BBC Leadership

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, we need a trusted, respected and unnewsworthy BBC more than ever. Poll after poll shows that our country feels more divided than it ever has been, not just in terms of party politics but by geography, generation, race and religion. At home, politics seems to reward those who seek to exploit those divisions rather than overcome them. Foreign conflicts seep over into our politics and distressing images from across the globe animate our discussions, along with a preponderance of highly partisan reporting from different media environments.

Algorithms, social media and our own prejudices make it easier than ever to close ourselves off to the news that we do not want to hear or opinions that differ from our own. That is why the BBC’s founding mission—to inform, educate and entertain—which it has performed with such distinction for more than a century, still matters so much, and why it seems to be getting harder. It is also why serious and avoidable errors, such as the ones that have been highlighted in recent days, cause such dismay from across the political spectrum and do such harm to the BBC’s journalistic reputation.

At a time when populists are on the march, when criminal acts seem to be no bar to high office, when facts themselves come under attack and people are encouraged to choose their own truth, the BBC and other news organisations have to be more scrupulous than ever to set out facts clearly and dispassionately, and to own up quickly when mistakes are made. On all those fronts, it has fallen short in recent days.

Not everybody watching the BBC should come away with the same conclusions about the Middle East, the wisdom of the American electorate, or the application of sex-based rights in modern society. But how much more dangerous a society we would be if they turned off the BBC altogether.

Rightly, the BBC remains one of the most trusted sources of news in this country, but each year 750,000 fewer people choose to pay the licence fee. Millions more have grown up, whether here or overseas, without the BBC as their bedrock. Ofcom’s most recent annual report showed that YouTube has already overtaken other broadcasters to become the second most popular media service in the United Kingdom. People are increasingly importing their news and their entertainment from the far reaches of the internet. No wonder the national conversation seems so cacophonous and so confused.

The process that begins shortly—perhaps the Minister will set out some more detail about it—to renew the BBC’s royal charter and to try to anticipate the next decade in our rapidly changing media environment is a crucial moment for public service broadcasting. As well as working out how the BBC can remain a “light on the hill”, as the Secretary of State put it in this Statement, we will need to chart a course for all our public service broadcasters. Does the Minister think we will have the same number of public service broadcasters in a decade’s time as we do today? Channel 5 is owned by the US company Paramount. ITV is in discussion with Sky, itself owned by another American firm, Comcast, about its future. The respected former chairman of ITV, Sir Peter Bazalgette, has said there needs to be consolidation among our public service broadcasters. What are the Government doing to ensure that these cherished British channels remain distinctive, prominent and popular in an increasingly crowded media landscape?

On the BBC itself, what discussions have the Government had with the corporation about the threat of legal action from the President of the United States because of the errors it has made? In the absence of an ambassador in Washington, have the Government raised this matter with the US Administration directly? If the BBC ends up paying millions of dollars, whether as a result of foreign litigation or in a humiliating out-of-court settlement, who will bear the cost: the taxpayer or the licence fee payer? More broadly, what specific actions do the Government want to see from the BBC to demonstrate that it has learned the lessons of this sorry episode and that it is changing in the ways that it needs to in order to avoid a recurrence?

I put on record my thanks and appreciation for Tim Davie, the corporation’s 17th director-general. He has had more than his fair share of crises to contend with, emanating from different parts of the huge and varied organisation that he has led. In his resignation statement, he referred to the

“very intense personal and professional demands of managing this role”,

and I do not underestimate those challenges. As the process begins to appoint a successor, do the Government have a view on whether the role of director-general should be reconsidered? Mr Davie has said that it is not an impossible job, but does the Minister think that its striking breadth—in effect asking somebody to be both chief executive and editor-in-chief—is as practical now as it was in 1922?

In the past week, the BBC has brought me to tears more than once, with its moving coverage of Remembrance Day and with the final of “The Celebrity Traitors”—perhaps I tear up too easily. Today and yesterday, I listened with pride and admiration to Radio 2 as people from across Northumberland and County Durham lined drizzly rural lanes to cheer Sara Cox on as she ran through their villages, raising more than £1 million and counting for Children in Need, a charity the corporation founded 45 years ago. That is the BBC at its best. If we criticise the BBC or express our frustrations in weeks such as this, it is because we care so much about it and what it represents. While respecting its vital independence, I urge the Government —indeed, everybody across this House and another place—to hold its feet to the fire and make sure that it continues to be the best of British, now and long into the future.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, we welcome the Secretary of State’s Statement and her robust defence of the BBC, but let us not mince words: it is under attack as never before. A free press is the foundation stone of freedom and democracy, and the BBC is the foundation stone of our free press. The highly respected Reuters Institute has just updated its data on news and trust, and its findings should remind us all of the BBC’s importance for not just the UK but the world. In an era of disinformation and social media silos, the BBC stands as a beacon of accuracy. As the Secretary of State says in her Statement:

“It projects British values, creativity and integrity to the world”.


The BBC is not just the news; it is important to remind people of this. It has radio stations, podcasts, orchestras, BBC Bitesize, BBC Online, iPlayer, Sounds and the World Service. It develops and invests in talent in local creative hubs across the UK, not to mention a network of local radio and TV. It plays a hugely important role in promoting the UK around the world—soft power—through the programmes it exports and the World Service, which is ever more important now that President Trump has cut off funds to Voice of America. Through its mission to inform, educate and entertain, the BBC has made culture, news, and other people’s experiences and lives available to all. To quote the words of the man who in so many ways exemplifies the BBC, Sir David Attenborough:

“It is that miraculous advance … that allows a whole society, a whole nation, to see itself and to talk to itself.”


The origin of the word “broadcast” is to sow seeds widely, and that is what the BBC does.

Of course, the BBC is not perfect, and it is right that we hold it to the highest standards. The “Panorama” editing error was a serious mistake and we welcome the BBC’s apology. However, it is obvious that the issue is being weaponised by those who want to undermine the BBC and who would profit from its demise. Without the BBC, we would be more vulnerable to dangerous misinformation and conspiracy theories, so, as the Government navigate President Trump’s latest tantrum, as he threatens to sue the BBC for $1 billion, what are the Government doing to stand up for the BBC—Britain’s BBC?

Speaking of interference by bad actors, serious concerns remain over the conduct of Sir Robbie Gibb during his tenure on the BBC board. We need to have absolute confidence that the BBC can operate free from political influence, factional interests or personal agendas. If the Government truly believe in an independent BBC, will they sack Robbie Gibb, as the BBC charter permits?

The new charter offers an opportunity to rethink the BBC appointments process and end the political grip on the BBC board. Will the Minister listen to calls from this Bench for both the chair and non-executive members of the board to be appointed by an independent body and not, as currently happens, by the Government?

The BBC cannot be allowed to fail. Mistakes will happen and should be dealt with better and more quickly, but it is essential to our democracy, is trusted by its audience, provides much more to the nation than just news and current affairs, and is globally unique. We should remember the words of Joni Mitchell —or perhaps of my noble friend Lord McNally:

“That you don’t know what you’ve got

Till it’s gone”

Please let us not be in that place.

I echo the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, in adding my gratitude to Tim Davie for his service as DG.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their points and questions on this matter. I am sure the BBC agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, in his aspiration for it not to be newsworthy.

As the Secretary of State said in the other place yesterday, the BBC has a responsibility to uphold the highest standards. When standards are not met, firm, swift and transparent action must follow. Tim Davie and Deborah Turness have both taken responsibility for the mistakes that they admit the BBC has made. It is right that the Government now continue to support the BBC as an important national institution and support the BBC board in managing the transition.

Before I go further, like the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, I place on record my thanks to the outgoing director-general for his service and his commitment to public service broadcasting over many years, and I thank the CEO of news for leading the BBC News operation through turbulent times. As the Secretary of State made clear, we do not underestimate the challenges that these roles pose and the pressure that they put on those who hold them.

However, I also agree with the noble Baroness that the BBC is about more than news. This Government support a strong, independent BBC. In an age of disinformation, the argument for a robust, impartial British news service is stronger than ever. The BBC is one of the most important institutions in this country, and it has stood at the centre of our democratic and cultural life for over a century. Each of us has our own personal connection to the BBC. We can all point to the programmes that we watched growing up and the deep impact that they had on us. My own addiction to BBC News probably started with “Newsround”. The BBC continues to be an integral part of the life of almost every single person in this country, and undoubtedly every person in your Lordships’ House.

