BBC Charter Renewal

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

[Mr Campbell]

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

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

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

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

Local Media

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Peter Fortune]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I will get to as I develop my speech. I also have to declare an interest: I spent the majority of my working life in local news. Even as a child, I delivered copies of the local Guardian around south London. My first “proper” job was at the South London Press. Back in those days, we sold two paid-for editions each week and delivered numerous free titles across south London. Later, I spent nearly 10 years with Newsquest, with its huge footprint across the UK. I still write a monthly column for the Bromley News Shopper, our local oracle. The News Shopper dates back to 1965 and counts Norris and Ross McWhirter as former contributors. Indeed, it was deemed such a bastion of information that a young Rupert Murdoch took temporary ownership of it back in 1969.

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

Good grief!

[Peter Fortune]

Tell me about it. It remains the go-to place for my constituents across Bromley and Biggin Hill for the news that counts, and that is local news. It is where we go to find out what is happening, what new shops are opening in the high street, what that planning application is that everybody is talking about, or why the heck they have put in that stupid roundabout near Mike’s house. It is the place we go for the things that matter.

But times have changed. Since 13-year-old Peter spent his afternoon stuffing numerous leaflets into hundreds of papers ready for delivery in the early ’90s, technology, advertising and expectations have changed. The traditional model of delivering local news has evolved, and that has put real pressure on the industry—note that I say “model”, not the need for local news. In fact, I would argue that in an age of fake news—Mrs Fortune told me not to do an impression when I said “fake news”—and increasing pressures on council services, the need for trusted, informed and relevant local media is more important than ever before, but it is increasingly challenging to deliver it in the traditional paper format. A newspaper sliding through the letterbox once a week is simply no longer financially viable, especially with the model that relies on advertising revenue to fund the printing and delivery of the product. That does not remove the need for local news; it just changes the delivery method.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Fortune]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will touch on the BBC charter later in my comments.

Let us start with the digital environment, which the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) referred to. For an industry that relies on advertising revenue, the emergence of platforms such as Facebook fundamentally changed the marketplace. Over time, the industry has learned to adapt and channel-shift to keep pace with the changing news environment, but 20 years on from one epoch-defining technological advancement, we find another.

We marvel as we see artificial intelligence developing and becoming the new intermediary between readers and news. This technology can now scrape the internet for information and pump out unchecked, unverified content, which undermines the faith in professional journalism and the financial sustainability of newsrooms. This undercuts the very institutions that produce the content, results in decreasing web traffic, and drains advertising revenue. The Government must act to ensure a fair licensing market, transparency in AI training data and strong backing for the Competition and Markets Authority to level the playing field between publishers and the tech giants.

I touched on public notices. These statutory notices in local papers are a cornerstone of democratic accountability, ensuring that residents know about changes that affect them, yet the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill risks removing this requirement and irreparably damaging the public’s right to know. The Government should commit unequivocally to keeping public notices in local papers, especially at a time of major reform in local government.

Coming to the role of the BBC, the corporation has made valuable contributions through initiatives such as the local democracy reporting service, but we need to better understand how the relationship between local news and our national broadcaster can work more effectively to ensure that commercial operators are not inadvertently impacted due to BBC overreach.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

On the issue of local and national BBC, does the hon. Member agree with me about one tremendously heartwarming story this week? I am not a rugby league fan but Kevin Sinfield does fantastic work, going beyond any category of endeavour to draw attention to the vile, awful condition of motor neurone disease. The promotion of that on local and national media helps to drive forward the campaign.

[Peter Fortune]

I entirely agree on that extraordinary story. I think Kevin Sinfield has run further than I have ever driven. The way he has used national, regional and local media to highlight the issue shows the strength and power of media, when harnessed and targeted properly, to have a positive impact.

When touching on the BBC, I want to talk about the royal charter, which is now being reviewed. This is the moment to reset the relationship with local media, focusing on collaboration, not competition, and ensuring that commercial newsrooms can thrive. Finally, I come to Government advertising: 80% of UK adults trust the information they see in local media, yet Government campaigns remain heavily skewed towards social platforms, missing millions who rely on print and digital news. Shifting more advertising spend to local publishers would not only improve reach and engagement but strengthen the financial sustainability of the sector.

I will draw my remarks to a close, because I wish to give hon. Members as much time as possible to share stories of their local news providers, although many have already done so. I am sure everybody recognises the value of their local title as much as I do the Bromley News Shopper. Although, as politicians, we may not always appreciate being the focus of news, I am sure we all recognise the huge importance of a trusted media source that is from and for the community.

