Media Literacy (Communications and Digital Committee Report)
Baroness Keeley
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Communications and Digital Committee Media literacy (3rd Report, HL Paper 163).
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this debate on the report of the Communications and Digital Committee’s inquiry on media literacy. In doing so, I will focus particularly on national leadership, the responsibilities of technology platforms and delivery in schools. This inquiry was the first undertaken after I took over as chair of the committee in early 2025, and I place on record my thanks to all the members of the committee, our witnesses and our excellent committee team, who worked hard on the inquiry, the report and the communications around the publication.
Media literacy is fundamental to a healthy democracy. An early inquiry by the House of Lords Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee concluded in its report that:
“In the digital world, our belief in what we see, hear and read is being distorted to the point at which we no longer know who or what to trust”.
There is even more urgency now because rapid technological change, particularly the rise of social media and generative AI, has transformed how information is produced, distributed and consumed. One of the most striking consequences has been the growing dominance of online platforms and social media as primary news sources. Ofcom data from 2024 found that 71% of people consume news content via online providers, overtaking television news at 70%. This is accompanied by a steady decline in news consumption by TV, radio and newspapers. This shift changes what people see and how they see it. Online platform recommender algorithms tend to prioritise content based on keeping the user engaged rather than focusing on accuracy or public interest.
In a world of polarising views and declining interest in traditional news, it is more important than ever that children and adults have the skills to think critically about the content they access and create. It is encouraging that the UK has improved in international rankings for media literacy since our report was written. In the Open Society Institute’s 2026 European media literacy index, the UK ranked 10th, having previously ranked 13th. However, we should not be complacent about that improvement nor assume that the positive trajectory will continue without sustained effort. It was clear from the evidence we received that we are not currently doing enough in the UK, either in schools or outside them, to improve media literacy. A key concern for the committee was that the Government may not be dedicating sufficient attention or resource to this issue. We heard that, despite the aims of the previous Government’s 2021-24 media literacy strategy, the UK’s media literacy sector remains fragmented, underfunded and underevaluated.
This may in part reflect how responsibilities for media literacy are divided between the Government and Ofcom. Following the introduction of new duties under the Online Safety Act 2023, Ofcom now has a statutory duty to publish a media literacy strategy. Until this morning, the Government did not have an explicit up-to-date media literacy strategy and their activity on this appeared to be folded into wider work on digital inclusion and online safety. In their response to our report the Government said they would publish a media literacy vision statement. The new media literacy action plan published today as part of the Government’s Protecting What Matters social cohesion strategy appears to be the main vehicle for that vision. It is a welcome step towards greater clarity and co-ordination.
However, important questions remain about the scale of ambition, the resources attached to the plan and the extent to which it responds to the specific concerns raised by the committee, so I ask my noble friend the Minister what resources and delivery mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that the plan translates into tangible action and measurable improvements in media literacy.
The action plan refers to strengthening community-based provision, including through libraries and other trusted spaces, which we welcome. But without discrete long-term funding lines dedicated to media literacy, there remains a risk that initiatives are short term and piecemeal. Action 20 in the plan, to provide funding for local projects that support media literacy under the digital inclusion innovation fund, is a telling example. The Government awarded funding to over 80 projects but only one explicitly references media literacy, although the action plan does identify two further digital skills projects that partly cover it. Moreover, I understand that this funding must be used by the end of March 2026.
The committee recommended that:
“The Digital Inclusion Innovation Fund should include significant long-term investment in discrete media literacy programmes”.
Clearly, that has not happened yet, with at best three out of 80 projects covering media literacy. Can my noble friend the Minister clarify when the funding provided in the digital inclusion innovation fund runs out and update us on when we might see significant long-term investment in discrete media literacy programmes, rather than it being an add-on to broader digital inclusion work?
There is also a question over whether the action plan provides the sustained direction and cross-government co-ordination necessary to close the gaps that our inquiry identified. The committee concluded that, although Ofcom may have statutory duties on media literacy, it is not the right body to deliver a nationwide media literacy programme. We were clear that only the Government can fill the current “leadership vacuum” on media literacy delivery. I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister how the Government will ensure that the action plan published today is delivered in a way that complements Ofcom’s statutory strategy and avoids the duplication or confusion of roles. Can he reassure us that the two bodies are working together effectively?
We also call for the Government to nominate a single Minister to take responsibility for its media literacy work. In their response, the Government explained that Kanishka Narayan MP has clear “ministerial responsibility” for online
“media literacy coordination and strategy in government”,
while my noble friend Lady Lloyd has responsibility for media literacy insofar as it relates to the Government’s work on digital inclusion. The media literacy action plan also mentions the DCMS Minister, Ian Murray MP, and DfE Minister, Olivia Bailey MP. Can my noble friend the Minister reassure us that the Government’s media literacy work benefits from coherent and unified ministerial engagement, with clear co-ordination and accountability?
I turn now to the responsibilities of tech platforms. The committee felt strongly that technology companies must do more. We considered that tech platforms have a responsibility to help their users to assess what they see on the services and to understand why they are seeing it, where it has come from and whether it can be trusted. However, at present, the platforms face no formal requirements to support media literacy.
Ofcom has developed a set of best practice design principles for media literacy, to which some platforms have signed up, although these recommendations are advisory rather than legally enforceable. There is also a troubling lack of transparency, since only platforms hold the data that would demonstrate what impact any media literacy interventions would have on user behaviour.
The Protecting What Matters strategy talks about increasing transparency around how the platforms operate and giving independent researchers greater access to platform data. That is welcome, but the media literacy action plan will need to spell out in detail how and on what timetable those commitments will be delivered. At present, it makes almost no reference to the role of platforms in supporting media literacy.
Our report called for the Government to establish stronger requirements on technology platforms to implement and evaluate media literacy interventions and to ensure that Ofcom is empowered to take robust action to hold the platforms to account. Can my noble friend the Minister tell us how the media literacy action plan will strengthen Ofcom’s ability to evaluate platforms’ media literacy interventions? What concrete steps will be taken to ensure meaningful data access for regulators and independent researchers? I also welcome his view on whether Ofcom’s current best practice approach remains adequate to ensure that the platforms are truly playing their part in supporting media literacy.
Given the scale of the impact that tech platforms have had on our media and information environment, the committee felt that funding for media literacy programmes
“should substantially come from the technology sector”
itself. However, the Government rejected our call for a levy on platforms to fund media literacy initiatives. Will the Minister say what is the Government’s view on how the gap in funding for large-scale, long-term media literacy interventions will be addressed, if not by a levy?
