Westminster Hall

Thursday 26th June 2025 Westminster Hall

Thursday 26 June 2025

[Clive Efford in the Chair]

Legislative Scrutiny: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Thursday 26th June 2025 Westminster Hall

joint committee on human rights

Select Committee statement

13:30

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

We begin with a Select Committee statement. Alex Sobel will speak on the publication of the fourth report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, “Legislative Scrutiny: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill”, HC 789, for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions will be taken. At the conclusion of the statement, Members will put questions on the subject of the statement and Alex Sobel will respond to those in turn. Questions should be brief, and Members may ask only one question each.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding the time for this statement on the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on legislative scrutiny of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. I also thank my fellow members of the Committee, Lord Alton, who is the Chair, and the staff, who worked very hard in the production of the report.

The Bill is intended to prevent loss of life at sea and to deter and disrupt organised immigration crime. The Committee welcomes that intention. The Bill introduces a number of new offences targeted at organised criminal gangs facilitating unlawful migration, but the Committee is concerned that the new offences are drafted excessively broadly and pose a serious risk of criminalising refugees and other vulnerable groups. It recommends some changes to address that issue.

Clauses 13 to 17 create three new precursor offences. Those measures are intended to target the activities of facilitators and organised criminal gangs that look to profit from organised immigration crime. The provisions engage rights under the refugee convention—in particular, article 31, which prohibits the general imposition of penalties on refugees on account of their unlawful entry or presence in the country where they claim asylum. Those offences could potentially also interfere in some cases with rights under the European convention on human rights—notably, article 5, the right to liberty and security, and article 1 of protocol 1, on peaceful enjoyment of possessions—which are incorporated in domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Committee supports the Government’s intention to disrupt and deter organised immigration crime and to safeguard life. However, the Committee is concerned that, as drafted, the precursor offences create uncertainty, extend beyond the Government’s stated legitimate aim and risk inadvertently criminalising persons who ought to be protected from criminal penalty. The scope is broad, the thresholds are low and the penalties are high. In its report, the Committee proposes a series of amendments to deal with those issues.

Clause 18 makes it an offence for a person, while journeying by water to the UK from France, Belgium or the Netherlands, to have done an act that

“caused, or created a risk of, the death of, or serious personal injury”—

physical or psychological—

“to, another person.”

The Government should ensure that that clause is sufficiently clear and defined, reflects the legitimate aim that it is intended to achieve and is proportionate to that aim. In particular, the Committee believes that a mental element should be introduced to ensure that only conduct that is intentional or reckless is criminalised.

The Bill will repeal the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 in its entirety, as well as certain provisions of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. Repealing the 2024 Act removes the significant incompatibilities identified in the predecessor JCHR’s report. However, certain provisions of the 2023 Act have been kept, which raises human rights concerns. Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act modifies the common-law position such that it is for the Secretary of State, not the courts, to determine what is a reasonable period of detention. The Committee agrees with its predecessor Committee and recommends repeal of section 12 to restore certainty and ensure compliance with article 5 of the ECHR. Section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act broadens the public order disqualification in section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. The Committee believes that that provision is not compatible with the UK’s obligations under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings and article 4 of the ECHR, on prohibition of slavery and forced labour. The Committee recommends repeal of the provision.

Section 59 of the IMA amends section 80A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which provides that asylum claims and human rights claims from nationals of listed states must be declared inadmissible. The Committee believes that it must be possible for such individuals who face a real risk of persecution on return to make a protection or human rights claim, which must be considered on its merits, in order to guard against the risk of refoulement. If the Government choose to bring section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act into force, they should, at the very least, periodically review the list of safe countries, with particular consideration of the rights of minority groups. In 2023, Georgia, India and Albania were added to the list of safe states to speed up the process of returning people who have travelled from those countries illegally, but we understand those states to be high risk in particular for LGBTQI+ people. It is therefore important that the Government take notice of the universal periodic review by the United Nations Human Rights Council of states listed, as well as other assessments, in order to judge their safety for specific groups, particularly those from the LGBTQI community.

Section 62 of the IMA means that if a person making a human rights or asylum claim does not allow the Home Office to look at everything, including private information, on their phone, then the Home Office shall take that into account as damaging the person’s credibility when deciding whether to believe the person. The Committee believes that this provision should be amended to make it clear that the credibility of a claimant who has provided a reasonable excuse for their failure to provide a password or other method of access requested by the Home Office will not be affected.

Clauses 19 to 26 introduce new search, seizure and retention powers in relation to electronic devices. The Committee is concerned that there is a risk that the new powers of search, seizure and retention may in practice lead to a blanket policy to search and possibly seize and retain items such as mobile phones from asylum seekers, victims of trafficking and children. The Committee recommends that the Government clarify in the Bill how these invasive powers will be used, in order to guard against the risk of indiscriminate searches. The Committee also recommends that guidance clearly sets out that in circumstances where electronic devices are confiscated the authorities must facilitate the contact of individuals with their close family members.

The Committee is concerned that clause 35(7) and (8), deeming transfer of personal data to third countries and international organisations to be necessary for important reasons of public interest, inappropriately disapplies the normal safeguards in data protection legislation when data is transferred to third countries. The Committee recommends the removal of those provisions.

Clause 41 amends the current powers contained in paragraph 2(2) of schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971, which permits the Secretary of State to detain individuals liable to deportation on the grounds that their presence in the UK is not considered conducive to the public good. The Government state that the clause is intended to clarify that the Home Office may detain someone subject to deportation from the point at which the Home Office serves notification that deportation is being considered. However, the operational effect would appear to amount to retrospectively making it lawful to have detained persons liable to deportation. This does not comply with article 5 of the ECHR, which requires a lawful basis for detention, and article 13 of the ECHR, which guarantees an effective remedy. The Committee recommends the repeal of this clause.

The Committee believes that the requirements in clause 43 for imposing conditions such as electronic monitoring, geographical exclusions and curfews should be expressly limited to cases involving conduct such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, extremism or serious crime, or where the person poses a threat to national security or public safety. The Committee proposes an amendment to deal with this point.

The Committee acknowledges that the exclusion of individuals who pose a danger to the community is an important issue, and supports the Government’s intent to ensure that dangerous sex offenders cannot benefit from the protections of the refugee convention. Individuals will be able to argue against the presumptions made by the state regarding the seriousness of their offence and the danger that they pose to the community. This is important to give refugees the opportunity to argue against the seriousness of their offence and the danger they pose to the community.

Given the severe infringement on the right to privacy posed by the imposition of electronic monitoring, the Committee believes that the threshold test for electronic monitoring should be one of necessity and proportionality, not whether it is appropriate. Clause 52 should be amended accordingly.

Overall, the Committee welcomes the Government’s intentions in bringing forward this legislation but would like to see changes to ensure that the legislation is more tightly focused on criminalising those who exploit refugees and other vulnerable groups.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for making that statement. As everyone will know, I chair the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief. It is one of the issues that I am really concerned about, in this country and across the world, and I always speak about asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution and human rights abuses. Has the Committee been able to ascertain whether there has been an increase in the numbers of those seeking asylum who are religiously disenfranchised and have suffered human rights abuses? Is that something that the Government need to address?

[Alex Sobel]

I thank the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to address that, as I did not include those who have come to this country to seek asylum due to an impingement of their right to practise their faith or religious belief in their home country. We have seen an increase in asylum claims—I do not have the figures to hand—but the Committee’s consideration of that area in its inquiry on the Bill was in relation to the list of safe countries. Countries might be broadly safe, but not safe for individuals who are practising certain beliefs. I mentioned three countries, and of those the one where there are issues in that regard is India.

The Government should review the list of safe countries and have regard for the UN Human Rights Council’s universal periodic review in terms of the ability of an individual to practise their religion or belief in safety. That is an important consideration that the Government should take into account.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)]

It is a pleasure to make a brief comment. I thank my hon. Friend for his statement and for applying to make it. I also thank the Committee for its work on the report. I assure him that the report is being read in detail and that the Government will respond in due course.

13:41

Sitting suspended.

Backbench Business

IVF Egg Donation: Young Women

Thursday 26th June 2025 Westminster Hall

13:50

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered IVF egg donation in young women.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate on adverts targeting young women for their eggs and attendant consequences. I know that another debate was supposed to be happening here, but unfortunately for the hon. Member who secured that debate, it was not able to take place. That was fortunate for myself and others who have come along today, so I thank the Committee for having offered this slot to us on Tuesday.

It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. She always seems to come along to answer questions on health issues, and I thank her for that. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), as well as others who have come along to participate.

The issue of adverts for IVF egg donation has been brought to my attention, and we have some people in the Gallery today who have enabled me to prepare this speech—as well as the questions I wish to ask the Minister —in order to highlight this issue and raise awareness. I thank hon. Members for participating in this debate, which could not be more timely, and the Minister for joining us today. I look forward to her response.

This issue is not as widely understood in this House as perhaps it ought to be. When I made representations to the Backbench Business Committee, I was asked what I was trying to achieve. I explained that, and the Committee very kindly offered me the opportunity to have this debate. This issue must be debated. Adverts in public places asking women to donate their eggs for use by others have hugely increased in recent years. They are seen at bus stops, at stalls in university student unions, in shopping centres and on social media sites. It needs to be regularised and there needs to be departmental input into how it happens. There needs to be rules on how it takes place. I hope that my speech will illustrate the clear issues and why they are so important.

All my contributions in this House start in my constituency of Strangford. My constituents have asked me to bring forward this issue, and it has been very kindly supported by others across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Adverts are not legally required to state the health risks up front, but they should be. This is despite the process for retrieving eggs from a young woman requiring her to be put through the early stages of IVF and an invasive and often painful surgical procedure to remove them. IVF is so important. I read in the paper today about the number of IVF successes, and I welcome that. This is not about stopping IVF treatment. It is not about ensuring that people cannot have babies. Nothing makes our relationships strong like having children. I always think of those who perhaps cannot and who wish they could. IVF gives them an opportunity to do that.

In 2011, the amount a young woman could be compensated for her eggs rose to £750 per cycle. Thirteen years later, in October 2024, following advice from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, it rose again, this time to £985, with additional expenses payments able to be made in some cases. That shows that there is a cost factor, and payments should be along the lines of cost.

Women as young as 18 can donate their eggs for use by others—either for IVF for older people or for surrogacy —and demand is soaring. According to the HFEA, women can undergo as many as 10 donation rounds—a huge toll on any lady’s body. Later, I will give the price at which fertility clinics sell the eggs on, so hon. Members will see the difference between that and the figure that ladies are given for a cycle of eggs.

