(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fowler
That this House takes note of recent developments in relation to broadcasting in the United Kingdom.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, when I first put down this Motion, it was really to draw the contrast between the amount of attention we are able to give to media issues in the House of Lords compared with the House of Commons. I do not think we have come out well out of that, but you only have to look at the Order Paper today to see the mass of experience we have in this House in media affairs.
In the time since I put down the Motion, the world has changed profoundly, not least in the change now facing broadcasting and reporting. The old rules and assumptions have been challenged, and a new world seems to be emerging where it looks as if it is the will of the strongest, rather than the demands for justice, that comes first. The result is that the need for impartial editors and reporters, unbiased and concerned only about the truth, has never been so clear. Otherwise, conflicts disappear in a fog of war. You need only name just some of the conflicts still raging to make the point: Ukraine and Gaza are well established, but imagine what could happen if new conflicts were to break out in, for example, Cuba or Greenland.
I should first declare my interest. I was a journalist at the Times for six or seven years. My editor was William Haley, who before that was director-general of the BBC. Later, I myself became chairman of two regional newspapers, including the Yorkshire Post. My views have obviously been influenced by those years, and I have a firm regard for working journalists as well as a firm belief in what their duty should be. Broadcasters should tell the public what is happening as best they can judge from their investigations, and report, above all, honestly.
I doubt whether there has ever been a period when broadcasting has been under more scrutiny and attack. There is scrutiny of the broadcasting organisations themselves, of the policies they pursue and of the people running those organisations and working for them. All of them are caught in the spotlight. The BBC programme “Panorama” is symbolic of what has been happening over the past few months. “Panorama” has rightly been criticised for splicing together some of President Trump’s comments to give the impression that he had encouraged his supporters to storm the Capitol Building. The error was to put the comments together, rather than leaving any space between them. Tim Davie paid a heavy price for that, because he was forced to resign, as was the head of news. Of course, it also led to the $10 billion claim made by Mr Trump against the BBC. It became an opportunity for a rich man to challenge the whole basis of BBC reporting. It is one example of the new world that we have entered.
I hope, incidentally, that the BBC will continue to resist any legal action. What is being claimed is entirely out of proportion to any damage that might have been caused. It certainly does not provide a general condemnation of broadcasting, any more than phone hacking by some of the press provided a general condemnation of all newspapers.
The BBC is an organisation whose reports are relied on around the world. My firm view is that broadcasters should be independent, honest in their reports and not constrained by outside influences, either political or commercial. Broadcasting today is being used as a weapon of war and the danger is that the whole truth scarcely emerges. Those comments are obvious enough when it comes to Russia and China, where no pretence is made of providing a balanced account of what is happening in the world and how balance can be maintained. But elsewhere, the position is more difficult and more complicated.
One of the greatest scandals is not what is being reported; the scandal is what is being prevented from being reported. Take Gaza as an example. We have here an area that has been reduced to rubble, but with no journalists there to record this destruction and its impact on human lives. It is not just the broadcasters that should be under scrutiny; it is the organisations and nations that are preventing honest journalism from taking place and depriving the public of knowledge.
The BBC is an organisation whose reports are relied on in this country and around the globe. We should not allow ideological prejudice to get in the way of judgment. We should remember that the BBC continues to be used more than any other media provider in the United Kingdom, with 94% of adults using at least one of its services during an average month. I say this not because of some nationalist pride but because any attempt to make one mistake a general denunciation of the whole organisation is simply wrong.
It should be remembered that the BBC often gets it right when others are still at sea. When I was reporting for the Times from Beirut, at the time of the Middle East war in 1967, there was total confusion in the press corps about what was happening. Two American reporters showed the way forward by ignoring Voice of America, or some such station, and turning instead to BBC Overseas for their information. I do not know if that would be the case today, although it seems to me unlikely that even American reporters overseas are going to flock to Fox News. What I do know is that, globally, BBC services reach 450 million people each week, which shows some of the international reach that the corporation has. I believe that, in our uncertain world, it is surely important that there are some services that the public can rely on. We can take pride in what we have achieved.
Attacking the BBC has become something of a national sport. Strangely enough, I do not object to that, as it keeps the BBC competitive and on its toes. What is also keeping it looking forward is the competition that it receives from other broadcasters—for example, the new competition from broadcasters such as Times Radio, or the importance of “Channel 4 News”, which must have won more viewers in its reporting of the Middle East in the last few months.
It makes the point that British broadcasting is not just the BBC; it is also its strength. It has the long-term competition of ITV and the new services. It has the competition of the streamers, which pick up large audiences. The BBC and ITV have established large home audiences. The streamers have many excellent programmes, but they do not have what I would call the local characteristic. They are, by nature, international providers, operating for an international market. We are fortunate in having, for example, independent production companies based in this country. It adds to the very strength of British broadcasting.
This is a short debate, and I make it clear that, although I have talked mainly about news, which is what I know most about, there are independent British companies providing first-class music, both classical and popular, and excellent drama programmes, all in line with the whole purpose of the BBC charter to inform, educate and entertain.
Inevitably, then, I come back at the end to the BBC. In the months ahead, we will see fierce debates on the charter and the licence fee. Doubtless, the BBC will receive many suggestions of how to modernise for the future. But for all that, we should remember that we have a unique organisation in this country, which has stood the test of time. It provides an excellent service to the British public and it attracts a big overseas following. It is independent, non-partisan and it has qualities that we respect. My view, quite simply, is that we should be prepared to defend the values in British broadcasting that have sustained us over the last 100 years. I believe, above all, that they have served us very well.
Lord Parekh (Lab)
I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on introducing this debate with great erudition and wisdom. I will concentrate on some very important issues. The recent Israel-Palestine war and the American takeover of Venezuela have raised all kinds of issues about the relevance and limitations of the public service media. Some of these issues are old and familiar, and we have learned to live with them; other issues are relatively new. Some, we have not faced before, and it is important to concentrate on those issues and work out a radical response.
The first issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler said, has to do with the BBC. The whole thing began when the BBC attributed certain remarks to President Trump. Obviously, this was not properly researched, and the BBC was wrong to do so. But the question is this: was it wrong that the President was presented in such a manner? The remarks attributed to him were totally in character with what he had been saying elsewhere. Therefore, attributing to him the remarks was simply a mistake of a procedural, administrative kind and not a substantial, malignant kind.
The second issue is that we are told that the BBC has an institutional bias. It is bound to have an institutional bias—every institution has a bias. The House of Lords has a bias in favour of the peaceful, moderate resolution of conflict and against terrorism. Universities have a bias. What does it mean? An institution exists to promote certain values, and these values inform and inspire its actions, and therefore bias is inevitable. We can accept the bias, learn to discount it from what we hear or see, and move on. That is what we do all the time. I watched a BBC programme on India. I found it disturbing and not particularly accurate, but I know that, whatever line it takes, it is bound to be unsatisfactory to somebody. You discount it—what is the big deal?
My point is that we ought to learn to appreciate the limitations of human intelligence and ingenuity. Nothing can be perfectly free of bias of any kind. Every institution has bias. The third thing is the necessity of educating citizens. The BBC and other media exist to promote their programmes and identity. Therefore, they make sure that their audience is manipulated in a certain way. The question is how an audience can resist this kind of manipulation and make sure that it is not taken for a ride. Therefore, public service media have a responsibility to make sure that people are properly able to engage critically with issues and the reporting of them.
My last point to make, in the four minutes, I have is that media in any society have an extremely important role in keeping society going. Social cohesion means that no group should be left out. How do we make programmes that are open to diversity? You cannot leave out certain groups; you have to make them visible and audible. The media have not tended to do that. The BBC has, to my knowledge, failed in educating the citizenry and local groups. I have not seen programmes where an individual has sat down and gone through the way the programme was reported, showing the audience of millions how to read a programme.
I very much hope that we shall resist any false, malignant pressure on our public service media, from whatever quarter it comes.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, running a media business is not easy. In today’s world, traditional broadcasters face two serious threats: competition from big tech, both economically and for people’s attention; and falling levels of public trust, especially in broadcast news. I will focus on the latter, but I will come back to it in a moment.
Traditional broadcasters’ survival calls for consolidation. We are starting to see that happen with Sky’s planned acquisition of ITV’s channels and digital platform. In my view, the BBC and Channel 4 joining forces in some form or another is a likely next step. It is unclear what Channel 5’s American owners might do but it is worth saying that, even though the channel is American owned, it does a brilliant job of serving rural audiences and those in post-industrial and seaside towns, who frequently raise concerns about representation in programming on other PSBs. Although ownership is important and I am against foreign Governments owning any of our broadcasters, if there is to be a future for public service broadcasting in the UK then that is not where we need to start.
First, we need to be clear why public service broadcasting matters and ensure that its failings, as seen through the eyes of the public, who pay for it and for whose benefit its special status exists, are properly addressed. I think we are all clear that the purpose of public service broadcasting is to promote Britishness—not just British talent, but British values and all aspects of British life. Broadcasters seem to find that last bit most difficult, because they tend to want to change those bits of Britishness they do not like so much. If big tech is an external threat to PSB, this is a threat to its future from within.
This is why some adults have become increasingly distrustful of broadcast news over the last 10 years and are turning away in particular from the BBC. For these audiences, the fact that they are going now is enabled by choice; the choice is not pulling them away, as too many who work in the media want to believe. We have to understand that, in today’s world of endless choice—much of it high quality—public service broadcasting is of value only if it strengthens our nation and communities by promoting British values and reflecting the different facets of British life with respect. This is magnified when it comes to the BBC and will become even more so if American owners of commercial PSBs cannot see sufficient financial benefits to justify the regulatory costs and choose another path.
There is much that is great about the BBC and I want it to be part of our future, but as things stand—this is a big “but”—we and BBC bosses are kidding ourselves if we believe the BBC is the solution to a divided society. It cannot be, unless and until those running the organisation accept publicly that they understand and will address the systemic weaknesses exposed by Michael Prescott’s report that have made the BBC part of the problem and are driving some people away. Up until now, the BBC has appeared to think that if it recognises that it has a problem, it will lose its moral authority. Yet it is losing its moral authority because it is denying that it has a problem. Not changing will threaten its future, and possibly the future of PSB. That is why its strongest supporters must demand that it changes.
Lord Razzall (LD)
Noble Lords will note that I am not my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter. It is customary on these occasions to thank the proposer of the Motion. I would very much like to do so for the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. I go further and say that, over the years, he has been a much more vigorous defender of the BBC and other public service broadcasters than many of his colleagues in his former party.
The irony in this debate is that politicians are normally not to be trusted, because we are all obsessed with news and current affairs, unlike the public. Over 20 years ago, 20 million people used to watch BBC News; now it is lucky to get 4 million. However, we need to remember that 12 million people watched “The Celebrity Traitors”, millions are regular followers of “EastEnders” and “Coronation Street”, and more people listen to “The Archers” than watch BBC News. We must never forget that, despite our regional and national differences, UK broadcasters provide much of the glue that binds us all together in our common watching and listening practices. The public service broadcasters are entitled to much of the credit for this.
