BBC Charter Renewal
John Whittingdale Excerpts(5 days, 23 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government proposals for renewal of the BBC Charter.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. It is also a pleasure—although not wholly surprising—that the debate is so well attended. We may struggle to get everybody in; I will do my best to help. I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock). She and I have spoken together about media matters many times. It is good to see her back on her former brief. I understand that the Media Minister is otherwise occupied in the House.
It is just over a year since I held a debate in this place on BBC funding. Since then, quite a lot has happened concerning the BBC. We have had major editorial failings around things like the “Panorama” reporting of a speech made by the President of the United States, the coverage of Bob Vylan at Glastonbury, and the documentary about Hamas. We have also seen some shocking revelations about harassment and bullying within the BBC, with the ongoing repercussions of the Huw Edwards incident and then the Gregg Wallace revelations. On funding, which I suspect will be the major topic in this debate, last year we saw a further 300,000 people declare that they no longer needed or were willing to pay the licence fee. All those things, I suspect, contributed to the decision of Deborah Turness and Tim Davie to resign. I was sorry that Tim Davie left his post. I think he did a good job in a very difficult circumstance. It is a sadness that most directors general, rather like politicians, have careers that end unhappily.
We have also now seen the publication of the Department’s Green Paper on the future, which points out at the beginning that unless the charter is renewed by 31 December 2027, the BBC will cease to exist. I had responsibility, in the main, for the renewal of the last charter. I did not want to see the BBC disappear then, and I do not want to see the BBC disappear today. Therefore, it is important that we agree. The charter renewal document is wide-ranging and covers a huge amount of ground. I am sure hon. Members will wish to touch on a number of elements. I will concentrate on two.
The first is the issue of governance and maintenance of standards. The last charter review resulted in the replacement of the BBC Trust, which at that time had overall oversight of the BBC, with a board, bringing together executive and non-executive members. It is worth remembering that the BBC Trust, which preceded the board, was wholly appointed by the Government. In theory, the board has only five Government appointees; of those five, three are in agreement with the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The UK Government actually appoints only two members, so concerns about political interference and independence are misplaced.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The National Union of Journalists wants an inquiry into allegations of inappropriate interference by current politically appointed board members in BBC editorial matters. The right hon. Gentleman said that there are only two such members. Does he think that an inquiry is necessary to restore public trust in the BBC board?
Sir John Whittingdale
No, I do not. I suspect the hon. Lady is referring to the board member for England, who I believe has outstanding experience in the field of BBC editorial independence; he spent a brief time in politics. It is worth remembering that the political appointees over many years have come from both sides of the House. There was a chair who was previously a Conservative Cabinet Minister, and a deputy chair who was previously a Labour Cabinet Minister. If there was ever a concern, it was about the appointment of a former Labour Cabinet Minister to a management position. That seemed to me much more concerning since they had direct day-to-day editorial decisions. At the time, although I got on very well with James Purnell and I worked with him when he was Secretary of State, I did not think that he should have been appointed to a management position. But I have no concerns about political interference at the moment.
On the failings revealed by the Prescott report on editorial standards, clearly there need to be changes to the editorial oversight. As was debated a few months ago, there is a strong case for making the editorial standards committee much more independent. It is also at least worth considering—this is part of the Green Paper—whether the job of running an organisation with around £5 billion to £6 billion can be combined with having overall control over the entire editorial output of the BBC. Those are both huge jobs and I think it is becoming increasingly difficult for one person to hold both of them. That is something that needs to be considered.
The biggest challenge facing the BBC, which I sought to highlight in the debate a year ago, is about future funding. We have seen a steady decline in the number of people who are willing to pay the licence fee. The licence fee evasion rate has doubled so that it is now 12.5%. One in eight who should be paying the licence fee are not paying it because they are avoiding their responsibility. On top of that, another 3.6 million, we are told, have declared they do not need to pay it because they do not use the BBC or watch live TV. The Public Accounts Committee recently concluded that that results in a loss to the BBC of over £1.1 billion, and it will go on increasing.
We are seeing more and more choice available through streaming services, which people choose to subscribe to. People no longer turn to the BBC in such numbers for news and current affairs. And of course the licence fee is rising. At a time when the cost of living is high, people will consider whether they wish to continue paying it. So the Government are right to look at alternatives, which is something I have been involved in for over 10 years. When I chaired the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, we produced a report on the future of the BBC. I am delighted to see the current Chair of the Committee with us this afternoon. A lot of the arguments that we considered 10 years ago stand today.
There was one thing I was disappointed to see in the Green Paper. First, before considering how to pay for the BBC, we should ask what we want the BBC to do. Let us first of all decide what the BBC ought to be doing and then how to pay for it. Yet the Green Paper rules out this debate. It states that
“we do not believe a smaller BBC”
is in the public’s interest. By making that statement, we are not questioning whether the BBC still needs to maintain eight national television channels and 10 national radio stations, despite the fact that the alternative choice available has enormously increased over the past 10 to 15 years.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Member appreciate the importance of the BBC’s investment in the devolved nations and regions, which is all the more important given the fact that private and independent media are withdrawing from some of that coverage and production? This year, the BBC will double spending to £100 million on programmes produced in Scotland and other devolved nations. That kind of investment is vital for my constituents and others.
