whether the BBC is up to the high standard we expect, because it does have to meet a higher standard than other broadcasters—some of which pay some Members in this House a separate salary, rather than them being full time.

[Lee Anderson]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time, and he is quite right: the BBC should be held to high standards. Can he think of another broadcaster that has had as many scandals as the BBC over the past 30 or 40 years?

[Kevin Bonavia]

The hon. Member really wants to hammer the BBC about the amount of scandals. Guess what? It is the biggest broadcaster, so I do not think that just talking about numbers is enough. The fact that is really important about the BBC is that, compared to other broadcasters, we hold it to a higher standard. It gets far more scrutiny than any other broadcaster, as it should. Yes, there are bad eggs at the BBC. There have been some terrible scandals there too. Ultimately, those are usually—but not always—flushed out. In this world of misinformation, where we have far more players and fake news out there, I have constituents in Stevenage say to me, “Sorry, I don’t do mainstream media.” There are people out there who are much happier to share a fake video. That is why it is so important—more important than it has ever been—that we have a national broadcaster that we do hold to account.

The question before us now is, how do we make this national broadcaster fit for the age we live in? In this dangerous age of misinformation from people who are prepared to take their shilling from private broadcasters, how should our national broadcaster meet the standard we expect? That is a real challenge for this Government. I know they will do their best to review the charter to make sure we have a national broadcaster that does meet the age that we live in.

I have talked about the high standards we expect in the BBC, and it has been called out on those standards in this very room today. One Member spoke about the bias towards Palestine, and another spoke about the bias towards Israel. These are right, subjective points of view, based on the facts that those Members see, and that is fine—it is good that people have that debate, and so should we in this Chamber.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the facts I cited are empirical evidence that is irrefutable? There has been no response from the BBC or the Government to the report from the Centre for Media Monitoring. Does he agree that there should be?

[Kevin Bonavia]

I have not read all that report; I hear what the hon. Gentleman has said about it. But the point I am making is not about those facts; it is that it is good that we can have a debate about the national broadcaster, in a way we would not for any other broadcaster. That is so important, and it helps us to listen more. That is what we need to do more in the age we live in, and through the BBC we can do that.

I say to all Members in this debate and beyond that we must make the BBC fit for the age we live in. If we did not have the BBC, we would not be in a world that I would want to be part of, so I ask the Minister to talk about how she will protect the BBC in the future.

15:23

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing the debate.

Fairness and impartiality should be the hallmarks of the BBC, and many years ago they were, but unfortunately that has not been the case in recent years. The BBC understands, as I am sure others do, that the anniversaries of historic incidents from our troubled past in Northern Ireland are very important. If they are done well, people recognise them, acknowledge them and pay tribute to them; if they are done badly, people complain about them.

I will use two topical examples to try to show the need, under the charter renewal, for the BBC itself to be renewed. It needs to be seen to be impartially reporting events, whether in the middle east, Ukraine or Northern Ireland.

[Jim Shannon]

Many of my constituents want to unsubscribe from the BBC. Is it the same in my hon. Friend’s constituency?

[Mr Campbell]

Yes, I can report that it is. People have told me that they no longer purchase a licence because they do not watch live TV, and that shows a lack of confidence in the BBC’s ability to report accurately.

I return to the two topical examples, which demonstrate, unfortunately, what the BBC has turned into in recent days. Just yesterday, it was the 50th anniversary of the Kingsmill massacre in County Armagh, where the IRA murdered 10 innocent Protestants. BBC Radio Ulster had a programme to acknowledge that, and it was good, right and proper that it should do so. In subsequent hourly radio news bulletins and on that programme, the BBC also told us that loyalist paramilitaries had murdered Catholics in the days immediately preceding that massacre. It seemed to many that that was an attempt to explain why the IRA took the step that it did in shooting innocent workmen. What was absent from those bulletins, as was pointed out by Kenny Donaldson, from the South East Fermanagh Foundation victims group, was that the Kingsmill massacre was meticulously planned by the IRA months previously. But the BBC did not report that.

In contrast, in the same month—January each year—the BBC has long-standing coverage of the Bloody Sunday event, which was close to my constituency, in Londonderry. The audience is never reminded that, immediately preceding the Bloody Sunday incident, two policemen were murdered. There is never any context given about that. On the very day of Bloody Sunday, Major Robin Nigel Alers-Hankey, the first British Army officer killed during the troubles, died from his injuries. The BBC never mentioned that context, but yesterday it did mention the context in relation to what may be regarded and described as the other side of the political equation.