However, 2026 brings a number of problems, particularly for the public service broadcasters. Will the reduction in TV advertising threaten the viability of Channel 3, Channel 4 and Channel 5? Will Sky be allowed to buy ITV, and what would be the protections for impartiality in that event? As a side issue, will Netflix or Paramount be allowed to buy Warner Bros. Discovery? As a personal interest, will more sport be shown free to air? Will the digital-terrestrial transition to internet protocol delivery be implemented without damaging the ability of people without internet service to watch TV? Will the decline in watching and listening by the under-30s be arrested?
As previous speakers have said, there is then the issue of the BBC. Its immediate problem is to find a new director-general, especially as all the suggested candidates in the press would appear to have to take significant pay cuts to accept the job, even if they wanted it. We must move towards a new charter and funding arrangements in 2026, to be implemented in 2027. The Government have recently published a Green Paper and I have no doubt that many noble Lords will suggest solutions in this debate, but it must be remembered that, on Christmas Day, nine out of the top 10 programmes were BBC programmes. A major issue in this debate which has seemed to be ignored so far is what to do about non-payment, which is now a significant problem for BBC budgets and is rising to an unsustainable level.
Whatever mistakes it makes, these Benches are supporters of the BBC. We share Lisa Nandy’s view of the BBC as a “light on the hill” and we have every hope that it will be safe in her hands as a result.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I am regularly commissioned to present “Thought for the Day” on the BBC, as well as weekday and Sunday services. I also occasionally work with a range of other UK and global broadcasters, from GB News to Times Radio and LBC, providing comment on religious and ethical news stories.
As the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has reminded us, broadcasting operates in an international context of increasing polarisation against a background where the greatest global political powers are retreating rapidly into levels of imperialist control and expansionism not previously seen in most of our lifetimes. It is a context in which truth is subservient to expediency and honesty is sacrificed to personal or political advantage. Many broadcasting organisations, especially those which are politically aligned, have little interest or incentive, except where regulators require it, to do other than collude with the political masters of the age. In such a world, the place of broadcasters who seek to offer a balanced range of perspectives and prioritise facts over partisanship has never been more vital. Public service broadcasting—and in the UK that does mean particularly the BBC—with a funding mechanism not wholly dependent on courting advertisers or placating the government of the day, enables a level of impartiality, and thereby public trust, that exists both here and beyond these shores. Moreover, the BBC, uniquely among mainstream broadcasters, continues to afford a place for the religious and ethical input necessary to support our British values.
Moreover, the value of such a public service broadcaster goes far beyond its own output. Let me offer a brief analogy from another sector. Some 26 years ago, when the then Labour Government introduced the asylum seeker dispersal scheme, I worked with a couple of friends to set up a not-for-profit accommodation provider. We bid for, and won, the contract for Yorkshire and the Humber. We did that not only because we thought we could run a good service for our region, but to offer a comparator against which the standards of service to be provided by the commercial organisations operating in other regions could be judged. In the same way, I would argue that public sector broadcasting sets a vital standard against which we both can and must judge the performance of all our broadcasters.
Turning to radio, I remember in my childhood hearing reports that TV would be the death of it. Nothing could have been further from the truth—but why? Let me offer an interpretation. TV, like film or theatre, invites us to look in from outside, through the screen or proscenium arch. We are observing events that are taking place elsewhere. Radio, by contrast, is immersive. The sound is all around us. When I do my “Thought for the Day” broadcasts, I am in the car or kitchen, train or bedroom, with my listeners. I have apologised at times to my clergy who, some mornings, find themselves hearing me speak to them through the shower curtain. Radio brings a level of immersive intimacy that even 3D movies fail to achieve. Radio needs to be cherished, not marginalised. Its role in broadcasting in the future will be just as vital, if not more so.
Analyses that cross-tabulate trust levels with voting intention continue to demonstrate that the BBC, across all its output, remains a stand-out performer. As we move towards the next charter renewal process, we need to ensure we retain a strong BBC, one with transparent operational independence from government.
Lord Hall of Birkenhead (CB)
My Lords, I also join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for inspiring this debate at what is a crucial time for broadcasting.
The Green Paper the Government published on the BBC starts off with a reminder of what, despite all its travails, the BBC delivers for this country:
“It is not just a broadcaster—it is a national institution”,
and
“If it did not already exist, we would have to invent it”.
Those are my sentiments entirely. The Secretary of State also singled out the BBC, along with the NHS, as the two most important institutions in our country. She said that:
“While one is fundamental to the health of our people, the other is fundamental to the health of our democracy”.
Seeing the BBC not only as another media organisation but as a cultural organisation, and part our social infrastructure, is crucial.
The BBC is central to our democracy as the nation’s most widely used and trusted source of news, national and local. Of course, we all benefit from the BBC’s global news services, now reaching around 453 million people each week, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, reminded us. This example shows that this country’s soft power needs to be built on and enhanced, and not, as at present, diminished.
The BBC is also the nation’s storyteller. The truth is that the streamers like Netflix, Apple and Amazon are commissioning content that will work on an international scale. Of course, we all value and love that. However, the total number of hours they make about the UK is in the thousands, not the tens of thousands that the public service broadcasters produce. I watched the immensely powerful documentary “Our Girls: The Southport Families” on BBC1, about the families of the three girls murdered in that dreadful attack last year. I do not believe that would have been commissioned or made by a streamer. James Graham, the illustrious playwright and screenwriter who, in my time, wrote the BBC1 series “Sherwood”, said that:
“The BBC and the public service broadcasters have a role to train, find and amplify voices that, on paper, may not have an easy, wide audience yet”.
He also said:
“Speak to any American screenwriter or programme-makers, and they are bewildered at our complacency over our PSBs. They wish they had a BBC”.
When I was working at the BBC, we would shy away from the argument that the organisation was also a defence against market failure. Nowadays, that should be part of the reason—not by any means the whole reason—why the BBC exists. For example, programmes about religion, the arts or music are rarely going to be internationally successful. As DG, I lost count of the number of parents who told me how much they valued British content for their children, either as toddlers or later as teenagers using “Bitesize”.
The BBC also gives cultural definition to communities. These services, whether they are in small local areas or serving the nations of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, are needed to report the stories and things that matter to their audience, and to celebrate the characteristics that make them what they are. Taking this forward is vital.
In my view, the BBC deserves a lot of credit for rethinking its programmes and services for the world we are now in. Audiences continue to spend more time watching the BBC TV iPlayer on average, per week, per person, than they spend on Netflix, Disney Plus and Amazon Prime combined.
Obviously, one of the big questions for the next year is how we fund all this in a way that allows the BBC properly to be what we want it to be. Can the licence fee, a charge for universal services, be reformed to be fairer and easier to pay, and more broadly based? Could the quantum of the licence fee be assessed by an independent body that could help inform the debate about what we, as citizens, think we should fund? There has been a 30% reduction in real terms in licensing income since 2010, done with little or no public debate about the consequences.
The BBC is the largest single investor in UK-made programming, contributing nearly £5 billion to the UK economy each year, half of which is spent outside London. That is important. However, an even bigger question is where and how should we have our culture defined. Let us make sure we have a properly funded BBC that reflects and celebrates who we are in all our rich diversity.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for securing this debate and for his thoughtful introduction. My remarks will be confined to public service broadcasting and the BBC.
As we have heard, we are operating in a very challenging media environment in which the case for public service broadcasting does not weaken but sharpens. The need to reinforce its values and purpose, and to reassert its role and the BBC’s mission in particular, matters more rather than less today. What is at stake is not simply the future shape of a broadcaster but the BBC’s continuing ability to help hold together the social fabric of our society and evade the dangers of fragmentation.
The BBC was established to serve the whole of society. Its mission to inform, educate and entertain was conceived as a durable public settlement, built on universality, editorial independence, impartiality and responsibility to public interest. The question before us not whether the BBC should evolve—it must—but whether the changes under consideration strengthen or weaken this ability to discharge its founding principles and duties to the public.
Some proposals in the current consultation would, if pursued without care, place real pressure on the BBC’s capacity to provide a universal service. If we are serious about the BBC as a public service broadcaster, then reform must be judged against its mission and purpose and not just against market pressures.
In a crowded market, attention is treated as a commodity to be harvested. As a public service broadcaster, the BBC should be enabled to stand apart as a public service resource which manages attention with care. This distinction matters.
That is why universality matters—which is not, in my view, a relic of the analogue age; it is a design principle for the digital one. Without universality, we do not share public conversations, and we fragment into parallel areas. Then there is of course the global dimension, but that global credibility rests on the trust built at home. The authority with which the BBC speaks abroad depends on the integrity, independence and accountability of the system here in the UK. Weaken that settlement and the global voice will weaken.
The standing of the BBC rests on the essential principle of impartiality. Impartiality is not about mechanically balancing opinions; it is a disciplined commitment to evidence, context and truth, applied without fear or favour—even under pressure. The BBC, at times, has taken a very narrow and procedural view of impartiality, and it is right to acknowledge that mistakes have been made. But what is needed now is a renewed commitment to impartiality as a professional and ethical standard. Properly understood, impartiality is not a constraint; it is what matters and what makes the BBC trustworthy.
Any reform that compromises universality, editorial independence and impartiality, and the BBC’s ability to remain a significant engine for the creative industries, would diminish the very role it exists to perform. In my view, the charter renewal is an opportunity to refresh the BBC’s original mission and to ensure that any updated framework strengthens rather than undermines the purpose and the ethos of the BBC and that of public service broadcasting. That is the responsibility before us, and it is one which we should approach with care and a clear sense of purpose, and be guided by the principles and values, not just by the market and commercial pressures. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I briefly declare that I am the co-chair of the All-Party Group on Creators, which means I meet a lot of YouTube influencers. I am also a broadcaster on Times Radio. In fact, I should be plugging my show right now on Times Radio—it is on Fridays at 10 am—but I have chosen instead to listen to some excellent speeches.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for securing this important debate, and also say how thrilling it was to see the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, appearing as the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter. I know it is something he has wanted to do for years, although I gather that the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, will later be appearing as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. I feel like I am in the middle of a pilot for a new BBC comedy series.
Back in 2009, when I was still the opposition spokesman, I suggested to a media analyst that the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 should merge. She told me I was a complete idiot—but I was obviously making a point about scale. Although we are still a large, medium-sized country, we know we need scale in broadcasting. The BBC cannot compete—that ship has sailed—against the global streamers such as Netflix, Apple, Amazon Prime and, of course, YouTube, which we never talk about, but which has become the absolute Goliath in terms of media broadcasting. So, what we are really debating here is how we secure the future of the BBC in this new ecosystem.
Of course, the BBC is not the only game in town when it comes to producing high-quality British content. It is also worth pointing out that it is not just the licence fee that funds high-quality content. The tax credits for film and television, which the last Government introduced but which have been secured by this Government, are also vital in securing good quality British content. But the BBC really is, as far as domestic broadcasting is concerned, the only game in town.