Sir John Whittingdale
I completely understand that. The Green Paper contains quite a lot about the BBC’s involvement in providing coverage in the nations of the United Kingdom, and indeed in the languages of the United Kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman believes, as I do, that one of the principal purposes of the BBC is to provide content that otherwise would not be available, then that is a good example of where it is absolutely right that the BBC should continue to invest.
There are some things, however, that the BBC does not necessarily need to continue doing, because there is such choice available. As I say, I regret the fact that that does not seem to be part of the debate within the Green Paper. It seems to suggest that the BBC should go on doing everything it does now, but that then begs an even harder question: if the BBC is to go on spending as much as it does today, how will we pay for it at a time when the willingness to pay the licence fee is declining year on year?
Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)
I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s views, as he is a former Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Does he agree that 47p a day represents value for money for nine television stations, 17 radio stations, iPlayer, BBC Sounds and the BBC World Service?
Sir John Whittingdale
Whether or not it is value for money is a debate that the BBC has advanced for as long as I have been debating the BBC. The question is: what do we compare it with? Is 25p value for money, or is £1.50 value for money? Unless it is decided what the BBC should be doing, we cannot determine that.
The other big factor is that paying the licence fee is not a choice. People do not have the opportunity not to pay; if they want the BBC, and indeed live television at all, they are required by law to pay the licence fee. Saying, “Oh, it’s fantastic value for money,” is very difficult when nobody has ever been given the opportunity to demonstrate whether they think it is value for money by choosing whether to pay for it.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
One thing I learned recently on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee is that one way the BBC provides value for money is by being one of the only sources—if not the only source—of income for children’s content creators. Without that income, we would not get quality content for our children. There is a way of looking at this not purely from an individual perspective, but as an investment in the future. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that?
Sir John Whittingdale
I agree that children’s television is incredibly important, and it is a matter of real concern that fewer and fewer commercial channels are investing in children’s TV. It was for that reason that, at the time of the last charter review, we set up something called the young audiences content fund, funded by the licence fee, which allowed other broadcasters to bid for licence fee funding to supply children’s programming. It was very successful. Unfortunately, it did not survive the mid-term review, but it was created in recognition of how important that provision is. I would like to see a revival of the young audiences content fund, because I think it was very valuable.
Every time a Government has looked the licence fee, they have come to the conclusion that it has many flaws but there is no real alternative. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee that I chaired did recommend an alternative; we looked at the possibility of a household levy. While that is not perfect, it has already been ruled out. That too is excluded by the Green Paper, which states of the licence fee that
“we are not considering replacing it with alternative forms of public funding”.
So all those particular options have been closed off. However, the licence fee is highly regressive and hard to enforce. Evidence shows that women on low incomes face prosecution more than other groups. There are a lot of things wrong with the licence fee.
In terms of alternatives, the Green Paper suggests one or two options. It talks about the possibility of extending commercial activity, which I certainly welcome, as it already contributes quite a large amount to the BBC’s income.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
S4C’s headquarters are within my constituency. It employs 2,500 people across Wales, and contributes £7.6 million to our economy in Caerfyrddin itself—that is without the Welsh perspective. Although I am glad to see that consultation is discussed in the Green Paper, it needs to be more than a tick-box exercise. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that any consultation must be meaningful for the people of Wales and for S4C?
Sir John Whittingdale
I visited the S4C headquarters, and I am a strong supporter of S4C, which is often overlooked in debates about the licence fee. Of course, it is funded by the licence fee, and that is something we sought to preserve when I had responsibility for it. It needs to be taken into account. I was glad to see that the Green Paper talks quite a lot about S4C and, indeed, MG Alba, which supplies Gaelic broadcasting in Scotland.
The issue raised in the Green Paper that is causing most concern to other organisations is the possibility of advertising. Advertising on the BBC would obviously change the nature of the BBC but, as is acknowledged, it would also have a huge impact on all the commercial broadcasters that rely on advertising. If the BBC took advertising, I suspect one of the consequences would be that Channel 4 would immediately go bankrupt, because Channel 4 is still completely dependent on advertising for its income. Although some people doubt it, I do want to see Channel 4 survive. It is not just Channel 4: ITV depends in large part on advertising, as does, of course, the whole commercial radio sector. If advertising were introduced on BBC TV or radio, the impact on the commercial sector would be enormous, and not something that I think the Government would want to see. The Green Paper acknowledges that there would be an impact, but it still suggests it is one option under consideration.