It is not possible to talk about the BBC without acknowledging the people at the heart of it and, particularly in relation to BBC News, the incredible work of BBC journalists across the country and around the world. Their tireless work enables stories to be told that would otherwise not be heard, and many BBC staff put themselves in danger in order to report fearlessly from around the world. In particular, as the Secretary of State said yesterday in the other place and as the noble Lord referenced in his remarks, the World Service is a light on the hill for people in times of darkness. We undervalue the BBC at our peril. That is why this Government will ensure that the BBC remains fiercely independent and is genuinely accountable to the public and people it serves.

I will now endeavour to answer the points raised by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. I start by welcoming the tone of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and his clear commitment to preserving the BBC, but also to holding it to account. In relation to his question about the appointment of the director-general, that is a matter for the board. I am sure it is considering whether it should keep the role as it stands, but this can also be part of the governance consideration that will be looked at in the charter review, which I will come on to in a moment.

With respect to the lawsuit threatened by the President of the United States, the BBC has confirmed that it has received a letter from President Trump’s legal team. Lawyers for the BBC are now dealing with this. It would not be appropriate for me to comment or speculate on this point. The chair’s letter on Monday made it very clear that the “Panorama” edit of President Trump’s speech gave the impression of a direct call for violent action, and it included an apology for that error of judgment. As a Government, our commitment to an independent, impartial and empowered BBC is unwavering.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, raised the potential consolidation of public service broadcasters. It is clear that the TV market is transforming, so we are asking the CMA and Ofcom to look at how that could impact their work. At the heart of our views on this, though, we support public service broadcasters, particularly because we believe that they benefit audiences and their sustainability—however, I cannot read my own writing, as I was scribbling, so apologies if that was a bit garbled.

In relation to other topics, the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, named Robbie Gibb. I have no doubt that noble Lords will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on individuals. The Culture Secretary has been speaking regularly to the chair of the BBC board to ensure that he and the board, as a whole, are in the best possible place to lead the BBC forward. As the Culture Secretary made clear yesterday in the other place, the charter sets a strict legal threshold that must be met before dismissal of a board member, so she is unable to pursue that course of action.

In relation to questions around the timing and content of the charter review, raised by both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, the review will consider how best to ensure that the BBC continues to deliver the high standards of reporting that the public expect, so that it does not just survive but actually thrives for decades to come. As the Secretary of State said yesterday, we will publish a Green Paper and consultation shortly. I am not going to go further than that, as I am sure your Lordships might anticipate, but I understand that “shortly” does indeed mean shortly. I look forward to future debates on this in your Lordships’ House.

I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for the points that they have raised this afternoon. I conclude, however, by reiterating the Government’s view on the BBC, which is that it is an institution of national importance and one that we will protect. We fail to protect it at our collective peril.

Arts Sector

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My right honourable friend the Culture Secretary will be providing a full Statement in the other place on this matter today. The BBC has issued a statement acknowledging that it should have pulled the stream during the performance and regrets that this did not happen. I share the noble Lord’s sentiments. I found the whole thing appalling—and terrifying, to be honest, that this could happen in our country. Avon and Somerset Police has already confirmed that it is looking into what happened.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Lowry in Salford, which has a successful public-private mixed economy model, as mentioned by the noble Earl, but this depends on our relationship with subsidised national organisations. The National Theatre’s “Dear England” is currently being performed across our stages thanks to that. We are lucky. Recent cuts to London-based national organisations have led across the board to the reduction, indeed jettisoning, of touring. Does the Minister recognise that the creative industries growth plan must focus on collaboration, and that both regional and national organisations must be properly funded for this to continue to be so rich?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is clear that, when she talks about “arts everywhere”, this genuinely means that every part of the country should have access to arts and theatre not just here in London but around the country. I can reassure the noble Baroness that this principle is at the heart of our plans.

Media Bill

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Thursday 23rd May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

I say sorry to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for going back to being political. But I say to the noble Lord, Lord Watts, that I used to work at the BBC and guess what? Jeremy Paxman and Nick Robinson are also Tories.

Anyway, this is such an important Bill that I will come back to. As I said in Committee, the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, ensure that while we both update and future-proof our incredibly invaluable broadcasting media, we do not lose the principles that have made it so unique and internationally renowned. We get, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said, a better balance: in particular, the reinstatement to the Communications Act of the Reithian principles of inform, educate and entertain. At Second Reading, the Minister referred to addressing the concerns of the DCMS Committee report in its pre-legislative scrutiny. The report recommended that the Government retained obligations on PSBs to provide specific genres of content, and the Bill does not. I hope the Minister has considered these concerns as set out in these amendments, which have had support from around the House.

There is a need to enshrine Reithian principles. On the “educate” principle, it is so important for our children today to come together outside the echo chamber that is social media. So many here have supported the matters on which my noble friend Lady Benjamin spoke. With regard to the “entertain” principle, the PSBs, led by the BBC, support and stimulate cultural activity and reflect our nations. They support our creative industries through innovation, skills and training although, as I mentioned in Committee, work still needs to be done on diversity. As for the “inform” principle, PSBs remain essential to UK media, and losing them would leave UK society and democracy worse off.

It is also essential, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, and my noble friend Lord McNally mentioned on Amendment 6, that programmes are commissioned from and made across the UK. In Committee, I argued that the change to Channel 4’s remit potentially undermines this. I did not get much support, but I still stand by that argument.

My noble friend Lord Addington eloquently and persuasively argued to update access to listed events, particularly for clips and excerpts. I return to the words of my noble friend whom I call Baroness Flo—who cannot listen to her and accept what she says and argues for? I point out to the Minister that all she is asking for is a review.

This Bill is much needed. I welcome it. With more time, it could have been even better, but I hope that the Minister agrees to the amendments and makes it as good as possible.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Minister knows, we are keen that the Bill should be on the statute book, as is the whole of the media world, which has been telling us, even as late as today, “Please, can you make sure that it goes through?” These Benches certainly support that.

It a shame that we have not had more time on the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, just said, there is a lot of consensus across the House about how it might have been improved, but I hope that the Minister gives us some comfort about the amendments in this group.

We strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, in her amendments about Reithian principles and education, as we did recently in Committee. We are also keen to support those amendments which concern children, one of which is my own. We thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, made a very powerful point in Committee and even more so today. The request for a review is a modest one and, if the Minister is not able to accept this amendment, I would hope that we can persuade Ofcom that it needs to do this. As the regulator in this world, it needs to take some responsibility and do this review. I therefore hope, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, that somebody is listening out there in Ofcom who might do something helpful with this.

I hope that the Minister will address the issues in my amendment, which seeks to ask Ofcom to ensure that minimum standards for age rating are adhered to. That is not to say that it should use a particular method or providers, but there should be some minimum standards, so that parents across the country understand the age ratings for the material that their children are watching. That is very straightforward and simple, and it should be part of Ofcom’s duties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)]

My Lords, as a relatively new Member of this House, I rise with great trepidation, following the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. As a new Member, I have noticed that every time I enter the Chamber with one view, when I hear his intellectually muscular contributions and his laser-beam legal brain, I usually end up leaving the Chamber with a different view. I do not think that is going to happen today.

I say to the noble Lord that criticisms were made of IPSO made in Committee yesterday. He may not think that they were legitimate or hold water, but they were closely felt. I am not going to criticise IPSO again in this debate, except possibly to add, as I tried to yesterday, to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that my criticisms of IPSO are about the institutional structure and the governance arrangements. They are nothing to do with the professionalism of the staff, whom I only hear excellent things about when they deal with individual cases. Also, as a former colleague of Sir Bill Jeffrey, I understand that he is as intellectually muscular as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and I am sure that he did a very independent review of IPSO.

My concerns today are why now, and why in this debate. On the circumstances that led to the creation of Section 40 in 2013, we had numerous Select Committee inquiries, and we had several criminal inquiries. We had independent journalism investigating criminal wrongdoing, and we had a judge-led public inquiry that did quite an unusual thing. It united both Houses and all political parties to draw a line in the sand and say, “We’re going to do something completely different—we’re going to find a way of holding tabloid media to account”. What we have been asked to do today, nearly nine years later, is to repeal Section 40 because we are being told that we have a legal framework and an independent set of governance rules, which means that we no longer need the Leveson recommendations.