It is incumbent on all of us to support the BBC. We can be critical friends of the BBC, but we should be careful what we would lose without it. I really react with astonishment and a bit of horror when I see people supporting the move by President Trump, for example, to sue the BBC because they happened to have watched BBC News the night before and disagreed with its tone or supposed bias. The BBC is an incredibly important institution.
When I did charter review with John Whittingdale, we had a very easy time of it. There was not really much we needed to change. We changed the regulation from the BBC Trust to Ofcom, but otherwise we effectively kicked the challenges the BBC faces into the long grass. These challenges are now more real today than they have ever been.
I will make three or four suggestions of areas we should look at. We seriously need to look at a structural separation of BBC News and a merger with the World Service, with its own board, charter and chief executive. I, for one, would welcome the BBC investing properly in local news, which is so important with the death of local newspapers. The BBC has to accept that, realistically, there is no more money. It has to cut its cloth. I was always a bit sceptical of people who said that, because everyone pays the licence fee, the BBC must do everything—and I accept that, by doing a lot, it actually raises the quality of what the BBC produces. However, the BBC seriously needs to look at the breadth of services it provides.
The noble Lord, Lord Hall, mentioned the importance of religious programming and children’s programming. We introduced the content fund, which had a short shelf life but was apparently quite successful. It may be that part of what the BBC does is provide content for other programmers, focused on where the market has failed, such as children’s programming. We need to have a debate about how much of the IP the BBC now keeps. We had a trend of pushing it out to independent producers. If we want the BBC to be more commercially successful, let us look at that.
We need to be more open-minded about subscription—I know that I have to wind up, but I will need to speak for another 15 seconds—but in my view that opportunity should be put forward by the BBC, not by the Government. I would counsel against changing the licence fee. It is very tempting, but the public will see any change as a new tax, not an alternative tax.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, I add my thanks to those who have given theirs to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for securing this debate. He has been a seasoned journalist, a campaigner on issues such as AIDS and has now taken up the cudgels on behalf of the really important issue of broadcasting. I am also delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, or, as those who have listened to Times Radio occasionally must have learned to call him in the morning, “our Ed”. I know a lot more about “our Ed” in the morning now than I might have chosen to, having been a regular listener—speak to me later.
The time has come when we now have a wide choice of what to watch and listen to. Clearly, some producers allow their presenters rather more leeway, which is why they run over time. Others keep them more to the minute, which is why the BBC has such a reputation.
We have a responsibility in this House to look after the BBC. It is a repository of trust and values that simply does not exist anywhere else. It used to be the case, when I started in journalism, that the first-person pronoun never appeared. There was a firm dividing line between news and comment—but that barely exists now. The BBC at least tries to preserve it in a way that other news organisations simply do not.
Indeed, in some of our broadcasters now, we have politicians not only as presenters but who also try to be newsreaders. Ofcom drew the line at that, quite rightly, but the High Court intervened and said that, even if they were not allowed to do newscasting, they could do current affairs programmes. It is a very fine line. Ofcom had been minded to ban politicians from presenting current affairs programmes; following the ruling in the High Court, it had to give way on that. I now challenge noble Lords to find a politician who is not presenting current affairs as news on certain channels. This is not the way that broadcasting should operate.
On the other hand, I find myself listening to various broadcasts and podcasts where respected journalists suddenly turn into advertisers. There is a seamless progression from them presenting a programme to them promoting the promoter of the programme. They obviously see the difference, but some listeners may find it hard to spot the dividing line. That makes me feel uncomfortable, and I hope that media training in schools will alert people to where that difference should lie.
I am deeply concerned about the lack of local media coverage, and support the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, in his calls for more funding, if possible, for local news and more support for BBC local news. People are getting terribly worried about the lack of jury trials that is now being discussed. I worry about the lack of coverage of local court proceedings and local politics. Who knows what is going on in their local area now? That is a true deficit in democracy, which should cause us all to think hard.
In the end, this debate is clearly centred on the BBC, and there is no getting away from the importance of that organisation. We have heard from former directors-general of the BBC, who certainly know its value. While it is easy to pick up on the problems there, it is a wonderful organisation. Before I sit down, I remind noble Lords that the BBC spends £358 million on the World Service, while China and Russia combined spend between £6 billion and £8 billion on promoting their ideas across the world.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
I declare an interest as having worked for all five public service broadcasters, and I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for procuring this debate.
I will concentrate in my speech on the future of the BBC in developing technology in the public interest. I found the Green Paper’s declaration that the charter should include empowering the BBC as
“a leader in new digital technologies with strategies to maintain its relevance to modern audiences”
to be a central tenet for the future role of the corporation. I have spent so much time in this Chamber and in the Communications and Digital Select Committee listening to the harms created by digital technology. We have all received warnings about the role of AI in destroying our creative industries and much of our workforce. Surely we should harness our world-class broadcaster as a beacon of public service to shape and develop these new technologies in the public interest and not just in the private interest of US tech billionaires.
It is unbelievable that the current charter has removed the BBC’s public purpose to deliver technologies for the benefit of the nation. This has been compounded by the 30% reduction in licence fee income over the past decade, leading to a big decline in the organisation’s spend on research and development. As a result, Sky’s R&D department is massively outspending the BBC. As a listed company that needs to focus on its own interests, Sky’s research has been mainly used to enhance its own customer interaction and improve the technology of Sky Glass TV.
Now, we have a chance to develop digital technology imbued with ethical public service values. The BBC already has a set of AI principles, which are a useful guide to the priorities: namely, to act in the best interests of the public, to prioritise talent, and—one that particularly interests me in the light of the AI copyright debate—to promote transparency. Already, the BBC’s R&D department has rolled out for its own journalists a deepfake identification tool. The corporation is working with Sony as part of the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity, to establish provenance standards to be integrated into platforms and devices. These will allow users to establish details of content creation and manipulation. They can be made available to help users weave their way through the thicket of fake images on the internet. Reassuringly, at the centre of these tools there is always a human being supervising them.
Public-interest AI could be rolled out across the country to build trust in other services, such as secure age verification, and even as a way to stream government services. We have heard much talk in the last few months about the development of a British sovereign AI, along the lines of that being set up in Switzerland. The BBC could team up with platforms such as Anthropic AI, whose principles embody the UN Declaration of Human Rights, to set up a BBC large language model training session. The need for this research could be fed into the UKRI AI research and innovation programme, as part of the Government’s UK AI strategy.
Imagine a British AI large language model that had at its heart services powered by the BBC’s public service ethos and an ethical source of data training, and that would generate safe information and deliver AI in the public interest. I say to the Minister that surely this would be an amazing riposte from our country to the big US tech firms driven by the attention economy, which are prepared to address harms only when forced by law to do so. Users in this country and across the world would avail themselves of such services, secure in the knowledge that they would not create further harms. This might be a fantasy, but unless action is taken to ensure that the BBC is at the centre of the new AI and digital technological revolution in this country, it will become irrelevant.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, earlier in this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, described the BBC as a “unique organisation”. Later, the noble Lord, Lord Hall of Birkenhead, described the BBC as a “national institution”. I agree wholly with both noble Lords. I speak only of the radio, but this does go back a long way. Like the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, I started listening to the BBC radio with the Home Service, the Light Programme and the Third Programme, but we need to focus upon what the BBC is now delivering to us.
I refer to two of its prime programmes, “Mastermind” and “From Our Own Correspondent”. “Mastermind” is a fascinating programme in which the participants display encyclopaedic knowledge. Very occasionally, I have known the answer to a question, but that is very rare. “From Our Own Correspondent”, compered so ably by Kate Adie, calls on us to listen to a correspondent talking about the floods in Bangladesh, another correspondent talking about drought in Sudan, and perhaps a correspondent describing the way of life in some distant part of the world.
Then there are the regional programmes. I cite “Gardeners’ Question Time” and “Any Questions?”, which was chaired for many years by Jonathan Dimbleby—I think his father, Richard Dimbleby, launched the programme in the 1940s. Both these programmes are regional and are broadcast from throughout the United Kingdom.
I cite three programmes from this week’s programming by the BBC: first, “Just One Thing”, the programme developed by the late Michael Mosley; secondly, “Great Lives”, whose presenter until now has been Matthew Parris; thirdly, the fascinating statistical programme, “More or Less”. All three of those programmes are in this week’s list—and I can cite one more, “Moral Maze”, another absolutely fascinating programme. We are very well served by the BBC. It is the jewel in our crown and it should so be preserved.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, I join the multitude thanking the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for his constant, passionate advocacy of public service broadcasting.
At the moment there is a great debate taking place, some of which is unnecessary. We go round in circles and come back to the same solution, decade after decade. As broadcasting becomes more dynamic and diverse, because there are more platforms, options and ways to view, we in this House and those in the other place need to rustle up the energy to affirm what we know to be true, about the BBC in particular. It is and must remain the beacon of brilliance. It must be the benchmark of tenacity and truth in news and analysis. It must be the holder of intelligent first-source global and national perspectives. It must tell the story of a complex and compelling world, from the natural environment to surging technology to the stories of history and human experience.
All this requires investment. The truth is that the licence fee is a paltry 48p a day per household, yet we engage in a 10-year scrap about whether it should be 50p, 55p or 40p. This is foolishness. We need to give an essential public guarantee of exceptionalism for the BBC. It has gripping sport and gripping drama. I particularly thank this House for its support in 1996, when I was the BBC’s head of public affairs and, as a lobbyist, brought the case for listed events to this Chamber. This House, in particular with its hereditary Peers on the Conservative side, supported Liberal Democrat and Labour Peers against the Conservative Government to protect the listed events we have now. There are great moments in our national life, such as Remembrance Weekend, times of political transformation and moments of decision and impact. They all come to us through the BBC in a rush that we do not get anywhere else.
As the broadcasting landscape is changing and its provision becomes ever greater, there is no shortage of programming and there are endless options. Most of them are American and that is not our culture. We need the BBC. We need it despite a painful two years of mishaps and scandals. That is not the norm. Anyone who has worked as well and long with the BBC as I and many others in this House did knows that that is not the standard. It is an exception. The Government need to be bold and, thankfully, the Secretary of State and the Minister in this House have already declared affirming commitment to the BBC’s future.
But, in the fight that lies ahead in the next two years in particular, both Houses need to be consistent that we are not driven by commercial pressure bending our knee; instead, we are stating that the BBC is a vital public institution and that charter renewal allows us only to affirm the value of that institution ever more. We do not debate other institutions ridiculously like we do the BBC. We do not debate the armed services, highway maintenance, Chevening scholarships, the NHS or investment in Olympic sports development, because they are public assets. The BBC is a public asset for the UK and for the world and, for that, we must maintain its strength and the licence fee.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I suppose the usual sources will say, “Well, this is the House of Lords typically mumbling out its old prejudices”, but it has been very encouraging for me, as a long-time supporter of the BBC, to listen to those who have far more experience of it than I speaking with such passion today. I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and of course the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, who led us into this debate.