In 2024, the Department of Health and Social Care confirmed to me in a letter that it did not undertake an impact assessment before allowing the payments to women for their eggs to rise, nor has it undertaken a long-term study on the effects of egg retrieval on women’s bodies, but I believe it must do so. Clinics do not undertake long-term follow-up checks on donors’ health. Again, I would have thought that that happens, and I am really surprised that it does not. There seems to be no accountability in the process.

Concerningly, between 2021 and 2023, the Scottish Government also targeted women with open adverts for their eggs, and four NHS health boards in Scotland continue to do so as a result of surging demand.

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. Is he aware that the adverts that the Scottish Government and NHS fertility centres put out do not convey the associated risks, and that some have used disingenuous language? Does he share my concern about those advertising campaigns, and does he believe that they should be immediately stopped?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady very much for that point. That is the central thrust of this important debate. There do not seem to be any controls, and donation is almost glamourised, so for those in financial need—I will talk about them shortly—it may look too good to be true. It certainly does need regulating, and I thank the hon. Lady for coming along and making that pertinent point. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response on how the Government can regulate things in a constructive, helpful and safe way.

I do not know of any other Government in the world who ask women to donate their eggs for use by others, so why are we doing it here in a way that can undermine women’s health? It does not seem to be regulated in any way, and there do not seem to be any rules. That needs to be changed.

Research from Surrogacy Concern cited HFEA data showing that between 1991 and 2000, there were 736 egg donors aged between 18 and 25. Further research has shown that between 2000 and 2022, there were at least 78 women across the UK aged just 18 who registered to donate their eggs, 283 aged 19, and 468 aged just 20. That gives an indication of the age that this starts, and I will outline some of the reasons why this can have an impact later down the line.

Between 2000 and 2022, the HFEA registered 5,158 new donors across the UK aged 18 to 25 for egg donation. I say all those things because I believe that this is such an important issue, and that we are on the cusp of uncovering a major public scandal in the way egg donation is advertised.

The issue gets worse when we look at the socioeconomic background of the donors. In 2024, the Government confirmed to me that between 2011 and 2020, 4,147 donors came from the three most deprived deciles of the index of multiple deprivation. In stark contrast, there were 3,007 donors from the least deprived deciles. Again, as I will explain, those who may feel pressurised may see donation as a method of income without understanding all the potential side effects. Between 1991 and 2022, 23,522 new British egg donors were registered across the UK by the HFEA—21,020 from England, 1,315 from Scotland, 954 from Wales and 245 from Northern Ireland. In 2022 alone, 1,645 new British donors were registered in the UK.

Campaigners are concerned about the developing societal entitlement to women’s eggs, and that eggs are becoming a tradable commodity. They should not be, but that is the perception—indeed, that is the reality. Eggs for donation need to be of high quality, so only women aged 18 to 35 are targeted by fertility clinics. I believe that a power imbalance is developing between young and old, between poor and rich, and, in many cases, between female and male. The majority of egg donors are also not mothers, raising concerns about the psychological impact of a woman’s own genetic offspring being raised by others, which may only be realised years after donation. There is also a concerning development whereby young women’s bodies seem to be commodified resources to be assessed for the benefit of others. That concerns me greatly.

One London egg centre has an online catalogue—my goodness me—where donors can be searched for by their ethnic background, their hair colour, the colour of their eyes, their height, their skin tone and their educational attainment, raising further concerns about the development of designer babies. In other words, people think, “We’ll pick through this catalogue, and we’ll see which one we’d like to have.” It should never be that way.

Despite women supposedly not being paid for their eggs, donors have reported receiving payment, which the industry terms “compensation”. Originally £750 but now £985, it is paid into their bank accounts directly after egg retrieval, with no expenses claims or receipts needed to be submitted to the clinic. There are no rules. There are no guidelines. There is nothing to follow. Meanwhile, campaigners have seen plenty of examples of payments quoted up front and adverts directly incentivising young women to undergo the procedure for money, raising the likelihood of exploitation; the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) made that point very clearly. There is a significant risk to low-income, working-class women and to students. It also stands in stark contrast to expenses payments for British kidney donors, which must be strictly itemised with receipts provided. If that is the way to do it for kidney donors, it is the way to do it for egg donors.

The HFEA claims that egg donors largely state they are undergoing the procedure for altruistic reasons, but we must acknowledge the risk that some young women’s desire to help others, often at a cost to themselves, is being used against them. Eggs are sold in packages for thousands of pounds by egg banks and fertility clinics. The London Egg Bank offers six frozen eggs for sale at £5,500, and the Manchester Fertility clinic offers a package of eight frozen eggs starting from £11,000. That £985 against those prices gives an indication of where the real money is. The majority of British fertility clinics are now owned by private equity firms—again, there is little or no regulation, no rules and no safety measures. Something needs to be in place.

The process of egg donation is gruelling, which is sometimes overlooked. Women must inject hormones in a process known as downregulation, which switches off the pituitary gland in order to stop the ovaries working temporarily and allow the lady’s cycle, in its totality, to be controlled by the clinic. In cases of fresh egg donation to another woman, the donor’s cycle is synchronised with that of the recipient.

The donor then takes follicle-stimulating hormones to overstimulate the ovaries into producing an artificially high number of eggs at the same time. The clinic wants extra eggs, wants the donation to be larger than the lady would normally produce, and the woman then injects human chorionic gonadotropin, or HCG, which helps eggs to mature, ready for retrieval. This maturation mimics the natural process that normally triggers ovulation.

Finally, eggs are collected from the woman using a needle that punctures the vaginal wall and perforates the ovary, gathering fluid from each follicle—the fluid containing the eggs. Donors in the UK have reported that dozens of eggs, and often even more, have been retrieved in just one donation round. One British donor reported 42 eggs being retrieved in one cycle; another reported 46 eggs being retrieved in the next cycle. That stands in stark contrast to the one egg a month that the female body naturally ovulates. I hope that those who are here today will understand that if a lady’s natural ovulation rate is one egg a month, but 42 or 46 eggs are produced and farmed, that is very much going against what the body does naturally, which has a detrimental effect on some people.

Nobody fails to have sympathy for those who struggle to have a child and who therefore embark on fertility treatment. I know quite a number of ladies who have embarked on such treatment, and their joy at having their wee baby is something that words cannot describe. The look of happiness on the faces of the mum and dad is great, as is the fact that the wee child has been born. However, the use of donor eggs has real societal consequences and potentially there can be a very negative long-term physical and psychological impact on young women who donate their eggs.

We must rebalance this conversation to take into account the impact on the young women who undergo these procedures. We need to have regulation; we need to have rules in place. The process needs to be controlled, rather than the matter just being seen from the point of view of those who want access to donor eggs.

We know from the experience of women who underwent forced adoption in mother and baby homes in the 20th century that often it takes years for women to come forward and report harm done to them in the past. Some donors have reported needing hysterectomies as a result of the damage they sustained during egg retrieval. Other donors have said that when they discovered they had genetic diseases, the clinics refused to take further action and put the onus back on the donor themselves to report to the HFEA. Those checks should have been done before donation, not afterwards.

Similarly, donors are not required to undergo enhanced carrier screening, leading to a risk that some genetic diseases might be unknowingly passed on in the donor eggs and ultimately on to the wee baby who will be born. Another donor has reported donating eggs in her early 20s, only to find when she tried to start her own family in her early 30s that she was unable to do so. Other donors report endometriosis and adenomyosis developing after donation. Quite simply, the long-term risks to women’s health from egg donation are unknown and largely unstudied. Today, I am hopefully outlining where the problems are, why regulation is needed and why I believe that the Government need to step in.

Women who have undergone egg retrieval for their own IVF have reported complications and side effects, including sepsis, abscesses, perforated bowels, severe pain during or after retrieval, and even slipping into a coma as a result of developing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

All this risk is borne by young people so that older people can purchase eggs from fertility clinics and egg banks. According to the HFEA, between 1991 and 2022 —some 31 years—44,760 IVF cycles involving donor eggs were made for people aged 40 or over.

Young donors are at higher risk of ovarian hyper- stimulation syndrome because of the higher number of eggs that they have compared with older women. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has said that as many as 30% of women aged under 30 who undergo egg retrieval may develop ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Complications arising from OHSS can kill. That is why there needs to be regulation and consideration of safety as part of the process.

Two women died in England from such complications in 2005-06. In 2023 there were 53 severe or critical cases of OHSS reported to the HFEA. Yet nowhere in the adverts, online or anywhere else are the risks stated, and they should be. Those donating eggs should be aware of the risks. Donors have reported that clinics mention the risks and likely side effects only briefly and not in depth. They should be stated in depth, but they are not. Counselling for donors is offered, but is not mandatory.

We must look at international comparators. I always like to see what has been happening elsewhere. In Germany there is no egg donation at all. German legislation specifically prohibits the “splintering”—that is the word used—of motherhood that egg donation and surrogacy create. In Italy, donors cannot be compensated at all so that women are not incentivised to undergo the procedure because of financial need.

We must also consider the donor-conceived child. Egg and sperm donations are not meant to create more than 10 families. How many times have I read in the press about men who have fathered, through their sperm, perhaps as many as 100-plus children in the United Kingdom and across the world? One day a young boy and girl could meet, marry, and actually be brother and sister. There needs to be a limit, which is 10, but it is clear that some clinics do not have the control that perhaps they should have.

As gamete donation and use rapidly increases, the likelihood of genetic half-siblings across multiple households, often in close geographical proximity to one another, increases. That is what I fear no controls means. Although British clinics must ensure that donor identities can be revealed to children at 18 years of age, many people resident in the UK still travel abroad for IVF, including to jurisdictions where anonymous gametes and sex selection of embryos are legal. That means hundreds, if not thousands, of children are growing up in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland unable ever to trace their genetic parents.

The evidence is strong enough to call on the Government to raise the minimum age for egg donors to 25, because of the effect it has on those under that age who donate eggs. Secondly, we should ban adverts asking for women to donate eggs—the very thing that the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith referred to and which we are all very aware of. Advertising for surrogate mothers is already banned, so why not ban adverts asking for women to donate eggs? Thirdly, we should end payments to donors to ensure they are not donating because of financial need. In other words, their financial circumstances could put them in a quandary when it comes to doing what they are doing. At a minimum, adverts must state the health risks up front and the minimum donor age must rise. I sincerely hope that the Minister will take the issue back to the Department and that the Government will act quickly to protect and prioritise young women and their health.

14:14

[Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate at short notice from the Backbench Business Committee. I am a member of that Committee but did not take part in the decision on this debate.