What we are not being told is what we know now that we did not know in 2013 when, with great urgency because there was great public concern, we decided that we needed to act. We actually know that there was much more criminal wrongdoing, that it lasted longer, and that it was not for just a few years but nearly a decade. We also know that Parliament was misled, that members of the DCMS Select Committee who were investigating criminal phone hacking were the subject of intense media criticism—some covertly surveilled by private investigators working for News International. We know that they were lied to. The “one rogue reporter” defence was held for numerous years, but there was actually a corporate consciousness that this was not true in 2005. We also know, because we have seen the criminal case and conviction of Mazher Mahmood, the “fake sheikh” in 2016, that people were framed. Celebrities and people in the public eye were accused of crimes and set up to sell stories. As far as I can see, there has been very little contrition from the newspaper groups that were responsible for that.

I really could go on and on about the wrongdoing, the deceit, the lies, the criminal behaviour and the constant intimidation, but I truly think that everyone, wherever they stand in this debate, already knows about those.

Earlier, the Minister cited Bruce Springsteen, and I was very disappointed when he did that because I was supposed to have lunch with him today. I decided it was better to stay here to try to convince him, at this 11th hour, of the errors of his ways. I know he may be “born to run”, but I feel like “we are dancing in the dark”, as we have so often in this debate. I want to convince him of the merits of these three amendments in this little basket of discussions, and—who knows?—we may even have “glory days” together, whatever the outcome of the general election.

There are some principal reasons why this clause should be opposed. First, there is a convention that controversial policy should not be rushed through in the wash-up. We have done it before and came to regret it—I mention the Gambling Act 2005.

Secondly, when it comes to media reform, we must be incredibly transparent. The public need to understand that, if we are going to concede to media barons—and let us not deny that this is what this represents—we need to be seen to do the right thing. In trying to railroad all these amendments through in an afternoon, on the day after the announcement of a general election, you cannot make the case that this is anything other than a venal deal.

Thirdly, perhaps more importantly, I believe very strongly that, wherever you sit on the ideological spectrum, whenever we talk about regulation—this is a highly regulated market—people always tell me that when you regulate things you have to be worried about the consequences of your decisions because they are very hard to map out. We appear to be dropping the creation of a new regulator for that reason when it comes to football, and I do not understand why we are interfering with a regulated market in wash-up.

There are some principal reasons why it is time that we took a pause, and what we have is either a concession that could unite us or an argument that says let us not deal with Clause 50 in the wash-up of a general election; let us pause and come back to it, whoever wins that election.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

We on these Benches are in favour of these amendments and think we should proceed now.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I would like to add something to the constitutional points which were made by my noble friend Lord Lipsey. The appropriateness of dealing with this issue in wash-up is clearly in contention. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, said yesterday that the abolition of Section 40 is a clear commitment of the 2019 Conservative Party manifesto. I am afraid it is not clear: the sentence starts by saying that but it then sets conditions. It provides additional text that confuses the issue, and raises issues which were dealt with in yesterday’s debate. I have read yesterday’s debate and clearly questions have been raised about the accuracy of the information in that particular quote from the manifesto—I see the Minister disagrees. Claiming that it is clear is incorrect.

The second issue arises from the Salisbury convention about manifesto commitments. It is quite clear that this cannot be an essential commitment because the Government have had more than four years to deal with the matter, and they failed to do so. Bringing it up in the wash-up period is an insult to this House and an exploitation of the arrangements which have been made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Yes, I feel very clean at the end of it—thoroughly washed.

I am grateful to noble Lords who have given this Bill considerable scrutiny in pre-legislative scrutiny and during our debates on Second Reading and in Committee. As I have said throughout, it has been amended through the pre-legislative scrutiny it received. I am glad that we have been able to reflect some of our debate in Committee and amend it further. I am grateful to noble Lords for their understanding and recognition of the great support and demand that it has from the media sector, which we all cherish and which we know will play its very important part in the election campaign that is now under way. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, on the Benches opposite and the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, and her noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, who spoke from the Front Bench for the Lib Dems. However, noble Lords from across the House have given it robust scrutiny, including today in this swifter form.

I will briefly pay tribute to my honourable friend Julia Lopez, the Minister for Media, Tourism and the Creative Industries in another place, and indeed to my right honourable friend Sir John Whittingdale, who covered her maternity leave for parts of the Bill. They have both played an important part in it. I thank my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston, who chairs your Lordships’ Communications and Digital Committee and has given careful consideration to this Bill and, with other members of her committee, to many of the other issues that are related to it.

I have already had the opportunity to thank the Bill team, but I repeat my thanks. They have worked particularly hard in the last 24 hours, but this is the culmination of many years’ work since the Bill was first produced in draft form and laid for pre-legislative scrutiny. I am delighted that their hard work means that we will be able to send it on its way to the statute book. It is perhaps appropriate to finish with some words from Bruce Springsteen: “Come on, let’s go tonight”.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

I have not had the chance to say my thanks and I want to thank the Minister. Apart from anything else, his sense of humour throughout this has been really helpful and refreshing. His genuine passion for the DCMS has also really come through. As I said earlier, I wish this could have gone on longer. I suspect we could have got some more concessions through him. I also thank my friends on the Labour Benches and those on the Cross Benches, although they have gone. This has been a very collegiate event. Of course, I thank everyone on my Benches, although they seem not to be here—well, one of them seems to be here, and of course my noble friend Lord Addington.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

Who is this Bruce Springsteen that everybody has been talking about?

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

Yes, there was one little thing I wondered. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, said that he was going to have lunch. For a moment, I thought it was with Bruce Springsteen.

[Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)]

Yes, it was.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

You were not—oh, my goodness. Anyway, as I was saying, I thank everyone, including the Government for making the Bill happen. It is hugely important for our public service broadcasters. That is enough of my thanks and I have not cried.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I sort of gave my thanks yesterday, as I was not really sure what we would be doing today—and I was not alone. I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, again for his courtesy. We are extraordinarily grateful for the two amendments that he accepted, which my noble friend Lady Thornton and I were very keen to see inserted in the Bill, along with others in your Lordships’ House.

It is always a joy to work with the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, and—from the far reaches of the back of the Lib Dem Benches—it is now an even greater pleasure to work with the noble Lord, Lord McNally. Actually, I have an anecdote about death and buses, which I am quite determined to tell, now I think about it. There is a custom in Brighton for its buses to have put on their side or their front the names of well-known local personalities who have, sadly, deceased. So well-known was the lead local government correspondent of the Argus that the bus company decided that he had died, so they put his name on the front of the bus—only to discover that he wrote a column the following week saying, “No, actually, I’m still here. You’ll have to wait”.

I thank our back office team, including Clare Scally and Grace Wright, for the work they did in making sure my noble friend Lady Thornton and I spoke words that were reasonably sensible, sane and well-researched from the Dispatch Box. I have already thanked the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, for her contribution, and I do again. Today’s debate—passionate as ever—was focused well on an important and contentious subject. It is one that no doubt the House will return to in different guises in the future. I thank my noble friends Lord Watson and Lord Watts for their contributions. Their views are important.

With that, we wish the Bill well, as it is important. Broadcasters have been buzzing me on my email and message system, as they have been to other noble Lords, to encourage us to get this Bill over the line because it is terribly important for the future of public service broadcasting. We all want to get this right, because it is an important element of our democratic process. We know that it is a business and industry of excellence that we wish to support. With that said, I wish the Bill well on its way.

Media Bill

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 20th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 46 and 47 are in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter. We had a bit of a knock-around on “prominence” at Second Reading—was it “appropriate”, “significant” or, as the right reverend Prelate ventured, neither? Indeed, he was right; the word itself should be enough, for the Oxford English dictionary defines it as

“the state of being important, well known, or easy to notice”.