An old military adage is that you do not fight at the bottom of a hill where two maps join, but it seems that this particular charter debate is taking place in exactly that kind of position, because we are facing two challenges, both of which impact on the kind of public service broadcaster we require. One is a rather belated espousal by Ofcom of the need for media literacy, which certainly is necessary. It brings to mind the old Victorian comment, when education was expanded, that we must educate our masters. Faced with the revolution taking place in our media, there is a real need for an effective programme to enable all generations, particularly the younger generation, to have the equipment to deal with the media that is coming forward.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, was the first today to talk about the other revolution that is about to engulf us with artificial intelligence. Almost no news programme now takes place without one of the two sides of this story: either an amazing new breakthrough in medicine that will be enabled by artificial intelligence or some frightening interference in personal liberty or distortion of the news by the use of artificial intelligence. As a society, we will have to handle this, as has been indicated by a number of speakers. We will need the BBC and what it stands for more than ever in both managing media literacy and bringing artificial intelligence within the control of liberal democracies. When I started out in politics, we would have been sure that we could have got some UN charter to cover this generally, but now there will be competing legislation on AI, some of which will be very dangerous to the workings and functions of liberal democracies.
The future of the BBC is at more risk now than at any time in its 100-year history. It is under threat from commercial rivals that are jealous of its ongoing capacity to fulfil the first part of the original mantra, to entertain, and from authoritarians in both the government and private sectors who resent its capacity to educate and inform to standards that will underpin and strengthen our democracy.
I have one last thought for those who plan our business. Today’s debate shows both the capacity of this House to discuss these issues and the need for more time to discuss them. I offer this final thought. When the Reagan Administration carried out their deregulation of American broadcasting in the 1980s, one of the most famous broadcasters—not Ed Murrow—said, “We’ll only realise what we’ve lost when it’s gone”. I sincerely hope that will not be the case in future for the BBC.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on a thoughtful opening speech.
The phrase I became heartily fed up with was “punching above our weight”, usually uttered by Ministers whose Government continued to wield the axe for further cuts to the arts. According to Voice of the Listener & Viewer, from 2010 to 2024 the BBC suffered 38% in funding cuts—a horrendous statistic—invariably affecting every area of programming, including the arts. We do not punch above our weight. There is reduced output and the added danger that mistakes may be made, as we have heard.
What the BBC is surviving on to a significant extent is a huge residual feeling of good will across the world, its dogged impartiality in terms of news reporting, and, for what survives of the World Service, still a considerable reach. Remarkably, the BBC is still considered a beacon of democratic values, but without the necessary investment and, more importantly, a belief in those values beyond seeing the BBC as a money-spinner for the growth agenda, that good will will dissipate—a major reason why the World Service, a necessary aspect of foreign policy, needs again to be properly funded by the Foreign Office.
In the early 1960s a young, unknown playwright was given not one but three slots for plays on BBC radio years before “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead” made Tom Stoppard’s name. It was the first play I ever saw at the theatre, courtesy of a school trip. Famously, Stoppard turned down the opportunity to write the screenplay for Steven Spielberg’s film “Jaws” because at the time he was working on a play for the BBC—for radio. It is difficult to imagine such a thing happening now. What remains in terms of the arts is still great but needs to be built on, including restaffing. Music is still well served, with five orchestras, although in-house drama and coverage of the visual arts are diminished. I miss drama on Radio 3, which was such a good fit.
The BBC urgently needs to be future-proofed, particularly against structural threats, which could be worse even than the loss of funding, bad as that has been. I agree with the Broadcasting, Entertainment and Arts Unions’ plea that the BBC should not be compelled to commercialise because of funding restraints. There has to be certainty—a forever charter without the nail-biting review. The BBC needs to be properly independent in terms of government appointments. That independence should be extended in certain ways to other channels, and the Ofcom code strengthened, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, has said. As an instance, for obvious historical reasons, participation by German politicians in their media is strictly controlled. They cannot present programmes except in rare circumstances. That policy should be enforced here. We have seen what is happening in America in terms of the destructive interference of government in its institutions and media outlets. Unless measures are taken now, it is not inconceivable that with a Farage Government GB News becomes, in effect, a state broadcaster.
Beyond streaming, and certainly in the face of mis- and disinformation, there remains a strong moral case for a substantial public service broadcaster for the good of society, which is why a universal funding model needs to be adopted—less liable to be undone than the licence fee, which I fear could too easily be turned into a subscription.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for securing this debate and for his passionate commitment to UK broadcasting. I declare my interest as deputy chairman of Telegraph Media Group and co-chairman of the ITV APPG. I have three points.
The first concerns BBC charter renewal. Like many noble Lords, I have a profound commitment to the BBC and its values, but I have long been concerned about the impact of its online activities on the UK’s commercial media sector and, in particular, independent local media. Only recently Ofcom made clear its own concerns that the BBC’s largely unchecked expansion into digital local news is harming the commercial sector, with profound consequences for media plurality. Its free-to-access online service is deeply damaging to independent local news provision and in the worst-case scenario threatens to extinguish it altogether as print sales decline to unviable levels. We cannot let that happen. The charter renewal process must set new boundaries of activity to rein back the BBC’s online news provision to sustain local and national news diversity and quality journalism.
Secondly, we need action to protect the position of our PSBs, which are the bedrock of our creative economy, by ensuring that they can stand up to the competition from global online platforms. I agree with Ofcom:
“If no action is taken, the very existence of the PSBs … will be threatened. Time is running out to save this pillar of UK culture”.
We need decisive action in a number of areas; first, on prominence, where we must robustly implement the Media Act 2024 to ensure that PSBs are prominent on equitable terms on TV screens and all major devices, including gaming consoles, and create specific rules to ensure that PSB content is prominent on all major video-sharing and social media platforms, including YouTube, without having to share revenues. Secondly, the PSBs are a source of trusted, quality news, which is more important now than ever. This is particularly true for young people, and we need to ensure that PSB content is actively promoted on the platforms they use. Thirdly, we need to recognise the importance of tax incentives for safeguarding UK content, which means tax credits for UK stories and at-risk genres.
My third point concerns the potential acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery by Netflix, which I believe would have deeply damaging consequences for UK broadcasting. Netflix is already dominant in the subscription video on demand market. Present in almost six in 10 UK households, it accounted for nearly half of SVOD viewing in 2024. Were Netflix to be allowed to merge with Warner Bros. Discovery, the combined company’s revenue share of the market would be around three times higher than that of its nearest competitor. That is a virtual monopoly which would be potentially disastrous for our creative economy and for our consumers.
It would make it enormously difficult for other streamers to compete, something of great concern for our domestic streaming services, especially with the launch of Netflix’s advertising tier, meaning even more UK ad spend ending up in Silicon Valley. It would damage British talent and our leading independent production sector, as Netflix would have unprecedented market power in terms of both pricing and which projects to greenlight. And it would present a real danger to our cinemas because Netflix has never operated a traditional theatrical release model. I am particularly worried about Netflix’s clear desire to reduce the windowing times of releases. For consumers, a virtual monopoly means what virtual monopolies always mean: higher prices and less choice.
For all these reasons, it is clear to me that the CMA must conduct a full and thorough investigation into a merger, which, by cementing Netflix as a monopoly player, is clearly anti-competitive, with chilling implications for UK consumers and for the whole of our creative economy. I would be grateful for the Minister’s reassurance that this issue is being carefully scrutinised and that the Government will ensure that the CMA conducts a full review of this transaction.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has done this House a major favour by sponsoring today’s debate. I will concentrate my own remarks on the aspects of broadcasting which are closest to my professional experience as a working diplomat for more than 40 years: the BBC’s World Service and its foreign language programmes.
I confess that when I first heard of the BBC’s major editorial blunder in its “Panorama” programme about the 6 January attack on Congress following the 2020 presidential elections, I was not totally surprised. How could a broadcaster with the scope of the BBC’s coverage not make errors from time to time? What saddened me was the way in which the cacophony of denunciation which followed overlooked the benefits in soft power and global influence which the BBC’s work brought to the UK and to its western allies in the 100 years since it was founded.
No thought was given to the BBC’s work during World War II to keep hope alive in the countries of continental Europe and worldwide which were under foreign occupation. No thought was given either to the similar work it did during the Cold War in the countries of central and eastern Europe under communist domination. There was nothing about my own direct experience as the UK’s UN ambassador of the benign influence when the BBC was first to report the coup against President Gorbachev in 1991, which then rapidly collapsed. The UK’s soft power influence had never stood higher than that moment. Did none of these other considerations merit weighing in the balance when it made a mistake?
Very relevant to the current charter review was the decision by George Osborne, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, to load the cost of the World Service and foreign language programmes on to the BBC and its licence fee payers when previously those costs were borne by the taxpayer—a clever, opportunistic move, perhaps, from a narrow Treasury viewpoint, but in retrospect a massive and long-lastingly damaging one. Does it really make sense to impose on the director-general the choice between financing the BBC’s domestic programmes and its overseas ones? Does it really make sense to finance the World Service and foreign language programmes, a clear foreign policy decision, on a regressive tax base when it was previously financed by progressive general taxation? Did that earlier method of financing damage the BBC’s reputation for broad impartiality?
The answer to all three of those questions is, I suggest, negative. I hope the Minister replying to this debate will confirm that the regime for financing the World Service and the foreign language programmes of the BBC is on the table for consideration in the charter review.
In conclusion, I shall just say a few words about the litigation recently unleashed by the President of the United States against the BBC. I will not comment on the legal arguments of the case or on the possible outcomes of such litigation—I am not a lawyer—but what I will say about the decision to launch this litigation is that it represents a substantial error of political judgment all too likely to damage seriously all those concerned, apart from those earning legal fees. Would any other President of the United States since we became close allies in 1941 have been expected to take such a course of action? I think not.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for securing this important debate. I want to draw your Lordships’ attention to an important decision now affecting broadcasting generally and the stakeholder forum that has been established by DCMS regarding the future of the UK’s digital terrestrial television service. This is the system, as your Lordships know, by which most households receive television, providing free-to-air public service broadcasting to almost 99% of homes in the UK. It plays a vital role in how people access news and information in this country. It remains especially important for older viewers, people on low incomes and those living in rural and remote communities. For millions of people, it is not a secondary service or some kind of legacy platform; it is their main way of watching television, whether the BBC, ITV or whatever. It is familiar and generally universal.
The current policy commitment to terrestrial digital extends only to 2034. Calls for switch-off and a forced move to an entirely internet-based model of television are increasing. Yet while surveys show that there is overwhelming support for the continuation of digital terrestrial television, the vast majority of people affected in the UK are unaware of the potential uncertainty that is arising. In my view, forcing households to get a high-speed fixed broadband connection simply to continue watching television is wrong. For many people such as those whom I have mentioned—older viewers and people on lower incomes—there will be an increase in their cost of living with monthly broadband costs, installation charges and exposure to price rises. Many households manage by relying on mobile data for essential online tasks while continuing to use digital terrestrial for television. Removing that option would place additional costs on them.