As ever, the hon. Member has spoken about his concerns with eloquence and passion, statistics and attention to detail. I think we may all have found some of the things that have been said shocking and harrowing. It is important that parliamentarians air these issues, because over recent years, although steps have certainly been taken in the right direction and some of the shame around talking about fertility and reproductive health has lessened, there are undoubtedly still barriers for many women. Our Parliament sets an important example. If collectively as a society we are unable to speak about these issues, that is an obstacle to achieving better health outcomes. That must be our unifying purpose: no matter what our stance on the broader philosophical question of IVF, health outcomes should always be in our mind.

I do not oppose egg donation or IVF. Friends of mine have had very happy outcomes after having treatment, and problems before that for many years. I want to focus on women’s health and to ask the Minister about the broader view the Department holds on donors. Any woman who decides to donate her eggs should, as a minimum, know all the risks associated with the procedure. Some of the things the hon. Member outlined shows why that is so important.

Our understanding of the long-term effects of fertility drugs is totally insufficient and although there are no recent studies that draw a causal link between egg donation and cancer risk, several experts have argued that a longitudinal assessment of donor health outcomes is under-explored. No known long-term issues is totally different from there being no long-term adverse impacts.

Doctors from Cromwell hospital in the UK and doctors in the United States are just some of the medical professionals who have raised concerns over the years about anecdotal cancer cases and how little we know about cancer’s relationship with ovarian stimulations. Will the Minister note what discussions she has had with the HFEA on these issues? Will the Government commit to conducting systematic research on the medical and psychological health of donors over time? That must be tracked over a long period. I urge the Government to ramp up our understanding without further delay.

Secondly, I want to speak about last year’s decision to increase the compensation for egg donation and the impact that could have on the donor demographic. That is worth tracking, especially in the light of some of the figures that the hon. Member highlighted from across our nations. It was the first uplift since 2011, from £750 to £986, which reflected the impact of price rises.

As we all know, the cost of living over recent years has soared, placing immense pressure on so many people of all ages. My fear is that young women see this invasive procedure and the pain and discomfort it can generate as a way to help them make ends meet.

We want to have confidence that people are donating because they want to, not because they have no other option or have seen adverts that do not give them enough information about what looks like easy money. How little do they know? What information does the Department hold on the demographic of egg donors, and what impact has the rising compensation figure had on donation behaviour? I hope the House can agree that more must be done to ensure that those who wish to donate have to give full, informed consent and nothing less, and that those who make the decision to do so are not pushed into it for any reason, especially financial hardship.

14:20

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate on an issue that affects so many. Although his focus was on egg retrieval, he also identified the value of IVF to families across the UK. Like other Members present, I have family and friends who have struggled with fertility. The pain it causes, and the emotional toll it can take on families, is immense and harrowing to watch. Modern medicine has eased those struggles through IVF, which is remarkable and a credit to the many scientists and medical professionals who have worked tirelessly to develop it. If you do not mind, Mr Efford, I will selfishly mention my best friend Lottie and her husband Marvin. They were both IVF babies nearly 40 years ago, and two years ago they managed to have their little baby boy Luca without any fertility struggles. What a gift he is.

Sadly, there is currently a postcode lottery for IVF and fertility services, which undermines the generosity of those who donate eggs and shatters the hopes and family lives of many couples. In much of the country, couples are entitled to just one round of IVF on the NHS, while in other areas, people can receive up to three rounds. It is crucial that people can expect high-quality treatment wherever they live, rather than being priced out of having children simply because of their postcode. Can the Minister therefore set out what steps the Government are taking to reduce that inequality of access to these life-changing reproductive health services?

A specific inequality still exists for the LGBTQ+ community. In England, NHS-funded access to IVF is available only to women who have not conceived after two years of regular unprotected intercourse or 12 cycles of artificial insemination. In practice, that requires all lesbian couples to pay for artificial insemination cycles before becoming eligible for NHS-funded IVF. That is an insurmountable financial barrier for many of those couples, given that cycles can cost thousands of pounds. Although the Government’s 2022 women’s health strategy pledged to remove that requirement for lesbian couples, the roll-out of that new policy has been painfully slow. As of April 2024, only four of the 42 integrated care boards in England have implemented it. The Liberal Democrats are pushing for all integrated care boards to make that change a priority to ensure equitable access to IVF for all lesbian couples who are looking to start a family. What work is the Department undertaking to ensure that the requirement is removed across all ICBs?

It is important to recognise the immense contribution that egg donors make to the IVF process. The lives of couples and families across the country have been transformed by the generosity and support of those who donate eggs or sperm to help them have children. Becoming an egg donor is a complex decision, and as highlighted by hon. Members’ contributions, it can have lifelong implications, especially considering that donors can consent to have their eggs stored for up to 55 years, and children who were born through a donation and who have turned 18 may contact the donor. Added to that, donors must undergo rigorous medical screening. They are brave, selfless individuals who perform acts of love for family members, friends and strangers alike. It is absolutely right that eggs are donated rather than bought or sold, and that there are rigorous protections in place to ensure that.

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady not think that the fact that payments are given, whether they are badged as compensation or fees, means that we cannot actually say at the moment that donations are being given for purely altruistic reasons?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

That is exactly why the hon. Member for Strangford brought forward this debate, and we share his concerns that any attempt to create a market for egg donation could lead to perverse outcomes. Advertising for egg donors to come forward should reflect that, stressing the benefits to others rather than attempting to frame compensation as a primary motivation to donate. We must ensure that women donating eggs do so willingly, not out of financial necessity, and are provided with appropriate support throughout the process.

It is right that the donors clinic is required by law to offer counselling, but the Government should investigate whether additional steps are needed to ensure proper medical regulation of that counselling, beyond what is already provided by the Professional Standards Authority. Is the Minister satisfied that the Advertising Standards Authority and the Competition and Markets Authority are adequately resourced and have sufficient capacity to uphold essential regulations in this area?

I will briefly touch on an equally complex and emotionally charged topic: surrogacy and legal parenthood from the point of birth. For the sake of the child, the surrogate and the legal parents, the matter needs to be handled with great sensitivity. The Liberal Democrats believe that all potential cases regarding legal parenthood of a new baby must ensure that the wellbeing of all involved is balanced and respected. There are, understandably, concerns about financial incentives for surrogates. For example, the Law Commission found that there is a lack of clarity about what payments can be made by the intended parents to the surrogate, which makes the law difficult to apply in practice. We believe that any proposed legislation should be published and subject to scrutiny before any changes to current practice are made.

So many lives around the world have been transformed by the miracle that is IVF, but there remains much work to be done to address the inequalities in NHS provision, end the postcode lottery, and ensure that lesbian couples have access to IVF fairly. We must also ensure that donors are not unduly influenced by exploitative marketing, and we hope the Government will take action following the debate to investigate that.

14:26

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing an important debate at such short notice.

IVF counts as a medical miracle, in many respects. Since the technique was pioneered in the 1970s, some 12 million babies have been born by IVF or associated procedures. In the UK, there have been more than 70,000 donor births since 1991, when we started counting egg, sperm and embryo donations. Such births now account for one in 170 live UK births. For many families and individuals, those treatments have given hope where they otherwise would have none. Those suffering from fertility problems have been able to pursue their dreams of having a family with the help of IVF, and success rates have increased over recent decades. The children born as a result of these treatments have given great joy, love and happiness to their families.

With that in mind, the previous Government committed to broadening access to these services. As the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) said, the women’s health strategy for England, published in 2022, included removing barriers to access for same-sex couples. The previous Government also changed the law so that same-sex couples would not have to go through specific infectious diseases screening before pursuing reciprocal IVF. Those measures were designed to ensure that as many as possible could enjoy safe and equal access to treatment.

In my constituency, I was approached by a lady who has medical reasons for her infertility, and is married to a gentleman who had a child many years ago in a previous relationship. She found that she was not eligible for access to IVF. If she said she had no partner, she would be eligible for a sperm donor. If she said she had a female partner, she would be eligible for a sperm donor. Since her partner, however, had a child from a previous relationship, she was not able to have treatment for her medical condition. Personally, I did not think she should be denied access to that, so I have been campaigning with the local ICB, which is currently doing a review. I hope that review is not disrupted by the changes the Government have made to ICB funding.

IVF is a highly complex procedure, with several different approaches now available to doctors and patients. One of those approaches involves an intending parent receiving donor eggs from another woman. That can be a lifeline for those who cannot use their own eggs, whether due to age, quality or other physiological factors. It relies on the generosity and selflessness of the donor women who contribute their own eggs so that others may have a chance of raising children. That process contains risk, and although we recognise the huge opportunities that IVF offers and the generosity of the donor women, we must make sure that the procedural risks, advertising and regulation are properly managed.

Typically, egg donors must be between 18 and 35, be in good health, have no inheritable conditions, and pass a variety of screening and suitability tests. Those requirements are designed to provide reassurance for intending parents, but in order to find as many potential donors as possible, many companies pursue aggressive advertising strategies to attract eligible donor women. When I first thought about this, I thought, “I haven’t seen any adverts for such a process.” Then I recognised that, of course, I am not in the target audience, because I am too old.

With social media, when we think about something, before we know it, it has appeared on our phone or another device, in the corner of the screen as an advert. I am advised by women who are of the right age that they feel they get a lot of adverts to encourage them to be egg donors—more than they would like to see. Does the Minister agree that the guidance on internet advertising in particular needs to be updated, especially in the light of the targeting of adverts at particular demographic groups? Will she commit to investigating how many women are targeted by adverts for a service that they would not consider engaging with, and ways of being able to avoid those?

There are also risks to the process. It is especially important that women know the full extent of the risks before they agree to a medical elective procedure, in particular one that is not for their own benefit. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is one of the main risks for egg donors and causes symptoms rising from mild discomfort and bloating to serious respiratory problems, renal failure and, in extreme cases, death. A 2023 review study in the Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics found that severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome occurs in 1% to 10% of stimulation cycles. That is quite a wide range of uncertainty, and it is partly why many donors have argued for more research to be done to support informed consent and proper regulation on how the risks are communicated to donors.

We have already heard in this debate about the long-term risks. Given that the HFEA will know who all the ladies who have generously given of their eggs are, does the Minister have any plans to look back at that data in an anonymized fashion to see whether any long-term health risks can be identified? Will she also talk about the steps that the Department is taking to ensure that high-quality research is accessible for those considering egg donation, and about whether companies are mandated to conduct and provide it as part of their advertising?