Finally, I turn to the curriculum and the committee’s central theme: the need to embed media literacy throughout the education system. Children and young people need to engage with this topic repeatedly throughout their time in school, starting from an early age. Yet we found that, at its worst, the teaching of media literacy in schools is being relegated to one-off lessons or even an annual school assembly. That is clearly not good enough.
According to Professor Lee Edwards of the LSE, the Department for Education has in the past shown little interest in treating media literacy as a valued subject. It is therefore welcome to see that the media literacy action plan has the support of the Minister for Early Education and that it includes several actions for the Department for Education. We also welcome that the Government took up the recommendations of the Curriculum and Assessment Review on the need to enhance the coverage of media literacy in primary and secondary curricula.
The Guardian Foundation observed that,
“the key to success is to make sure teachers and schools are properly supported and ensure media literacy does not become an additional burden on already stretched educators”.
Media literacy demands specialist knowledge and confidence from teachers, particularly as the media landscape continues to evolve, so investment in initial teacher education and continuing professional development will be essential.
The need for improved training to enable teachers to teach media literacy effectively was a consistent theme in our evidence. We heard that,
“30% of teachers cite a lack of relevant training as a barrier to delivering effective media literacy”.
Although the action plan recognises the need for teacher training, it refers loosely to “support” for teachers “in line with” the recommendations of the Curriculum and Assessment Review, along with training focused on,
“teaching media literacy skills related to counter-extremism and misogyny”.
Media literacy goes further than those two important areas.
Will the Minister give us further detail on how the Government will ensure that media literacy is incorporated effectively into teacher training and continuing professional development plans to improve teacher training on media literacy? Will he also provide an update on the timeline for delivering the changes set out in the Curriculum and Assessment Review?
Today’s media literacy action plan is a timely opportunity to address the concerns set out in our report, particularly around leadership, funding and delivery in schools. The question is whether the Government will now match their stated ambition with the necessary resources and leadership. I beg to move.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
My Lords, before we start, I ask noble Lords to ensure that they stick to the five minutes’ speaking time. Although the time allowance is advisory, the Grand Committee may sit only until around 7.45 pm. We need to conclude the debate before then, and a vote is expected in the Chamber, so I ask noble Lords to stick to their time and end at five minutes.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I will try to be mild, obedient, good and kind. Let me say how delighted I am to speak in this debate. I applaud the Communications and Digital Committee’s report on media literacy, and the splendid way in which the noble Baroness introduced today’s discussion. She had so many questions for the Minister that he will be pleased that I have decided to withdraw all my questions because they were all covered by her speech, which was so rigorous and thoughtful. This is a serious topic which discusses the depth and breadth of how we sustain a democracy today. The report has been written with diligence, professionalism and foresight. Committee members from all parts of the House have prepared a document which well merits scrutiny and, I hope, action.
The report makes clear that a failure to prioritise media literacy presents a threat not merely to individuals but to the functioning of democracy. New technologies and social media algorithms have dramatically transformed the wider information environment, and many citizens are poorly equipped to navigate it. As the report says, less than one-third of adults are confident that they can identify AI-generated content—an alarming statistic when you consider the pace at which generative AI tools are advancing. This is not a marginal concern; it affects trust, safety and political discussion.
I am sure that members of the committee will have seen the speech by the outgoing DG of the BBC to the Royal Television Society on the participative society. He says that the media sector is witnessing,
“an all-out assault on trustworthy information … journalism is now completely or partially blocked in over 75% of the world … Press freedom is at its lowest point in history”.
He goes on to say that “The Economist research”—I declare an interest as a trustee of the Economist—
“from 180 countries over 80 years showed the … connection between low press freedom and democratic decay”
is very serious.
“Information … warfare is a growing security threat. Russia, China, and Iran are investing billions in propaganda”,
while the World Service budget is £350 million. Maybe the Government should take that responsibility.
Misinformation and disinformation are rampant”,
according to the European Broadcasting Union. That is very serious situation indeed. However, BBC has prepared a constructive response. It wants to provide media literacy. It wants to,
“build local services, deploying cutting edge technologies to increase verification, as well as strengthening local journalism”,
and expanding the World Service.
Much has been said about the importance of young people and education. I want to refer to the English-Speaking Union, which started in 1918 and has become a magnificent organisation dedicated to teaching young people about scrutiny, fact-checking, analysing media, data, sources, propaganda and stereotypes. It is now the largest debating organisation in this country, and I feel that if a partner is needed, not simply from government, people could go very far to find better than what the English-Speaking Union provides.
I always like practical examples of what I am talking about. I do not like just to moan about the Government. I will give a great plug for one of my favourite magazines, The Week. It is the ultimate media literacy training magazine. It is a summary of news stories and opinion columns published by other papers, so it is not an echo chamber. Some are based on articles from overseas, often first published in a foreign language. Last week, its piece on Tehran quoted the Daily Mail, UnHerd and the FT; the piece on Dubai quoted the Sun, the Guardian and the Economist. The review of Rose Wylie’s exhibition at the RA quoted the FT, the Times and the Telegraph—they may be more similar in their categories.
There is a great deal to be done, and the matter is urgent. Let me say again how much I applaud the work of the committee. I look forward to the action that the Government will take to follow up its many recommendations as well as the excellent questions asked by the noble Baroness.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, when our committee published its report on media literacy last year, we used words such as “crisis” and “leadership vacuum”. They were not chosen lightly. One in four UK adults finds it difficult to distinguish true from false information online, one in three believed a fake news story was real and 42% of all crimes are now scam related. United Kingdom has slipped from 10th to 13th place in the European Media Literacy Index. The question before us is not whether the problem is serious—that is beyond doubt—but whether the Government’s response is adequate and whether progress made so far justifies confidence that it will be. When I was putting together my short but perfectly formed contribution, it was before we received the Minister’s letter of plans and actions, so I want to deal with that in a moment.
I start where credit is genuinely due. As our chair mentioned, something has moved on the curriculum. The Curriculum and Assessment Review, published last November, identified media literacy as a priority. The Government accepted the recommendation to make citizenship education compulsory in primary schools, with financial media literacy embedded within it. The schools White Paper published last month recommits to embedding media literacy across the curriculum, with revised programmes of study expected by spring 2027 and teaching from September 2028.