I raise those two topical instances to show that the BBC needs to take more care. It needs to be meticulous in trying to be seen to be fair and balanced in reporting incidents that are still raw, even though they may have happened many, many years ago.

15:28

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing today’s debate.

A new charter is an opportunity for a real reset for the BBC. We have heard many criticisms in the debate, but this is an opportunity for a fresh start for the BBC, and that is important. The BBC will only be as good as the accountability systems that are built around it, so it is crucial that independence is at the heart of that. Detachment from this place and from Government decisions on who should sit on the board is an important expression of that. I certainly support workers, who know their organisation so well, sitting on the board, alongside voices and experiences from across the nations.

We also need to ensure that the regulator, Ofcom, is robust in its scrutiny of the BBC. I therefore ask the Minister to look at the role Ofcom can play in enhancing the role of the BBC, its accountability and its transparency. In an age when media is driving distrust and disunity, how the BBC re-establishes itself as a trusted media source and brings community cohesion is vital for our democracy and our country. I trust that the report will place huge emphasis on that.

I also want to raise the issue of the supply of skills across media, broadcasting and journalism. There is a huge opportunity for the BBC to be a training space for so many of our future skills, whether behind the camera or in front of it. I ask the Minister to think about the role of the BBC within the whole creative sector and how it could become an academy for future voices and skills, drawing people from the regions and nations.

Finally, I want to raise the issue of devolution. The reality is that the BBC’s removal of local radio content has seen its listenership fall by 27%. I really hope that the Minister will reverse that and ensure that there is no more playing with words—I am thinking of “neighbourhood radio”, which actually means regional or beyond. We want to see localism as so many people in our community depend on it. It strengthens the BBC when voices are about community; it gives the BBC a real purpose. I trust that that can be at the centre of the reforms. Radical devolution of a centralised BBC would be the regrowth of the BBC.

15:31

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. The BBC is one of Britain’s finest institutions. Although it has undoubtedly had its problems, as many institutions have—including this place—it makes a significant contribution to our national life. However, the BBC must change to ensure that it is fit for the future in a rapidly changing world; that is why I welcome the opportunity that the Green Paper consultation provides. It is an opportunity to ensure that issues relating to the BBC’s funding, governance and editorial standards are strengthened, and that its political impartiality is reinforced. It is also an opportunity to consider what the public value about the BBC and what they do not.

Some key themes and values should help shape this process. The BBC must retain its strong regional dimension. Its local radio and TV are important levers for holding decision makers to account. Weakening those functions would lead to poorer decisions in our democratic processes, and individuals and organisations that do not act in a public-spirited way would be given an easier ride. That said, we must be mindful of how coverage of local news on the BBC News website has contributed to the decline of local newspapers. We cannot have a situation where the local media landscape is monolithic because the size and scale of the BBC has drowned out all its competitors. The BBC-funded local democracy reporting service, which employs some reporters at local papers, has gone some way to mitigate that issue, and consideration should be given to whether that service should be expanded.

Given the rise of AI, fake news and disinformation online and via social media, the BBC must grow its trustworthiness and retain its accuracy and impartiality. It is a linchpin of the UK’s creative economy, and it commissions and creates world-leading content. To retain and grow that, it needs to be able to invest in programme making at a level that allows it to compete with streaming services and major US production companies. The BBC must also be able to maintain its globally recognised choirs and orchestras. The professionals delivering that music making must enjoy good terms and conditions, which they ought to have a right to expect. It must build on its educational offer—not just for children and young people, but for adults seeking to retrain and gain new skills in a rapidly changing world of work.

However, to do all that, the BBC must be properly resourced. Its funding has been cut in real terms by almost a third since 2010, following freezes or below-inflation rises of the licence fee and top-slicing to fund the World Service and licences for older people. That has led to losses of highly skilled staff, and it is undermining the Reithian principles of the BBC: to inform, entertain and educate. It is important that we consider different funding models that may be available to us as part of this process.

Finally, I encourage colleagues, the public and the organisations that care about what the BBC does to engage with the consultation about the BBC’s future, which is open now. The BBC belongs to us all. Together, we can ensure that it continues to play an important part in our national life for generations to come.

15:34

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for bringing forward this debate.

People of an age where their first exposure to television was watching “Play School”, “Danger Mouse” and the often overlooked but still culturally significant series “Bananaman”, may, like me, have a built-in childhood affection for the BBC. The Liberal Democrats have always been firm supporters of the BBC: we have long championed it as a publicly funded, impartial model of public service broadcasting and we believe it has a vital and unique place in the UK’s media landscape.