That leaves only one alternative for the future: subscription. The last charter stated that the BBC should trial a subscription service for additional content on iPlayer. That never happened—the BBC was not very keen on it—but it was there. In the longer term, it becomes a more and more realistic option, not only because the alternatives look less and less attractive or acceptable, but because in due course it will become technologically possible. As I have suggested many times, it is not currently realistic to talk about the BBC moving to a subscription model, because a large number of people in this country still rely on digital terrestrial transmission to receive television services. If someone has DTT—Freeview, as it is known—they cannot switch it off. If they cannot switch it off, it cannot be charged for, because people cannot choose not to pay. Until everybody receives their television online—through the internet, rather than through DTT—a subscription model is not a realistic option.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and demonstrating why he is such an expert in this policy area. I reiterate the point about turning off free-to-view terrestrial television, which is obviously a live part of the licence fee discussion. Some, such as ITV, are arguing strongly that terrestrial television should be turned off. For my constituents, many of whom do not have access to good broadband connectivity, being entirely dependent on a fee-paying service is not an option, because the connectivity is just not there. Does my right hon. Friend understand that such communities would be deprived of a TV service if that option was adopted?
Sir John Whittingdale
My hon. Friend perfectly illustrates why I do not think it is realistic at the moment. Until we reach the point at which everybody in the UK can access TV online—I recognise that that is a bigger challenge for my hon. Friend’s constituents than for those in many other parts of the country—it is not realistic, but we should begin to prepare for that time now, which is why we need to consider the option suggested in the Green Paper. The moment will come when it becomes possible.
I realise that many other Members want to speak, so I will draw my remarks to a conclusion. I welcome this opportunity to debate the BBC charter renewal, and I regret that there has not been one before now. A number of options have been set out, and I simply say that the one that is not an option any longer is the status quo. I look forward to the contributions from others about what the future should hold.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
I remind Members to bob so that I can ascertain who wishes to speak. I will be imposing a time limit. Sir John was very generous in taking interventions, but we need to keep interventions and responses much shorter to allow everyone to speak.
Sir John Whittingdale
I thank you, Mrs Harris, the Minister and all Members who participated this afternoon. The fact that there are so many present—to my regret, I suspect a lot have had to curtail their remarks due to the time limit—demonstrates the importance of this subject. I welcome the Minister’s assurance that there will be further opportunities. My hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston) is right: it is important that as many people as possible respond to the consultation, although I suspect that the Minister and her officials may hope that we do not have a repeat of what happened last time, which was a 38 Degrees campaign generating 190,000 responses. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport had to hire a new building in order to count and read them all. However, it is important, and I hope that this debate is just the start of what will continue to be a discussion leading to the next charter.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government proposals for renewal of the BBC Charter.
Culture, Media and Sport
John Whittingdale Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir John Whittingdale
The Secretary of State will be aware that, as the Public Accounts Committee has pointed out, last year the BBC lost more than £1 billion as a result of evasion and households declaring that they no longer need a licence. That figure is going to grow over the course of the next charter, so will she look at finding other ways in which we can close the funding gap?
Lisa Nandy
Yes. As the right hon. Gentleman would imagine, we are looking at a whole range of options around BBC funding to ensure that it is sustainably funded for many years to come. In particular, we are very keen to ensure that people feel a sense of ownership and belonging over the BBC, which is why the point about the nations and regions is so important. Ofcom recently produced a report in which it showed that of the top Scottish producers who fulfil the Scottish quota, for example, only one third are actually based in Scotland among the public sector broadcasters.
[Official Report, 27 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 503.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy):
Oral Answers to Questions
John Whittingdale Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
As the House would imagine, I am having daily conversations with the BBC leadership on a number of issues, including charter renewal. I have been clear that we stand by the BBC to secure its role at the heart of national life for decades to come, but the forthcoming charter review will be a vital opportunity for us collectively to shape the BBC’s future and consider how it needs to change in this new era. In particular, for years our nations and regions have been underserved and under-represented by the concentration of power in just one part of the country when it comes to our television industry, and we are determined that the BBC will continue to lead the way on changing that.
Sir John Whittingdale
The Secretary of State will be aware that, as the Public Accounts Committee has pointed out, last year the BBC lost more than £1 billion as a result of evasion and households declaring that they no longer need a licence. That figure is going to grow over the course of the next charter, so will she look at finding other ways in which we can close the funding gap?
Lisa Nandy
Yes. As the right hon. Gentleman would imagine, we are looking at a whole range of options around BBC funding to ensure that it is sustainably funded for many years to come. In particular, we are very keen to ensure that people feel a sense of ownership and belonging over the BBC, which is why the point about the nations and regions is so important. Ofcom recently produced a report in which it showed that of the top Scottish producers who fulfil the Scottish quota, for example, only one third are actually based in Scotland among the public sector broadcasters.[Official Report, 1 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 7WC.] (Correction) That is a disgrace, and we are determined that it will change.
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
I highly commend the festival in Huddersfield. As an Edinburgh MP who is always championing festivals, the more music festivals and other arts festivals we have across the country, the better. I encourage everyone to go.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Lisa Nandy
Yes, of course, and in fact we already are. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology and I have convened a series of roundtables, and we are not just talking to big tech companies, but a full range of tech companies, hearing a range of views. For the first time, we are bringing together creators and tech companies. Many of them, as the right hon. Gentleman alludes to, are starting to create their own deals, which we encourage. We do not believe that that negates the need for licensing or the transparency in the legislation that we promised here and in the other place, but I am happy to continue that conversation with them and with him.