These are welcome steps and I do not dismiss them, but I must be candid with the Committee that warm words and future promises are not the same as delivery. Our report called for media literacy to be anchored in a core subject such as English instead of computing. We called for it to begin in early years, with age-appropriate progression through every key stage. The Government have indicated a direction of travel, but we do not yet have the detail, resourcing or accountability mechanisms to ensure that, when 2028 arrives, what is taught in classrooms across the country is consistent and sufficient. Teacher training remains a glaring gap; without equipping teachers, we are building on sand.
On funding, our report was direct. Long-term, stable media literacy provision cannot rest on short-term government grants or the good will of technology platforms. We recommended a levy on large technology companies to create a sustainable and independently administered fund. Canada’s MediaSmarts is already co-funded by Meta, TikTok and Google. The Online Safety Act already provides for a fee levy on platforms for Ofcom’s regulatory work. Extending that model to media literacy is legally and practically achievable. The Government have not yet responded to this recommendation and I urge the Minister to address it directly as, while we wait, Meta has already suspended third-party fact checking in the United States. Platform priorities tend to shift and voluntary commitments erode. The sector cannot continue to depend on good will.
On governance, our report found that media literacy sits scattered across DCMS, DSIT and the Home Office and efforts are therefore fragmented, underfunded and undervalued. We called for a named Minister with clear accountability. This too has not been acted on. I want to be constructive, for I do not expect wholesale Whitehall reorganisation, but media literacy needs a champion at ministerial level who wakes up every morning for it. Without that co-ordination, which we need, it will not happen. Ofcom has repeatedly said that it cannot do this alone. It is a convenor and catalyst, not a curriculum authority or funding body. It should not be left holding a responsibility that the Government should fully discharge.
I am running out of time. A start has been made. We need a named Minister, a levy on platforms, a clear curriculum commitment with resources to match and a serious effort to reach adults who are being left behind. The democratic health of this country depends on citizens who can think critically about what they read and share. This is not an aspiration, but an urgent necessity. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I am proud to be a member of the Communications and Digital Committee, which produced this report. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, for focusing and steering us towards the important conclusions we reached. Following the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, I will focus on the significance of trusted news sources and how digital users can use them to cut a path to truth through the jungle of misinformation on the internet. The spread of AI has created as many problems as solutions. It is a blight on our society. Anyone can create an AI deepfake image at home in a few seconds. This has meant that misinformation and disinformation are everywhere and growing by the second.
The problem has only been compounded by the use of AI systems as the main source of news for so many people. I have been worried by an impressive new study by European public service broadcasters, which found that there were issues with 45% of AI news summaries. For example, when using satirical source material, AI delivered it as the truth. It found the responses were often one-sided and did not provide the context for the user to understand the issue properly. Gemini even added words to direct quotes. The AI assistant struggled with fast-moving news stories and intricate timelines involving multiple actors. This report and many others highlight the unreliability of so many AI news sources. Now is the time to ensure that political energy is focused on promoting our trusted providers of information and directing users towards them.
I urge the Government to support the CMA’s strategic market status investigation into Google search. It is important that when an AI overview appears at the top of the search, it declares its sources of information and gives links to the websites that provided the trusted source of information. I also urge the Government to support the PSBs with magnified discoverability as they start to move into partnerships with video-sharing platforms such as YouTube and TikTok.
A week or so ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, said in Oral Questions that the Government are considering Ofcom’s recommendation for PSB material on video-sharing platforms to be given more prominence and fair terms; can the Minister build on this answer? I, too, am glad to see in today’s government report on media literacy that the Government want to place an obligation on the BBC to support media literacy nationwide. The corporation is at the forefront of this battle for truth. As the report points out, the BBC’s Bitesize assistant is an important aid for young people.
To build on this, there is an initiative called the Other Side of the Story to help develop young people’s critical skills, which is a partnership between BBC Education and BBC News. It helps people respond to misinformation and fake news, telling participants to double-check what they are reading, as fake news is often opinion dressed up as fact. The course warns that echo chambers which develop on social media are dangerous if users are searching for objective news. They are advised to break out of these echo chambers by looking at other people’s points of view and the opinions of those with whom they agree. However, action 4 in the Government’s report, to support BBC media literacy, will have no effect if it is yet another obligation to deliver services without funding that extra responsibility. Can the Minister reassure us that those media literacy duties will be fully funded by the Government?
Local media is another source of trusted news, recognised by action 3 of the Government’s report. The Communications and Digital Committee took interesting evidence from the Guardian Foundation. I am very persuaded by the effectiveness of its Media Literacy Ambassador programme; set up in 2023 by a group of colleges in Derby, it harnessed the power of peer pressure. Young people are trained up to be ambassadors in how to spot fake news and develop critical faculties and they train up their peers. Last year this meant nearly 1,500 young people trained up over 5,000 other students. Unfortunately, DSIT funded this excellent scheme for only 18 months, until the end of 2024, and now it has stopped. I therefore call on the Minister to re-establish support for such a powerful programme.
The Government have recognised in action 3 that involving students and local media in news stories relevant to their local area is an effective way of drawing people to an understanding of trusted sources. The problem is that, as many noble Lords know, there has been a collapse in local media. Can the Minister say whether extra funds will be available to support action 3 and bring the local media into the community?
I am glad the Government have finally recognised in today’s report the importance of media literacy for the future of our young people and our country. These are warm words indeed. I will be watching closely to see how these words are turned into actions.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I contribute to this debate with a little temerity. Having only recently joined the Communications and Digital Committee, I was not present to hear any of the evidence or representations received prior to the preparation of what is undoubtedly a very comprehensive report. That being said, I congratulate those who were present and the committee on a very useful contribution to government and wider thinking on what is undoubtedly a major topic of the 21st century. The fact is that the creative industries contributed £124 billion in gross value to our economy in 2023 and supported 2.4 million jobs, while the AI sector itself contributed £11.8 billion to our economy in 2024 and now employs around 86,000 people.
The growing strength of both industries underlies the emphasis placed by the Government in their AI Opportunities Action Plan on resolving the uncertainty around intellectual property and reforming the UK text and data mining regime—TDM—which they have said is
“hindering innovation and undermining our broader ambitions for AI, as well as the growth of our creative industries”.
Their preferred approach is to adopt a commercial exception in the case of TDM, with an opt-out mechanism and associated transparency obligations. This would align the UK’s approach with that of the European Union, although, as the report sets out, it could provide risks in the protection of the creative industries.
What is needed now more than ever is smart regulation that protects creators and rights holders but is also proportionate, practical and supportive of growth. The Government must work further and faster to bring this much-needed certainty for AI and creative industries alike by publishing their approach to future changes to copyright law. They must seek to adopt an approach that strengthens the current gold standard protections afforded to creators and safeguards their livelihoods while providing the guardrails and clarity sought by AI companies to enable them to innovate and harness the potential of AI to drive economic growth.