With its sharp focus on local issues, scrutiny of key decisions and responsibility for training the next generation of journalists, local journalism is a public good. It informs, scrutinises and binds communities together, but it cannot survive on good will alone. The Government have the tools to act on artificial intelligence, public notices, the BBC and advertising. If we value trusted local journalism, now is the time to secure its future. Finally, by my reckoning, I have said the word “local” 28 times in this speech, because that is the point.

BBC Leadership

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

The right hon. Member asked me to use the office I hold to ensure that we get to the bottom of this and to ensure full transparency, and I will of course do that. The whole House will be grateful to the chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), for taking action quickly to ensure that that account is transparent and open to the public.

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

Sometimes when assessing things like the BBC, there is the Westminster bubble and then the real world outside. Some of us in Northern Ireland have been pressing the BBC for many years to be more transparent, independent and impartial, so this latest debacle is but one in a long line. We are not talking about light entertainment or drama—no one questions that, and that by and large gets a green light from most people—it is news and current affairs. There is no point in people distracting by introducing a conspiracy within the BBC board. Is now not the time to start afresh with a transformed BBC service to give us the impartial news service that many of us have demanded for years?

[Lisa Nandy]

The charter review will provide us with an opportunity to do just that.

Glastonbury Festival: BBC Coverage

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern about how this was able to happen, and I am sorry to hear that he has had no response to very serious concerns, which were raised in his capacity as a democratically elected Member of Parliament for people in the area who deserve answers. I am happy to follow that up on his behalf, and with him after the statement. I share his view that festivals, and particularly music festivals, must be safe, inclusive and welcoming spaces, and I fear that we fell way short on this occasion. I have visited Glastonbury before and know that it provides an incredible showcase for a lot of up-and-coming British artists, not just those at the top of their game. However, as the organisers rightly acknowledge, a line was crossed at the weekend, and that must not be allowed to happen again.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and the sentiments contained therein, but would she agree that in the run-up to the festival it was clear to many of us, given the track record of some of the participants, that this, or something like it, was going to happen? The Government were aware that something was going to happen, as was the BBC, yet still it happened. Where does the sanction lie, who is going to implement the sanction, and when are we going to know what it is?

Market Towns: Cultural Heritage

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. On the issue of pride in local market towns, in my area there is a small market town called Limavady. Over 100 years ago, a family called Massey emigrated from there to New Zealand, and their son became the Prime Minister of New Zealand before, during and after the first world war, playing a key role in the Commonwealth’s response to that war. In a few weeks’ time we mark the centenary of his death. Such things need to be marked in small market towns so that they are not forgotten, and people can take pride in what their forebears achieved in the past.

[Mr Alaba]

I agree. That is one of the reasons we are all here: we are talking about the unique offer and appeal of our communities. All and any history regarding families and individuals who have helped to shape, and shown commitment to, our communities should be cherished and showcased. I see how that example shows the uniqueness of the hon. Member’s own community.

The key to the development and maintenance of successful place management is governance structures that support effective decision making and give a voice to the variety of stakeholders that engage in places. This is particularly important for many market towns, where proactive engagement is required to stimulate renewal. That is why I am excited about the devolution White Paper and the strengthening of business improvement districts. However, those districts are not active in all areas; therefore, in some places this function could be provided through the development of community improvement districts. That would provide a structure through which community views can be heard and used to shape decision making.

Fourthly, while I cannot thank the Department and the Government enough for their capital funding projects, such as Southchurch Hall in Southend and the Maritime museum in Liverpool, I would like to work on a strategy that encourages small and medium-sized enterprises to invest in skills and developers of assets to create investable propositions that involve repairs. A targeted approach to capital investment for heritage and culture would achieve better outcomes by allowing the growth of skills and the supply chains required to deliver the maintenance and repair of historic buildings and places over the long term, improving the quality of delivered schemes, dampening inflationary pressures and ensuring that the recipients of funding—especially local government—are investment ready. They know where, when and how to make best use of the funding for the benefit of the communities they serve.

I could talk for quite some time but I am sure hon. Members are keen for me to shut up.

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephanie Peacock]

I will of course put on record that I wish the team good luck and send them my huge thanks and congratulations. The work that we are doing to support grassroots football, through our multi-sport grassroots facilities programme, will hopefully grow the grassroots game.

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

The Minister will be aware that there is a sub-regional stadia strategy in Northern Ireland. Will she have discussions with my colleague, the Minister for Communities in Northern Ireland, to see what assistance, information and additional resources can be deployed to ensure there is widespread development of grassroots football in Northern Ireland?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I have previously had discussions with my counterpart in Northern Ireland and I will be delighted to do so again. I am hoping to visit Northern Ireland in the coming months.