I want to draw your Lordships’ attention to the regional impact of any switch-off. In Northern Ireland, for instance, 42% of homes rely on terrestrial television, nine percentage points higher than the UK average. We have the highest level of live broadcast viewing of any UK nation. The same challenges exist in Scotland and Wales and in parts of England where connectivity remains inconsistent and broadband take-up is forecast to lag well behind urban areas. I found the work of the Broadcast 2040+ campaign helpful in setting out the evidence, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland. I want to make a plea to the Minister to address this issue when she replies. It has not been raised thus far in this debate, but it is important not only for the reasons I have set out; this is also a critical part of our national resilience so that emergency services, utilities and transport, and government and security systems continue to function when broadband and mobile networks are overloaded or fail. We have seen that happen too often. I plead with the Minister to bring some clarity on when a decision will be taken on the future of digital terrestrial television. I hope that the decision will be positive, providing certainty and protecting free-to-air terrestrial television.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Fowler for his powerful introduction and declare my interest as a state secondary school teacher.
When talking about broadcasting, there is a tendency to look back at a pre-internet, pre-satellite halcyon time: a golden age of TV with three channels and wholesome radio. Our TV was black and white because my mother did not like the blood in medical programmes. There was no TV in the daytime, except for the Open University and some remarkably boring output. If you did not like it, you could go out into the rain and stare at the cows. If you missed something on TV, you would probably never see it again. But also, broadcasts could be genuinely national events, such as finding out who was number one on Radio 1, the FA Cup final and, rather bizarrely, the boat race. That is when most of us fell in love with test cricket, because in 1970s south Worcestershire, there was absolutely nothing else to do.
When we talk about broadcasting, we talk about the BBC. I am a great fan of the BBC. In fact, my maiden speech was on the subject of the BBC World Service, and I listen to 6 Music and Radio 5 in the mornings and the evenings. In fact, I prefer to listen to sport on the radio, as I can do something else at the same time, and when England inevitably lose, at least I have been doing something useful as well. I can always catch up on wickets, tries or goals on a variety of excellent websites.
I argue that for the viewer, the golden age of broadcasting is right now. We still have a strong BBC and other public service broadcasters; Netflix; Amazon Prime Video, which my wife works for; the internet; YouTube for music and old TV programmes that I missed in the 70s; pause and rewind—the list goes on, and it is in colour. I just avoid the medical programmes. However, we know that there are issues. Obviously, the BBC charter review is a huge one. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, that the BBC is just doing too much. Its mission to inform, educate and entertain the public was coined in 1922, when there was no other radio service and certainly no television. As we have seen, there is no shortage of entertainment out there today. Public service broadcasters have been asking for freedom to collaborate more, and I hope that comes with a promise to simplify their delivery. Do we need iPlayer and More4 and ITVX? Does Red Button still exist? I am not exactly sure Freely is the answer.
And there is a real problem. In an incredibly controlled scientific experiment, I asked my children, aged 14 and 20, what parts of the BBC they interact with. “None” came the answer. On further questioning, there was a grudging admission that they used to watch CBBC and they were made to watch “Newsround” at school, but they do not use the BBC like we do. They consume television the same way they consume all other media—via a device—and they certainly do not listen to live radio or watch linear TV, even if they know what it is. Obviously, the BBC is aware that its role has had to change, and I am grateful to Laura Anderson, who took me through some of the ways it is evolving. “Newsround” is still a staple in schools, and now, Other Side of the Story and Solve the Story are helping young people navigate the world of AI and fake news. UNBOXD is a campaign for 16 to 24 year-olds. This is where the BBC, with its high level of public trust, still has a role to play.
PSBs have asked for further tax incentives. I wonder whether the Minister will comment on schemes that incentivise homegrown content and talent, particularly low-budget material made by small companies. The future of broadcast looks fragmented, fractious and fragile. We must take care so that this is the start, not the end, of the golden age of broadcasting.
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
My Lords, I add my thanks and congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, to those of other Lords, with the added reason that I have spent the past 12 years trying to fill the noble Lord’s giant shoes as chair of the Thomson Foundation, which trains journalists and promotes sustainable media throughout the world. In declaring that interest, I should add that I am also a director of the audience measurement company, RSMB, the rights management company, the Theseus Agency, and Digbeth Loc. Studios in Birmingham. My elder son is a film and television screenwriter.
I will not try to list the recent developments in relation to broadcasting, as other noble Lords have already comprehensively outlined those. I would comment only that, in considering regulatory and other decisions, we should be careful to learn from the past. The UK creative industries would be even stronger than they now are if, historically, regulation had been more forward-looking and less parochial, going as far back as the IBA’s supervision of the ITV network in the 1970s and 1980s, and the Competition Commission’s blocking in 2009 of Kangaroo, the streaming initiative intended to unite all the major PSBs.
I should like to use my remaining time to talk about the implication of these developments in two areas—news and drama—at opposite ends of the creative spectrum, requiring very different but qualitatively similar skills and discipline. However much the means of consuming news has changed for all of us—and all the more for younger generations—television and radio remain at the heart of quality news. Media have converged, and young journalists are trained, for instance, to use smartphone-based video to enhance their print or online reporting. The BBC’s continuing leadership, for all its mishaps, in trusted news provision is a result of the melding of its TV, radio and online operations. I would suggest that the challenge for the BBC’s news provision is about the maintenance of journalistic editorial standards broadly rather than being exclusively or predominantly an issue of impartiality, however important that undeniably is.
For the wider broadcast news environment, the decisions faced by Ofcom and the CMA in relation to the prospective acquisition of ITV by Comcast are critical and must protect the funding, diversity and quality of public service news—I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Grade, has been listening to the debate. The boom in television drama production driven by the growth of streamers came to an end, or at least a pause, three years ago, as all booms do. The inflation in costs that resulted from this and the financial pressures on the PSBs have created an acute problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Hall, has already said, for British and British-focused drama. Elisabeth Murdoch, whose production companies have been globally successful, has also spoken powerfully about this same issue. This threatens not just the idiosyncratic British voice—and within that, even more those of the nations and regions—but the whole system for the development of talent. We would not have in the Premier League the most successful men’s football league in the world without the other junior leagues. There is no time to be lost in taking action to stimulate and support British drama.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Fowler on introducing this debate. It is a great pleasure that both at the end and the beginning of my career in your Lordships’ House I can call him “my noble friend.” I declare that I am a trustee of the fact-checking charity Full Fact.
When the Broadcasting Bill of 1996 was given its Second Reading, the then Minister concentrated more on the future it was opening up than on the nuts and bolts of the text under discussion in his opening speech. What the House did not know then was that I had metaphorically torn up the first draft, because the Bill was clearly presaging a technological revolution. It is revolutions like this that change the world we live in, not legislation giving them effect, and it is the changes that matter. That revolution is still going on.
I would like to touch on a number of points that I think are important about the current state of broadcasting in this country. First, public service broadcasting matters in a world of disinformation. The question posed by Pontius Pilate, “What is truth?”, is ever more important. For a free democratic society to function, truth and facts are the essential element that our fellow citizens need to form judgments for themselves, their families and society more widely—it is no accident that in the old days when there was a revolution the first thing the revolutionaries did was capture the radio station or television station. A public service stream of news and appropriate investigative journalism matters, and since there are sometimes criticisms, we need at least two separate elements to this in the interests of pluralism. Secondly, all this must be kept at arm’s length from government, factional politics and proselytising pressure groups of all kinds.
Realistically, the age in which we live is one where the influence and great overarching presence of Lord Reith has gone, and the importance of the wider media industry has evolved commercially, economically, socially and societally. We are now moving into a new era where territorial jurisdiction is seen and treated differently from the past. All broadcasters, both at home or abroad, are recognising this, and the obligations, opportunities and activities both of international services and domestic services, and content suppliers and all involved, need to recognise that.
Against this background, in a rapidly changing Britain, public service broadcasting must be thought through again carefully. I do not think it is any more necessary to begin from a position of a hybrid of Lord Reith’s high-mindedness and my noble friend Lord Hennessy’s “good chaps” theory of government. Britishness is contentious and is the subject of widespread discussion, but it is essential—indeed existential—to public service broadcasting. It must command popular acceptance, but not be populist, and material within a range of public service broadcasting programmes must remain available free-to-air to UK listeners and viewers. As I said earlier, technology and, in particular, delivery systems will determine all this; content follows. It is what the public receive and not how they get it that matters.
Finally, I have a few comments about the BBC’s current legal action brought against it by Donald Trump, which, as my noble friend Lord Fowler has pointed out, was clearly initiated by poor editorial control on the part of the corporation. We ought not to forget that public life is, on occasions, a rough-and-tumble business. It is not, in the words of Ernest Borgnine in the film “The Wild Bunch”, a church social. Some years ago, when I chaired a regional newspaper company, I went through a series of circumstances which, while very much in microcosm compared to this, shared many close similarities with this current litigation and the way it is playing out. It was not a pleasurable experience, but I am clear. First, if you make mistakes, admit it and apologise. Secondly, decide with your advisers whether you have any legal liability. If the answer is yes, admit it and face the financial and other consequences. If the answer is no, explain it, defend your case, and hold your ground and do not be bullied.
Whether any individual likes or hates the BBC, it is one of our defining global attributes, and it is a symbol of a lot of our best national characteristics. We did not achieve global respect and give hopes to the oppressed in the period 1939 to 1945 when the BBC broadcast under the strap line, “This is London calling, this is London calling”, with messages that were craven. Once a broadcaster or journalist loses his, her or their journalistic integrity, they lose everything. It is not a matter of triangulation or negotiating deals.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, I rise to add a little challenge and contrast to what is going on in this debate; it reminds me of the first debate that we had in your Lordships’ House about the state of the BBC, its behaviour and its relevance. As always, I speak to people from diverse communities, poorer communities and younger communities, and the message they want me to send to noble Lords, I believe, is one of challenge. It coalesces around these few points that I am going to give.
The first is relevance. It is certain—if this debate is taken as a measuring stick—that people of a certain vintage have great reverence for the BBC, and we hear an awful lot about what went on in the Second World War, and the message of hope that this country rightly gave to the rest of Europe and to the world. But, of course, if you are a 16 year-old girl from Ladbroke Grove, that has absolutely no relevance to you, and the BBC has questions to answer around relevance. The group of young people I spoke to pointed out that, for those between 16 and 24 years old, less than 50% watch terrestrial TV, or even catch-up TV, yet that is a lot of what the BBC is focused on putting out. When I spoke to these young people of university age, they said they resented paying for a service that they do not watch and that has very little relevant content for them. So, while you are all in here celebrating how great the BBC is, ask yourselves how relevant it is to people who do not come from your background and do not share your very high level of success and education.
On the question of bias, 50% of all Britons feel that the BBC is biased. Even if you do not, there are two questions to ask. Is it because they support your view, or do you think that the 50% of people who think the BBC is biased are wrong? Because it is a deeply held view by those 50%. Some think the BBC is biased to the left and some think it is biased to the right, but they are all agreed that the BBC is biased. When it comes to why they believe that to be true, it is not just about political output: left/right, trans issues or Donald Trump. They think it is a class issue. They see the BBC as having a white, middle-class, London-based view of the world. A young black man by the name of Raymond said to me:
“It is patronising to young people, and particularly patronising to young black people. It is a very middle-class view of what black people think”.