BBC Leadership
John Whittingdale Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lisa Nandy
I stand absolutely by the assertion that the BBC belongs to us all. It is funded by the licence fee payer, but more than that it is one of the few shared spaces and places that we have in this country. I was reflecting on this on Remembrance Sunday as I stood at the Cenotaph, and did so before that at the VE Day commemorations earlier this year: there are very few broadcasters in this country that could provide those moments where the entire country stops and comes together through a shared experience. I would of course be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss her suggestions.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The BBC has said that the editing of the “Panorama” programme gave the impression of a
“direct call for violent action”—
something it then described as an “error of judgement”, which seems an extraordinary understatement. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that although this was considered by the editorial guidelines and standards committee in May, nothing was done? Should not as a first step the editorial guidelines and standards committee be made far tougher and fully independent? Will the Secretary of State consider that and other measures as part of the charter review she is undertaking as a way of strengthening the impartiality requirement that was inserted in the previous charter review?
Lisa Nandy
I thank the right hon. Member for his suggestion. I look forward to having more detailed conversations with him as we start the charter review process. As he is a former Culture Secretary, I welcome the opportunity to have those conversations. He raises the specific issue of the committee meeting that took place in May. My understanding is that there was a meeting in January, then a further meeting in May at the BBC’s own request, but there was then a failure to follow through. I do not want to speak for the BBC. It is not my role to answer questions on behalf of the BBC about how it took those decisions, but I note with interest that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee will be calling members of the editorial guidelines and standards committee to appear before it, and I am sure that that will be one of the things the Select Committee seeks to probe.
Future of Terrestrial Television
John Whittingdale Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Twigg; I will do my best to keep to your limit.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on obtaining the debate. This is an important issue, and he is absolutely right that not enough discussion has taken place. Even though the potential for switch-off is a number of years away, it is an important issue that we need to start considering now. However, I will take a slightly different line from my right hon. Friend, although I will try not to fall into his category of media elite—I do not think I would include myself in that.
Twenty years ago, I became Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and the first report that we conducted was into analogue switch-off. Older Members may remember that there was a time when television was broadcast in analogue, and it was decided to switch off the analogue signal and move fully to digital. There was real concern about the consequences: blank screens would feature across the nation and reliance on the digital network was going to undermine the universality of the service. A lot of money and time was spent to meet that. Now, of course, nobody would ever suggest going back to analogue transmission of television.
Internet protocol television is growing. Obviously, take-up of streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon and Disney is possible only through smart television sets that are capable of receiving streaming services. As we know from Ofcom, more and more people are turning to those services. Four years ago, I purchased a Sky Glass TV. I think it is still the only television that has no digital terrestrial television receiver in it at all; it operates only on IPTV and, without wishing to give too much of a plug to Sky, it is very good. I think that is where we will eventually head. Switching off the DTT signal and moving purely to IPTV is, I think, inevitable, but it is a long way off. For that reason, I welcome my right hon. Friend’s initiative in starting the discussion publicly now.
There are benefits to switching off for consumers, and indeed for taxpayers. It opens up the possibility of using the existing DTT spectrum for something else. We can speculate about what that might be, but the spectrum is already under pressure from mobile services, the internet without things and all those things, so spectrum is a valuable commodity. It will save the broadcasters a bit of money, because at the moment they have to meet the cost of simulcasting on DTT and online. I think there will be advantages and, as Ofcom said, there will come a tipping point when it really becomes no longer economically viable to continue to maintain a DTT service.
The other reason why I think a switch-off is worth considering is the future of the BBC. Fewer and fewer people each year choose to pay the licence fee, and we need to look at alternatives. Lots of people say, “Well, in that case, why can’t we just operate like Netflix or Amazon and charge people?” The reason is that the BBC cannot, unless it has streamed services with conditional access that allows people to choose not to receive it. That is also an important part of the debate.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that there are real challenges. The cost has already been referred to. In government, I had responsibility for Project Gigabit—the Minister will be all too familiar with that—and the initiative to extend gigabit broadband coverage across the country. We still have some way to go. It would be unthinkable to turn off DTT before we reach the point at which gigabit broadband is universal.
In addition to reach, there is also the question of cost. We are reaching a moment at which it will be very difficult to operate without access to broadband because more and more services are going online. We need to look at all those issues before we decide to turn off. I personally think that the date that has been set as a guarantee for DTT continuing—2034—is about right. I would not want to go further than that; I am not saying that we should switch off in 2034, but it is still nine years away, and at that time the world may look very different. I think the moment will come when it clearly makes sense for broadcasting and for consumers that we move to pure internet protocol television.
David Mundell
I commit to concluding my remarks when the bell tolls.
I particularly thank the Minister for getting in a very full response before we have to conclude proceedings. It was very telling that when she read out the research that has been conducted, it was entirely in tune with what hon. Members had been saying throughout the debate—about the vulnerable, those who are remote and rural, and those who do not have good access to broadband.
