BBC Charter Review

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

The outcome of the BBC charter review has been awaited for a considerable time. Let me begin by quoting a sentence that has been quoted on many previous occasions:

“The Mission of the BBC is to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain.”

As someone said in a different context many years ago, that would be a very good idea.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I will not detain the House too long, but as my hon. Friend will know, many of our constituents who are put off by BBC bias—but who watch, for example, the BBC Parliament channel, and are probably watching it at this moment—are astounded that they will now pay £174.50 for the privilege of, in the words of one of my constituents, watching biased news reporting and social justice tracking programmes, when all they really want to do is hear the news and watch a programme on farming. The BBC—what are they?

[Mr Campbell]

Given that my hon. Friend is a master of both taking and making interventions, I agree with his comment.

The previous Government made a statement in April, which was just six or seven months ago. It explained that the purpose of the charter review was:

“To take stock, at the Charter’s half-way point, and evaluate the effectiveness of the BBC’s governance and regulation.”

The statement continued:

“The role of public service broadcasting and a free press has never been more significant than it is today. We are all living in an era of fake news”—

the Government were certainly right about that—

“where social media creates echo chambers of opinion, presents individual experience as established fact and mis and disinformation go unchallenged.”

That sets the context for the mid-term review.

I will move on to the comments made by the director general of the BBC, who has repeatedly said that he wants to see greater accountability from the organisation. I agree with him that the BBC should be more accountable; hopefully, the new manifestation of the charter will explain and expand on that. For example, we have had over a number of years what the BBC calls the “on-screen talent”. They have only recently had to declare their BBC salaries publicly; I and others campaigned for that over many years. Many people said it would never be done, but thankfully it was. Now we see, year on year, the top presenters all having their BBC salaries declared. So they should, because we the public pay those salaries, and ought to know what they are.

There is another point that the charter review should take account of. A small number of presenters have their BBC salaries declared, but some of them have private companies, which get commissioned to make programmes that appear on the BBC. We are not allowed to know what the proceeds of those commissioned programmes are, so it could be the case that some on-screen talent get, for example, £300,000 or even over £400,000 a year. They are paid directly by the BBC for their appearances on the BBC, but because they have a private company that gets commissioned to make programmes, they get additional sums of money. We do not know whether that is a substantial five-figure sum, or even a substantial six-figure sum. The director general says that he wants to see greater accountability, and we want to see the sums. Hopefully, the charter review can address that.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend mentions information that should be shared, and accountability. What about transparency in commissioning? He has raised this issue on a number of occasions over the years. Is he satisfied that there is transparency in the commissioning process? Is there opportunity and fairness in the process, or is there a greater opportunity to inject transparency through the charter review?

[Mr Campbell]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct: there is a lack of transparency. I and others have raised the issue of presenters who do their BBC work and so know what kinds of programmes the BBC is looking for. They have an inside track, because they have a private company that is advantageously placed to get a contract. The BBC has been very dilatory in opening up about what that means, how it is reviewed and how the organisation is made accountable. There is a significant lack of transparency.

I turn to the issue of the BBC using licence payers’ money in an accountable and transparent way. We had a recent example just last month, when we had a general election in the Irish Republic. I understand that there is a read-across for Northern Ireland from the outcome of that general election, but the BBC in Northern Ireland already has two full-time reporters based in Dublin, who one would assume were well placed to cover the Irish general election over the three-week period. However, in addition to those two full-time Republic of Ireland-based reporters, the BBC dispatched its Northern Ireland political editor from Belfast, a BBC correspondent from Belfast, a reporter for BBC Newsline from Belfast and a senior journalist from BBC Radio Foyle. All were dispatched to Dublin in addition to the two personnel that the BBC already had in Dublin, to cover the general election in the Irish Republic. We are not allowed to know the cost of that coverage of the Irish Republic election, but hopefully the charter review can look at expenditure accountability.

The other issue I want to raise is the recent phenomenon known as BBC Verify. Danny Cohen, a former director of BBC television, has said:

“BBC Verify claims to represent a new gold standard in BBC reporting, but the frequency with which it has had to correct stories does not suggest that it is meeting these lofty aims”.