There is also a wider need for us as legislators to try to find faster and more adaptable ways of keeping up with the speed of innovators and entrepreneurs. It is a difficult challenge, but one that I have been advocating for a long time. While we consider more immediate priorities, we should also seriously look at codifying the many laws and regulations already in place to see where adaptation could fit them to handle the challenges the report identifies and provide the protection and redress that our new technological age demands.
The report is also right to highlight the need for transparency from larger AI developers, which it recommends should be given statutory weight. However, this must not come at the cost of placing disproportionate burdens on smaller businesses that would probably see them relocate abroad and undermine the UK’s potential to become an innovation-friendly environment for AI start-ups. Again, this can be achieved only by those smart regulations I have referred to, which proportionately balance the needs of the creative industries while encouraging investment in emerging technologies.
More fundamental, however, is the need to improve the UK’s capability to build responsibly trained AI systems by investing in sovereign AI. The Government have committed £2 billion towards strengthening the UK’s potential for AI sovereignty through the Sovereign AI Unit, new compute infrastructure and AI growth zones. It is essential that the UK builds domestic models with far greater transparency around training data and development processes rather than relying excessively on opaque overseas systems that are arguably harmful to not only our national interests but our future success in these fields. Not only will this protect those national interests in an increasingly uncertain technological world, but it will unlock growth and encourage future investment in the industry.
Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I too served on the Select Committee that produced this excellent and timely report. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Keeley on her leadership and commend our recommendations to the Minister. Media literacy skills are key to protecting our democracy and the well-being of our society by ensuring that citizens can recognise misinformation and disinformation. Trust in news and institutions is dangerously low, yet audiences have access to ever-increasing volumes of content, whether accurate or spurious.
The Government have a responsibility to ensure that their citizens, young and old, have the skills to think critically about the content they consume and create, both online and offline. As our report stated, it is not enough just to outsource media literacy to the regulator, Ofcom, which is tasked with implementing the important Online Safety Act. The Government must lead by appointing a senior Minister to oversee delivery across Whitehall by co-ordinating cross-departmental activity within education, public services and local government. The new working group, although welcome, is not enough.
The online world touches every aspect of our lives and, with the advent of generative artificial intelligence, we must be better prepared to understand how we are affected by what we read. It is not just news, but how we access public services such as health; our employment, entertainment and relationships are all impacted. That is why the committee called for a public awareness campaign to encourage media literacy, and I am pleased that the Government have listened. However, this alone will not counter all the harms that our society is experiencing online, which bleed into the real world, corroding trust, polarising communities, undermining democracy and coarsening public discourse.
The increasing misogyny and violence against women and girls, and the tragedy of young men having their lives ruined by toxic influencers, can be blamed in part on material perpetrated online. There must be tools to build resilience and give people the chance to use technology for good outcomes, rather than to live as victims of the all-powerful online platforms, which need to show some social responsibility. I know the Government have rejected our recommendation for a media levy on tech companies to help fund independent media literacy initiatives, but the tech companies should play a bigger and better role in enabling their consumers to have a safer experience online.
I was pleased to see that the recently published action plan, Protecting What Matters: Towards a More Confident, Cohesive and Resilient United Kingdom, recognises the need to strengthen digital and media literacy
“so people can engage critically with online content and access reliable information”.
I warmly welcome today’s publication of the Government’s media literacy action plan, which addresses many of my concerns.
The findings of the independent review of the school curriculum are an important first step. Media literacy is not just an add-on; it is not enough to cover it only in an English class or the occasional assembly. It needs to be embedded across the curriculum and it needs to start early. So many subjects are accessed online that critical thinking is required throughout, including in sciences and history as well as citizenship. Can the Minister give some assurance that teachers will be actively supported to provide this new level of media literacy? Our report called for updated teacher training and continuous professional development to ensure that teachers feel better equipped to deliver lessons. I regret that the new curriculum will not be implemented in full until September 2028.
The Government’s recently announced consultation on children’s social media use to ensure healthy online experiences is welcome. I hope its conclusions will further boost the commitment made to ensure that media literacy is fundamental to both individual empowerment and democratic resilience, because adults also need support, not just as parents and carers to help their children navigate the internet safely but as citizens and consumers. The shocking level of online fraud revealed by Lloyds last week showed that someone in the UK lost money to a fraudulent seller on Facebook or Instagram every six minutes. The public want to see social media platforms do more to protect them from scams and I welcome the Government’s recognition in the action plan that they need to do more to inform the public.
Media literacy is as fundamental to modern life as reading and writing. Young people must engage positively but cautiously in this digital world. Society needs resilience to fight the determined efforts of bad actors to undermine our values. The Government must lead this battle.
Baroness Fleet (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Healy, and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, on her leadership in producing this report by the Communications and Digital Committee, on which I serve. I declare my interest as a long-time journalist, including as editor of the Evening Standard for seven years.
In the time available, I will highlight one key element of the media literacy report, which is fundamental to the future of media literacy—news. Where do we get our news from and can we rely on it? How can young people best be taught to analyse news information, and especially to identify misinformation and disinformation? TikTok and YouTube are the most-used news sources for 12 to 15 year-olds, but where can the truth be found?
The majority of Britons still turn to the BBC for news. For generations, the BBC was trusted to present news accurately and impartially. I fear that that is no longer the case. There are of course many examples every day of great and brave journalism on the BBC, but all the good is washed away by outrightly bad journalism characterised by distortion, bias and inaccuracy. When the BBC’s failings are exposed, their executives are begrudging to admit their errors.
There are numerous recent examples of the failings of the BBC that have had far-reaching consequences—the Trump edit, for example, in a recent “Panorama”—yet when the BBC’s most senior executives were told about the distortion of Trump’s speech, they hoped that no one would notice. A whistleblower exposed the cover-up; the BBC finally acknowledged its error and apologised. Trump has escalated his complaint to a $10 billion legal battle.
Why was no action taken once it was discovered, eight months before it was publicly exposed? Because the most senior executive, DG Tim Davie, and his head of news, Deborah Turness, saw nothing wrong in the edit. Does this portray sloppy editing, as they suggested, or blatant bias?
The BBC’s recent pronouncement on Holocaust Day that 6 million people had been murdered by the Nazis instead of 6 million Jews shows how deep institutionalised antisemitism is at the BBC. Remember too Bob Vylan’s vile antisemitic chants at Glastonbury. The DG was present and did nothing to stop the broadcast. How did these grave errors occur?