While I would never want to characterise my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) as a member of the media elite, and I am sure that Sky Glass is an excellent product, I must point out that many of my constituents are unable, either practically or financially, to access it. That is very much what this debate is about: we have to focus on the people who are not in a position to do that.
The Minister can look back at the digital switchover, which was trialled in my own constituency a long time ago —the first switchover took place there. People who switched from analogue to digital were not then asked to pay a broadband subscription. The television service that they had was essentially changed, but they were not asked to pay anything for that to happen. Although the exercise was well managed, the analogy is not quite complete.
Sir John Whittingdale
I hesitate to disagree with my right hon. Friend, but it was actually the case that they were required to pay something. They had to purchase a set-top box, but the Government offered support to those who could not afford one. Perhaps that is an analogy we can follow in the future.
David Mundell
Well, we could go into the detail, because not everybody required a set-top box, but we are not going down that route. What we can agree is that, when that change was made, there was a huge intervention to allow it to take place smoothly.
I thank the hon. Members who contributed to the debate. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) emphasised how much television helps wellbeing and reduces loneliness. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) hit the nail on the head when she said that for many people, the television in the corner is a companion. The hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) made very good points about the infrastructure behind television services and supporting local retailers.
The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson) set out the practical issues in relation to the transmitter network. I have seen the transmitter in his constituency many times—it is often a beacon on a dark night in central Scotland—and I am glad that he has had the opportunity to visit it. The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) set out many of the same issues as I face in my large rural constituency. We must keep our focus on the people living in such areas.
The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) asked very clearly, “Who is going to pay for the switchover?” That, too, is very important. The hon. Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine), bringing to bear his experience, made really important points, particularly about scheduling and all the things that terrestrial television brings as the core of the network.
Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary
John Whittingdale Excerpts(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephanie Peacock
The right hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point, and I spoke to the head of the Imperial War Museum about this issue yesterday. We absolutely need to start to plan now.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Minister is being incredibly generous. She mentions the Imperial War Museum. Does she share my regret at its decision to close the gallery displaying over 200 Victoria Crosses and George Crosses, which were collected by Lord Ashcroft and given to the gallery for permanent public display? Could she perhaps ask the Imperial War Museum to reconsider that decision?
Stephanie Peacock
I absolutely hear the right hon. Gentleman’s point, and I know that we have spoken about it previously. The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism has had conversations with both Lord Ashcroft and the Imperial War Museum. He is the Minister responsible for museums. I will relay those comments to him, and I will follow up to the right hon. Gentleman in writing.
I will speak about our national remembrance and celebration this week in a moment, but I will touch first on how important the collective memory and legacy is. This Government have launched a number of initiatives to ensure that every generation—young and old—can connect with the history of their families and communities. “Letters to Loved Ones” has encouraged schoolchildren and family members to explore their family histories by looking for old letters and artefacts to help them learn about life during wartime, and to share them on our website. My mum and dad discovered some lovely letters between my grandparents during the war and just after, when they had got married.
To inspire young people to learn about what life was like during wartime Britain, we also announced “Our Shared Story”, which brought together a range of educational resources. They include material for schools from the Royal British Legion called “I’ll Remember”, which focuses on conversations between veterans and young people. People across the country will also be invited to watch “The Next Morning”, a brand-new National Theatre production written by award-winning screenwriter and playwright James Graham. This short film focuses on the hopes, dreams and ambitions of young people after the second world war.
I have written to schools across my constituency to share these materials, and like all of the community engagement resources, they are designed to run through the year to VJ Day and beyond. For instance, the Tip Top Towns initiative is a call to action for community and volunteering groups to get their town or village ready for the commemorations, whether that be with bunting, litter picking or crochet bonnets for letterboxes. I spotted crochet bonnets in Hoyland and Darfield in my area this weekend.
To deliver the VE and VJ 80 programme of events and national engagement, the Government have worked with an array of brilliant partners, including the Imperial War Museums, the National Theatre, the RBL, Atlantic Productions, Arts Council England, the Together Coalition, the BBC and, of course, all the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Ministry of Defence officials and service personnel. I would like to express my gratitude for their commitment, and I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those currently serving in our armed forces.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Whittingdale Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lisa Nandy
The Conservatives cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, they want to see economic growth but, on the other hand, they are not prepared to take the necessary steps in order to achieve it. The truth is that the Government take grassroots sport incredibly seriously. I am really proud that Sport England is able to provide financial support to clubs across the country through the £160 million movement fund with support of up to £15,000 for grassroots sport organisations. I have to say to the shadow Minister that it takes some brass neck to stand at the Dispatch Box and lecture this Government in the light of the mess that his Government left to us.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
Our creative industries lead the world. This is the top priority for them, and I am clear that if it matters to them, it matters to us, and we are determined to get it right. Since I was appointed, I have discussed this with representatives across music, publishing, film, TV, fashion and gaming. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology and I will shortly convene further roundtables to work with industry across artificial intelligence and the creative industries to strike the right balance and to grip this issue.