I thought that was a very interesting view, coming from a young man who had absolutely no reverence for the BBC and believed that he should get his money back—despite the fact that he is not paying for a TV licence because he is only 16.
The point has to be made: what is the BBC going to do in the future? I have some warm feelings for it. They may not be as warm as those of many in the Chamber, but I do have some warm feelings for it and I believe that this question of relevance is important. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, talked a lot about what the BBC could be doing around technical development and AI, and I think that that is something it really should pursue. It could be of great use to this country, and particularly to its young people going forward in the future.
The international BBC service is obviously of great quality and very meaningful. My parents are Jamaican and will tell you what a profound impact it had in the Jamaican community and continues to have to this day. But, unless we in this Chamber challenge the view that all noble Lords seem to hold—that the BBC is beyond blame—I think the BBC will fade and die away. You might get away with it for the next 10 years, but in 10 years’ time Raymond will be 26. He will be paying for his licence and he will “come for his money”—those are his words, by the way.
So, when we talk about the BBC, let us do it with some balance; let us challenge it to improve itself. And, if you do not believe it is biased, remember that 50% of Britons do. We are talking about the BBC as it used to be, not as it is today.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I will focus on the BBC from a commercial and international perspective, and should declare an interest up front. In my years as a journalist and foreign correspondent in Latin America and the Middle East, and then as a CEO of a British online information service on emerging markets, I must admit to benefiting hugely from the BBC’s reflected reputation for balance, independence and trusted news. In my experience, the BBC’s brand is actually stronger outside the UK than within, in almost all regions of the world, bar perhaps certain elements in the US.
Looking at the BBC’s global, rather than domestic audience, it is here that the greatest opportunities lie, which in turn raises fundamental questions about the business model of a public service broadcaster. I should declare a second interest, and a rather less positive one: my application for a place on the BBC’s 1982 graduate trainee scheme was brutally rejected without even the offer of an interview. Some 40 years on, I will try not to let this affect my own impartiality; instead, I will focus on two key metrics from last year’s BBC annual report.
The first, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, told us, is that the BBC’s global weekly audience sits at 453 million. That is, in fact, down from its highest ever global audience of 486 million back in 2020, but still an impressive reach in an increasingly crowded and partial market. Secondly, if we dig deeper, we see that, despite all the cuts, BBC News accounts for 418 million—that is over 90% of the corporation’s global audience—and of that, the World Service delivers 313 million. This global reach is vital for the UK’s soft power and influence, as we have heard. It is hugely helpful to our Foreign Office, to diplomatic relations and to our trade and investment. What is often less understood is that it is also helpful to UK multinationals and indeed SME exporters, as I discovered in my days as a publisher. You could argue that that alone represents good value for money for the £3.8 billion a year we pay in licence fees, before we look at all the domestic benefits of information, education and entertainment.
It is therefore encouraging to see that the BBC’s commercial revenues, which have not been mentioned today, have grown to over £2 billion annually from around £1.2 billion five years ago, despite its current trading restrictions. Yet, with that global audience of 450 million, it represents just 40p per viewer per month—so there is significant scope for growth.
We need to allow the BBC to harness this global opportunity for changes to its business model, particularly in the area of partnerships, tiered subscriptions, paywalls and content licensing. Does the Minister agree that that requires greater investment, and not cost-cutting, in its news and factual departments, particularly for the World Service?
A coherent business strategy to grow commercial revenues to what I believe could be £5 billion per annum would enable a reduction in the TV licence over time to below £100 per household, which would be a good thing. Crucially, this could be done without over-reliance on advertising and sponsorship, which would threaten the very thing that the BBC is still most valued for: independence and impartiality.
Lord Young of Old Windsor (CB)
My Lords, I have three connections with broadcasting. First, in my 20s, as a budding scriptwriter with the BBC, I wrote an audio drama for “Doctor Who”—it is still available online, although mercifully few people have found it. Secondly, in my 30s, as a suit at ITV in the early 2000s, I worked on the merger of Granada and Carlton to form ITV plc. Thirdly, during my 20 years at Buckingham Palace, I dealt closely with, among others, my noble friend Lord Hall, who spoke so wisely, and the outgoing Director-General, Tim Davie, who will be much missed at the BBC. Those experiences taught me that British broadcasting has the best creative ecosystem in the world, one that is strengthened by a public service ethos at its heart. ITV drama is stronger because it competes with BBC drama; Times Radio is stronger because it competes with BBC radio; Britain is stronger because it has the BBC.
When the late Queen addressed the nation at the start of Covid, telling the country, “We will meet again”, Buckingham Palace did not call Netflix; we called the BBC, and 24 million people tuned in. The same was true of the globally popular James Bond Olympic sketch in 2012 and her tea with Paddington Bear in 2022. With the late Queen’s funeral and the King’s Coronation, part of the reason the world looked on so admiringly was because of the way they were broadcast. Yes, it was commercial broadcasters too, but the point stands: their coverage was stronger because they were up against the BBC. It is an incredibly expensive and sophisticated business doing live event broadcasting. Where are the likes of Netflix or Apple TV in these moments of national togetherness? The answer is that they just do not do that sort of thing.
I am not saying that the BBC is perfect—far from it. Like the Gruffalo, the BBC can look fearsome and lumbering, but strip away the mythology and there is something more vulnerable underneath. Its cultural antennae can sometimes seem too poorly tuned, too metropolitan and self-satisfied. It should concentrate more on reporting straight news and leave the investigative stuff to others; these ventures too often end in tears. But the BBC’s biggest challenge is greater still: increasingly, younger people just do not watch it. Old-fashioned multichannel scheduling is looking dated. One in eight households are now not paying the licence fee—one in eight. In five years, it could be one in four. The stakes are high, because when the next crisis comes—and it will—we will want something to turn to; something we trust, something that makes Britain stronger. Let us make sure that it is still there.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have had the nod to speak in what is called the gap—I hope that meets with your Lordships’ approval. As a declaration of interest, I am currently chairman of Ofcom, and I have had a long career in various bits of British public service broadcasting which would take too long to recite here. I join all those who welcomed the passion of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and the sustained interest that he has shown in our public service broadcasting. This has been a terrific debate.
The debate has, not surprisingly, concentrated on the BBC. We are at base camp of the next great charter review, and there will be plenty of opportunities to rehearse all the arguments. As a veteran of one charter review, when I was chairman some years ago, with the late and much-lamented Tessa Jowell at the DCMS, I would caution that charter review always starts at the wrong point. I hope we will not do it this time. That point is governance and funding. Those are two important questions, but they are absolutely subsidiary to the biggest question of all: what do we want from the BBC in this very changed environment? When I came into broadcasting in 1973 at London Weekend Television, we had a monopoly of advertising revenue, and there were three channels. The advertising sales director never came in on a Wednesday because it messed up both weekends. Those were the days.
I therefore beg that the question about the future of the BBC is focused on what we want from it in this changed world. At Ofcom last year, we published our public sector media review, which did not deal with BBC charter review but with a much more challenged sector over which legislators have very little control—namely, the private sector of public service broadcasting. Our report, which I know the Government have welcomed and are taking seriously, is a canary in the mine. There are serious challenges in the private sector.
All the policy initiatives and Ofcom’s regulatory processes going forward must focus on the objectives of public service broadcasting, by finding ways either to legislate or to deregulate in a way that enables the sustained investment in British productions made by British producers for British audiences. That is at the heart of the creative industries in this country. The most successful growth sector of any sector of business in the UK has been the creative industries, and at the heart of that are the PSBs.
The PSBs themselves are going to have to work a lot harder to get the attention of viewers. It is not simply a matter of “Keep doing what you are doing, and we are going to drown in the face of the competition”; they will have to work a lot harder. Parliament and the regulators have to create the conditions to help them to sustain their investment. Part of that will be serving all parts of the nations and regions, and part of that will be to preserve a plurality of trusted news and current affairs throughout the nations and regions. That is crucial, and all of policy must be directed at that. I look forward to the charter review, but that is all I will say about the BBC for now.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, I welcome this debate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, a truly great man and great politician. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said, he led on the cause of AIDS and has always championed our PSBs. I believe he was the chair of the first committee I sat on when I came here; I think the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and the previous Bishop of Manchester were also on that committee, and the subject was—guess what—BBC charter renewal. Today, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has characteristically initiated a debate of crucial importance. In the times we live in, our UK broadcasters are essential not just to the UK but in their role across the world.
It all started with the BBC in 1922, when, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said, it was audio only, and the only choice for listeners appears to have been in the sole gift of a Captain Eckersley, who would,
“trundle his piano from his local pub to an equally local army hut from which he would perform to the nation”.
The days when choice for listeners was confined to one man’s piano repertoire are long, long gone.
As the noble Lords, Lord Fowler and Lord Vaizey, have mentioned, we are now fortunate to have a variety of other vibrant and diverse public service broadcasters. ITV, Channel 4, Sky and Channel 5 all make brilliant programmes, setting the standard for accurate and responsible news coverage. In return for privileges such as free spectrum use and top positions on EPGs, these commercial channels have public interest obligations, which has resulted in high-quality competition for the BBC, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Old Windsor, mentioned.
Collectively, the PSBs invest in talent across the UK and in stories which are important to us as a nation, such as, “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”, “It’s a Sin”, “Patrick Melrose”, “Milkshake!” and huge international successes such as “Downton Abbey” and “Peaky Blinders”. I have not even mentioned the unscripted category. They are central, as the noble Lord, Lord Grade, said, to our hugely successful creative industries and creative workforce, which has drawn the American streamers to our shores, while making UK-centred alternatives to the programmes of the said streamers.
However, as viewers increasingly move towards streamers and on-demand and online TV viewing, those privileges become less valuable, and we need to find new ways of helping and incentivising those broadcasters. I think the noble Lord, Lord Black, mentioned this. Does the Minister agree that that is why it has become ever more important that the provisions of the Media Act around prominence and discoverability are both properly enforced and strengthened?
Still central to broadcasting in the UK, as everyone has said, is the BBC. The highly respected Reuters Institute updated its data on news and trust in November. The BBC remains the most trusted source, not just for the UK but for the world where news is concerned. In an era of disinformation and social media silos, the BBC stands as a beacon of accuracy and impartiality.
A lot of what I am about to say noble Lords will already have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hall, but I want to repeat it. The BBC is not just the news—and it is important to remind people of this, as my noble friend Lord Razzall said, particularly politicians—but radio stations, podcasts, orchestras, BBC Bitesize, BBC online, iPlayer, BBC Sounds and the World Service. I hope that might, in a way, respond a little to what the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, said. It develops and invests in talent and in local creative hubs across the UK, not to mention a network of local radio and TV. Through its mission to educate, inform and entertain, it has made culture, news, and other people’s experiences and lives available to all.
It also plays a hugely important role in promoting the UK around the world—soft power—through both the programmes it exports and the World Service, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Londesborough, Lord Hall, Lord Hannay and Lord Bailey. That is ever more important now that President Trump has cut off funds to Voice of America. That is not all he has done. The erosion and destruction of public service broadcasting in the USA extends to all direct and indirect funding to NPR and PBS being terminated. Having had its funding withdrawn, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a lifeline to hundreds of radio and TV stations that serve their local communities, decided this week to close down. That is a cautionary tale; this cannot be allowed to happen in the UK, but Donald Trump’s disciple Nigel Farage has repeatedly vowed to “defund” a “slimmed-down” BBC.