Danny Cohen, former director of BBC Television, told MPs in November that the BBC has
“a systemic problem which the organisation is unwilling to admit to and therefore cannot fix”.
He went on to say that until the BBC
“cleans house and addresses issues with biased reporting, poor due diligence, and open antisemitism … it will continue to face a crisis of credibility”.
Danny Cohen’s views are shared by many former and current employees. A dossier compiled by the former staffer, Michael Prescott, for the BBC’s editorial standards and guidelines committee presented damning evidence of malfeasance. Davie and Turness had to resign. Their removal does not solve the problem but just highlights the state of the BBC’s news division. This is central to our whole media literacy report. The challenge will be to root out the bad apples and train a new generation to appreciate accuracy, impartiality and outstanding broadcasting.
The answer is definitely not a new DG who is a former executive of Google, as has already been referenced today. Trusted journalism that represents views across the political spectrum must be at the heart of the BBC, with appropriately qualified leadership. I note that trusted journalism has nothing to do with funding; it is down to judgment. If the BBC cannot be relied upon to produce accurate and balanced news, which is essential to media literacy, levels of trust will fall further. A BBC that is not trusted is not sustainable. With the charter review on the horizon, it is more important than ever that the BBC gets its house in order.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, for securing this important debate and the committee on an excellent report. As ever, I declare my interest as a teacher.
The report talks about thinking critically about the content that we create and consume both online and offline, because there is a problem: when we talk about media literacy, we instantly think of AI and deepfakes, but offline is important as well. Most people are aware of the ability of AI to produce remarkably realistic media. In fact, there are plenty of people who have randomly filmed remarkable events—perhaps their cat biting a shark—only to have it dismissed as AI. The critical point to understand is that unless we witness an event at first hand, everything that we look at has been edited by other people. Some examples are more obvious than others.
I was at boarding school in the 1980s during the miners’ strike. We got to see all the main national newspapers and would read at least the front page of each of them. There were different stories in the Mirror to those in the Sun, which would usually have a picture of Arthur Scargill doing Hitler salutes on the front page. But we have usually read the papers that reflect our beliefs and have had them reinforced by what we read long before algorithms.
This has been going on since mankind first learned to communicate. There is a theory that Harold was not actually hit in the eye with an arrow; it is just a clumsy darn on the “Bayeux Tapestry”. Richard III was not, in fact, the “poisonous bunch-backed toad” of Shakespeare; his scoliosis was painted in later. There are other great examples of fake news pre-internet. The Cottingley fairies became famous in 1917 when 16 year-old and 9 year-old cousins photographed themselves playing with the fairies at the bottom of the garden. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle used these photos to prove that fairies not only exist but reproduce sexually, because one had a belly button. Mercifully, he died before one of the girls admitted that the fairies were cut out from a picture book, the belly button was a pin holding the paper to a plant, and they were translucent as the result of a slow shutter speed and the wind blowing the paper fairies around.
Picture editors have always had great power. One told me that they would always pick the best available shot of Princess Diana and the worst of the then Duchess of York. The iconic photo of the naked Vietnamese girl Phan Thi Kim Phúc running towards the camera with her back covered in burning napalm is less dramatic when you see the full uncropped negative, with the photographer walking next to her casually reloading his camera. The much-sanctified BBC always accompanies a story of the House of Lords with a picture of us in ermine. The Guardian, surprisingly, has us in suits.
How do we teach media literacy in schools to equip our young people to be critical consumers? Might I once again suggest a solution that I have suggested before, this time to a different Minister? In response to the Curriculum and Assessment Review, the Government said:
“The secondary curriculum will both mirror and be a graduation of this core content, encompassing the vital threads of government, law and democracy, climate education, financial and media literacy”.
But where do we fit this into our crowded and knowledge-rich curriculum? Religious studies has to be taught to the age of 18 in maintained schools. I say stop: rather than embedding it across the curriculum, we could teach religious studies, government, law and democracy, climate education and financial and media literacy as a subject under the umbrella of citizenship, instead of just religious studies, with as much weight given to it as maths and English. If it was well planned and well taught, our students could become engaged and informed citizens. It could be fun to study and—equally importantly—to teach. Enthusiastic, well-informed teachers are good teachers.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate. In doing so, I declare my interests as set out in the register: as an adviser on emerging technologies, not least AI, to Endava plc, the Crown Estate, Submer Ltd and Simmons and Simmons LLP. It is a pleasure and an honour to take part in this debate, as it was to be a member of your Lordships’ Communications and Digital Committee, so ably led by the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, who opened this debate with erudition and eloquence, setting out all the key recommendations of our report’s findings. In many ways our report could be summarised in one phrase: critical thinking. It is important to so many of the issues currently facing all of us, not least young people, and is vital to our continued flourishing and humanity.
There are at least three reasons why media literacy matters today. The first is democracy. Trust is in crisis and collapsing under a barrage of misinformation and disinformation. We highlighted that in the Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee report in 2020, and it has gone only one way since then. The second reason is economic. We have an epidemic of fraud, mostly perpetrated on platforms, yet, in the Government’s recent fraud strategy, platforms are not included in APP reimbursement; I ask the Minister why. The third reason is our very being in society. When AI is all around us, media literacy must flow like a golden thread through us all and every interaction that we have. Those are three reasons.
Three groups are to be congratulated and are set out in our report, including librarians and community groups for everything they do, often in spite of, rather than alongside support. Can the Minister outline what support librarians and community groups are going to get through this new plan? Similarly, Becky Francis has already been rightly highlighted for her curriculum review and all of the good points that were made in that in terms of media literacy. To that end, when will the statutory provisions be brought forward that can enable the media literacy provisions set out in Becky Francis’s review? When we talk about Ofcom, all too often, in so many areas, more and more gets put on Ofcom, with media literacy the latest to be put at its door. Will the Minister consider speaking to Ofcom about looking at its definition of media literacy, which currently does not include the phrase “critical thinking”? It is critical that that changes.
I also ask the Minister what is happening with the Government’s media literacy working group set up last May. How often has it met? What impact and output has it had? Then there is the Digital Inclusion Action Committee. What action has it taken, how many meetings has it had and what is its impact? We have already heard mention of the Digital Inclusion Innovation Fund. It is hurtling towards the end of the current funding period at the end of this month. What is happening with funding at the end of this period and what will be done to assess and analyse the projects that have been funded?