Sir John Whittingdale
The Secretary of State will be aware of suggestions that the Government may offer concessions around AI regulation in a deal to reduce US tariffs. Will she assure the creative and news media sectors that any negotiations will not include an offer to weaken our copyright framework, which would be opposed by creative industries both in the UK and in the US?
Lisa Nandy
Our creatives are second to none in the world, as I just said, and our copyright framework is an essential part of their success. We have been clear that if it does not work for creatives, it does not work for us and we will not do it. On negotiations with the United States, the Prime Minister has been clear that this is the start of the process, but we will always work in the national interest, and we are considering all steps as we look to the future.
BBC: Funding
John Whittingdale Excerpts(1 year ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future funding of the BBC
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and to debate a subject that I seem to have spent a large part of my parliamentary career discussing, but which has become extremely appropriate to examine once again today. The Minister, who I have spent a lot of time debating over the last few years, last night replied to an Adjournment debate touching on the overall process under which the BBC charter will be renewed, but as she said last night—and she is completely right—the funding of the BBC is a central part of the charter renewal process, and what the BBC does will to some extent be affected by the money available to it and vice versa. I do think it is right that we look at the matter.
I had responsibility less than 10 years ago for drawing up the charter under which the BBC currently operates. That was in 2015-16—only seven or eight years ago—but the changes that have taken place in the broadcasting landscape since are huge and continue to accelerate. At the time of the last charter, streaming did exist, but it was only a couple of years after Netflix had launched in this country, and there were still only one or two other streamers available. Since then, we have seen an explosion, with an enormous number of different streaming platforms that are investing heavily in extremely good content. Most people now enjoy streamed services as well as traditional broadcast, and subscribe, quite often, to several streamers.
Despite the huge range of content that is now available, in my view—and I think the Government take the same view—public service broadcasting is still absolutely necessary, particularly in the core public service content areas of news and current affairs, which are not really provided by the streaming services. I continue to believe that there is a very important role for the BBC in this country’s broadcasting landscape, but my concern is that the traditional method by which the BBC is funded—through the licence fee—is going to become steadily harder to sustain.
Even seven or eight years ago, we saw the beginning of the challenges. At that time, at the request of the BBC, we closed the iPlayer loophole, by which people were viewing BBC content on the iPlayer but not paying the licence fee. We said then, and it remains the case now, that if people watch live television in any form and if they use the iPlayer, they are required to have a TV licence. Other drivers have increased revenue for the BBC over the years, like the growth of single-parent households and immigration levels, meaning that more licences have been issued—but that trend has now reversed, despite the closing of the loophole; each year, fewer people are buying a television licence. In the course of the last year, the number of licences held has fallen by 500,000, and that movement is likely to continue.
If we look at the public’s viewing behaviour, we find that less and less traditional broadcast television is being watched, particularly by young people. Most 16 to 24-year-olds now do not watch any live broadcasts each week—10 years ago, 80% did—and broadcast channels take up only 57% of all viewing, against TikTok, YouTube and all the other streaming services. People are genuinely saying, “We choose to subscribe and pay for Netflix, Amazon, Discovery, Apple and all the other streamers. We don’t see why, on top of that, we should have to pay for a TV licence when we don’t watch the BBC.”
The TV licence does not just cover the BBC; it covers all live television viewing. Nevertheless, a lot of people can watch on catch-up the programmes that are available on the other public service channels. Genuinely, people are not required under the law to have a TV licence, and more and more are choosing not to have one. That will pose an increasing problem for the BBC.
We have seen complaints from the BBC about the fact that the revenue available to it has been cut in recent years—like every other public service, it has been required to find efficiencies—but the director general has talked about the crisis that has been created by the lack of money and his inability to invest to compete. That situation is not likely to get any better if we continue with the licence fee; if anything, it will become steadily worse.
I remember chairing a Select Committee—I think it was about 15 years ago—that looked at the funding of the BBC and the licence fee. At the time, we concluded that although the licence fee had many drawbacks, it was still probably the best available option. It is a regressive tax, it is criminally enforced and it is the case that among the people convicted of failing to pay, a large proportion are women. Those are all drawbacks of the licence fee, but at that time the alternatives did not seem possible. Certainly, advertising is not likely to be beneficial to the BBC or to the whole commercial television sector; there is not that much advertising revenue to go round, and if there were advertising on the BBC, it would result in a reduction for everybody else.
There is an alternative option. A lot of people have said, “Why can’t the BBC charge a subscription, so people can choose whether or not to pay it?” The reason is simple. At the moment, most people still access the BBC and other traditional broadcasters through digital terrestrial television, or Freeview, and there is no mechanism for conditional access—in other words, the choice to receive a particular channel—with Freeview. At the launch of Freeview, the BBC was very keen that that should be the case, because it was worried about subscription, but it means that while a significant proportion of the population continue to rely on Freeview, we cannot move to subscription. But that will change.