We want the PSBs, on any screen that offers choices between PSBs and streamers, to be important, well-known, and very easy to notice. It is vital, as commercial operators do not always want us to choose the PSB, because their gods are commercial. As we know, things can get very small and difficult on-screen when customers choosing it means less income—think about how hard it is to find that tiny “unsubscribe” notice when we want to get out of emails from some commercial arrangement we no longer want. It is not in commercial entities’ interests to make life easy for us; that is why we have to mandate and prescribe “prominence”. We on these Benches do not believe it is sufficient to leave it to Ofcom to define. I have heard the arguments about “appropriate” being perfectly adequate, and we beg to disagree.

For clarity, I am trying to get across that we on these Benches believe that prominence must be defined in legislation to guide Ofcom, and not be left open-ended for it. That definition should be crystal clear: that in every and any situation where channel choice is being offered, the PSB logo or whatever should be of equal or greater prominence to any other choice offered on the electronic programme guides.

The dangers of not specifying what prominence means or seeks to achieve in the Bill could include a loss of funding. PSBs often rely on public funding or subsidies to fulfil their mandate of providing programming that serves the public interest; without prominence, they may struggle to attract viewership and advertising revenue, leading to financial difficulties that could jeopardise their ability to produce the sort of high-quality content we want them to. PSBs may find it challenging to reach a wide audience, particularly in a crowded media landscape where viewers have numerous options for their entertainment; that could lead to a decline in their influence and relevance, making it harder for them to fulfil their role as a source of impartial news, educational programming and cultural content.

The public service mandate could be undermined, as PSBs are tasked with providing programming that serves the public interest, including news, current affairs and educational content. Without prominence, they may struggle, and their content may be overshadowed by commercial broadcasters or streaming services prioritising profit. It could also be a threat to media diversity and cause a loss of trust and accountability. Lastly, if public service broadcasters are not given prominence in a democratic society, there are issues around this that could arise: an erosion of media pluralism, a threat to freedom of information, diminished public discourse, a loss of accountability, and the undermining of democratic values, social cohesion, education and lifelong learning, and cultural preservation.

As this is a probing amendment, I encourage the Minister to think about bringing back his own amendment as an instruction to Ofcom in dealing with prominence, to say that, however it writes it regulations, PSBs must have equal or greater prominence than any other offer on the screen.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, summing up from these Benches on the amendments in this group, I congratulate those who have spoken, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. It crossed my mind as I was about to stand up that on the first day in Committee I was congratulating and following a prima ballerina and today it is an Olympian—which rather reduces my sense of myself. I am sure the Minister will agree that it is a remarkable example of what the Department for Culture, Media and Sport produces that we have as great legislators these great sportsmen and artists.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, I endorse everything that the noble Baroness has said apart from the language point. Why is “significant” an improvement on “appropriate”, when neither of them are defined? “Significant” has to mean significant of something—we might think that it just means “a lot”, but it does not. It is as meaningless as “appropriate”, indefinable and cannot be quantified.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

To my mind, “significant” is very different from “appropriate”, which is a wishy-washy, woolly term, whereas “significant” is a specific term.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, it is not. If we went around the room and asked, “Please quantify it, or tell us what it means”, I think we would—

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

What word would the right reverend Prelate use?

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

I have struggled with it, but “substantial” or “substantive” might get us somewhere, rather than something that does not actually mean anything. The General Synod of the Church of England has a similar problem; it put “collegiate” in some recent legislation when it meant “collegial”—it had nothing to do with colleges. I worry about putting things in legislation that cannot be defined.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 31 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest that I was a TV journalist and executive and worked for the BBC and ITV and made programmes for Channel 4.

We on these Benches are pleased that this Government’s attempt to privatise Channel 4 failed. However, one of the conditions of that attempt, removing its publisher-broadcasting status and allowing it to make its own programmes, has made it into this Bill as Clause 31, which we oppose.

As has been pointed out often to the Minister from these Benches, Channel 4 was created in 1982 by a Government led by Margaret Thatcher. Channel 4 certainly succeeded in fulfilling her business and economic philosophy, in that our world-beating independent production sector owes a huge debt to its creation. As for whether Mrs Thatcher was quite so happy with its creative content, I suspect not.

Channel 4 was conceived as a publisher-broadcaster, not like the BBC/ITV duopoly which existed at that time and made its own programmes in its own studios, but commissioning entirely from what was then a small and innovative band of producers. As a consequence, the television industry in this country diversified as it provided new and exciting opportunities to creative entrepreneurs throughout the UK. In the TV world, it empowered and nurtured small independent producers and start-ups—the companies we were talking about in our first debate today. It played a pivotal role in driving the growth, competitiveness and creative diversity of UK indies. These companies were one of the UK creative industries’ greatest success stories.

Channel 4 invests a greater proportion of its revenue in independent UK commissions than any other PSB or commercial broadcaster, and its publisher-broadcaster status has also meant that Channel 4’s commercial revenues are reinvested in UK content production. As well as being the incubator of our thriving independent production sector, Channel 4 is also the broadcaster of “Channel 4 News”. One hour of in-depth news and current affairs at the heart of peak time on a commercial channel is unheard of anywhere else.

And then, of course, there is its pioneering coverage of the Paralympics. I believe that Channel 4’s championing of this event has led to a worldwide change in the attitude towards disability—a view confirmed by Dame Sarah Storey on Radio 4’s “Desert Island Discs” this weekend about her experience at the Beijing Olympics. She revisited Beijing a year after the Olympics and went to a disabled sports club where she was told that the transformation in the way the disabled were treated in Chinese society was immeasurable.

Due to its expansion of digital channels, Channel 4’s viewing demographic is young and diverse. We believe the cost of establishing a new in-house production outfit would disrupt its business plan—these things that it has achieved—and take money away from commissioning from others.

I do not think we should change Channel 4. It was conceived for a reason: to grow the UK independent TV sector and to represent the voice of minorities. It has done that spectacularly. Channel 4 is a vital part of our creative economy, providing invaluable support to smaller independent production companies throughout the nations and regions, although, as mentioned earlier, this needs to be underpinned. It is a platform for exciting new programming, quality news and current affairs, and pioneering coverage of the Paralympics. Why change its remit?

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

My Lords, I too oppose Clause 31. Channel 4—what a brilliant initiative, how extraordinary, and what a success. It is a cauldron of innovative and original talent, fundamental to our brilliant, creative country, providing a stream of talent for use by all the others, streaming, literally, into our country. It was created to foster competition and innovation in the broadcast sector, and it did. The approach allowed independent production companies to compete for contracts to create programmes rather than relying on in-house production by the channel itself—an approach the Government now seem to want it to adopt. In that independence, it still had to maintain high editorial standards, ensuring accuracy and impartiality and fairness. It had to reflect the diversity of the United Kingdom and to fulfil certain public service obligations to educate, inform and entertain with social responsibility. That model, rather than an in-house production facility and staff, enabled Channel 4 to operate efficiently.

Of course there are challenges. Channel 4 itself had become a bit reliant on production companies that have now grown big, but it is a cauldron of creative opportunity. Right now it is not having the easiest of times, but if it was producing in-house, cuts would be swingeing and challenging. As a commissioning body, it can better cut its cloth to meet the vagaries and ups and downs of its and our economy.

If the Government’s desired change were to take place, it would reduce the opportunities for independent producers, impacting the diversity and range of voices represented. It would risk creative stagnation. It would have financial implications and require investment in additional production facilities, staff and resources at a time when it is cash poor. And any shift in its programming strategy would impact its ability to attract and retain audiences. There would also be an impact on the independent production sector if this significant source of commissioning independent production companies were to be reduced, particularly the smaller ones and the ones producing risky and innovative content.

Media Bill

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 8th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 32, to which I have added my name. The noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, has made an excellent case—I am not sure that I need to speak, but I am going to regardless—for the longer retention of this significant broadcasting platform, which serves millions of households and is a vital lifeline for the many who will become members of the digitally excluded if there is no extension to the current regime. According to statistics from Ofcom, in 2021, around 7% of United Kingdom households relied solely on DTT for their television viewing, and it is currently accessible to 98.5% of the population—pretty much everyone. If and when this goes ahead, those who rely on DTT and cannot for whatever reason—whether it is poverty or otherwise—transition to satellite, cable or internet-based services will be cut off, and the people in that position will obviously be the most vulnerable or poorest.