If we want safer lives, secure lives and successful lives, we need media literacy—ML will enable us to live with the LLM. Our report talks about the need for government intervention. Their plan, published today, talks about the need for effective regulation. It is quite right; I agree. I would add that we need not only effective regulation, but right-sized regulation. It is good for citizen, consumer, creator, innovator and investor. Right-sized regulation is good for all of us, as all history, not least recent history, shows us. When will we see the statutory requirements to enable the Francis review provisions on media literacy to come forward? When will we see further legislation on online harms and how we already need to address the shortcomings of the Online Safety Act? It was so long in the making but is already deficient with so many of the current technology challenges.
When will we see more Government action on media literacy? When will we see an AI Bill brought forward? There was one line in the last King’s Speech about an AI Bill being brought forward in 2024, yet it did not appear. A consultation was due last autumn. We are in the spring of 2026 but, still, there is no consultation. Now, we hear that there is unlikely to be any AI-specific legislation in the upcoming King’s Speech, likely this May. In conclusion, we need legislation; we need it now for all our futures. Ultimately, it is our data and our decisions. We challenge and we choose—if we get this right together—our inclusive digital futures.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Keeley on the comprehensive way that she introduced our committee’s report on media literacy, of which committee I am lucky to be a member. I also welcome the Government’s media literacy action plan that was published today. The committee’s report covers considerable ground but, in my time today, I want to focus on media literacy in schools. In doing so, I must remind the Committee of my interests, especially chairing the board of trustees at E-ACT and my work with Pearson Education.
Last year, I carried out research into how we might teach media literacy to young people. As part of that work, I met a Cambridge professor who described the rise of disinformation as a war between autocracy and democracy. This may sound dramatic, but it captures why I have devoted considerable time to this issue. There has always been the disinformation of propaganda and the misinformation of gossip and tittle-tattle, but what we face now is fundamentally different. These age-old problems are massively amplified by AI creating credible fake content. We saw Cambridge Analytica’s interference in the Brexit referendum. We see foreign interference in elections through disinformation bots on social media. Technology has transformed the scale and sophistication of the threat to our democracy.
In my research, I also met the Guardian Foundation, the Financial Times, the Economist, the BBC and others. Collectively, they offer a considerable body of support material for teachers but with piecemeal take-up while we await the proper place in the curriculum for media literacy. I have also spoken to examination boards and, crucially, to young people. What has emerged is growing awareness of the importance of doing more on media literacy, now reflected in the curriculum and assessment review’s commitment to strengthen media literacy in English, citizenship and PSHE. This is welcome, but I dread a knowledge-rich approach that simply teaches young people about how the media works without the practical experience of creating media content and developing genuine critical thinking. The disinformation we face, particularly AI-generated content, requires much better critical thinking skills, yet our current system of teaching to the test with its high-stakes accountability actively works against developing thinking skills. We teach model answers to predicted questions and mark schemes, but not how to think independently and critically. We must free teachers across all subjects to teach thinking, not just to drill test responses.
I also urge the DfE to explore using project-based qualifications to teach media literacy effectively. The FPQ, HPQ and EPQ offer a ready-made framework. Why not incentivise young people to learn about the media by creating journalistic content across the media types and assessing it using these existing qualifications with their accompanying UCAS credits? This combines practical creation with critical thinking in an authentic context. I hope the new curriculum finds space for this approach, especially at key stages 3 and 4 when young people are most actively engaging with social media and most vulnerable to misinformation and AI hallucination.
Media literacy is a democratic necessity. If citizens cannot evaluate information critically, the foundations of informed debate and democratic decision-making are weakened. The Government’s action plan today is welcome, but on education we cannot wait until 2028 for curriculum implementation. We must make progress now in anticipation of lowering the voting age to 16 and as AI becomes embedded in our lives. The committee has done a good report that has elicited a good plan from the Government, but we now need implementation at pace and at a scale that this democratic emergency demands.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, and her committee for this remarkably informed and necessary report. I say so as a former schoolteacher and teacher of religious studies, a former ITV and BBC political journalist and now chairman of a major London university and a professor of leadership at a business school in the US.
The issues contained in this report absolutely matter. I agree with the report’s statement that media literacy is a vital life skill and with the response of the Government that media literacy and digital inclusion go hand in hand as individuals need the skills and confidence to engage safely, critically and effectively in the digital world.
But there is one category of citizen excluded from consideration by this report and the Government: people in prison. Currently, there are around 90,000 men and women—it is largely men and a few thousand women, because they do not misbehave as much—in our prison system. This morning, I made my third visit in eight days to the same prison in south London where I and my network of 35 visitors have a regular commitment. In the 120 visits I have made in the last 10 years to prisoners in the south of England, I have seen a whole cohort of people whom we have a major responsibility for but no commitment to around media literacy. In fact, there is no mention of them in this report or the Government’s response. Whether we like it or not, the truth is that all those in prison, with a few exceptions, will come out of prison at some point and they will be ignorant of media literacy and incapable of understanding exactly what is proposed in the committee’s brilliant assessment or even the Government’s response. They are media literacy denied.
Of course, that assumes that they are denied phones, iPads, laptops and everything else in the digital world to contain their corrupting, bad behaviour and make sure that they are reformed. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, pointed out, and as was further emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Healy, 42% of crime is scam crime, which is not committed by people in prison but by people outside. Excluding those in prison from access to media literacy and media availability is destructive, divisive, discriminatory and unhelpful.
Ministers in the Ministry of Justice will say that, for prisoners to leave our system, which is not very good, and be excellent citizens, they will need employment, which requires education, and positive relationships. Being digitally excluded makes it harder for them to achieve any of those three outcomes. No wonder that, in so many ways, we have such a huge repeat offending rate—currently it is around 60% to 65%—and we are paying more to keep people back in prison than it would cost to send a great child to Eton or any other elite private school.
We must realise, as I hope the Government do, that if there is to be an integrated strategy between departments then it is about time we woke up to the fact that those in prison deserve media education, often for a long period of time, which can be best deployed through access to ring-fenced digital systems. That is perfectly capable in today’s world; there does not need to be mass availability of everything. To pretend that young men, and some young women, in prisons are incapable of intelligent engagement is not to understand the kind of characters they are. We must realise that they deserve the same level of inclusion that we seek for everybody else.
Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, as a recently joined member of the Communications and Digital Committee, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Keeley on her leadership, other committee members on the report and their contributions today, and other noble Lords who have supported the issue over many years and shared their wisdom and expertise in this debate. The Government’s choice to publish their media literacy action plan as the first step in their strategy to develop a safe, informed digital nation today is a positive response to all that mutual work and an important step in achieving a more aligned and cross-departmental approach to this crucial issue. Unfortunately, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Storey, I spotted it only this afternoon so it somewhat impeded my speech. Much has already been said and I do not wish to repeat the well-made points already made. I will therefore focus on issues that have not been touched on and put some questions to the Minister.
