Gaza: BBC Coverage

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. The documentary “Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone” was broadcast by the BBC on 17 February. It purported to show what everyday life was like for people in Gaza—a topic of huge sensitivity. As the UK’s public broadcaster, the BBC has a duty to provide accurate and impartial news and information, which is particularly important when it comes to coverage of highly sensitive events. In this case, it is clear that the BBC has fallen far short of those standards.

Shortly after it aired, reports emerged that the documentary was narrated by the son of a senior Hamas figure. Initially, the BBC defended the programme as an “invaluable testament” to the conflict and kept it available on iPlayer. Only after a significant public backlash did the BBC decide to withdraw it. Then we learned that on at least five occasions, the words “Yahud” and “Yahudy”—Arabic for “Jew” and “Jews”—were changed to “Israel” and “Israeli forces”, or were removed from the documentary; and then we learned that up to £400,000 in public funds might have indirectly supported a terrorist organisation.

However, I regret to say that the Government’s response to these allegations has been just as concerning. On Monday the Secretary of State refused to say whether Hamas, a proscribed terrorist organisation, should be described as such by the BBC, but I was glad to hear her comments today. On Tuesday the Home Secretary, the Minister responsible for addressing threats related to terrorism, said that she did not “know the details” surrounding this case, despite allegations that £400,000 in public funds may have indirectly supported this organisation. For that reason, the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the director general of the BBC requesting a full independent inquiry to consider this and wider allegations of systemic bias against Israel.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her response to my correspondence on this matter. I understood from her letter that she had raised these concerns about the documentary with the director general—and she has just confirmed that—and it was right that she did so, but I must press her further on the letter’s contents. Did she make it clear that, in this case, the BBC has fallen far short of the standards expected of the UK’s public broadcaster? Did she receive any assurances from the BBC that taxpayers’ money has not been funnelled to Hamas? Did she support our calls for a full independent inquiry into the documentary? What commitment did she receive from the BBC that this will never happen again, and if a criminal investigation has to take place, what will happen?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That should have been two minutes. Please will everyone measure how long they have? It is unfair, because we have a lot of business to get through.

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to the House, and also for raising it with me. As he knows, I have a long history of taking antisemitism extremely seriously—for instance, when it poisoned my own party—and I will always speak out without fear or favour when I see it raise its ugly head. I am, however, deeply disappointed by his attempts to pretend that the Government have been anything other than robust on this. He will know that in the media interviews to which he referred, I made it crystal clear that the UK Government and I believe, and have believed for a long time, that Hamas is not only a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK but a terrorist organisation, and we will continue to describe it as such. He will also know that in one of those interviews I made it clear that I had requested a meeting with the director general of the BBC to discuss the matter.

“Of course, the BBC is not there as an instrument of Government. Ministers seeking to interfere with editorial decisions or the day-to-day running of the organisation would be in nobody’s interests, in seeking to build the trust that is so fundamental to its core purpose.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2024; Vol. 746, c. 103WH.]

Those are not my words but the words of the last media Minister, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), whom the right hon. Gentleman served alongside. He was a Minister in that Government. The hon. Lady is now the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition. If he disagrees with her, I suggest that he take that up with her, but this is far too important an issue to be treated as a political football.

[Lisa Nandy]

Yes. The duty to report on what is happening to people in Gaza is absolutely fundamental, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has raised the issue of journalists, access and protection and safety a number of times. That is why the Government believe that the BBC and others have the utmost duty to exercise care and due diligence in the way in which they report on this conflict. It is in no one’s interests for the public not to have confidence in the information that they are receiving.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I commend the Secretary of State for her response to the urgent question; we agree with the position being taken. I cannot imagine what it must be like to be a Palestinian child in Gaza. In the first six months of the war alone, 2% of the child population was killed or injured, and tens of thousands more will have been orphaned or left homeless. Given this humanitarian catastrophe, many in this House today will find it deeply disappointing that, due to errors made in the production of this documentary, we are instead discussing why it was pulled, rather than the pressing matter at hand. Many of us will share the regret that we have ended up in this situation. Clearly, innocent Palestinian children have suffered terribly over the past 16 months. Does the Secretary of State agree that, regardless of today’s discussion, it is vital to shine an ongoing, credible and sustained spotlight on the plight of children in Gaza?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

I am happy to say to my hon. Friend, who has a long-standing interest and has been a real champion for children in Gaza for many years, that I will be more than happy to keep colleagues updated as this progresses and to update the whole House at the earliest opportunity.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

The BBC has definitely got questions to answer here, not just on the dealings over this film but on the wider concerns about the representation and reporting of the Gaza conflict. As the Secretary of State said, Hamas are a proscribed terrorist organisation yet they are referred to as such in just 7.7% of instances of reporting by the BBC. It took four days after broadcast for this programme to be taken off iPlayer, and at that point the BBC said there had to be further due diligence with the production company. It is not the first time that the BBC has had issues with its due diligence, but in subject matters as sensitive and incendiary as this, language matters, and treating issues like this with detail, sensitivity and impartiality matters especially. The BBC board is meeting today. How confident is the Secretary of State that the board is providing the necessary challenge to executives to maintain that due diligence and to maintain the trust in the organisation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

My hon. Friend, as always, has taken care to strike the right tone, and I thank him very much for raising that. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The question was not relevant to what we are discussing; that is the problem.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said and welcome her clear criticism of this documentary, but may I return to some of the—at best—mistranslation that happened during the documentary that my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State referenced? Instances of the Arabic words for “Jews” were changed to “Israeli” and, possibly worst of all, one interviewee praised the Hamas leader for his “Jihad against the Jews”, yet the BBC translated that to “fighting Israeli forces”. That is not an error in Google Translate; it is clearly a deliberate attempt to completely misinterpret the approach towards Hamas and the situation in the middle east. Can she give me an assurance that she will be robust in challenging those translations, because those terms are clearly antisemitic and take a pro-Hamas, pro-terrorist viewpoint?

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her answer to the urgent question. We all agree that the genuine inaccuracies and misrepresentations in this documentary, and in all reporting, must be addressed, and that steps must be taken to prevent them from reoccurring. We also all agree that there is no place for antisemitism or any other racism anywhere.

The BBC has been accused by more than 100 of its staff of giving Israel favourable coverage in its reporting of the war on Gaza, and criticised for its lack of accurate, evidence-based journalism. The letter, sent to the BBC’s director general and chief executive officer, said:

“Basic journalistic tenets have been lacking when it comes to holding Israel to account for its actions.”

Its signatories included more than 100 anonymous BBC staff and more than 200 people from the media industry. The letter also said:

“The consequences of inadequate coverage are significant. Every television report, article and radio interview that has failed to robustly challenge Israeli claims has systematically dehumanised Palestinians.”

What steps—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have got to get to the question, please.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

My apologies, Mr Speaker. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to investigate and address the unacceptable and biased anti-Palestinian and pro-Israel reporting by the BBC since 7 October, so that it can be trusted by those in this House and by the licence fee payers who fund its existence?