Television plays a central role in the lives of many people, including me; I love television. It provides entertainment and information, as well as a sense of shared experience and companionship. For those who are not tech savvy or have no access to alternative forms of television, it will be devastating. Transitioning to those alternatives is expensive. Potential upfront costs for equipment such as satellite dishes, set-top boxes and smart TVs for households on limited budgets will be unaffordable. We will be looking at an increase in social isolation and loneliness and loss of mental stimulation and cognitive function, as well as loss of emotional well-being and stress relief. There will be a cessation of access to information and news and physical health impacts.

I assume that this is a probing amendment at this point. I hope that the Minister will agree to extend the deadline for the termination of DTT but will also say something about financial or other support for those who are literally dependent on DTT and who will be adversely affected by its termination should the Government not be swayed by the amendments.

The ending of DTT would also have implications for the broadcasting industry. Distribution strategies will need to change. There will probably be a need to renegotiate contracts with distribution partners and to invest in new technology to deliver content over alternative channels. There may be a loss of advertising revenue; costs to consumers for subscription fees to alternative services; equipment and infrastructure costs for both consumers and suppliers; and an economic impact on related industries, because the broadcasting industry is interconnected with various other sectors of the economy, including advertising, content production and technology manufacturing. Losing DTT will have ripple effects throughout those industries, leading to job losses, reduced investment and decreased economic activity.

We will also see the exacerbation of the digital divide, as so well documented, as the noble Baroness said, in the Communications and Digital Committee’s report, Digital Exclusion. There will be increasing disparities in access to television services between different socioeconomic groups. While urban areas may have access to a wide range of alternative services, rural and remote areas will have limited choices and poorer quality of service, which would further marginalise communities that already face barriers to accessing digital technology.

Further, DTT plays a critical role in emergency broadcasting, warnings to the public and so on. Having just gone through the Covid experience, we know how important that is. The loss of DTT could compromise the effectiveness of emergency broadcasting systems, particularly for individuals who rely solely on over-the-air broadcasting. The loss of DTT, which supports public service broadcasting, could also diminish the availability of programming that serves the public interest—we heard how vital that is in our earlier debate on the first group of amendments—including educational content, cultural programming and programming for minority audiences. It could also reduce diversity in the media landscape, particularly if alternative platforms prioritise commercial interest over public service obligations, which I fear may be the case.

The Broadcast 2040+ campaign, as has been mentioned, is fighting this corner and has two core messages to deliver to the Government. The first is that broadcast services are relied on by millions of people and must be protected, and the second is that the Government must act now to safeguard these vital national assets for the long term, into the 2040s and beyond. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to address the issues that I have raised, and I look forward to his response.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

I was going to speak to these amendments, but they have been so comprehensively covered by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Fraser, and my noble friend Lady Featherstone that I will just say that I support the amendments and I hope that the Minister has listened and will respond positively.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her brevity. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses who have taken part in this debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for tabling Amendment 13, which has facilitated an important debate about the provision of linear TV by our public service broadcasters. That is an important aspect of a wider debate about the future of the UK’s television distribution infrastructure.

With regard to linear television, in bringing forward this Bill, we have looked to strike a careful balance between allowing the public service broadcasters to deliver their content more flexibly and ensuring that this continues to suit the needs of audiences across the UK. Indeed, new Section 264(4)(a) of the Communications Act, introduced by Clause 1 of the Bill, requires that, for the remit to be fulfilled, the public service broadcasters must make available content in a manner that satisfies

“as many … audiences as practicable”.

I am glad to say there is an existing requirement on public service broadcasters to deliver a linear service, and they must use this, at a minimum, to deliver their news and current affairs quotas. This is a requirement in primary legislation, which Ofcom is required to report on and enforce. In sum, we know that many viewers still want to receive linear television—for example, over digital terrestrial television, satellite or on a hybrid TV—and the public service broadcasters are required to meet this need. I hope that what I have said today has reassured the noble Baroness that adequate protections for linear television are already in place, and that her Amendment 13 is not needed.

As for Amendment 32, from my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, I know that she has had the opportunity to discuss some aspects of the Bill with my honourable friend Julia Lopez, the Minister in another place, and I am grateful for her engagement on this issue. I know that she and other noble Lords are as keen as we are to ensure that our television distribution infrastructure continues to serve audiences across the UK. Her amendment looks to protect the future of digital terrestrial television, or DTT, the technology that underpins the popular Freeview platform. I am glad to reassure her and other noble Lords that the Government remain committed to the future of DTT. We know that millions of households across the UK rely on it, and we expect that situation to continue over the next decade. That is why we have legislated to secure the continuity of this infrastructure until at least 2034, as she mentioned.

I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and others that this legislative commitment does not mean that DTT will automatically cease in 2034. The framework that supports its provision is set out in law, so even if nothing were done, Ofcom would still be able to re-advertise the multiplex licences, and our public service broadcasters would still be required to continue distributing linear channels over digital terrestrial television. In fact, to turn off DTT, there would need to be specific primary legislation; for example, to revoke the multiplexing regime. Should the Government of the day—who may still be us in 10 years’ time, or who may be somebody else—seek to bring forward such legislation, I have no doubt that your Lordships’ House would want to provide robust scrutiny of it. Given that legal position, my noble friend’s Amendment 32 would have limited effect, but I appreciate that it is also focused more broadly on ensuring that audiences across the UK remain protected and covered, and I am glad to say that that is our focus too.

To ensure that we continue to put audiences at the heart of policy in this area, of course we need to understand how their preferences are changing over time, because as many more people choose to watch some or all of their television online, and as the connectivity that allows them to do so gets better over time, the economic and public policy rationale for supporting DTT changes. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced last year a project to consider the future of TV distribution, and it is why, just this morning, my honourable friend the Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries, Julia Lopez, used a speech at the Digital Television Group’s annual summit to provide an update on the progress of this project, including sharing some of the early outputs of the independent research project we commissioned. I will be very happy to share a copy of my honourable friend’s speech if noble Lords would like to see it.

This project is taking a broad approach and must be allowed to consider all possible options for the future of broadcasting in the UK. For in this situation, even a decision to maintain the status quo would, in the context of changing viewership, have quite serious consequences. Audiences are at the heart of this project and, as Julia Lopez announced this morning, we will be launching a new project to engage viewers and make sure that we understand their perspectives. We have also commissioned a six-month independent research project from a consortium led by academics from the University of Exeter. We hope to be able to publish this research in the coming weeks, to help inform this important and continuing debate.

By taking the time to complete this project before making legislative changes, and working with world-class researchers in this way, we will be able to make an evidence-based assessment of what will best serve audiences across the UK, now and in the future. I hope that, on the basis of those reassurances, my noble friend will feel able not to press her amendment, but I know she will continue to maintain her scrutiny of this area of the Bill, not least through her work on your Lordships’ committee, as she mentioned.

Media Bill

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 8th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 33 in my name. I start by apologising for not being able to speak at Second Reading.

Despite good will, good intention and lots of work by activists, the UK’s creative and cultural workforce still does not reflect the diversity of the UK population. Ofcom already undertakes monitoring for PSBs in this area, and this amendment updates the legislative framework accordingly to ensure that this continues. Its own report on diversity and inclusion in broadcasting, published last year, notes that well-intentioned policies are not always actioned. It also draws attention to the fact that there is often a lack of diversity at senior management level in broadcasting organisations across the board. If PSBs are to represent all sectors of the UK’s population, then the workforce should be representative at every level.

Speaking as someone who comes from a television background, I know that diversity is not just about on-screen representation, but those behind the scenes: researchers, technicians, producers, directors, commissioners, and director-generals—there has not been a single woman or person of colour yet in 100 years. Women and people from minority ethnic groups and those with disability,

“remain underrepresented at senior management level: in TV 42% and in radio 36% of senior managers are women, while in TV 13% and in radio 7% are from minority ethnic groups”.

These figures matter, not just because a diverse senior management demonstrates to the workforce a real commitment to diversity at every level, but because a senior management team dictates the culture and practice of the organisations that they run. The more diverse that team, the more it will understand and promote diverse values in their workforce and diversity on-screen.