I declare an interest as a previous chair of Goldsmiths, University of London, and current chair of Camden Council’s STEAM project, which brings together all the primary and secondary schools and youth services in the borough, working with local employers such as Google and the Roundhouse and anchor institutions such as the Crick to progress young people from all backgrounds in high-skill sectors. Because of that, I look at these developments from the point of view of those we are seeking to support—the students, young people and adults—and those seeking to support them. I very much agree with the local implementation recommendations, but strongly believe that we need to create branding, visibility and resourcing; that needs to be brought together and accessed simply and in similar ways across the country.
Focusing on education, the emphasis on media literacy in the curriculum is very welcome, but, as has been said, it is one of the changes on which schools will have to work in short order. Some of the others include the change in modernised qualifications, putting creativity and arts back in the curriculum and the enrichment agenda. In policy terms, we tend to take each issue separately, so it is good to see digital literacy and media literacy being taken hand in hand, but it is vital that one key centre brings all of the support and access to resources for media literacy together in one easily navigated place; my noble friend Lady Keeley mentioned this in her introduction.
In this instance, it seems that the National Centre for Computing Education is there to support digital and AI, but, as has been said, the emphasis on media literacy across English, history and citizenship, which is absolutely vital, is missing. We need, therefore, to think about the resourcing for that. In addition, within computing and digital, it is vital that there is, as my noble friend just said, an emphasis on learning about the morals and ethics of how productions are made.
As regards voting age, youth services, which have been touched on, need to be able to access the same kinds of resources to support their work. Can the Minister confirm that—or at least ask whether—youth services will be able to access those if a centre for media literacy is set up?
Post-16 education seems to me to be a missing area. It is not really touched on. In terms of media literacy, the emphasis is on pre-16 education. The Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper, which looked at A-levels, T-levels and the new V-levels, seems to be silent on these issues. I ask the Minister to ask his colleagues in the DfE and DWP whether they can say why that is and what their plans might be.
Further education and universities also seem to be missing. Local collaborations and partnerships could be utilised to support schools and youth services in preparing and supporting young people on media literacy. Again, I ask whether that could be explored further, with further information made available.
Finally, in terms of those offering support, the BBC has identified itself as key. We hope that this issue will be part of its charter priorities. Other public service broadcasters and platforms need to be able to co-ordinate that, too. It is essential to have one place for all of their combined partnerships to be brought together.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, and the Communications and Digital Committee on their timely report, which is clear-eyed about the scale of the challenge before us.
The report makes a compelling case for media literacy being no longer a specialist skill but a fundamental requirement for democratic participation. The concern is urgent. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, less than one-third of adults are confident that they can identify AI-generated content. Further, a 2024 Ofcom survey found that 52% of UK adults now use social media as a news source. That combination of mass dependence on social platforms and mass difficulty in evaluating what appears on them is precisely the vulnerability that the committee is right to address.
The report highlighted that provision has been uneven and fragile. As the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, said, media literacy in schools has at times been limited to a one-off or an annual assembly, or confined to optional subjects, making provision a postcode lottery. Outside school, it has fallen largely to underfunded third-sector organisations with no long-term strategic vision. The committee was right to conclude that only the Government can drive real progress.
The curriculum and assessment review, published in November 2025, and today’s media literacy action plan, recommended strengthening media literacy in English and citizenship and introducing a statutory requirement at primary level. Updated RSHE guidance, taking effect from September 2026, will address AI, deepfakes and online misogyny. These are welcome steps, but they must be matched with proper teacher training. I am glad that there has been a recognition of this in the action plan. Teachers have been clear that media literacy must be statutory and curriculum-aligned, not a tick-box exercise.
In speaking today, I want to focus on one aspect of media literacy that is sometimes overlooked: visual literacy. Much of today’s communication is no longer primarily textual; it is visual, multimodal and increasingly generated or altered by artificial intelligence, with around 5 billion constructed images shared every day. If media literacy is about understanding messages, visual literacy—the ability to interpret, question and evaluate images—is now one of its core components. As Alison Cole of the Cultural Policy Unit has argued, it should be regarded as a cornerstone of media literacy itself.
There is already practical evidence of what this can look like. Art UK’s Superpower of Looking programme is active in nearly 3,000 schools, developing children’s visual literacy through engagement with works of art. Oxford University’s Picture This initiative is evaluating such approaches in building visual literacy and the oracy skills that feature prominently in the curriculum review. The Government should ensure that visual literacy is explicitly embedded in the reformed curriculum, not left to individual schools or voluntary programmes. Nor is visual literacy merely a school concern. Sweden’s Psychological Defence Agency published a report earlier this year arguing that it has become essential national infrastructure in an age of deepfakes and algorithmically amplified disinformation.
The skill of careful, critical observation is equally transferable in professional life: the New York Police Department has used art to improve officers’ capacity for unbiased visual assessment. We should treat visual literacy as the civic competency that it is. This matters because the current regulatory framework has not kept pace with how information is now communicated online. There are no general obligations on social media platforms to identify sources of content, verify factual information or label AI-generated images. Clearer labelling, particularly where content is presented as factual or depicts a real person, would be a practical step towards restoring transparency, provided it distinguishes deceptive uses of AI from legitimate creative work. Denmark has already legislated to give its citizens rights over their own digital likeness, and the United States is actively considering similar federal protections. The UK should be engaging with those developments rather than waiting.
The report gives us a clear direction. The task now is to act on it, by embedding visual literacy in our schools, improving transparency around AI-generated content and developing legal frameworks that address real harms without stifling creativity.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for intervening in the gap, but I very much wanted to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, and her committee and speak to a report that is both is both timely and very necessary. In doing so, I declare my AI interests as in the register.
We are faced with a landscape of algorithmic manipulation, proliferating deepfakes, a torrent of disinformation and, of course, online fraud. The committee is right: a failure to prioritise media literacy is a threat not just to individuals but to social cohesion and democracy itself. In the era of generative AI, media literacy is, as the committee makes clear, a requirement for modern citizenship. Our current approach is indeed fragmented and underresourced and lacks strategic vision. Ofcom’s own evidence, highlighted by the committee, shows little improvement in core skills over six years. In that context, the Government’s claim in their response that they and Ofcom have met the mounting scale of the challenge is simply not credible.