We have talked about compensation during the debate. Fertility companies make much of the altruism motivating donors to give their eggs, and that no doubt forms part of the reasoning of donors who admirably wish to help others less fortunate than themselves by contributing their eggs. It is also true, however, that fertility companies provide compensation payments. Those are capped at £986, a limit intended to ensure that women are not enticed to donate eggs due to financial need, but a risk remains that women more in need of financial assistance may be attracted by the payments. Recent coverage has highlighted that some services present donation as a second income stream.

Clearly, however, women who put themselves through a lengthy, often uncomfortable and potentially dangerous process in the name of helping others should not be out of pocket as a result. Getting that balance right requires careful attention. The Government must ensure that they review the compensation rates and how it is provided —as a flat sum or on receipt—to ensure that we get this right.

Beyond the financial cap, companies are also allowed to advertise benefits in kind, such as discounted egg freezing for women who donate some of their eggs to others. In essence, therefore, they are saying to ladies, “If you come to donate some of your eggs, we’ll allow you to store your own eggs for a much reduced price, in case you need them later.” Some women might see that as a reason to donate eggs—that they cannot afford to freeze their own otherwise. What are the Government doing to manage the kind of additional incentives that might encourage women to donate eggs when otherwise they would not? Does the Minister plan to regulate non-monetary incentives in the future?

[Jonathan Hinder]

Whatever we think about the motivations of the women involved, we can agree that private companies are concerned with profit, and they are the ones that are in many cases running such adverts. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is unethical to make profit out of the practice?

[Dr Johnson]

I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to companies making profit out of providing IVF services, or whether he is talking about those who profit from egg donation itself.

[Jonathan Hinder]

I am talking about egg donation.

[Dr Johnson]

I think it is reasonable for companies to provide IVF as a service in the private sector, but making profit out of the specific egg donation itself is a separate issue. I agree with him on that.

Regarding other ethical issues, we must think about the longer-term impacts of egg donation and ensure that women are properly equipped to deal with them. Children born from egg donation have a legal right in the UK to contact the woman who donated the egg from which they were born, and to obtain their name, age and last known address from the HFEA. The first cohort of children with that right were able to use it only relatively recently, in 2023, so it may be too soon to know what the long-term impacts might be for the children or donors concerned, or to what extent it may affect their family relationships or emotional wellbeing. Will the Minister tell us how many children are known to have exercised that right since 2023? What is the Department’s assessment of the likely long-term impacts on those children, their families and the donors?

IVF offers a lifeline that can transform people’s lives for the better, but where women are donating eggs to others, we must make sure that they are aware of the risks, and that they are doing it for the right reasons, not because they are being enticed financially. The Government must ensure that compensation does not become financial incentivisation, that advertising is accurate and unbiased, that women’s wellbeing is put first, and that the public have the information they need to make informed choices about their bodies and their healthcare.

14:35

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate on egg donation in young women. He raises a number of important points, which the Government take seriously. I absolutely assure him that there are rules and regulations around egg donation in this country. Hon. Members in this debate have talked about the potential concerns of the long-term impact of egg retrieval, and the potential incentive of the compensation offered for egg donation, particularly for young women on low incomes. I hope to address those points in my remarks.

For people who are struggling to conceive, which may be for a variety of reasons, receiving donor eggs can be life-changing—as we have heard in this debate—and enable them to start a family of their own. Donating eggs should be a purely altruistic act, and choosing to become a donor is a complex decision. In the UK, the average egg donor is between 31 and 32 years of age. That average has remained stable since records began in 1991. Egg donors are typically UK-based, with around 3% of donor eggs imported from abroad. There were around 3,800 IVF cycles using donor eggs in 2023, which is an increase from around 3,600 in 2019. Those donors support around 2,000 to 3,000 people a year who would otherwise not be able to have a baby. I recognise their generosity, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) said, we also recognise that egg donation procedures come with risks, and they should not be undertaken lightly.

The HFEA ensures that licensed fertility clinics are following law and guidance in relation to egg donation. The Government agree with the point made in this debate that young women should be fully informed of any risks when making the decision to donate their eggs, and that clinics must ensure that women are fully informed and supported throughout the egg donation process. It is mandatory for clinics to provide counselling to women before egg donation to ensure that they understand all the potential risks, and legal and social implications, of donation. Donating eggs is generally very safe, and most women do not experience any health problems beyond discomfort during the stimulation of the ovaries and the egg collection procedure.

I do not want to minimise that experience of discomfort, but where women wish to donate eggs, the HFEA and the Government are committed to making it as safe and accessible as possible. In the short term, there is a potential risk of having a reaction to the fertility drugs used for the donation procedure. If that happens, the effects are normally mild, and can include headaches, nausea or feeling bloated. Donors are advised to let their clinic know if they experience any of those side effects.

In some very rare cases, as we have heard, women develop OHSS. It is a serious and potentially fatal reaction to fertility drugs, which happens about a week after eggs have been collected. Fortunately, it is rare, occurring in less than 0.1% of cycles. Because of the serious nature of OHSS, all severe or critical cases must be reported to the HFEA within 24 hours by the patient’s clinic. They are categorised by the HFEA as grade B incidents. A grade B incident involves serious harm to one person, or moderate harm to many. The HFEA’s latest “State of the fertility sector” report found that fewer OHSS incidents were reported in 2023-24, with 53 severe and critical cases reported by UK clinics.

In recent years, there has been widespread interest in donation, and figures show that the number of egg donors is rising. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend and the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), about the importance of having conversations and asking questions about the long-term impact on women’s health, which is generally an under-researched area. The Government recognise that and would welcome studies in this area. If there is anything I can add to that following this debate, I will follow up with hon. Members on the opportunities for understanding the wider long-term implications for women’s health in this area.

At the public board meeting last year, the HFEA discussed the rates of compensation offered to egg and sperm donors. Since 1 October 2024, egg donors have received £985, which is up from £750. That increase in donor compensation was the first since 2011, and reflects the rise in inflation. The compensation offered to them is intended to reflect their time and the nature of the procedure, rather than being an attempt to monetise donation in the UK.

I want to address some of the points raised by Members to do with the variability of access to fertility services more broadly. Infertility affects one in six women of reproductive age worldwide. It is a serious condition that impacts wider family, relationships and mental health, as we heard from the Liberal Democrat spokes- person, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller). I congratulate her friends, Lottie and Marvin, on the arrival of their child.

This Government expect integrated care boards to commission fertility services in line with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. NICE is currently reviewing the fertility guidelines, and will consider whether the current recommendations for access to NHS-funded treatment are still appropriate. I look forward to the guidelines being published; we will work with integrated care boards to determine how best to improve their local offer and ensure equity of access for affected couples.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for her very comprehensive review. I have three quick questions. First, will the Government commit to undertaking a long-term study into the long-term health outcomes of women? That is one of the things I hope to see happen when it comes to egg retrieval. Secondly, will the Government review the safety of offering £985 per donation, which is sometimes said to be compensation? Thirdly—I hope I am not pressing the Minister too hard; I am quite happy for her to come back to us on this—everyone who has participated in the debate has expressed concern about the adverts, so we are keen to hear her thoughts on banning those.

[Karin Smyth]

I have addressed the issue of compensation. It rose in response to inflation, for the first time since 2011. We have no further plans to start a study specifically on health. As I said in my remarks to others, we understand that broader outcomes in women’s health is an under-researched area. Bringing forward trials is the usual response. If we need to add anything else to that, I will make sure we do so, but there are no other plans currently.

Advertising is governed in this country by the Advertising Standards Authority, which issued a joint enforcement notice in 2021 with the HFEA to ensure that fertility clinics and others were aware of the advertising rules and treating customers fairly. I am afraid I cannot comment on Scotland, where I understand there has been a large advertising campaign. That is not in my ken, although it is covered by the HFEA, which is a UK-wide body, so that is a bit of a complication. If there is anything to report back on with regard to Scotland, without me stepping on devolved issues, I will make sure we do so.

I again thank hon. Members for securing the debate and acknowledging the altruism of the women who choose to donate their eggs and help to give others a much longed-for baby. I assure Members that this Government will monitor the issues raised this afternoon. Women’s health and tackling inequalities are central to the priorities that we will take forward in the 10-year plan.

14:42

[Jim Shannon]

I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) referred in an intervention to the advertising issue, which is really important. She talked about Scotland, as I did, but there is also advertising elsewhere that needs to be controlled.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) and I had a discussion at some length before the debate today, and the very things that she wants to see, we all wish to see. We all recognise that IVF gives potential mothers the opportunity to have a child; the joy that can bring can never be emphasised enough. However, we must ensure that all the risks involved are known beforehand. She referred in particular to ovarian cancer and egg donation.

The hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) referred to the issue of compensation. When ladies give eggs as a donation, their reasons for doing so are above board. Whenever eggs are donated for compensation, which is the word that is used, unfortunately it can lead to other things as well.

I also thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for her contribution and for the example she gave, which showed the joy that having a child can bring. She referred to those who donate eggs willingly, without any financial obligations. She also talked about surrogacy, which is a different issue.

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), for her contribution. She brings a wealth of knowledge, through her doctorship. I also thank her for outlining all the cases that she did. She gave the example of one of her constituents, which perhaps highlighted what the issues are.

As always, I thank the Minister for taking the time to come along. My request to her is this: whenever we have a chance to look over this debate and check the Hansard report, we might have further questions, so would she be agreeable to coming back to us if we do?

It is very obvious to me that the Government recognise that there are issues that are outstanding and that must be resolved. With that in mind, I again thank all hon. Members, particularly the Minister, for their contributions, and I also thank those in the Public Gallery, who have come along to listen to our contributions today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered IVF egg donation in young women.

14:47

Sitting suspended.

BBC World Service Funding

Thursday 26th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Jeremy Wright in the Chair]

15:08

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

We will start a minute or so early because, as everyone will appreciate, there are a lot of potential speakers and I want to give everyone maximum opportunity to get in. To ensure that no one is disadvantaged by our starting early, let me make it clear that I will also call those who arrive from 3.10 pm onwards.

15:09

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the funding of the BBC World Service.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Earlier this afternoon, hon. Members may have heard the Prime Minister agree with me that the World Service is a crucial asset of British soft power. Therefore, the debate may be superfluous in some respects, but as we are all here I think we will carry on with it.

There are few institutions in the world that so consistently live up to the values we claim to cherish—truth, independence and freedom—as does the BBC World Service. Together with the royal family, the BBC is one of a tiny handful of British brands known by billions worldwide—and not just known, but trusted. It broadcasts in 43 languages to 400 million people a week, bringing impartial news to some of the most dangerous and controlled places on Earth. It is a beacon for those who are denied the right to free expression, and a trusted voice in a world increasingly awash with propaganda, intimidation and disinformation. It certainly strengthens our hand when we deal with tyrants worldwide. That is why it is so important to ensure its continued funding.