If a former director of BBC television, describing a very recent phenomenon that was supposedly set up to establish the BBC as the overseer of the verification of other news outlets, is saying that it does not really live up to its description, something has to be done to ensure that it does so. If there is going to be verification, it must stand up to close scrutiny.

I would hope that the Minister, whom I thank for being in her place, will take this opportunity to respond to the points that have been made. I fully understand that the BBC, in terms of its output and its day-to-day transmission, is a separate body over which no one in Parliament should have any say, and we accept that that is the case, but accountability, transparency and the lack of impartiality that is often displayed in BBC output must be covered by the review of the charter. I hope we can hear something productive from the mid-term review, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

I am pleased to respond to this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) on securing it. The debate is a good opportunity to discuss the upcoming charter review, which we intend to launch next year. He has raised a number of important areas related to the BBC, which I will respond to, but I would first like to make a few broad points about the contribution that the BBC makes to the UK.

The BBC supports our democracy, brings our communities together and helps to shape and define our nation through telling stories about the lives of people in all parts of the UK. It also plays an important role in providing trusted news as the UK’s most trusted news brand, reaching around 95% of UK adults each month. It is one of Britain’s biggest cultural exports and an important soft power asset, with the BBC World Service providing essential, trustworthy news through 42 language services to millions of people across the globe. That is a topic I was pleased to discuss today while giving evidence to the joint sitting of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee and the International Development Committee. Indeed, I see one of the Committee members in the Chamber right now.

The BBC has provided some of our most memorable moments across television, representing stories from every part of the UK. It acts as a linchpin in the UK’s flourishing creative economy, investing in the skills, training and creativity that drive growth across all regions of the UK. Last year, it contributed £4.9 billion to the UK economy and supported over 50,000 jobs, with more than half of this impact outside London, and it invests more in original British content than anyone else.

I shall move on to some of the points the hon. Member raised. I note his view on increasing the accountability of the BBC as part of the charter review, and it is important that we get this area right. The charter review will explore BBC accountability, particularly in terms of ensuring that the BBC is accountable to those who fund it: the British people. As a public service broadcaster that is hugely important to public life, the BBC must be responsive to its audience. The BBC has a duty to deliver impartial and accurate news coverage and content under the charter, which specifically sets out that it must observe high standards of openness and seek to maximise transparency and accountability.

Since 2017, Ofcom has regulated the BBC and has taken action to make sure that it is held to account. Ofcom is required to prepare and publish an operating framework for the BBC, which must contain provisions to secure the effective regulation of the BBC’s activities.

Under the BBC’s new operating licence, introduced last year, the BBC is required to report more comprehensively on its performance and its plans for services. The Government welcome Ofcom’s recent report into the BBC’s performance in 2023-24 and note its findings, including where Ofcom has identified areas of improvement for the BBC. It is for Ofcom, as the BBC’s independent regulator, to monitor the BBC’s progress in these areas. The charter also includes provision for the National Audit Office to examine the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the BBC uses its resources in discharging its functions.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about commissioning. A key principle of the BBC’s success is its editorial and operational independence, which must be upheld. That is why decisions on commissioning and programming are for the BBC board, not for the Government. Being operationally and editorially independent, BBC commissioning is rightly a matter for the BBC. It is not within the Government’s scope to intervene in day-to-day commissioning decisions, but the charter requires the BBC to open up content production to allow non-BBC producers to compete for BBC projects. By the end of the current charter in 2027, 100% of BBC television and 60% of BBC radio will be fully open to competition to support a diverse range of stories and views on the BBC.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

The Minister talks about the BBC needing to open up contracts to non-BBC personnel. Does she accept that this needs to be seen to be done on an equitable and fair basis, so that people beyond the reach of the BBC, as well as internals, have an equal opportunity to bid for contracts?

[Stephanie Peacock]

Yes, I do accept that, and it is something we can look at as part of the charter review. Of course, Ofcom, as the BBC’s independent regulator, holds the BBC to account on its performance and its commissioning practices, and on the market impact of those.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned BBC pay, which I appreciate is a matter of debate and controversy. The royal charter requires the BBC, as he rightly said, to publish the salary details of all BBC staff and talent paid over £178,000. Salary disclosures of this kind were made for the first time as part of the 2016-17 annual report. The salaries of BBC staff are also a matter for the BBC and the individuals themselves, not for Government. However, the charter review will look again at the transparency of this issue.