There has been a lot of discussion today about unsubscribing from the BBC. The NHS and education are two examples of public services that we all contribute to but can opt out of by going private, yet we do not say that everyone should be able to stop contributing to them; we consider them to be of wider public benefit. I hope that Members recognise that the BBC falls into that category.

As we look ahead to charter renewal, we want to see sustainable, long-term funding settlements that guarantee the BBC’s independence and protect it from political interference. That must include an end to political appointments, particularly to the BBC Board. Recent attempts by political figures, both at home and abroad, to exert pressure on the BBC only underline the importance of safeguarding its editorial independence. Allowing political or foreign interference in our media does not bode well for trust in public broadcasting.

As has been mentioned, the BBC is the backbone of our world-leading creative industries. It delivers outstanding economic value, doubling its investment across the creative economy and contributing around £5 billion each year. It produces hugely popular programmes such as “The Traitors”, while also supporting smaller and more diverse content that may serve niche audiences, but is no less valuable.

As a huge fan of BBC Radio 6 Music, I point out that in an age of plastic pop—at least that is what it all sounds like—such stations are key in supporting new, emerging and diverse acts that would not otherwise get national airtime. That is part of the wider role the BBC plays in developing talent. Its apprenticeship schemes allow young people to enter the industry and learn from some of the best in the business before going on to contribute across the wider creative sector.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

We have talked a lot about the BBC’s news output today because clearly that is what is going to interest a room full of politicians most. However, I am glad that we are now focusing a little on the creative output. We have a fantastic creative and cultural industry, which is a major export and one of the jewels of this country. Taking away the BBC, which is part of the ecosystem, would smash it. This is not just about the news.

[Anna Sabine]

I could not agree enough. If we speak to other broadcasters and people involved in the industry, we hear that they are just as worried about the future of the BBC—for exactly that reason: if we start to pull that plug out of the ecosystem, it causes problems for everybody else.

As we sit here today, many of us agog at what is happening on the international stage, it would be remiss of us not to highlight the importance of the BBC World Service. It provides trusted, high-quality news to audiences around the globe, and is a powerful counter to disinformation and authoritarianism. However, its funding was subjected to repeated and unhelpful changes by the previous Government, often limiting its ability to plan strategically. The Lib Dems would increase Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office funding for the World Service. Can the Government confirm that they will sufficiently support the crucial work of the BBC World Service, so that it can continue to provide trusted news to a weekly audience of 453 million people worldwide?

Much of today’s debate has focused on the licence fee, which is central to discussions around charter renewal. The Lib Dems believe that the Government must protect the BBC and categorically rule out moving to a subscription model. The BBC itself has acknowledged that subscription funding would undermine its universality, public value and long-term sustainability. The Government should maintain stable, secure funding through the licence fee until the end of the current charter in ’27, and ensure equivalent public funding beyond that point. Charter renewal must deliver long-term financial certainty.

However, we want future decisions on the level of the licence fee to be made transparently by an independent body, to strengthen the BBC’s financial, operational and editorial independence from the Government of the day. It should consider a permanent charter as part of the renewal process. Has the Minister considered whether that would be a viable option for the BBC?

The BBC is one of Britain’s greatest sources of soft power and is trusted around the world for its independence and accuracy. It helps defend democratic values and Britain’s global standing, and it needs our support.

15:38

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing today’s debate about a topic that he is extremely knowledgeable about. I thank the Minister for being here today; although this important topic is not currently part of her brief, she is also very knowledgeable about it.

The future of the BBC is an important matter for its employees, licence fee payers and people who consume its output in this country and around the world, including many—although a declining number—of our constituents. The BBC is a cherished institution, and it is the UK’s most widely used news outlet: 94% of UK adults use BBC services every month on average. It has informed, educated and entertained generations of Brits. It is one of our most admired and respected institutions, and one of our biggest global brands. However, the BBC faces considerable challenges in the digital age, and an increasingly fragmented media landscape. Recently, it has faced other challenges to its reputation—some, admittedly, of its own making.

Before Christmas, the Government released their long-awaited Green Paper as part of the process to review the royal charter. Sadly, they did so in a written ministerial statement rather than on the Floor of the House, so today is the first time we have had the opportunity to discuss this matter properly. The BBC’s existence and the licence fee arrangements are contingent on the BBC fulfilling its licence obligations—including those on impartiality, as outlined in the charter.