As the noble Lord, Lord Grade, mentioned, the charter renewal process is upon us and we on these Benches welcome the Green Paper as the starting point in this process, in particular the Secretary of State’s vision for the BBC:
“Sustainably funded, with a strong presence in every nation and region so that all of us can see ourselves reflected in our national story”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hall, mentioned, she sees the BBC as having the same level of importance as the NHS; I could not agree more. But this 10-year event, charter renewal—why do we not just start by getting rid of it, ending the straitjacket in which the BBC, unlike other organisations established by royal charter, is in a never-ending cycle of having to make the case for its own existence? Does the Minister not agree that we should give the BBC a forever charter? Without that, and in the wrong hands—Trump-like hands—the charter can simply be terminated on its last day: no negotiations, no BBC.
We on these Benches believe that all non-executives of the BBC board should be independently appointed—no government appointees. We do not think this is appropriate for a body which oversees the BBC’s day-to-day editorial and strategic decisions.
The Government should maintain stable, secure and long-term funding for the BBC through the continuation of the licence fee until the end of the current charter period, and ensure equivalent public funding beyond that; crucially, protecting the principle of universality, as the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, said.
Does the Minister not agree that future decisions about funding must be made transparently by an independent body? George Osborne now admits that when Chancellor he was “somewhat shocked” to discover the power that the Government, specifically the Treasury, had over the BBC. He said:
“You think of the BBC as being this big, independent organisation with lots of protection against the government … but the chancellor can basically boss the BBC around on its finances because the government sets the licence fee in the charter”—
and boss it around he did, into paying for the over-75s. That was wrong, as it is a social cost and is disastrous for BBC finances.
As the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said, we need a sufficient and durable funding settlement for the World Service. We on these Benches would increase FCDO funding by an additional £100 million per year. What are the Government’s intentions?
Finally, Ofcom’s record in upholding standards of impartiality is a cornerstone of our broadcasting system. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, mentioned, it recently seems to have concluded that politicians can present news programmes—I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey—via a clumsy attempt to distinguish between news and current affairs; a decision that, particularly where GB News is concerned, risks undermining public trust in broadcast news. The Secretary of State appears uncomfortable and has said that she is
“looking … at what we can do as a government to deal with this. We can’t continue with a situation where people can’t trust what they see”.
Can the Minister expand on what actions the Government intend to take to ensure that Ofcom fulfils Parliament’s intentions?
I end as I began, in celebrating our UK broadcasters: long may they thrive. In our previous debate on this subject, I concluded by quoting Joni Mitchell. This time, I offer the same sentiment, but with Lisa Nandy speaking directly about the BBC:
“An institution founded to bring the best that has been thought and known to every home—if it didn’t exist today we would have to invent it”.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, like all others, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for giving us the opportunity of today’s debate. It has proved to be a timely one, because it is the first opportunity that we have had to discuss the Government’s Green Paper on the BBC, published in the week before the Christmas Recess.
When I saw the Motion mentioning recent developments in broadcasting, I wondered how far we might roam in your Lordships’ House—and, indeed, we have heard about the Second World War a few times, the Home Service and the Light Programme. But noble Lords have also talked about some of the more recent trends in broadcasting that we have seen. The noble Lords, Lord Razzall and Lord Hampton, and, very powerfully, my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington spoke about the declining connection between young people and our public service broadcasters. The noble Lord, Lord Hall of Birkenhead, talked about the 30% reduction in the BBC’s income from the licence fee without accompanying public debate. My noble friend Lord Vaizey of Didcot, still sporting his very Santa-like beard, highlighted that YouTube is now the second most popular broadcaster in the United Kingdom.
It is against the backdrop of recent changes such as this that we will soon be asked to consider the BBC’s royal charter for the next very uncertain decade. That is a vital moment not just for the corporation but for our other public service broadcasters and our nation as a whole. It comes hot on the heels of a recent litany of errors from the BBC that noble Lords have pointed out and which I shall not repeat—other than to say that those errors have profound consequences, whether that is multibillion-pound lawsuits or a decline in trust and connection between audiences and our broadcasters. We have seen that the proportion of people in the United Kingdom who say that they trust BBC News has fallen by 15 percentage points since 2018. That is something that should worry us, as I know it worries the BBC.
As noble Lords know, I am sympathetic to the BBC and our public service broadcasters. In that sense, I am a Fowlerite Conservative: we ask a lot of the BBC and expect the high standards that it has come to be renowned for over the last century. We should remember that 94% of adults use some of the BBC’s services in some form each month. As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Old Windsor, said, it is to the BBC and our other public broadcasters that we turn in our nation’s most important moments.
However, the BBC faces some structural problems as we confront its next decade: a declining number of viewers, as the Christmas viewing figures prayed in aid by many noble Lords showed; increasing competition from other channels, as anyone who, like me, has tried to work out how to use the Christmas edition of the Radio Times in the modern age will be able to attest to; the declining number of licence fee payers, with 2.5 million fewer over the past decade, as the Government’s Green Paper points out; and the increasing evasion of the licence fee, the rate of which has doubled and now stands at 12.5%, which is one in eight people who should be paying for the service that we all enjoy and who is not.
We need to ask some very big questions to set the BBC and broadcasting more generally on the right course for the next uncertain decade. I, for one, find it difficult to predict what the next 10 years might hold, so I think it is important that we have these regular opportunities. A forever charter would be even harder to try to set out. But, unfortunately, the Government’s Green Paper ducks so many of the big questions that confront us over the coming years. The Government chose to disband the expert panel that was formed to look into future funding for the BBC in 2023, wasting some time and independent insight, and have ruled out some of the most basic questions in their Green Paper. For instance, it dismisses certain funding models seen in other countries. A recent paper by the British Academy draws some interesting comparisons with Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Spain and others. The Government have already ruled those out in the Green Paper, yet they leave the door open to advertising—something that the BBC itself is so opposed to. Can the Minister explain a bit of the rationale there?
The Green Paper rules out looking at the size and scope of the BBC. It says,
“we do not believe a smaller BBC is in the UK’s interest”.
However, I think we should at least ask the question whether the BBC ought to have so many television and radio channels. Do we really need four versions of Radio 1, with 1Xtra, Radio 1 Dance and Radio 1 Anthems—which, I was disappointed to learn, is not the place where one can find the much-missed Radio 4 “UK Theme”.
My noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood is right to point out the impact of the BBC on other media, particularly local newspapers. The Government’s Green Paper does not say much about greater collaboration, or perhaps even mergers, between some of our public service broadcasters in the years to come. In the Government’s Creative Industries Sector Plan, which was published last June, they said that they would ask the Competition and Markets Authority, supported by Ofcom, to set out how changes in the sector
“could be taken into account as part of any future assessment of television and advertising markets. This would include when considering any potential closer, strategic partnerships or possible consolidation between broadcasters”.
Did the Government ask the CMA and Ofcom about this, and what progress have those two bodies made in the intervening months? However, as the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, says, the CMA does not have a good track record in this area. It rejected Project Kangaroo, the plan for a consolidated streaming service for all our public service broadcasters, which would have given them such an important head start on Netflix and the others that have now gained pace.
The Green Paper contains some damaging ideas, such as the notion of free TV licences for people on benefits. That would only fuel division, resentment and some of the disconnect that audiences feel, and would add to the pressures on public spending that have led to many of the problems that noble Lords have identified in their remarks today. Perhaps the Minister can set out why the Government are looking at this.
We need to ask these big questions so that the BBC and other public service broadcasters can compete. We saw in recent weeks the news that the BBC has been replaced by TNT Sports as the broadcaster for the forthcoming Commonwealth Games—a great shame for those who wish to follow them. This will lead to increased piracy, as people try to watch their favourite sports or TV programmes illegally.
Noble Lords rightly point to the mergers and growth of already large international streamers and corporations, and to the way that they are pushing up production costs, making it more difficult for the BBC, Channel 4 and others to compete. I was glad to hear a number of noble Lords talking about the knock-on effect that this has on cinematic releases. Timothée Chalamet has been speaking very powerfully about trying to get people into cinemas to watch his latest film, “Marty Supreme”—something that would buck the trend.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, does not like it, but I am glad that he has at least been to the cinema to see it.
What discussions have the Government had with awards academies about the qualifying period that is necessary for films to be entered into things such as the Oscars and the BAFTAs? Should they not insist on a greater cinematic release? Having taken the Media Bill through your Lordships’ House in 2024, I agree with the comments that have been made about implementing and enforcing the provisions of that Act in relation to prominence and more.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, spoke powerfully about digital terrestrial television. In July 2025, Ofcom recommended that the Government make a decision about whether to invest more in digital terrestrial television, which, at present, is guaranteed only until 2034. At the time of Storm Goretti, we are reminded of what a vital lifeline our broadcasters are, particularly in rural parts of the United Kingdom. Perhaps the Minister could say a bit about that?
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, and others spoke about the BBC World Service. The director-general, Tim Davie—who will be much missed—has been in front of the Public Accounts Committee in another place this morning. He pointed out that the BBC World Service has not yet had its financial settlement for the 2026-27 financial year. Can the Minister say when that will be set out? Against such a turbulent geopolitical backdrop, surely the BBC World Service needs to know how it much can spend later this year?
As other noble Lords have rightly done, I want to end by connecting broadcasting to other art forms. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, spoke of the great and much-missed playwright, Sir Tom Stoppard. I recently saw his “Indian Ink” at the Hampstead Theatre, which I believe began as a radio play. Last night, at the Donmar Warehouse, I saw JB Priestley’s “When We Are Married”. He was another of our great playwrights who jumped from stage to screen to radio. In a recent report by UK Theatre, the producer of the BBC’s “The Night Manager”—which I am sure many of us are currently enjoying—speaks powerfully about the connection between funding for theatre, and other art forms, and what we will be viewing on our screens and streamers for years to come. During this helpful and wide-ranging debate, it is right that we have been able to switch over from broadcasting to talk about other art forms too.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for securing this debate on UK broadcasting. Given the limited time that we have, I will commit to writing to noble Lords on points that I cannot cover in my concluding notes—I have a lot of bits of paper in front of me, so noble Lords must please bear with me.
As the noble Lord highlighted in his opening remarks, he and many others across your Lordships’ House have significant interest and expertise in this subject. It has therefore been a wide-ranging debate, with much to consider. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, that your Lordships’ House undoubtedly has a particular interest in news and current affairs. I note that I enjoy hearing the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester on “Thought for the Day”, as I know many others do.