Both the last Government and this Government have said that Freeview will be maintained until 2034; it may well be that we need to maintain it for a bit longer. However, the transition to IPTV or internet protocol television—the provision of television over the internet—will steadily increase, and if people have smart TVs, which allow them to choose whether to subscribe to the streamers, it means they could also have the choice of whether to subscribe to the BBC. I think that that option is likely to become more attractive, although it will only really become viable when we reach the point where almost the entire population have IPTV, but for the reasons I have set out, it is important that we start to talk about it now.
The last Government had future funding of the BBC panel, which this Government have not continued. On the other hand, I know that the Minister has set up a future of TV distribution panel, which does not look vastly different. Anyway, I am glad that the Government continue to look at the issue, which is why I think this is the right time to have this debate.
There are certain things that will never be possible to have on a subscription basis, including BBC Radio—I do not think there is any way in which there can be conditional access on radio—and the World Service. I sit on the Foreign Affairs Committee and we are currently examining the World Service, which is of huge benefit to this country. It could not be provided on a subscription basis, as the people it is aimed at are certainly not in a position to pay. The World Service also makes a very valuable contribution to the reputation of the UK and to our soft power, and the BBC has said that it should be funded by the Foreign Office and not by the licence fee. That argument is quite attractive, although I recognise that it would be a big challenge for the Government to take on. The Minister gave evidence on the subject yesterday and it remains an issue that we will want to debate.
With radio, it would be possible to extend advertising, but, as with any advertising on BBC TV, doing so would damage commercial radio. I am also slightly worried about the extent to which advertising is creeping in at the margin, with the BBC allowing advertising through podcast, which is increasingly the way in which people are accessing audio content.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will recognise, as I do, that one big challenge in relation to the BBC is that many of those who are most opposed to its further commercialisation are the other public service broadcasters, who worry about disruption to their own revenue streams, particularly in relation to advertising. That is why it is tricky to come up with an alternative to the licence fee.
Sir John Whittingdale
My hon. Friend is completely right. She and I both had the pleasure of serving as Minister; I was delighted to stand in for her while she was on maternity leave, so we have both looked at the issue for some time. We have to look at the overall television landscape. If we allow advertising, or encourage the BBC to compete, it is likely to have an impact on the commercial sector, which completely depends on advertising revenue. Our traditional advertising-funded PSBs—ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5—are already finding it difficult competing in a world with well-resourced streamers, and this would make it worse.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
One of the weaknesses of the streaming companies is regional and national news coverage and programming. For BBC Scotland, at the moment 99% of the licence fee paid by Scots is invested in Scotland. That is a really important and positive aspect of the current licence fee arrangements that must be protected as we move forward.
Sir John Whittingdale
I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. It is the case that the BBC provides more of the core public service content than the other PSBs—the others do, but not to the same extent. National and regional coverage of the type he has described is absolutely a core part of that. I think that needs to continue, and if the licence fee is not able to fund it, there is a case for it moving across to general taxation. There is a world in which the core PSB content is funded out of taxation, and then people could choose to subscribe to the content that is more entertainment based—a subscription model—but it is too early to say.
These are the kinds of discussions that are fundamental to the next charter. I am delighted that the Government are now beginning to consider that. My purpose today is to flag up the extent to which the existing model cannot be sustained, and to begin having the debate.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
Following the recent developments in Syria, I understand that the BBC World Service will offer enhanced services to audiences across Syria on broadcast medium wave and FM. Would the right hon. Member congratulate the World Service on stepping in to respond to an emergency situation with the utmost professionalism? Does that not underline his point as to why it should be funded from the Foreign Office?
Sir John Whittingdale
I agree. Yesterday, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee took evidence from the director general and the deputy director for news, Jonathan Munro, on this subject. He talked about the way the World Service provides its core language services and can also provide additional coverage quickly. Syria is a good example of where it is doing that. That is an extremely important role for the BBC, and one that I do not think could be funded in any way other than through public money. The BBC make a good case as to why the licence fee may no longer be appropriate, which we also need to consider.
There are a large number of Members present in the Chamber, so I do not want to take up any more time. I hope that I have raised one or two questions that we will need to debate thoroughly over the course of the couple of years that lie ahead for the charter renewal.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. I do not intend to set a time limit, but if Members could stick to five or six minutes, everybody should get to speak.
Liz Jarvis
I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Does the Minister agree that the BBC’s funding model must not be a Trojan horse for those who seek to undermine its editorial independence and pave the way for figures such as Elon Musk, whom we have little opportunity to scrutinise or hold to account? Liberal Democrats are committed to a strong, independent and well-funded BBC that continues to reflect the diversity of our nation and serves all audiences.
Sir John Whittingdale
I do not disagree with a lot of what the hon. Lady has said about the value of the BBC, but the problem is that more and more people are unwilling to pay the licence fee, and that has to be addressed. She wants to see a strongly financed and funded BBC, but she is going to have to come up with an answer to the fact that the revenue is going to go on declining under the present model.
Liz Jarvis
I do not disagree that there needs to be a plan, but at the moment I do not see one on the table. The next charter review is the time to have a serious, evidence-based discussion about funding, but any changes must strengthen, not diminish, the BBC.