Recently, there have been too many examples where the BBC has not been following its own editorial guidelines on impartiality—from push notifications to its coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict to trans issues, as well as the high-profile doctoring of a speech by the President of the United States, which has led to a multibillion dollar lawsuit. That lawsuit threatens the future financial stability of the BBC and could lead to resources being diverted away from important and much-loved programming, such as children’s TV, natural history series, sport and national events coverage, music and local radio. Many of those things have been mentioned today; they are what that the BBC does so well, and they help justify the licence fee and sustain the BBC’s brand and reputation around the world.

Abiding by impartiality is an important aspect of the current debate because, as the BBC’s own editorial guidelines clearly state,

“Audiences expect the BBC's news and current affairs and factual journalism output to meet the highest levels of impartiality and accuracy.”

I could not agree more, which is why the accusations of failure to uphold impartiality are so serious. There is also another important aspect of the debate around impartiality. The editorial guidelines make it clear that

“There is no requirement to give all views equal weight…Minority views or those less supported by evidence, do not need to be given similar prominence or weight to those with more support, to the prevailing consensus, or to those better evidenced.”

That begs these questions: why can the BBC not bring itself to call Hamas a terrorist organisation? Why did it feel obliged to reprimand a journalist for saying “women” instead of “pregnant people” live on air? Impartiality should not be used as an excuse to push minority or woke views that are not supported by the majority of the British population. Common sense must prevail.

This whole area clearly needs a lot of tidying up, and the charter review offers an opportunity to do so. Does the Minister agree that the governance structures, processes and procedures around compliance with, and enforcement of, impartiality and editorial guidelines must be a key focus in the charter review process? Does she agree that the BBC should not wait, and that it can, of its own volition, take action now to change its procedures and overall culture on compliance in advance of the conclusion of the charter review process?

The Green Paper rightly focuses on the issues of trust—mentioned many times today—public good, driving economic growth and funding. As has been pointed out by the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), and others, not every option has been considered. It is right that we should take a thorough review of all future funding options for the BBC, because all options, including the status quo, will have a knock-on impact on other public service broadcasters, and on the production and broadcasting ecosystem across the UK as a whole, including radio as well as TV.

The licence fee model, in its current form, is clearly not sustainable, partly because people are walking away from the BBC already and taking their money with them—a point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon. Since 2019, more than 2 million households have stopped paying the licence fee, and in the past decade licence fee evasion has doubled. At the same time, the BBC has fallen behind innovative rivals when it comes to young people. Additional sources of funding for the BBC must be found, without jeopardising the rest of the UK broadcasting landscape and without distorting the rest of the UK advertising market.

Does the Minister agree that the charter renewal discussion also needs to focus on how the BBC can further exploit commercial opportunities, particularly with its back catalogue and revenue from overseas? Does the Minister agree that we must also debate the other side of the equation: the size, scale and scope of the BBC, or what exactly its public service content duties should be? That point seems to be missing from the Green Paper, but it was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon.

The consultation also suggests that consideration be given to reduced or free licence fees for people on benefits. That does concern us. It would be outrageous if people claiming benefits were given free TV licences while hard-working people footed the bill.

Turning briefly to comments made by other hon. Members, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon expressed his thanks to the outgoing director general, Tim Davie, and I also put on record my thanks for his service. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport expressed concerns that some funding options had already been ruled out; again, that is a matter of concern, and I hope the Minister can address that in a moment. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) pointed out the concerning reality that licence fee penalties often disproportionately impact women.

The hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tom Rutland) and for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) pointed out the very important role of the World Service, which is of course partly funded by the FCDO and not entirely by the licence fee. The hon. Member for Salford also highlighted the transformational impact of the BBC’s significant investment in Salford—something I had the pleasure of seeing in December.

The hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) highlighted the important role of the national broadcaster in the age of misinformation, and the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) highlighted accountability. Of course, something that we have not talked about much today, but which I am sure will be a matter of considerable debate going forward, is the role of the regulator, Ofcom.

In conclusion, we want the BBC to succeed. To do so, it must be the best version of itself. That may be perhaps quite a significantly different version from what exists today. We look forward to working constructively with the BBC, the Government and all stakeholders in this charter review process. I encourage all interested parties, including our constituents, to get involved in the consultation process. Finally, will the Minister commit to ensuring that there are more opportunities in the future to debate this vital topic—the future of the BBC —in Government time, on the Floor of the House, and not just via written statements?