The World Service costs £366 million annually to reach an audience of approximately 400 million people every week—what fantastic value! Across the globe, rogue and authoritarian Governments are increasingly leveraging media to undermine free societies. We see that clearly in Hong Kong, where the Chinese state is targeting journalists who report on the Chinese state’s human rights abuses, and we have seen it in Moldova, where last year’s presidential elections were disrupted by Russian disinformation—false stories pumped on to people’s phones by hostile powers. Those dangers have been only amplified by recent cuts to American foreign spending. The Voice of America was silenced by President Trump.

[Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to intervene on him as the MP for BBC Scotland’s headquarters. Given the context that he has talked about, does he agree that investment in the BBC World Service is in fact investment in the defence of our values and the defence of our ideals as a British nation?

[Peter Prinsley]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The Voice of America was established to broadcast truth and liberty into European nations darkened by fascism and Soviet oppression. When the editor of Russia Today heard that the Voice had been silenced, he said it was “awesome”, which only highlights the importance of the BBC and Britain on the global stage. We should encourage the United States to reconsider its decision and restore the funding, but we must prepare ourselves to fill the gap through the World Service. That will mean additional demands on resources.

The World Service is vital in the battle against misinformation, which is a modern fight unfamiliar to those who will recall a world where all media outlets provided trusted and verifiable facts. Misinformation, along with confused or false facts, has become one of the most pressing global threats, fuelling doubt, division and instability.

The BBC World Service excels in countering misinformation. BBC Verify and its language services are being used to rigorously fact-check. They use cutting-edge AI to rapidly tackle and neutralise viral disinformation. Only this week, we heard how AI has been used to establish a new Polish language service.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

This is an important debate. I broadly agree with the hon. Member on the positive influence of the World Service. Would he acknowledge, though, that on occasion—such as on BBC Arabic—standards have fallen below what we would expect, with former Hamas officials put forward as neutral observers? We need to ensure that, exactly as he said, the highest possible standards of international truth and credibility are maintained at the BBC.

[Peter Prinsley]

I thank the right hon. Member—my recent squash partner—for his intervention, I agree that we must be sure that whatever the BBC says is true; that must be the case. The BBC Arabic service—the language service—disappeared some time ago, and that is to be regretted.

In Pakistan, a video falsely claimed to show the aftermath of an Indian airstrike on Pakistani air bases. That went viral—it was viewed over 400,000 times—stoking widespread fear and heightening tensions with India over Kashmir, but actually it was mislabelled footage of the 2020 Beirut port explosion. BBC Verify debunked the claim and calmed the situation.

In 2023, a false story spread across the internet that alleged that the newly elected President of Nigeria had forged his university degree. There was anger and unrest until a report by the BBC global disinformation team revealed it to be false, which defused the situation.

Those are not isolated stories; they are part of a growing global pattern. The fight is particularly crucial in an era when young people increasingly consume news online. A few weeks ago, I visited a school in my constituency at Bury St Edmunds and asked the children how they got their news. I said, “Do you get your news online?”, and almost every hand went up. Among 12 to 15-year-olds in the UK, only the BBC can compete effectively with the online tech giants. To continue to compete effectively and divert attention from untrustworthy sources, the BBC needs the resources to excel in what a young person recently told me is called the “attention economy”. With appropriate funding for new digital content, the BBC can significantly expand its impact.

In recent weeks, our attention has undoubtedly been drawn to the middle east, particularly to Iran, and the power of the BBC’s digital reach is no clearer than through the work of BBC Persian. It recently reached over 32 million users on Instagram in just five days, despite the platform’s having been blocked by the Iranians. People were so desperate to view trusted BBC news that they risked their safety by using virtual private networks, or VPNs, to bypass Iran’s strict internet censors. Some posts achieved more than 12 million views.

When Iran restricted internet access, BBC Persian increased broadcasts from eight hours to nearly 24 hours a day and launched an emergency radio service. Despite the fact that there were no reporters on the ground, the team diligently verified information amid severe misinformation campaigns. With adequate funding, the BBC World Service always steps up during global crises, delivering a public good for the benefit of a whole country.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

What has been happening at BBC Persian over the past few weeks is a case in point, as my hon. Friend said. It has been narrating events in an accessible way and providing insights that are free from the talking points of the propaganda regime into how people in Iran really feel, and how they are experiencing the conflict. It is a public good for the world. It tackles misinformation and develops our soft power, but it also provides important human empathy in the fog of war. We must bear in mind that BBC Persian journalists and their families are being harassed and threatened here in London. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should celebrate their courageous work and back them with the resources that they need to continue?

[Peter Prinsley]

I absolutely agree. I first got into this subject when I met World Service refugee correspondents from BBC Persian and BBC News Russian at the Labour party conference. I so admired what they were doing, and it was a real inspiration for me.

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office contributes £104 million a year to the World Service budget of £366 million. The BBC does an awful lot with its licence fee. I was told this week that, for the cost of a cup of coffee a week, it delivers drama, comedy and news across TV and radio, as well as one of the world’s most visited websites. However, money is tight and there are serious fears that its essential work will be chipped away.

Like many, I would describe the BBC World Service as a tool of British soft power. Remarkably, the entire Foreign Office contribution to the BBC World Service is roughly equivalent to the cost of a single F-35 jet. We lately agreed to purchase a whole lot more of those, and that was the right move because we need to boost defence in a dangerous world, but it would be a critical mistake to invest heavily in just one aspect of our security while neglecting another equally essential aspect.

Global inflation and rising costs are putting the World Service in increasing funding difficulties, and without more support there is a risk that it will lose critical technological capabilities, especially among younger audiences. Although broadcast services currently account for two thirds of the World Service’s reach and they remain crucial, the future is digital, and on digital platforms the BBC is not just competing with Russia and China but is up against Facebook, TikTok, Google and the others, so we need sustained investment. Despite all the funding challenges, BBC World Service journalists continue to bravely provide quality journalism in the most challenging circumstances, often at great personal risk. When it comes to Iran we rely heavily on the work of BBC Persian’s brave journalists who face, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) said, threats, asset seizures and passport confiscations just for doing their jobs.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I do not in any way argue with the hon. Gentleman’s tribute to the journalists of BBC Persian, who have endured appalling harassment, particularly of their families still in Tehran. It is also worth putting on the record the bravery of the journalists of Iran International, one of whom was attacked by a thug from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on the streets of London, and who still endure enormous threats and intimidation.

[Peter Prinsley]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that remark. The World Service is ultimately about the listener. We must bear in mind, when considering the funding settlement for that service, that there are individuals living under authoritarianism whose freedom of expression is so very restricted. They rely on the World Service to provide an accurate and comprehensive global perspective. Funding the World Service is not just about serving elites; it is about earning respect abroad and safeguarding future freedom. Let us not be complacent when it comes to the funding of the BBC World Service. It is an important source of essential soft power and a way for the country to punch well above its weight on the international stage, to spread truth, to lighten the grip of totalitarianism, and in some circumstances prevent the need for us to use hard power at all. That is exactly what the Prime Minister told us this morning.

It has been said that we could not recreate the BBC World Service today if we started from scratch. There is not the political will and no one would be willing to take such a risk. If we lose the World Service, we simply will not get it back. I do not think we should take that risk. The Government were bold to increase funding for the World Service last year, but a more steady and long-term funding arrangement must be put in place to prevent what I fear will be death by a thousand cuts.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that if they wish to speak they should continue to bob so I can see that they do. If we are going to get everybody in, people will need to restrict themselves to about three minutes, but I am loath to impose a formal time limit. I call Sir John Whittingdale.

15:21

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Thank you, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) on calling the debate this afternoon, which is extremely topical, and on convening a very helpful panel to discuss the subject a couple of days ago.

The World Service has always been one of the great assets of this country. When we talk about the UK’s soft power, the BBC is right up there at the top. Its reach into some of the most troubled parts of the world is huge. We only have to reflect back on the stories of people like Terry Waite, who, when he was held hostage in Lebanon, spoke of how he relied on the BBC World Service. The service has become all the more important today, for two reasons. First is the huge spread of disinformation—what is called foreign interference and manipulation of information—being conducted by Russia and China.

The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket mentioned Moldova. I was there a few weeks ago and spoke to politicians there who were trying to counter a tidal wave of Russian disinformation on TikTok and Telegram channels, seeking to influence the parliamentary election coming up later this year. The same is happening in China, with independent media being closed down and huge amounts put into spreading Chinese propaganda. That is one aspect.

At the same time, the other reliable voice, which was provided by the Voice of America service, as the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket said, has been undercut by the withdrawal of funding by the US Administration. I hope that that will be reversed. At the moment, it is on hold; we are told it is under review. But having talked to some of the people involved, they are pessimistic. If Voice of America goes, it makes it all the more important that we have a trusted, reliable source of independent news.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), from a constituency neighbouring my own, is right that there have occasionally been questions about the impartiality of the World Service, as there are always likely to be. I heard the complaints about BBC Arabic, and in some cases I sympathised with them, but overall the BBC World Service is deeply trusted.

Until 2010, World Service funding came entirely from the Government. Then, as a result of pressures on public spending, the then Chancellor George Osborne decided to reduce public expenditure, and so asked the BBC to take over the funding through the licence fee. That continued until 2015, when I was Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Government agreed that, although funding was still from the licence fee, the Foreign Office would provide a top-up. That is how it has remained: roughly two-thirds of funding comes from the licence fee, and roughly a third from Government.

But the World Service is now under a double squeeze. The licence fee has been frozen for a time. It is now going up again, but the BBC has had to find savings. The director general, if asked, will say, “My job is to provide value to the licence fee payer, and the truth is that most licence fee payers are unaware of, or certainly don’t listen to, the World Service.” It is a public good. It is for the good of the country. That is why he argues that the Government should take back overall responsibility for funding the World Service. That is an argument with which I have great sympathy.

I am deeply concerned that, because World Service funding from the Government counts as official development assistance and the ODA budget is under pressure, further cuts are to be made as part of the expenditure reductions currently taking place, even though there was a top-up last October. The latest letter from Jonathan Munro, director of the World Service, states,

“we have been asked to prepare for further engagement with the FCDO on the impact of the reduction in spend on ODA”.

That suggests that there may be further reductions. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government will not only continue to fund the World Service at the present level but look to increase it, because the need for that has never been greater.

15:27

[Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. In recent years, we have seen a rise in disinformation, with malign actors seeking to sow division and distrust within communities, across countries and throughout entire regions. One of the key problems with our global information ecosystem is that it takes significantly more time and effort to refute false or misleading information than it does to produce it. That is why continued funding and support for the BBC World Service is not just desirable but essential: it acts as a factual counterweight to disinformation.