Despite the positive fact that a higher proportion of people from underrepresented groups are being recruited, broadcasters continue to struggle to retain these staff, with women, disabled workers and people from minority ethnic backgrounds leaving in disproportionate numbers. Ofcom itself has recognised that those broadcasters

“with advanced data collection practices tend to have more representative workforces”.

This amendment will further empower it to specify what kinds of data companies should be required to monitor and publish.

I turn to the other amendments in this group. From these Benches, I congratulate all who have already spoken and the Government on bringing this Bill forward. It is much-needed, and I welcome it, with the caveats already addressed today.

The Government talk about streamlining and simplification. There are advantages to this approach—all of us dealing with bureaucracy and form-filling know that—but there can be oversimplification, and this is what has happened here. These amendments are to ensure that, while we both update and future-proof our incredibly valuable broadcasting media, we do not lose the principles that have made it so unique and internationally renowned. They address the need, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds said, for specific genres; I know we will come on to that in greater detail. In particular, they reinstate the Reithian principles—to inform, educate and entertain.

The wording in the Bill as drafted limits the definition of the public service remit and fails to capture the full range of objectives and benefits currently delivered by the PSB system, as well as dismissing what has been a founding principle of public service broadcasting in the UK for more than 100 years, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, mentioned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I offer Green support for Amendment 9, which I think has already been very powerfully argued for. I also note the degree of lobbying, from the Citizens’ PSM Forum, already referred to, but also a number of other groups and individuals who have contacted me about this, indicating that they regard this as terribly important.

I will focus on science, because I think that science broadcasting, in terms of socially valued public service genres, really deserves to be stressed. This picks up points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on the first group, in the context of our climate emergency and all the other exceeding of planetary boundaries threats that we face. I am speaking in the context where today’s Guardian reports that a survey of IPCC scientists notes that the majority view is that we are heading towards 2.5 degrees of global heating. I remain an optimist and I do not necessarily agree with that—it is a question of social innovation and change—but what is clearly crucial is that the public sector broadcasters provide the scientific information and context that the public need to understand the debates and the issues.

I declare my position here as a science graduate from 1987. Much of what I was taught in my science degree I now know to be utterly out of date. One thing that may not apply to the other aspects of this—certainly to the first point here—is that science changes with lightning speed. Most of what I was taught in soil science I can now regard only as absolute junk. Much of what I was taught in genetics has been utterly overturned. If we are to have a public who are informed about these really crucial issues, science programming can be difficult, controversial and very expensive but it is crucial that there is a remit in the Bill that we need this from our public sector broadcasters.

Personally, I try to keep up to date with a whole range of podcasts. I can recommend to noble Lords “Big Biology” or the New Books Network “Systems and Cybernetics” channel, but they are not necessarily terribly accessible and it is really important that we have public sector broadcasters providing the content that informs the public on scientific issues.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, I too have added my name to Amendment 9. As the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, said, a clear definition of the genres, rather than the vague “appropriate”, is necessary to ensure commissioning from the PSBs across a full range of programmes and proper oversight from Ofcom. As my noble friend Lord Foster mentioned, the Minister said earlier that the Bill has not removed Section 358 of the Communications Act, which requires Ofcom to collect information on principal genres, but it does not define what these genres are, so we return to the essential fact that, if not specified, Ofcom will not be required to monitor this crucial content in quantitative terms.

Specifying genres provides guarantees for a future we cannot predict. It does not take a lot of imagination to envisage the slippery slope. With the genres gone, there are two likely consequences. First, the commercial PSBs will seek to diminish their commitment and will lobby accordingly, exactly as ITV did with regional current affairs programmes. Secondly, Ofcom will have less discretion to hold them to account if it is under no obligation to monitor individual genres.

I return to the pre-legislative DCMS Committee report and to what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said so forcefully, that removing the requirement on commercial PSBs to provide specific genres for UK children’s content

“led to significant reductions in the production of original children’s TV, and we are concerned that the draft Media Bill’s removal of the specific reference to other genres will lead to similar reductions in content, particularly in the less commercially successful areas”.

That is from the committee’s report, but we all agree on it, I think.

I have one rather off-the-wall question, having listened to the very interesting debate about language: can we please find another word instead of “genre”? Maybe there is a Welsh, Gaelic or Cornish word that we could use instead.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, if I may contribute briefly to this debate, I would not go as far as saying that I support the amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, but I think it raises some interesting questions. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, about the role of Parliament in making clear its expectations of Ofcom in discharging its responsibilities in regulating broadcasters is an important one and I will be very interested to hear more from my noble friend about the Government’s position on that.

One of my concerns more generally—I have raised it in the context of other Bills—is how we as parliamentarians can do our job properly in overseeing and properly holding regulators to account for the powers and responsibilities we give them through legislation. What the amendment really does, for me, is expose what I see as quite a strategic challenge, and I will be interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister says about this, because I find it a bit of a dilemma. On one hand, the vaguer the obligations on the public service broadcasters become, the harder it is to argue for the privileges they enjoy as public service broadcasters; on the other hand and by the same token, the more prescriptive the obligations on them are, the harder it becomes for them to compete in the modern media world. It gets to the heart of quite a dilemma. On that basis, I am very keen to listen to my noble friend, because I find this one of the knottiest and most difficult things to come to a hard and confident position on, in terms of the questions it raises. I look forward to what my noble friend says.

News Broadcasting: Regulation

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and to sincerely thank him for the work that he does in attempting to provide some clarity and oversight, which is very obviously and urgently needed, coming from a civil society perspective. To reflect on the noble Lord’s speech, the rate of change and the difficulty of regulation highlights the need for us to have education on media literacy and critical thinking. The public need to have the tools; young people going through our education system need to look at something and see where it is coming from and understand it from a critical perspective. It is important that we stress that.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for securing this debate on such an important subject. I declare my position as a former newspaper editor with the Guardian Weekly; I also worked for the Times, the Independent and the Telegraph. I just want to mention that, unfortunately, I was not able to take part in the Second Reading of the Media Bill, but I plan to take part in the further stages. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, I have also taken part in Times Radio’s “Political Frenemies”, along with the noble Lord, Randall of Uxbridge, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. That is the kind of case where you can get politicians talking with a neutral adjudicator in the middle, which is very different to politicians talking to each other. I mention to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, that there are more than two parties around if he wants to invite more parties on to his show.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

I am a third party.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Okay—the noble Baroness is a third party.

In preparing for today’s topic of debate, I looked back at a press release that I put out in 2012—a dozen years ago now—in immediate response to the Leveson report. Boy, there has been a lot of water under the bridge in our media since then. I said then that I welcomed what Leveson offered—most of it has not subsequently been delivered—and I criticised the report for its lack of tackling the issue of media ownership. We do not have the kind of plurality that we need—the kind of issues I addressed yesterday around overseas ownership, and in particular the ownership of the Telegraph. An issue there is whether and how mergers and acquisitions are referred, and that has not been dealt with.

I also want to come back to the rather fraught point of the potential for Leveson 2. My understanding is that in December, the Observer reported that Sir Keir Starmer was not intending to revive the second stage of the Leveson inquiry into press standards should he form the next Government—it was abandoned by the Conservative Party in 2018—nor would Labour oppose the plans to weaken the press regulation regime in the Media Bill. It is worth noting that under previous leaders, Labour was in favour of reviving the Leveson process. In May 2018, the former party leader, Ed Miliband, said that axing the second stage was “contemptible” and

“a matter of honour, of a promise we made”—[Official Report, Commons, 9/5/2018; col. 724.]

to the victims of phone hacking. I know that a lot of things have happened, and a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then. However, that scandal is still very much alive and present, as we saw recently in a court case.

