Baroness Rawlings
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for the BBC World Service in the long term.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government highly value the BBC World Service and its contribution to our international objectives. We increased our contribution for this year. Decisions on the World Service funding settlement will be made through the ongoing spending review and allocations process. The Government’s view is that the upcoming BBC charter review is the right moment to look at potential sustainable and predictable funding mechanisms for the World Service in the long term.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but horror stories abound in the press of Donald Trump and Elon Musk slashing staff programmes at the USAGM, Voice of America and Radio Free Europe. Does the Minister agree that the Chinese and Russian media would hail the Prime Minister as a hero if he allowed the FCDO to slash the BBC World Service budget? Can the Minister assure the House that there will be no more cuts but instead further investment, in tandem with today’s defence budget, as in the “message to Moscow” just announced?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I reiterate that the BBC plays a crucial part in ensuring that the world is a safer place, and that people are knowledgeable about what is going on. What the US has done with the US Agency for Global Media and how that impacts is, of course, a matter for the US. However, I remind the noble Baroness that we have shown our commitment to the World Service this year with a funding uplift of £32.6 million—31%—in 2025-26. I repeat that any decisions on government funding for the World Service in future years will be made through the ongoing spending review and allocation process. But the importance of the World Service must not be underestimated.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I of course welcome the uplift my noble friend the Minister has spoken about, but does he agree that, today of all days, when we have a review of our defence commitments, what the BBC World Service is doing is worth quite a few submarines in terms of the effect on the world and on our position within it? Will he look again at the danger that the Russians and Chinese will step in if any slots are left vacant by the BBC?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I am not sure what my noble friend is saying. We stepped up our services in eastern Europe as a consequence of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and the BBC has just launched a new service covering Poland. So we absolutely understand the importance of its role and we will continue to do that, but the BBC has editorial independence, and how it allocates resources is a matter for it. However, I reassure my noble friend that we are committed to the BBC. We gave an uplift this year, but I cannot comment on future years, until the spending review process is concluded.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, 80% of the World Service budget is currently classed as official development assistance. Last time this Question came up, the Minister said that the Government would make detailed decisions on how the ODA budget would be used on the basis of various factors, including impact assessments. Can he confirm that the Government understand the crucial impact the World Service has in being a key part of our national security, countering myths and disinformation? To pick up on the point made by my noble friend Lord Dubs, defence is not just about arms.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right, but I would make one correction—the figure is 70%. The point is that, prior to 2010, all the BBC World Service was independent, and it was the settlement the previous Government made as a consequence that shifted the responsibility on to the BBC. However, we did react when we felt that there was no focus, through the uplift and the grant from the FCDO. All the evidence points to the fact that this Government are absolutely committed to the BBC World Service, and we did provide an uplift this year, but I cannot comment on future years. The question originates from that long-term solution, and we are committed to using the charter review to make sure that we come up with an innovative solution that will be sustainable in the long term to ensure the future of the BBC World Service.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the BBC World Service is one of the world’s leading international radio broadcasters, with over 450 million listeners every week. However, it is vital in this multimedia world that the World Service moves with the times and remains competitive and relevant, so will the noble Lord outline to the House the Government’s view on how the World Service can tailor its content and format for a digital-native audience, especially the younger generations?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. One of the points of this year’s uplift was to guarantee the continued presence of 42 language-based services, but over a range of platforms, so it is not just limited to normal radio and TV. The BBC has been looking at a range of platforms to ensure that its reach is maintained. Of course, the BBC is prioritising its service as a whole, both domestically and globally. The reach of the BBC goes beyond that of the World Service, and I hope that continues to be so.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, Russian-backed media are now transmitting on the radio frequency previously occupied by BBC Arabic. While the FCDO funding for 2025-26 is helping the World Service, as the Minister said, to maintain existing language and emergency services for those in crisis, including in Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine, this cannot be guaranteed after 2026 unless long-term FCDO funding is provided. Does the Minister agree that finding this funding is preferable to making space for Russia and China to move in instead?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I of course understand what the noble Baroness is saying, but the Government uplifted the spending for 2025-26 to ensure that we can reach those people, particularly in Sudan, Ukraine and elsewhere. The evidence shows that we are able to respond and will respond. It comes back to the original Question: we need to look at a longer-term, sustainable funding mechanism that is not trapped by this yearly review. We are absolutely committed to that, and I understand the intent of the noble Baroness’s question.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
My Lords, the World Service has been particularly effective at communicating issues of faith and freedom of religion. In light of the increasing need for and importance of this, will His Majesty’s Government ensure as a priority that there is sufficient funding for the World Service, and that this is both retained and enhanced?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The BBC has certain editorial responsibilities, but the right reverend Prelate knows my commitment to freedom of religion and belief, and our appointment of the special envoy is evidence of that. Ensuring that news and views are available across all opinions, and across all religions, is vital in a world where so many conflicts can be driven by misinformation.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, while it is absolutely right that defence and security are more than just arms, I say as an aside before I ask my question that actually having nuclear submarines means that you beat the blighters you are fighting against at sea, and that is quite useful at times as well, when you really have to do it. But my question to my noble friend the Minister is to do with BBC Monitoring, which is crucial in handling operations and crises as they happen. I remember, as a former Chief of Defence Intelligence, that it gives immense insight, and it has been squeezed and squeezed. Are we content that there is a sufficient funding bracket in place for that?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right about the importance of that monitoring, and the challenges of a multipolar, global geopolitical situation mean that it is even more important. Maybe in the past it was relatively simple, but monitoring a whole range of activities— particularly of malign states and malign non-state organisations—is really important, so we are absolutely committed to that.