There is documented evidence of states such as Russia employing trolls to spread misinformation internationally, in countries such as the UK and India, on platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Twitter. In 2020, Facebook uncovered a Russia-linked disinformation campaign run through a front organisation in Ghana. The operation used fake accounts to post about US social issues such as race, LGBT rights and celebrity culture, aiming to sow division while concealing its Russian origins. Those and similar actions are designed to accelerate societal division and encourage support for illegal and unethical activities such as the invasion of Ukraine.

In contrast, the BBC World Service shares a balanced view of international developments, delivered through news, speech and discussion, on TV, on radio and online, in 42 languages around the world. It is the world’s largest external broadcaster by reception area, language diversity and audience reach, with an average weekly audience of 450 million. It reflects and projects impartial, accurate and independent journalism. In an increasingly competitive global media environment in which authoritarian states invest heavily in state-run media, the BBC stands as a trusted voice globally.

The case for the BBC World Service is about not only the rise of disinformation but the decline of similar global news services, of which the closest in scale was Voice of America, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley).

A striking example of the self-defeating nature of the cuts to such organisations and to impartial global journalism came when Persian-language reporters for Voice of America who had been on administrative leave were called back to work following the escalation of tensions after Israel’s attacks on Iran. Just days after returning, these journalists reportedly stepped outside for a cigarette break only to find themselves locked out of the building, and they were then informed that they had been dismissed. At a moment of heightened geopolitical instability, when their language skills and regional insight were more valuable than ever, the termination of their employment was not just poorly handled; it was a serious loss for factual reporting, both for the region and for the global audience.

That is precisely the role that BBC World Service continues to play. In the absence of other trusted international broadcasters, the BBC must fill the gap. If we do not, others will, and the voices that take the place of the BBC might not be platforms promoting informed and informing journalism. I trust that in her closing remarks the Minister will recognise the role of the BBC World Service and give her support to its continuing existence.

15:30

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Thank you, Sir Jeremy, for calling me to speak, and it is a pleasure to endorse so much of what has been said today in such a unified way across party boundaries.

The value of BBC broadcasting is to be measured by the risks that people are prepared to take in order to listen to it, ranging from people in occupied countries to people in totalitarian states. From occupied France in the second world war to oppressed Afghanistan today, the BBC World Service is many people’s principal lifeline to the truth. Indeed, its current reach in Afghanistan is believed to be almost a quarter of the entire population. As we have heard today, it reaches well over 400 million people worldwide, including 64 million people every week in the world’s 20 most fragile states. No political estimate can be put on this reach other than its colossal impact for good.

However, resources have not kept pace and we see the consequences in places such as Lebanon, where the Russian Sputnik radio channel now transmits on the radio frequency that was formerly used in that country by BBC Arabic, which had to be closed down after 85 years, early in 2023. By the end of that year, a Russian radio channel had taken over in Lebanon.

Indeed, Russia and China are estimated to be investing between £6 billion and £8 billion in media services across Africa, Asia and the middle east. As we have heard, deplorably, the US Agency for Global Media, which runs Voice of America and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, as well as funding Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia and the Middle East Broadcasting networks, has suffered huge cuts in funding and personnel. Normally, that overarching system of broadcasting by the USA would reach an estimated 427 million people. Are the gaps that will be created by these cuts going to be filled, once again, by countries hostile to western values? It goes without saying that Russia and China are both absolutely delighted with that development in the USA.

As we have also heard, two thirds of the World Service continues to be funded by the licence fee, yet it is primarily a service that benefits the interests of the Government and the nation as a whole, rather than the people who pay the licence fee being the consumers of the service. By definition, their listening in is a bonus; the World Service is meant to promote values and truth overseas.

Because of the three-minute limit for speeches, I will not be able to refer to BBC Monitoring, as I had hoped to, but it is another vital service. Both the World Service and BBC Monitoring used to be paid for by the Government. If the Government decide to pay for them in full again, they can at least put the money required towards the extra contribution of 1.5% of GDP on NATO spending, to reach a target of 5% of GDP, which they have now agreed to accept.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for not mentioning the thing he has just mentioned. [Laughter.]

15:34

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing this important debate.

I declare an interest, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the BBC, a recipient of BBC hospitality, and a former employee of the Prospect and Bectu unions, which represent some BBC staff.

The BBC World Service is the ultimate example of British soft power, having driven influence, stability and security across the world for almost a century. In our increasingly unstable world, with media polarisation and disinformation on the rise, the role of the World Service in countering hostile state narratives has never been more critical. Russia and China are spending an estimated £6 billion to £8 billion to use technology and communications as a tool for influence and disinformation in Africa, Asia and the middle east, and winning audience trust as a result. However, as the world’s most trusted international news provider, the BBC is uniquely placed to counter these forces, reaching an audience of 414 million people worldwide in 42 languages, across TV, radio and digital platforms every week. This includes 64 million people in the 20 most fragile states. It is the only international news media organisation still broadcasting inside Afghanistan, where it reaches 23% of the adult population, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) rightly pointed out.

Independent research shows that 62% of influential global users say consuming BBC content makes them perceive the UK more positively. However, its ability to reach global audiences has been hampered by previous moves to end the full grant-in-aid funding for the World Service. As the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) noted, today, two thirds of the World Service’s budget is met by licence fee payers, with the remainder coming from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. With the licence fee generating 30% less income in real terms than it did in 2010, the BBC cannot ask UK licence fee payers to continue to invest in the World Service at a time when it is forced to cut UK content. That means that the BBC’s capacity to sustain coverage, influence and reach has been stretched to the limit, while that of malign state actors is increasing. Budget limitations have forced the BBC to retreat in some key parts of the world, with others taking their place, such as Russian-backed media now transmitting on the very radio frequency previously occupied by BBC Arabic in Lebanon—a point that we have heard but is worth reiterating, as it is shocking.

It is welcome that one of the first acts of this new Government was to resolve the funding crisis for 2025/26, increasing funding from the FCDO by 31%, to £137 million, enabling the BBC to maintain all of its existing language services and to provide emergency information services to those in crisis in Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine for the coming year. However, enormous pressures remain, with £6 million of savings being announced for 2025/26, focused on a reduction of 130 roles. The recent spending review and BBC charter review process offer the opportunity to put the BBC World Service on a stronger footing. The Government should grab this opportunity with both hands, to meet this dangerous era with the stable and long-term funding mechanism needed to secure the World Service’s future from central Government budgets —as was the case for the first 80 years of the life of this beacon of British values around the world.

Previous cuts to the licence fee, rising costs and the need to keep pace with technology means that the World Service needs investment. A flat funding settlement in 2026 and the years covered by the spending review would leave the BBC unable to retain the breadth of its language services, diminishing its impact and influence. As the FCDO considers how it will spend its allocation from the recent spending review in the years ahead, I urge it to restore full funding for the World Service, recognising it as a beacon of truth and trusted British influence in an increasingly unstable and fragmented world.

15:38

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for bringing this debate today. For years, the BBC has been the trusted voice of impartiality across the globe. That reputation of trust has been hard earned. We have much to thank those journalists of days gone by, who put their lives on the line to report truth. They stood in times of danger, determined to ensure that the world knew what was happening and were giants in truth. However, with the polarisation of opinion and the politicisation of news beyond what was ever experienced, impartiality is hard won in any news network, and the BBC is no different. We used to have hard-hitting questions that struck to the heart of an issue, but now we often have “gotcha” moments for the sake of vanity rather than pursuit of truth—those moments annoy me. We see the demonisation of one nation while another is extolled, and when true statistics come to light, the correction is a line on a website. Meanwhile, reputations once destroyed are gone forever. This is a weighty burden and a power that should be carefully utilised.

I recognise the good things that the BBC do, but I want to give two examples of where they fall short and why they should be accountable for that. The concerns with the BBC are well documented, and they include its perceived impartiality. The list of top 10 donors to the BBC include the FCDO, as well as several UN agencies, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, Global Affairs Canada, and many others. The cynic in me, and many others like me, questions whether that might affect impartiality. I make no accusations, but if the shoe fits, wear it; in this case, if the lens needs focusing because it is blurred, correct it.

We rely on the global BBC for impartial news, and there is work to be done to restore that. I will give two examples. First, ask any member of the Jewish community whether they feel that the truth about the middle east has been related, and the response will be passionate, but also detailed, with numerous examples of times when impartiality has failed. That simply should not be the case.

Secondly, earlier in the year, the documentary, “Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone”, was pulled from iPlayer after it emerged that a 13-year-old narrator was the son of a Hamas official. This week, another documentary was pulled due to fears about impartiality. It will be aired elsewhere, but clearly the BBC has a real, substantiated difficulty that it must overcome. In my personal opinion, that must happen.

While there is a licence fee, there is a need to conform to the standards. The BBC must become the BBC of yesterday—the BBC that had that reputation for impartiality and for telling the truth without any of the bias that we have seen over the past year and a half. If it can again become that impartial organisation, I believe that it will be welcomed by everyone.

15:41

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing the debate. He is not only an hon. Friend, but a running partner of mine.

On Tuesday, in Parliament, I had the pleasure of attending a BBC World Service panel, where we heard from the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on many things, such as how he regrets that the Government in which he served insisted that the World Service should largely be funded by the licence fee. The fee, paid exclusively by British residents, must now tenuously cover 75% of the cost of the World Service, a service designed almost entirely for an external audience, but which has huge public benefit to the British people, if not a huge British public consumption rate.

At the time we are debating this subject, Russia and China have invested up to $9 billion in informal soft power, which is quite a bit more than we spend. They do so because propaganda, often disguised as news, works. It works today, as it did in previous decades and indeed centuries. British children spend an average of 127 minutes a day on TikTok, a Chinese app, and we saw Russian propaganda influence in the elections in Poland and Moldova recently. This is not the time for Britain to draw back. I continue to salute the BBC Russian team, which I visited earlier this year with the right hon. Member for Maldon on an Inter-Parliamentary Union visit. That team counters misinformation with impartial and accurate journalism, at significant personal cost.

Our greatest tool for soft power must be brought back from the brink, because once that point is reached, it will be increasingly difficult for us to recover such international influence.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this form of soft power, the BBC World Service—in particular, the Farsi and Russian services—is a much more cost-effective way to try to create democracy and democratic change in countries than military action is?

[John Slinger]

Absolutely. Of course, military action would be unthinkable in those cases, but what is thinkable is the truth being promulgated through impartial media.