15:46

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am pleased to respond to this debate on behalf of the Media Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who is in the main Chamber on other business. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing this important debate; as he said, we have previously debated this and many other media issues many times. I am really grateful to him for bringing forward this debate and for the huge expertise he brings to it, and to all hon. Members of all parties from across the House for attending. Today’s attendance shows just how important this topic is.

I will respond to some of the specific points raised in a moment. First, I would like to begin by saying that for over 100 years the BBC has been at the very heart of our national life and our successful media ecosystem. It tells us the story of who we are—our people, our places and the communities that make up life across the UK.

Throughout its long history, the BBC has been guided by the Reithian principles of informing, educating and entertaining. It is one of the most trusted news providers, both at home and abroad, at a time when the need for trusted news and high-quality programming is so essential to our democratic and cultural life and to our place in the world—a point made by the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the BBC, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tom Rutland), as well as by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall and Bloxwich (Valerie Vaz) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes).

The BBC provides vital educational content for all ages, and of course it is where millions of us turn for high-quality entertainment. “The Celebrity Traitors” final had over 11 million people tuning in live and sharing in that moment together—a point that the Liberal Democrats, I thought, made very well. It is no wonder that the BBC remains the most used media provider in the UK, with an average of 94% of adults using its services each month. The BBC is one of the UK’s greatest cultural exports, recognised across the globe and standing strong as the “light on the hill”, as the Secretary of State would say: a shining beacon in times of darkness and a trusted voice amid all the noise.

I appreciate that there are different perspectives, as this debate has reflected, and I will address some of the specific points, questions and ideas put to me. In the interests of time, perhaps I will not be able to go into much detail, but I can say directly to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), that there will be ample opportunity to debate this topic further in this place.

The right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) opened the debate by highlighting that the BBC has had a number of challenges, issues and scandals, as indeed hon. Members from across the House have pointed out. As the shadow Minister said, some—if not many—of those are of its own making. Where the highest standards have not been met, that is unacceptable. As the Secretary of State set out to the House in November, the chair of the BBC has accepted that there have been “editorial failings”, and this is simply not good enough. That has clearly had an impact on trust, as reflected in the statistics shared by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). The funding is a complex issue and I will address the questions put to me in as much detail as I can in a moment. In broad terms, we want to ensure that the cost is as low as possible. We want to examine how efficiently the BBC operates, how it provides services, the way they are delivered and whether that should be revisited.

The Chair of the Select Committee put big questions to me on the long-term sustainability, the funding settlement, changing viewer habits and the scope and size of the BBC. We will debate all of those not just over the 12-week consultation but over the coming year as we debate the charter. If I have time I will come back with a little more detail.

My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) spoke powerfully and gave a number of examples important to her own constituency. I was pleased to visit when I was the Media Minister. I want to put it on the record that I have heard the points around minority languages and the issues raised by colleagues in Northern Ireland, the hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Indeed, the December before last the hon. Member for East Londonderry held a debate in the main Chamber.

I will address a point put to me by the shadow Minister on concessions. We are not looking to expand free TV licences or give them free to those in receipt of benefits. An example from Germany was taken out of context from the Green Paper; I can be clear about that now. To go into a little more detail, the BBC has clearly reached a critical juncture. The market has changed significantly, and the charter review is a timely opportunity to set the BBC up for success in a new and dynamic world. The right hon. Member for Maldon had responsibility for the last charter review 10 years ago. In a debate in December 2024 he said that the changes in the broadcasting landscape that have taken place during the 10 years since then have been

“huge and continue to accelerate.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 140WH.]

The new charter will formally set the terms of the BBC for the future with a clear ambition to set it on a path to thrive, well into the latter half of this century. Our Green Paper, published on 16 December, represents the first step on that path as we set out our vision for future-proofing our national broadcaster. The four sections outlined in the paper include governance and trust, funding, mission and purpose, and technology and digital. The BBC must remain independent, genuinely accountable to the public it serves, and critically, it must continue to command public trust.

Further afield, the BBC must also continue the World Service’s vital work in providing trusted and truthful news internationally. Members have given a number of examples. It is absolutely vital that the BBC is trusted by the British public and commands confidence in its impartiality as our national broadcaster. The charter review will support that aim and provide an opportunity to ensure the BBC remains the trusted independent source of news for UK citizens that it has been for over 100 years. As the current Media Minister has said, the corporation’s future should not be tainted by the “problems of today”.