It was suggested to me that this debate would be all about GB News; I will just take a minute on that. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that civil society campaigns, taking a stand, doing politics, HOPE not hate saying it thought that what GB News is doing was unacceptable and that brands might not want to be associated with it, are all part of the right of a free society for people to campaign and call for boycotts—that is another issue that we are tackling the Government on in another Bill. However, there are some serious questions that the Government must provide guidance to Ofcom on. Will Ofcom allow senior party officials to present election programmes as long as they are not candidates? Can a channel host party loyalists from only one side who deliver nightly polemics and try to direct the results of election campaigns? As a professional journalist myself, I can see that GB News has taken a pattern where, in the daytime it tends to be relatively straight and have ex-BBC presenters, but in the evening, when it is likely to have more impact, there is a very different tone. Therefore, when we are thinking about balance, surely Ofcom needs to look at the impact as well as just the content that is spread over 24 hours.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord McNally for this debate, and also for his role in the Communications Act 2003, when he and others, notably Lord Puttnam, paved the way for the last 20 years. I declare an interest; I was a TV journalist and an executive working for the PSBs—at the BBC, alongside the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, at ITV and at Channel 4. How lucky I was. How lucky the country is to have this cornucopia of public service broadcasting. Take Channel 4: the incubator of our independent production sector, but also the broadcaster of “Channel 4 News”—one hour of independent news and current affairs at the heart of peak time, giving us more choice of outstanding television journalism, all subject to the same standards of impartiality and accuracy as the BBC. An hour of peak-time news on a commercial channel: that is unheard of anywhere else.

A central part of the new regime 20 years ago was the introduction, as we have heard, of a new and powerful regulator, Ofcom. It was given a very clear duty to serve the interests of citizens as well as consumers. I can think of few more important elements of that duty than to uphold the rigorous traditions of impartial and accurate journalism that have served us so well for over 100 years. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, we are in a very different world from when Ofcom was established. I am glad that the Minister shares concerns about what should be in Ofcom’s regulatory scope in relation to online news channels, and that his department is consulting on the risk of unregulated content appearing on television. That is very timely, because of the Media Bill and also because TalkTV has decided to go online. Can the Minister say when we will be able to see the results of this consultation? Does he agree that there should be a level playing field with the Ofcom-regulated traditional broadcasters?

As my noble friend has said, as well as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, we have concerns about how Ofcom is dealing with GB News. A year ago, in advance of last year’s Budget, we saw two sitting Conservative MPs interview the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was not a challenging interview; it did not include a wide range of views. But it took Ofcom six months to decide that it breached impartiality rules. Timely investigation is very important, as is timely remedy—falsehood travels faster than the truth. And that case is not the only example of a tardy response from Ofcom. Does the Minister think Ofcom has the capacity to investigate such matters?

More worrying, as my noble friend mentioned. is when complaints are not even pursued. Last September, the then deputy chair of the Conservative Party, Lee Anderson, interviewed the then Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, about immigration. Ofcom received 1,500 complaints, but declined to pursue it. When asked by the Guardian last September about the propriety of a Conservative deputy chairman interviewing a Conservative Home Secretary, Ofcom’s CEO said that rules around impartiality

“require us to prioritise freedom of expression”.

But the idea that impartiality and free expression are somehow not compatible is wrong. The whole point of an impartiality regime is that it obliges channels to present all sides of any controversial public policy issue, so that citizens can make up their own minds after hearing a range of diverse opinions. Impartiality actually promotes plurality. Does the Minister think Ofcom’s current leadership understands this?

At a gathering of GB News staff pre launch, CEO Angelos Frangopoulos allegedly told them they were working not for a broadcaster but for a tech company—a disruptor. That is wrong. They should be regulated as any other broadcaster; there should not be a two-tier system. We saw the first disruptor, Rupert Murdoch, off. He wished Sky News was Fox News—something he told my noble friend Lord Fowler when I was sitting on his committee.

To conclude, more than ever we need news that can distance itself from the partisan. This is provided by the BBC and our other great PSB outlets. Others should not be allowed to act differently.

Arts

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Bragg—I hope I can say my noble friend Lord Bragg—for this debate. I draw attention to my interests as declared in the register.

All who have spoken, led so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, have expressed a clear sense of the true value of arts and culture, and of the creative industries they support. What is needed, as the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, said, is to ensure that this value is properly woven into government policy, and it is certainly not at the moment. The funding system for the arts is broken at central, local and Arts Council levels. Central Treasury funding for culture has seen a 40% reduction since 2008. Alongside this, local authorities have also been subject to a 40% real-terms reduction which means, due to the necessary prioritising of statutory responsibilities, that cuts have fallen disproportionately on arts organisations.

Supporting local culture is not a cost; it is an investment. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, I have jettisoned the figures I was going to express as he said that they were not to be listened to. Then there are the less tangible and less measurable contributions, as mentioned by my noble friends Lady Miller and Lady Bakewell. Engaging in culture enhances individuals’ lives, providing young people with opportunities to channel their creativity and energy. It combats loneliness and both physical and mental health issues, as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, so eloquently put it.

Many people need statutory services because they have been deprived of what makes them feel good, and of what the arts can provide. Cutting funding for the arts is a false economy, in every sense of the word. I cannot make a speech about the arts without mentioning Peter Bazalgette, the former chair of the Arts Council, who said:

“The arts create empathetic citizens, putting us through storytelling in the shoes of others, and is society’s glue, urging us to positive action”.


Witness “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, mentioned,

I am a trustee of the Lowry in Salford, a prime example of the important contribution that local culture makes to a community. Not so long ago, the Salford Quays was a place of derelict, disused docks. Now it is a thriving, creative hub. What was behind this regeneration? It was an artist who inspired a gallery, and a performing arts centre with a great building and with a mission to involve, include and inspire the local community. Most importantly, the city council had the foresight and commitment to support this vision. Over the years, the Lowry has forged almost 30 community partnerships across Salford and Greater Manchester, and has contributed a deep, diverse and long-lasting impact on local lives through educational volunteering and community-engagement programmes. Will the Minister please take note of the excellent LGA report Cornerstones of Culture, which recommends a return to local decision-making when shaping cultural provision?

The point about the importance of listening to local government and local institutions is exemplified by what happened in the latest Arts Council funding round. The Arts Council, set up by John Maynard Keynes—a very good Liberal and a very good economist—had, as its first priority, that while money for the arts came from the public purse, the independence of artists and arts organisations would be protected at all costs. As the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, so forcefully explained, this arm’s-length principle was destroyed by this Government when ACE was issued a directive by a recent Secretary of State to redistribute funding from London to the regions, as a part of the Government’s agenda for levelling up.

Let us go back to the Lowry. The National Theatre’s commitment to touring and the Lowry’s role as its home venue in the north-west have meant that local audiences have experienced some of the most celebrated theatre productions of the last 20 years. But what is happening now? Exactly what those who run provincial arts centres predicted. Deprived of resources, our national arts organisations have got rid of their touring commitments, so they will inevitably become more entrenched in their London bases. The result could not be further away from levelling up. Does the Minister not agree that it is essential we return to the arm’s-length principle?

As so many noble Lords have said, the arts must be returned to centre stage in our education system. STEM, not STEAM, has been the Conservative mantra, and as the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Wood, said, the Government persist in supporting the EBacc, ignoring the fact that there should not be a choice between arts and science. Interestingly, the DfE recently announced that James Dyson has made a £6 million donation to build a science, technology, engineering and arts centre in a school in Wiltshire. Note the inclusion of arts—he is supporting STEAM. It is curious that in celebrating this in her press release, the Secretary of State welcomes only that it is STEM. James Dyson was educated at the Royal College of Art before becoming one of our most successful inventors, success that lies in the fusion of his creative and technological skills.

To pick up on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, made about the Industrial Revolution, it was this very fusion that the Victorians understood. They had a Science and Art Department. I have just learned about Sir Humphry Davy, one of the most extraordinary scientific minds of that time, who discovered nine elements of the periodic table and was a pioneer in the field of electrolysis but also a poet. In his fascinating notebooks, his poetry and scientific explorations are all muddled together, influencing each other. He lived in a time when there was no dividing line between the arts and science. There still should not be. Does the Minister agree? On which point, will he let us know when the cultural education plan, the panel on which is chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, will be published, and will it have financial backing?

On the matter of skills, the creative industries are a world of freelancers, and in some sectors this is as high as 80%. However, the UK’s tax and social security framework is not set up to effectively support freelancers, which means that an alarming number of people are leaving the sector. It exacerbates inequalities in the industry, and in particular the loss of diverse talent. Does the Minister agree that what is needed is a freelance commissioner, as recommended by the Creative Diversity APPG, of which the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and I are both members?