In that panel earlier this week, we heard, for example, that after closing the Voice of America service, the US Agency for Global Media has failed to regenerate any Iranian listenership, or the amount of Iranian listenership that it used to have, for its broadcasts covering the current Iran-Israel crisis. Presence breeds trust, and the presence of the truth, in my view, is an absolute must.

Currently reaching about 400 million people a week in 42 languages, the BBC World Service is adapting rapidly and becoming more informative, engaging and appealing to a broader audience in an incredibly competitive attention economy. Clearly, the World Service has immense potential to bring people and nations together, and I am delighted that the most recent Budget increased funding by 31%.

Despite the significant budgetary pressures on the FCDO, I wish to use all the soft power that I possess to encourage my hon. Friend the Minister to do all she can to increase funding for the World Service and provide a cast-iron guarantee into the future. This is the crucial moment. We have an opportunity to prevent a diminution in our international power, just as that soft power and our British broadcasting values of tolerance, truth and impartiality are needed most. More than ever, we need to increase and protect the funding. When those values prosper, so do the world, freedom, hope and democracy.

15:45

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing this important debate.

I thought I would offer some of my experiences of listening to the BBC World Service over the years: from winning a T-shirt from David Lee Travis’s BBC Wild Service, a radio show on which I requested The Stranglers’ “Golden Brown” for my friends, including Kase the Dog, in Kibbutz Re’im in the early 1980s, to sitting in the back of a Land Rover with “UNHCR” painted on the side and listening to Live Aid while I filed my first report from rural Zambia on the Angolan border in 1985, and to countless other times on aid missions across the globe where the Beeb kept me and my colleagues connected with what was going on in the world. BBC World Service: I thank you.

Of course, it is not just about the Brits abroad; it is about the people of the world having a news service they can trust in their own languages. This is so much more important now with the Russians and the Chinese spending huge amounts to get their propaganda broadcast across the world. The BBC World Service is soft power personified, and I salute it.

In a world in which it is all too easy to block websites, shortwave broadcasting is still a thing, and we should continue to keep the Beeb on the air in as many formats as possible. It is our connection with the world, and the world’s connection with us. Long live Aunty!

15:47

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing today’s vital debate. I will come on to the concerns and risks regarding the future of the BBC World Service, but I wanted to start by saying something obvious that is not said as often as it should be in this place: the BBC World Service is not only an institution; as the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) said, for those who travel abroad, it is a constant friend. It reaches 400 million people in 43 languages every single week.

As many hon. Members have said, the biggest concern about any potential loss or downgrade of the BBC World Service is the vacuum that would leave behind. The issues in Lebanon, where the frequency was replaced by a Russian network, have also been mentioned by several hon. Members. That should be hugely concerning to us all. Lord Dubs said that

“the BBC World Service is…worth quite a few submarines in terms of the effect on the world and on our position within it”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 June 2025; Vol. 846, c. 465.]

We need a sustainable settlement for the World Service. I recognise my hon. Friends’ points about the increase in funding by this Government, but the service needs a multi-year settlement that would ensure that there was no fuel added to potential claims that this was part of its managed decline.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket for raising the issue with the Prime Minister today, and I thank the Prime Minister for his recognition of its importance. It was a shame to hear a few jeers from Members who did not recognise the importance of its soft power, although I am relieved that we have strong cross-party support on the issue this afternoon. We are at our best as a Parliament when we speak as one voice.

I ask the Minister to ensure that there are no cuts to the World Service and to champion the importance of multi-year funding. Of course, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said, it would be wonderful to see it fully funded by the Government. I was interested in his comments about funding coming from the defence budget—maybe I will quote him on that at a future meeting.

The BBC World Service is more than just a luxury; it is a strategic asset for this country, and more and more vital as we face a more and more uncertain future in the world.

15:50

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing this debate and for his excellent speech.

Many of the points I was going to make have been raised, so I will keep this brief. It is great to have this debate and reflect on the importance of the BBC World Service and its value overseas as well as in the UK. The BBC is one of the most trusted brand names across the mass audience.

I used to work in the Foreign Office—I will say many years ago—which gave me a real appreciation of the value of the BBC World Service. As we have just heard, the World Service is mostly funded by the licence fee, but the remainder is funded by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Funding the continuation of this service is vital. BBC News, mostly through the World Service, reaches an audience of more than 400 million every week across the world in 43 different languages. It is not surprising that the BBC is the most widely recognised British cultural export and brand.

Recently the BBC started broadcasting on medium wave in Russia, which is a crucial opportunity for Russian people to receive impartial news from outside the country, given Russia’s clampdown on media freedom, both in country and worldwide. By funding the World Service, we continue to have strong cultural soft power across the globe through promoting democracy and neutrality in broadcasting. It is important that we protect the BBC World Service in this current climate of vast disinformation and polarisation in the media. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I thank the hon. Lady and all those who have contributed for their self-discipline and collaboration, which has enabled us to make it through with everyone speaking. I now come to the Front-Bench speeches.

15:52

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) on securing this timely and important debate.

I must say it is a delight to see such unanimity of purpose across the Chamber. Clearly, there is a real will here to support the BBC World Service, which since 1932 has been Britain’s voice to the world. Today it reaches, as we have heard, an estimated 400 million people across some 59 countries, broadcasting in English and 42 other languages on TV, radio and digital.

In today’s uncertain world, the BBC World Service is essential, in not only reaching out to people across the world, but, as we heard from many, building British soft power. It also protects and defends UK citizens wherever they are. Just this week, I spoke to a colleague who currently has constituents stuck in Tehran, and that struck a note with me. As a teenager, I was in Tehran at the start of the Iranian revolution; my father was the naval attaché in the British embassy. I remember evenings when the revolutionary guard would practise shooting stray dogs in the empty lot next to our house, and the power cuts, when people could be heard shouting from the rooftops, and all the time we listened to the BBC World Service to learn what was going on—it was an essential lifeline.

However today, this vital institution is under threat, and has faced cut after cut in its budget, recently losing another £6 million. Since the domestic BBC took over funding for the World Service, the organisation has lost much of its autonomy, which has led to merged functions with centralised BBC productions in some cases. Language services were outsourced to local regions, which has exposed them to pressure from local Governments. Indeed, the Azerbaijani Government recently suspended BBC operations. Compounded by cuts to overseas development aid, this has put UK soft power in a precarious position.

In 2025, the UK fell from second to third in the global soft power index, having been leapfrogged by China. As both China and Russia pour billions into their international media organisations, the BBC World Service is unable to compete at the same level. We cannot keep undermining the BBC World Service, as the Conservatives did with their assault on the BBC. That hollowing out leaves a clear and dangerous information gap in the global media landscape.

China and Russia are pouring billions into their soft power initiatives, all too eager to fill that gap with disinformation and propaganda. They clearly see the value in it—and so should we. The BBC World Service is essential in building and maintaining British soft power and influence, and it requires proper funding. There is a desperate need for unbiased, impartial and fact-based reporting in today’s global information ecosystem.

The World Service must now rise again to meet its historic aim: to inform people around the world with clarity, accuracy and integrity—to be a torch shining a light on truth globally. If we are to preserve the UK’s world-leading global image, standing tall on the world stage, we must revitalise the BBC World Service and invest properly in its upkeep. The Liberal Democrats believe that Britain must stand as a strong voice on the world stage. We must invest an additional £100 million of Foreign Office funds in the World Service. That would help to restore its global reach and give it the certainty of consistent funding to secure its long-term stability.

We need action now. Will the Government commit today to reversing those damaging cuts? Will they guarantee the extra £100 million needed to restore the BBC World Service to its rightful place as Britain’s premier soft power tool? Will they ensure that short-term savings will not undermine our long-term global influence? The world is watching; Britain’s voice must not be silenced. The time for half-measures is over.

15:57

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I commend the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing this important debate and thank him for his powerful words supporting the BBC World Service. I think he speaks for most hon. Members of the House—in fact, I am struck by how many speeches I have heard that we all agree with. There is a consensus in this Chamber that the BBC World Service is such an important tool for soft power. I know that everyone has spoken with passion, and it is important that we ensure that it not only survives, but thrives and continues to play an important role around the world, because so many people depend on the BBC World Service.

As its name suggests, the World Service is not merely a broadcaster that serves the United Kingdom’s purposes; to some, it is a lifeline. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) mentioned Terry Waite. That was an example when the BBC World Service was a lifeline to someone who was in a very difficult position. Many people around the world depend on that voice of truth, reason and liberty, and that is what the BBC World Service provides, away from so many state-controlled media organisations that promote propaganda and misinformation, which are sadly on the rise today.

It is said that power falls into three categories: military power, economic power and soft power. It is British soft power—our cultural influence, our values and our institutions, not least our monarchy, which the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket mentioned —that has long distinguished the United Kingdom on the global stage. The vehicle at the heart of that soft power and influence is the British Broadcasting Corporation World Service.

In 2011, when I was a relatively new member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, we stated unequivocally that the World Service is a key component of Britain’s soft power. The FAC recognised its invaluable work in

“providing a widely respected and trusted news service in combination with high-quality journalism”

to many countries. We said then, as I will say now, that its value far outweighs its “relatively small cost”.

As we have heard, the service reaches an audience of more than 320 million people each week. It broadcasts in 42 languages and has a profound impact on some of the world’s most repressive regimes. In Iran, 13.5 million rely on the BBC World Service; in Afghanistan, it is 4.9 million; and in Russia, it is more than 2 million. Yet today, this institution is under increasing financial strain.

This year alone, the BBC World Service has announced 130 job losses, seeking to save just £6 million—a tiny sum, measured against the service’s global influence. Meanwhile, its total deficit is expected to rise to nearly £500 million next year. There is a serious risk that the core language services, such as those that serve Iran, Sudan and Myanmar, could face cuts or be scaled back when they are most needed, so we must ensure that does not happen. Indeed, the Foreign Affairs Committee heard clear evidence only in November that cuts to the BBC Arabic and Persian radio services have created dangerous vacuums, which are being filled by hostile, state-backed propaganda, including Russian-backed media in places such as Lebanon. What assessment have the Government made of the consequences of the cuts, and how do they intend to respond to the risk of allowing trusted UK-backed voices to go silent in those critical regions?

To address those issues, the BBC has called for the Government to fund the rise to £200 million as part of a three-year settlement. In the longer term, it is proposed that the Government assume nearly all of the £400 million budget after 2027. The Foreign Affairs Committee, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the International Development Committee have echoed the calls for long-term financial certainty.