Through the BBC we see things about our nation and the world that we might never encounter in our own lives. As Sir David Attenborough has said, the world would be worse off without our stories. It must be taken with great pride that the British public has a direct role in providing the platform needed to nurture and share the genius of so many British individuals in the creative industry. I hope we can continue to protect public ownership of the BBC, to preserve the voices and stories that make us who we are.
Sir John Whittingdale
I begin by thanking all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. A number of criticisms of the BBC have been expressed, and I have my own criticisms; nevertheless, everybody recognises the value that the BBC brings to the UK and our society, and the importance of ensuring that it continues to play that important role. But there is a problem: the current model is looking harder and harder to sustain. I therefore suspect that we will continue to debate this issue over the coming weeks and years during the charter renewal process. I look forward to continuing my discussion with the Minister and others. I thank everybody for their contributions and join the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), the Minister and all others in wishing all Members a very happy Christmas.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I am surprised that nobody has mentioned BBC Parliament, on which this debate will appear. I understand that it is available over Christmas, when it shows highlights from parliamentary proceedings—of which I am sure this debate will be part.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future funding of the BBC.
Draft Local Digital Television Programme Services (Amendment) Order 2024
John Whittingdale Excerpts(1 year ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
I am, in general, a supporter of local TV. That used to be somewhat more controversial that it is today. Local TV was invented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt) when he was the Secretary of State. His mantra at the time was, “Why should Birmingham, Alabama have a TV station and not Birmingham, England?” That point was widely recognised, but in the subsequent 10 years local TV has struggled.
Local TV has the advantage of EPG prominence— the No. 5 slot in most parts of the country—and has survived mainly by combining local television news and content with cheap programming, from which it derives advertising revenue. That is a difficult balance to strike, and some stations have been more successful than others. I have to say that London Live has perhaps not been as successful as some others; if hon. Members happen to watch it, they will see an awful lot of ’60s comedy shows, if that is their taste, and not a huge amount of local content.
As we come to the issue of the licence for the next 10 years, I ask the Minister to indicate to Ofcom the importance of local content. If local TV is to be of value, it needs to provide content that people want to see that is about their own community but is not available on regional TV stations. Coming from Essex, I can say that it is deeply frustrating that the local TV provided by ITV or BBC tells me what is happening in Cambridgeshire or Norwich, which is not of huge interest to my constituents. Local TV therefore has a real role to play.
One of the consequences of local TV stations’ difficulties is that there has been a huge amount of consolidation over the past 10 years. To my mind, however, the most important thing is not ownership, but content, so Ofcom, which has the job of laying down the licence conditions, needs to make it clear that that is the priority and focus, particularly in the area of news. As both my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East and the hon. Member for Guildford said, the task of drawing up a business plan to cover 10 years is challenging, so I hope that Ofcom will give guidance on how it expects television stations to set out business plans for a decade ahead.
That brings me to another important point, which the hon. Member for Guildford raised. The Minister and I recall—I am sure with great pleasure—our exchanges during the passage of the Media Act 2024 in the last Parliament. In relation to public service broadcasting, the prime purpose of the Act was to give prominence to public service broadcasting stations on digital platforms. They had the guarantee of the first few slots on the EPG, but as we moved to a world where people access television by various different means, there was real concern that they would no longer be guaranteed that prominence, which would result in a drop in viewers and so perhaps less advertising revenue for the commercial stations and less prominence for the BBC. The Government, with the support of the Opposition at the time, addressed that by giving prominence to the public service broadcasters.
The Minister may remember that, slightly unusually, having first been the Minister responsible for the Bill, I then moved an amendment to it on Report that would have given prominence to local TV stations. Part of the problem is that, as I understand it, the Act does not allow Ofcom to come back and designate other stations outside the main PSBs as requiring prominence. If the transition to a digital world continues at its current pace, more and more people will access TV through the internet and no longer through Freeview, and there is not the guarantee of prominence for local TV. Local TV made it very clear that it needed prominence.
Unfortunately, I was unable to persuade the Government to accept my amendment, and so it is not in the Media Act. I would be grateful if the Minister looked at that, because the answer at the time was, “Local TV does not have apps, so you cannot give it prominence.” It was a question of chicken and egg, because the providers of local TV said, “If you give us prominence, we will develop the app.” I believe that the app is under development. While I welcome the statutory instrument today to allow the extension of licences for a further 10 years, it needs to be combined with prominence. I hope that the Minister will address that.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Whittingdale Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for raising an issue that is so important to fans throughout the country. The Government, including my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, have acted decisively in announcing a consultation in order to consider how best to put fans back at the heart of ticketing, not whether to do it. We will say more about this imminently.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Lisa Nandy
I know that this matter is of huge concern not just to the right hon. Gentleman but to the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), and to many other Members. As he knows, the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism has responsibilities in both this Department and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and has taken a keen interest in the issue. We have read the report and are considering its recommendations, and I will shortly be in a position to update the right hon. Gentleman on the action that the Government intend to take.