Finally, there is the calamitous consequence of Brexit, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Garden and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. There have been issues with complicated paperwork, carnets, cabotage—new words—visas, and costs, costs, costs; music touring has gone up by 30% to 40%, and theatre by an average of 20%. Visual artists—not often heard—are also experiencing problems, as is fashion. It is all the same story: so much red tape involved in moving goods, in sales and exhibitions, and in the freedom of movement of people. Does the Minister agree with the noble Lord, Lord Frost, our chief Brexit negotiator, that his trade deal

“failed touring musicians and other artists by inflicting punishing costs and red tape”?

Like the noble Lords, Lord Bragg and Lord Kinnock, I despair of this Government, although not of the Minister. Whoever the next Government are, they need to be as bold as Keynes was in 1946 with the Arts Council; as bold as Jennie Lee in 1964, the first Minister for the Arts; as bold as John Major in 1992 with the Department of National Heritage and the first Cabinet post for an Arts Minister; and as bold as Chris Smith—now the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury—in 1997, with free museums and galleries. They need to stand up for the arts and culture, for all the reasons the many speakers in this debate have mentioned. We need joined-up education and skills development, the reopening of negotiations with the EU, and joined-up funding and a return to the arm’s-length principle.

John Maynard Keynes said:

“the work of the artist in all its aspects is, of its nature, individual and free, undisciplined, unregimented, uncontrolled … But he leads the rest of us into fresh pastures and teaches us to love and to enjoy what we often begin by rejecting, enlarging our sensibility and purifying our instincts”.

Long may the creative industry that is the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, lead us in debates such as this.

BBC: Funding

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

Wednesday 17th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, the BBC social media guidelines say very clearly that:

“Everyone who works for the BBC should ensure their activity on social media platforms does not compromise the perception of or undermine the impartiality and reputation of the BBC”.


Particular parts of the guidelines apply to flagship presenters; it is important that the BBC applies those guidelines to all those whom it employs.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches have long proposed that the funding process should be taken out of government control and handed to a genuinely independent body. As the noble Lord, Lord Morse, said, does not the Government’s announcement on 7 December, which would deprive the BBC of £400 million over the next four years—and which came, as I understand it, as a surprise to the BBC—make that case?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, we want to look at the best long-term funding models for the BBC, which ensure that it gets the income it needs. It currently gets more than £3.8 billion a year. However, like many other organisations, it must look at how it spends its money in the current economic climate, mindful of the impact that has on people who pay the licence fee. In addition, as part of our future funding model, we will look at other ways in which it might get the income to continue doing the work for which it is rightly renowned.

BBC Funding

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

Tuesday 12th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, we on these Benches are clear that the BBC must continue as a universal, publicly owned and publicly funded public service broadcaster, with funding that is both sufficient and sustainable. After flirting with the privatisation of Channel 4, the Government’s somewhat chop and change approach to BBC funding is creating significant uncertainty for our valuable public service broadcasters and the wider creative ecosystem. Have the Government undertaken an assessment of the likely impact of the additional pressure being placed on BBC budgets? Is this likely to lead to more journalist job cuts, disruption to commissions and supply chains, or harm to the organisation’s soft power across the world? If an assessment has been undertaken, will it be published?

The BBC has already scaled back some of its public service output in response to the licence fee freeze. This has seen, for example, local radio services streamlined. From my time as an MP in the other place, I recall how local communities had the greatest trust in local TV and radio stations as a source of news and information. Does the Minister agree with the continuing importance of local provision of news and information at a time when fake news proliferates, particularly online, and when many local newspapers are scaling back their operations? To turn to the national sphere, most recently, the format of “Newsnight” has changed, with its important investigative journalism scaled back and moved elsewhere.

The Government’s desire to focus on the cost of living is understood, but it is their actions which have stretched household budgets to breaking point. Does the Minister accept that this change in how the licence fee is calculated will have a negligible impact on working people’s finances, through a saving of just £4 a year, while having a far bigger impact on the BBC’s ability to fulfil its public service duty and role?

We also understand the desire of the Secretary of State to launch the future funding review. She is, after all, not the first person to have had that idea, but many lack confidence that the process is about getting the right result for the BBC. What steps will be taken to shore up confidence in the review among stakeholders, staff and the public?

We have learned so much from the past few years about what it means to be a resilient society, not least because of the pandemic, when the BBC really came into its own, not just as a broadcaster but as an educator, a trusted source of information and a connector. The Government’s resilience framework promises a direction of travel which incorporates prevention, preparedness, response and recovery, no matter what the disaster. Can the Minister indicate whether there has been consideration of the impact of the BBC’s funding on all these aspects of resilience?

Our great broadcasting institutions, their employees and the wider creative sectors that they do so much to sustain deserve far better than they are getting currently. Labour, on the other hand, will work with, rather than against, the BBC and other public service broadcasters to grow our creative industries and ensure that all parts of the UK benefit from their output. That is the essence of public service broadcasting.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, in 2022, the Government made a firm commitment that, after two years of freezing the licence fee, they would allow it to rise for the following four years according to the rate of inflation. The BBC kept its side of the bargain, despite having to make heavy cuts. The Statement repeated here today makes it clear that the Government have not. The Government’s excuse—that their below-inflation settlement is about helping with the cost of living—will not wash. The difference between an inflation- linked settlement and the actual one is 45p per month, yet this will deprive the BBC of £400 million over the next four years, causing enormous damage to an institution already reeling under successive cuts by this Government. There are more direct ways to help those who are trying to deal with the burden of inflation and increased energy bills.

What does this mean? It means less investment in the nation’s creative industries, fewer jobs created nationwide, more job cuts at the BBC and, almost certainly, fewer journalists dedicated to checking facts and reporting impartially, which is so important in the world of the internet. The BBC feeds into the Government’s levelling-up agenda, making programmes across the country while boosting local economies and utilising local skills—except that cuts to BBC local radio, already in train, mean that the spotlight on the local level is increasingly dim and will grow dimmer, thanks to today’s Statement.

As mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, another casualty is investigative journalism. I used to work on “Newsnight”; we criss-crossed the UK and the world seeking out stories and telling them in depth, not just reacting. Now, it is another current affairs programme shunted off to an existence solely in the studio. As my former colleague Michael Crick—he may not be the favourite person of some of your Lordships, but he is one of mine—noted:

“If I were a dodgy politician or a crooked businessman or a lazy civil servant, I would rest a bit easier in my bed”.


I mentioned the world. International reporting is already shrinking, and believe me it will shrink further. Just look at how the terrible events in the Middle East have led to Ukraine virtually disappearing from the airwaves. Major events have been occurring in Afghanistan, Sudan, Myanmar and Latin America: we hear nothing. Bringing the world to domestic audiences is so important. As a consequence, we are more equipped to understand, connect and empathise with what is going on beyond UK borders. Ignorance is not a good idea. It is fed by the echo chamber of the internet. Does the Minister not agree?

Of course, the BBC is not just about journalism, important as that is. It is the backbone of our world-beating creative industries and the single largest investor in original UK content operating in the UK. Innovation is often overlooked. It was the BBC that came up with the idea of television. My noble friend—if I may call him that—Lord Birt was behind BBC Online and the BBC has continued to lead, with the likes of the iPlayer and BBC Sounds. It led on rolling out the digital switchover and created two consumer platforms to help make online TV available to all UK audiences. Every £1 of BBC R&D spend alone contributes to £9 in value beyond. Can the Minister explain why this is not something to support?

Then there is soft power. Through the World Service and the programmes the BBC exports, it is central to promoting the UK around the world and is the envy of the world. The Government’s integrated review, published this year, boasted correctly that the BBC is

“the most trusted broadcaster worldwide”.

Considering all these positives, have the Government assessed the impact of these unexpected cuts on the BBC? Can the Minister say where he sees them coming from and what he would be happy to do without?

Finally, on the announced review of the BBC’s funding model, it is of course appropriate that the funding model for the BBC should be investigated, but does the Minister think it is right for the Government to do so without any public consultation and in the space of a few months? Who will be on the expert panel and how will they be chosen? These Benches have long proposed that the funding process, as well as the appointment of the BBC chair, should be taken out of government control and handed to a genuinely independent body. As David Attenborough said:

“The basic principle of public service broadcasting is profoundly important. If we lose that we really lose a very valuable thing”.