Lord Collins has indicated that a decision will be taken as part of the Government’s 2025 spending review. However, the FCDO’s own efficiency plans, published alongside this month’s review, exclude the BBC World Service from projected savings, citing uncertainty around the transition of the ODA budget to 0.3% of GNI by 2027. The Minister needs to address that concern in her remarks. I therefore say to her: have the Government set any efficiency targets for the World Service? Can she clarify what scale of reduction in direct grant funding is being considered as part of this transition?

I often discuss the wider debate about the BBC’s domestic funding with my constituents in Romford, and I am sure all hon. Members have similar discussions. I would welcome having that discussion in this House too, but the World Service is different; it stands apart. It is not a domestic broadcaster—it reaches all parts of the world—so it cannot be lumped together with the BBC’s domestic broadcasting. The World Service needs clarity and certainty if it is to continue its vital work across the globe.

One proposal raised during the FAC’s oral evidence session is for a clearer funding distinction. English-language services should continue under the licence fee, while language services should receive dedicated Government grant in aid. Do the Government support that proposal? If so, would the Minister consider, as suggested by the former director of the World Service, Jamie Angus, allowing parliamentarians to oversee and scrutinise the work of the BBC World Service?

The previous Conservative Government rightly recognised the strategic importance of the BBC World Service and took meaningful steps to support it. The £20 million boost announced in the 2023 integrated review helped to safeguard all 42 language services through to the end of 2025. That followed earlier, targeted injections of £4.1 million in 2022 and £8 million in 2021, designed to counter disinformation and expand digital engagement. Those were timely and effective interventions, which strengthened the World Service when it was most needed, but what is now required is a long-term, sustainable funding settlement that builds on that solid foundation.

Funding is not the only challenge. Modernisation must go hand in hand with financial stability to ensure that the product is viable for the future. Is the BBC doing enough to engage younger, digitally native audiences across the world? Can it continue to evolve while maintaining the editorial depth and credibility for which it is rightly respected? Do the Government have confidence that the current digital strategy is sufficiently robust to meet the demands of this new age?

On the other hand, radio remains vital in many regions, particularly where internet access is limited or non-existent. Do the Government acknowledge the ongoing strategic value of traditional radio services, and will they ensure that they are not sacrificed prematurely in the rush towards digital-only broadcasting?

There is also the question of political neutrality, which is one of the BBC World Service’s greatest strengths—I hope; it is not always the case in the UK, but I hope it is the case with the BBC World Service. Its global reputation rests on its independence. It must never speak for any Government, but it should, proudly and without hesitation, reflect the values, culture and identity of the United Kingdom. That does not mean becoming a mouthpiece for Westminster, but neither should it shy away from showcasing our constitutional monarchy, our democratic institutions or our national symbols—the Union flag or the national anthem.

There is a balance to be struck, and I ask the Minister what representations the Government are making to the current BBC leadership to ensure that balance is struck. Alarmingly, the 2025 global soft power index shows that the UK has fallen to third place, behind China for the first time. Following the announcement of the Soft Power Council by the Foreign Secretary and the Culture, Media and Sport Secretary earlier this year, will the Minister tell us what role the council sees for the World Service in its work? What progress has been made to date, or has the initiative been quietly set aside?

The British Isles, Great Britain, England, the United Kingdom—however the world sees us—have always been more than just a geographical place on the map. We have been an idea, forged through sacrifice and struggle, to uphold something unparalleled: a set of values, rich in customs, traditions and ceremony; a way of life that millions admire across the globe. The BBC World Service projects that very idea further and more effectively than any embassy, high commission, foreign aid programme or Minister ever could. If we allow the World Service to become a casualty of bureaucratic inertia or short-term budget trimming, it will be not Britain’s voice that falls silent, but the voice of reason, truth and liberty, in places where those things are in short supply.

As the former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, once stated, the BBC World Service is

“possibly Britain’s greatest gift to the world”.

That gift has never been more needed. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I urge the Government to ensure that it remains the gift that keeps on giving to peoples around the world, in every continent, who look to Britain as a beacon of freedom, a nation that always upholds liberty, and one that will stop at nothing to defend the right of free speech.

16:09

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)]

I look forward to serving under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, for what I think is the first time in Westminster Hall. I am really grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing this important debate. It has been a really good debate, with lots of consensus across all parts of the Chamber, and I will do my best to respond to the points raised. As we are not at the exact moment of decision making, I am sure that if there are further representations to be made or particular points that remain unanswered, we will have a further opportunity to fine-tune those in the coming weeks.

Few institutions command the respect and admiration that the BBC World Service does, and I have seen that up close. I have had the privilege of visiting the World Service both as an Opposition MP and in my current role; and when I was a student in China, it was my constant friend, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) said. The hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) described how it was a very big part of his life as well. Each time, I have come away not just more fond of the BBC World Service, but struck by its professionalism, reach and impact. That impact is rooted in its independence, which is key to its success and one of the reasons it is the world’s most trusted global broadcaster.

That is why the BBC World Service is a vital part of the UK’s soft power, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) said so eloquently in her speech. It does not just reflect the UK to the world; it builds trust in our values through high-quality, impartial journalism. I was very pleased to hear the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) really supporting the role of journalists, who do such a difficult job and are so brave. I was aware three or four years ago of the journalists in the Persian service, who are under tremendous pressure. The right hon. Member for Maldon told us of an awful example of transnational repression on the streets of London, and that is just appalling. I know that from this House we all want to thank the journalists who do that important work day by day, even though their livelihoods, their lives and the lives of their families are at risk.

As the Minister responsible for the Indo-Pacific, I was particularly moved by the World Service’s response to the devastating earthquake in Myanmar. In a country with exceptionally low media freedom, the BBC scaled up its output and dramatically increased its reach. It provided accurate, timely information in a moment of crisis. That is the BBC at its best and it is not the only example. Let us take BBC Persian, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead and by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), who, by the way, represents the home of BBC Scotland. BBC Persian has been operating for over 80 years, with more people than ever relying on it in a time of uncertainty. Some of you may have heard just this morning on the “Today” programme Lyse Doucet’s report, in which she mentioned the different restrictions that there are today on reporting on the important elements of conflict that are ongoing in Iran. She mentioned the particular restrictions that there always are on the BBC. I thought that was a very timely mention, given today’s debate.

There is also the work of BBC Verify, which works in partnership with the World Service. As the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), said, there are so many competing channels now, which is why BBC Verify plays such an important role. I saw that at first hand on my recent visit to Broadcasting House. Due to the widespread use of mobile phones throughout the world, we see so many different videos all at the same time and sometimes with conflicting messages. That is why it is so important that we have the work of BBC Verify and the journalists who do it. During recent tensions between India and Pakistan, the BBC exposed viral videos as old footage, cutting through misinformation when that mattered most.

There are not just international audiences. Here in the UK, 500,000 people tune in to the BBC’s Urdu service. There are also the emergency, pop-up services. In Syria, the BBC launched a service just five days after the fall of Assad. That speaks to the issue of the Arabic service, which many have mentioned this afternoon. I think what we saw there was the closing of a licence and other providers stepping in. That represents a very important message for decision makers, as we approach funding over the next few years, about how we ensure that something like that does not reoccur, but that we protect the vital ecosystems of the BBC World Service and do not allow other providers to come in on top.

The Gaza service reaches 700,000 people each week, also in an environment where it is very difficult for journalists to enter, and, in Sudan, the Lifeline radio service reopened in March, responding to humanitarian need. These services are often the only way for people to gain access to accurate information in times of crisis. That is why this Government value the BBC World Service and are helping it to deliver strongly on its goals.

Despite a tight fiscal context, the FCDO provided a funding uplift of £32.6 million this financial year. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for recognising that increase, and recognising the difference that a new Government can make—the window that one has to really make a difference. That uplift takes the FCDO’s total contribution to £137 million, enabling the BBC to modernise and innovate.

Just this week, the BBC launched its newest service, an AI-driven pilot in Polish, with our beloved Tomasz Schafernaker, the meteorologist we all listen to in order to hear whether we can leave our washing out, or need to water the pot plants before we come to Westminster for a few days. Here he was, both in Polish and in English, doing the news. This is what we have with the BBC’s Polish service: the first new language service since 2017, delivering news in text and video across digital platforms, including Facebook and Instagram—a vision of modernity.

Audience surveys consistently show that the World Service is the most trusted international news broadcaster. That trust is built by relentlessly exercising accuracy, impartiality and fairness. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tom Rutland) emphasised that point, particularly in relation to BBC Arabic and how difficult it is to replicate it after it was defunded by the former Government.

We recognise the concerns raised about future funding. The World Service’s grant in aid funding for the next three years will be decided through the FCDO’s budget process up to 2028-29, but our focus is not just on the short term. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow made the important point about multi-year funding, which allows an organisation to modernise and innovate because it can see through to the medium-to-long term.

We believe that the upcoming BBC charter review is the right moment to look at potential future World Service funding mechanisms for the longer term, and potentially bring in some of the other funding suggestions that have been made in this debate but are not formal yet. That will ensure that the BBC can continue to reflect the UK’s culture and values—so eloquently described by the Opposition spokesman—to the world, through high-quality, trusted journalism.

The BBC World Service is not just a broadcaster; it boosts UK soft power, promotes the UK and our values, exposes disinformation, supports our creative industries and provides critical safety and security information in conflict zones. It is trusted, agile and essential. The Government are very proud to support it, and we will continue to do so.

16:18

[Peter Prinsley]

I thank all hon. Members who have come here this afternoon for what I think has been a very interesting debate. It strikes me that there is more or less universal support for what is, I hope, a universal service. I was pleased that there was an increase of £32 million in the grant this year; I do not know whether that has anything to do with an interaction I had with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the Labour party conference.

I went to an event put on by the BBC and listened to Katya Adler and some of the journalists there, and I was very moved by it, so I stood and asked a question about the £100 million cost of an F-35 jet, which seemed to me to be the same as the funding given by the Foreign Office to the BBC. I stood up and asked, “Do you think that we’d be better off with one more F-35, or should we just look after the BBC?”

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I were in a coffee queue about an hour later, and he asked me whether I was enjoying the conference. I said, “Well, I was.” I explained about what happened, and he said, “Oh, dear. This conference is working very well, because you’ve just been to the BBC and they’ve just told you their story. Now, you’ve just told me that, and now I shall have to give them some more money.” I am hoping that Parliament continues to work in that way, but I agree that we need to have a long-term funding solution for what is one of our most precious resources. I thank everyone very much for coming this afternoon.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We have finished early, so now everyone can get into more coffee queues with Ministers.

Question put and agreed to. 

Resolved,  

That this House has considered the funding of the BBC World Service.

04:20

Sitting adjourned.