The charter review will also ensure that the BBC remains an engine of growth, driving good jobs, skills and creativity across the UK. As part of this, we are considering how the BBC can further support the production sector across the nations and regions, including by ensuring that budgets and decision-making powers for commissioners are spread across the UK—a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). We are considering how the BBC can deliver more through others, working collaboratively and in partnership with organisations across the creative economy and the local news sector—something I have heard from my own local paper. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) made a very important point about that.

But the BBC role extends beyond economic growth and innovation. Whether it is to celebrate the coronation of His Majesty King Charles or to cheer on Britain’s gold medal wins at the Paris Olympics and Paralympics, the BBC has the power to bring the nation together. People right across our nation must be able to access content that genuinely reflects their lives, their communities and their contributions, so that all of us can see ourselves reflected in our national story—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) spoke about.

The BBC must commission, produce and distribute stories that are truly rooted in diverse UK experiences and promote British stories and creativity to the world. I have seen that in my own area, whether it is the BBC’s long read on the history and regeneration of our brilliant town centre, thanks to our Labour council, or the who to watch in the Yorkshire music scene, which are just a couple of pieces of coverage that the BBC has done from my own area. We know that to achieve all of this the BBC must be funded in a way that is fair and sustainable for the long term. The right hon. Member for Maldon secured a debate on this topic in December 2024, where he highlighted challenges with the licence fee, noting, as we do in our Green Paper, that the landscape has hugely changed since he was responsible for drawing up the current charter. He spoke during that debate about some of the alternatives to the licence fee, which also have their challenges, and he rightly identified the need for those to be considered alongside broader decisions about the future of television. Our thinking is certainly accounting for these points. Indeed, it was in Westminster Hall during my last debate as Media Minister that I responded to a debate—about the future of television—incredibly relevant to today’s topic.

At this stage, we are keeping an open mind on the issue and the Green Paper sets out a range of options that we are exploring, including how the BBC can operate more efficiently, how it could generate more commercial revenue, and how the licence fee could be reformed. This is a complex topic, and the public consultation will provide an opportunity for the public to have their say. In the interests of time, I am really sorry that I cannot respond in detail to some of the points raised today, though I had made notes to do so. I will make sure that I or the Media Minister write in answer to some of the specific questions.

We know that some funding options would represent a significant shift for both the sector and the BBC, as well as for audience experiences. The right hon. Member for Maldon has previously raised concerns about the potential for advertising on the BBC to impact commercial providers. A thriving media sector involving ITV, Channel 4, our diverse local media providers and others is vital for the UK, and I wish to reassure him that we will carefully consider the potential impacts on this ecosystem. I have heard the points he has made today and of course we debated them at length during the passage of what is now the Media Act 2024. We are also considering options for funding the World Service, of which I know he is a great supporter—as are many other Members across parties who have spoken brilliantly and given many examples—and for funding minority language broadcasting so that the rich linguistic heritage of our communities can continue to thrive and grow. That includes S4C, which I was pleased to visit as Media Minister last year to see its work first hand.

Many hard questions will be raised through this charter process, but it is important that it is the start of the conversation. There will be many more debates in this place as we have this discussion. The intention of the Green Paper is to spark debate and get Members from across the House and people across the country to share their views. We will continue to engage with the public and Parliament, and we will of course get the chance to have a full debate. In the meantime, I thank all Members for their contributions.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I was just about to sit down, but I will give way.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

The Green Paper is about the future of the BBC, but we also have to address the issues and challenges that it faces today while the consultation goes on and the new charter is defined, established and implemented. Please could the Minister advise when or whether the Government and the BBC will respond to the report from the Centre for Media Monitoring, with substantive action points as to how it is going to prevent or improve going forward?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As I said at the opening of my remarks, we expect the BBC to maintain the absolute highest editorial standards and where it has fallen short, we have urged them to take action. I will take that point away for the Media Minister. I thank so many Members for attending this debate. I think it reflects how important this issue and the future of our national broadcaster is.

15:58

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I thank you, Mrs Harris, the Minister and all Members who participated this afternoon. The fact that there are so many present—to my regret, I suspect a lot have had to curtail their remarks due to the time limit—demonstrates the importance of this subject. I welcome the Minister’s assurance that there will be further opportunities. My hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston) is right: it is important that as many people as possible respond to the consultation, although I suspect that the Minister and her officials may hope that we do not have a repeat of what happened last time, which was a 38 Degrees campaign generating 190,000 responses. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport had to hire a new building in order to count and read them all. However, it is important, and I hope that this debate is just the start of what will continue to be a discussion leading to the next charter.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government proposals for renewal of the BBC Charter.