We are rightly proud of our broadcasting sector in the UK. It is unique, with a dynamic, mixed ecology of public service broadcasters, commercial broadcasters and streamers. It is a sector that is indispensable to our culture, society and economy. However, there are many different pressures on the broadcasting sector at the moment, as contributions to this debate have illustrated powerfully. It was particularly helpful to have the perspective of the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Bailey of Paddington, who talked about the generational shift and the fact that not everybody recognises themselves in our public service media or uses the BBC and other public sector media to access media. We need to be clear that there is a broader issue, and a broader fight for truth and unbiased broadcasting, with new challenges in the market and increased competition. These are just a few of the issues that the sector is currently facing. It is vital that we do not lose the need to address these issues and that we ensure that the UK’s broadcasting remains one of our greatest assets.
Today’s debate comes, as I think most noble Lords highlighted, shortly after the Government have published the BBC royal charter review Green Paper. Before I go on to cover the charter review briefly, I will speak to some of the work that DCMS is undertaking more generally in relation to broadcast media. The noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, highlighted the importance of the implementation of the Media Act. I acknowledge the work on this Act by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. As noble Lords will be aware, the Media Act 2024 made much-needed changes to the regulation of public service broadcasting. Since the previous Act, internet access and streaming services have fundamentally changed how audiences access content. My noble friend Lord Chandos highlighted the importance of the regulatory framework. The commencement of the modernised public service broadcasting framework on 1 January marks an important milestone in the implementation of the Media Act and demonstrates this Government’s continued commitment to ensuring the regulatory framework that our PSBs operate in keeps pace with changes in the media landscape.
As part of the Media Act implementation, we will be extending vital audience protections and accessibility requirements to mainstream video on demand services, securing a fairer competitive environment for our broadcasters by ensuring that TV-like on-demand services are regulated to similar standards as traditional TV. In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, on prominence, we are in the process of implementing the new online prominence regime, which will require particular TV platforms to carry and give appropriate prominence to PSB TV apps. This will ensure that UK viewers can continue to find and watch the public service broadcasting content they value on demand.
I move on to the BBC now. Despite the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, not getting on to its graduate scheme, I would argue that he has done all right—it is clear that we have gained and the BBC has lost. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, highlighted the moral case for the BBC and for funding the BBC. Not surprisingly, the future of our national broadcaster was raised throughout the debate by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord McNally, whose speech I enjoyed and will reflect on.
On the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, in his opening remarks, I agree that we should defend the BBC. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, that the BBC must own its problems and failings in order to rebuild trust.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick, I say that the Government are also clear that the BBC is a vital part of our society that projects British values, creativity and integrity to the world. It underpins our creative industries and is pivotal in telling our national story. In the words of the Culture Secretary, which the noble Lord, Lord Hall of Birkenhead, quoted:
“the BBC, alongside the NHS, is one of the two most important institutions in our country”.
I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, echo the Secretary of State in saying that it is the light on the hill.
From Salford to Belfast, the BBC has a footprint in our nations and regions that is unmatched by any other, and it is one of the most trusted news providers, both at home and abroad. The noble Lord, Lord Hall, described some powerful examples of how the BBC tells our national story, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter. My noble friend Lord Chandos highlighted the importance of drama.
As our national broadcaster, the BBC fulfils a vital public service role, telling the story of who we are: our people, our places, and giving cultural definition to our communities. As made clear by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, the BBC was created to serve the whole of society. The noble Baroness made a powerful case for the BBC being a public service resource and for universality—no doubt themes we will return to throughout this year of debate on the charter review.
As noble Lords are aware, we have launched the BBC charter review. This will set the terms of the BBC for the next decade, and, through it, we will collectively write the next chapter of the BBC story. Through the review, we will ensure the BBC is sustainably funded, commands the public’s trust and continues to drive growth, good jobs, skills and creativity across every region and nation of the UK. The charter review will look at how to secure the BBC’s future against a rapidly changing media landscape to ensure the BBC does not just survive but thrives for decades to come.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, highlighted the digital age we are in, noting that how the BBC embraces this ethically and for the public benefit will be key. The debate on how to do this will be central to the BBC charter review, and it was helpful to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, about the variation across different parts of the country, including the extent and proportion of people who access free-to-air content.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, focused on funding models. Essential to the charter review will be ensuring the financial sustainability of the BBC. We approach this charter review with an open mind, and we are consulting on a range of funding options, including how the BBC can operate more efficiently and generate more commercial revenue, and how the licence fee might be reformed.
Let me address the point on non-payment, made by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and on the value for money the BBC represents if broken down to a daily cost per household, made by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. We know that some funding options would represent a significant shift for both the sector and the BBC, as well as for audience experiences and expectations. We want to see a thriving media sector, including our public service broadcasters. Our decision-making in relation to the Green Paper will carefully consider the potential impacts on this ecosystem.
As the consultation is ongoing, it probably would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail on the range of fascinating views that have come out of today’s debate. I know, however, that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, clearly does not agree with some of the suggestions. I look forward to future debates with him and with others across your Lordships’ House as the year, and the work of the Government on the BBC royal charter review, continues.
I will try to cover a few of the other points made relating to the BBC; I apologise if I miss any out. The noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, spoke about BBC market impact on local online news. We recognise the importance of a plural local news sector and are aware of the issues and headwinds facing the green sector. As noted in the Green Paper, we want to make sure that the BBC works alongside, and does not crowd out, high-quality local media organisations.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, raised BBC board appointments. Most board appointments are for the BBC to make independent of government; moving forward, it is important that the BBC continues to demonstrate how it is working diligently to maintain the high standards for which it is rightly recognised. As we set out in December, the charter review will look at strengthening the BBC’s independence so that the public continue to have trust in the organisation and its programmes and content, and that will include considering the Government’s role in board appointments.
The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, raised a number of points concerning political interference. We are clear that the BBC is the world’s most trusted international news service. A critical reason for that is its independence from government and other political actors. This Government are committed to ensuring that the BBC remains, I emphasise, fiercely independent. This is vital to the principle of press freedom more broadly.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, and others raised the importance of the World Service. We are clear that the World Service is vital, which is why we gave it a £32.6 million funding uplift this financial year. It is a vital element of our soft power and a big part of why the BBC can be seen as that light on the hill. I will come back in writing on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, about ongoing certainty of funding, because I do not have the answer—one of the disbenefits of speaking just before the Minister is that it is quite difficult to get answers inserted at the last minute. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, also referred to BBC World Service funding. Our ambition is to establish a long-term sustainable funding model that provides predictable and stable funding for the World Service through the charter review. We will be able to come back to this throughout the year.
The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, made a point about the potential influence of foreign state actors. We feel quite strongly about this as well. As I said, the Government are committed to making sure that the BBC has that freedom and remains fiercely independent.
As a postscript to this section of the debate, a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Vaizey, Lord Hannay and Lord Inglewood, raised the lawsuit by President Trump. It is not for the Government to comment on ongoing legal matters, but I point your Lordships’ House to the assertion by the BBC’s chair, who has gone on record strongly disagreeing with the assertion that it was the basis for a defamation claim.
I move on to public service broadcasters more generally. It was really useful to hear the perspective of the noble Lord, Lord Grade of Yarmouth, on PSBs. I also found the contribution on this from the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, of huge interest and it should be reflected on. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, highlighted the increased scrutiny of public service media, including the BBC. As has come through in the debate, not least from the noble Lord, our public service media is wider than the BBC and we need trust to be retained and, where necessary, rebuilt across the range of broadcasters.
The Secretary of State has been clear that we will ensure that the high standards we expect from our public service media are reflected across the whole of broadcast media so that the highest standards are upheld. Generally our media have high standards, but we must not be complacent. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, highlighted the importance of truth and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, highlighted the debate around politicians presenting current affairs. Polemic should not be presented as fact. The lines between broadcast news and opinion are in some cases becoming dangerously blurred. It is a dangerous place for democracy if people cannot trust what they see and hear. I appreciate the point made by my noble friend Lord Parekh about truth, trust and bias. This is why balance matters. We are now considering whether the Government need to go further to protect audiences.
Public service media providers are contending with funding shortfalls, changing and new habits, and regulation that has not really kept pace with the media revolution of recent years, and we want to fix this for the future. We want to ensure our public service media can continue to thrive and compete with global competitors as viewing shifts online so that they can continue to do what they do best. That is why we have committed to taking action to support public service media and the wider TV sector in the Creative Industries Sector Plan. We are also considering the findings in Ofcom’s public service media review, which will inform our work, and engaging with the sector on next steps. We also recognise the need to diversify the TV workforce, move commissioning out of London and ensure the whole nation is reflected in the story we tell about ourselves as a nation. We will work with the sector to ensure the right framework, conditions and support are in place for this to happen.
I have a couple more points which I will cover, but I am going to conclude to allow the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, to respond before we run out of time for this debate.
On local news, which the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, raised, the Government recognise the importance of local media, including local TV and its role in providing trusted and accurate news at a local level. I am pleased that local TV licences have been renewed by Ofcom to enable local TV to continue until at least 2034.
In relation to a point about Netflix made by the noble Lord, Lord Black, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, who asked for assurance on Netflix’s proposed acquisition of Warner Brothers, given the legal and commercial sensitivities involved, it would not be appropriate to comment on any potential live media merger involving US media companies, but should any merger progress, the Competition and Markets Authority will examine the implications for competition and consumers, providing relevant jurisdiction criteria are met. We remain in regular contact with stakeholders, including the BFI and the UK Cinema Association, on how best to support the UK film and cinema sectors.
I am going to ditch the bit on radio, although I love radio, as does the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, but I will again plug the programme by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. The point made by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, highlighted the pipeline that BBC Radio has provided for some of our greatest talent.
I will conclude there. It is clear from the debate today that UK broadcasting is at a pivotal moment. The Secretary of State was clear when she spoke at the Royal Television Society’s Cambridge Convention that public service media is fighting to be seen and heard in an increasingly competitive market. Our public service media is dealing with multiple challenges in funding, viewing habits and regulation. I know we will return to this debate throughout the year, but it has been a useful first step in our discussion on the future of broadcasting.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I am not remotely going to attempt a further summing up. We had a very good summing up from the Minister, and I congratulate her and the two spokesmen of the political parties on what they have said.
The debate has proved and established what I said at the beginning, which is that if you look at the Membership of the House of Lords, you find a great deal of experience in exactly this media area. I can only hope that the authorities, when they are organising future debates, will understand that that is the case.
I will mention three points, in headline terms, before sitting down. The first is the issue which was rightly raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester; I knew his predecessor and we had a very good working relationship, and I hope the same will be true with him. His emphasis on radio is vastly important, and many people in this country listen much more to radio than watch television, or certainly as much. Programmes such as “From Our Own Correspondent” open a window to a whole range of things overseas.
Secondly, I welcome the new services that have developed. It is quite interesting how they have developed since the last time I debated these issues. There is a new surge—a new verve—in new services being established. Obviously, the chief one I have in mind is Times Radio. I must say we are greatly privileged that the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, should have left his familiar position to support our debate, and I hope he finds it useful and valuable, too.
My third and last point is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, basically to say that he has pioneered and campaigned for more help for overseas aid, and his words and his—
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, I regret to say that under the rules for time limited debates, the time allotted for this debate has now elapsed, and I am afraid I must put the Question on the Motion, if the noble Lord would sit down.