Like my noble friend Lord Storey, I welcome the completed curriculum and assessment review, which commits the Government to publishing revised national curriculum content by spring 2027. However, as the committee recommends, media literacy should be embedded across the curriculum and teachers should receive sustained support. This should arrive earlier.
As the committee urges, we need media literacy to be prioritised across government, not bolted on at the margins. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that one of the key tests of the effectiveness of the new media literacy action plan will be whether that takes place.
The Government cannot simply continue to outsource their responsibility in this area to the regulator. Although I welcome Ofcom’s new three-year media literacy strategy and its tougher use of behavioural audits under the Online Safety Act, which the Government rightly highlight, it is, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, deeply disappointing that, more than 20 years on, Ofcom still has not brought its definition of media literacy up to date by explicitly recognising critical thinking—although I detect slightly different language in the media literacy action plan. Ofcom should, as the committee says, set minimum standards for platforms’ media literacy activity and be empowered to hold them to account.
You cannot build media literacy on foundations that do not exist. As the committee and many stakeholders argue, we must treat connectivity as an essential utility and invest accordingly. The vision from our Benches is empowered citizenship: not a nanny state that tells people what to think but a literate state that gives people the tools to think for themselves. That is, in essence, the spirit of the committee’s report.
I urge the Minister to treat this report not as suggestions but as an urgent road map. We need, as the committee sets out, a unified strategy, a robust and critical definition of media literacy and the digital infrastructure to underpin it all.
Finally, I say in closing that I believe the BBC is not the problem; it is part of the answer. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, this has been an encouraging debate, although the Government’s response to our report was a little last-minute, as has been said. My noble friend Lord Storey did not even know that we now have a Minister to cover this. That was not his fault: rather, it was a matter of the delivery of the action plan.
My skin in the game goes back even further. I was on the Puttnam committee that gave pre-legislative scrutiny to the Communications Act 2003—the Act that created Ofcom—and one of the responsibilities we wrote into Ofcom’s mandate was education on media literacy. I think it is fair to say that Ofcom had other things to do in the first 20 years of its life: nevertheless, media literacy was something important, and the technical, social and economic changes that have taken place since 2003 have only increased its importance.
When I was not embroiled in student politics, I was at UCL studying economic and social history. One of the things that always stuck in my mind was the famous Lord Sherbrooke quote after the 1867 Reform Act that we must now set about educating our masters—the realisation that an extended electorate was safer if it was an educated electorate.
We have almost the same problem now in reverse. We have a technology that can inform that electorate and a real need for the electorate to understand the various parts of the technology that gives them information now. In my more pessimistic moments, I think that the threat to stable government, democracy and the workings of liberal democracy—in a broader sense, not a party-political sense—are probably under more threat now than they have been in my lifetime. We have to equip our societies to see, assess and respond to those threats as a matter of real urgency.
We now have three Ministers leading on this area according to the information received today. I always hated the term junior Ministers, but that is what they are; they are not heads of their departments. I agree with much of what has been said. There is a need for cross-government co-operation on this, and I have had some experience of that. That ability to get cross-departmental co-operation needs real leadership from the centre, so I hope it does not do too much damage to his reputation to suggest that as well as the three Ministers announced today, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Darren Jones, who serves as Minister to the Prime Minister and has a fairly blank menu to fill in, could do a real service by making sure that there is the kind of co-operation that has been advocated for today with cross-departmental working. Perhaps only a Cabinet Minister with direct access to the Prime Minister would be able to achieve that.
I was hoping that we would have unanimity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and others have said, on the importance of the BBC in delivering this capability to our society. I hope that as part of the charter review responsibility for media literacy is given in part to the BBC, which can use its tremendous skills to deliver it.
Interestingly, as many of us do, I mentioned to my son John that I was speaking on this debate. He said, “Oh, you should look at ‘Crash Course’ on YouTube”. I said, “What’s ‘Crash Course’?” He said, “‘Crash Course’ is an American programme on media literacy”, so looked at it and it is very good. I am not suggesting that we start from scratch on this. Although we quite often criticise our American cousins for various aspects of their media, at local level and at this individual level, they are showing that media literacy can be taught and understood. I am not that defeatist on this.
I have wandered on; I am sorry. We have a battle on our hands and the technology is complex. The BBC is something not to be destroyed but defended. It has extended its responsibilities. The majority of the Committee would keep to that, I think. However, I still fear that the power of big tech is influencing government in a worrying way. Perhaps it is for Parliament to take the actions that will make sure that our society is protected from what is, as I say, probably one of the most disruptive technologies since the invention of the printing press.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, for introducing this debate. I thank her and her fellow members of your Lordships’ Communications and Digital Committee for their hard work in producing this report on media literacy.
The opening sentence of the report puts it starkly:
“Social cohesion is at risk and democracy itself is threatened by inadequate media literacy”.
In looking at the annunciator and keeping a close eye on the time throughout this debate, I noticed that, at the moment, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, is making a Statement on social cohesion in the Chamber. In some ways, it is unfortunate that we have such a clash, because I know that the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate would have made useful contributions. Perhaps that makes the point about this being an activity that engages many government departments; I am sure that the Minister will ensure that the comments made in this debate are shared with the noble Baroness and his colleagues across government.
The way in which we all consume and interact with the news is changing rapidly. However, although that has opened up a world of choice, it has also created, as noble Lords have said, personalised echo chambers where complex algorithms, rather than thoughtful and experienced news editors, are increasingly determining what we see. We cannot rely on what we read or trust that what is before our eyes is trustworthy and balanced. Artificial intelligence is playing an increasing and uncertain role.
The media we consume are becoming vastly different between the generations and between people of different political persuasions; in many ways, the public forum is becoming a smaller and more segregated space. Children especially now operate in a world that seems alien to their parents and teachers—or, at least, a world with which these conscientious adults are struggling to keep up—which is why my colleagues on these Benches have sought to shield children under the age of 16 from the harmful effects of social media, protecting children from pornographic, violent and extremist content until they are adults and able to engage on a different basis.
We on these Benches welcome many of the recommendations in this thoughtful and detailed report. For instance, we welcome the recommendations on updating Ofcom’s definition of media literacy, as noble Lords have remarked, to make more explicit reference to critical thinking; and on addressing the need for more joined-up thinking across government departments so that we can look at this issue as needs be.
As noble Lords know, I have long argued that Governments do not need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to media literacy education. Teaching people to have a healthy scepticism and an independence of thought around the sources and material in front of them does not require new subjects or new curricula. The report of your Lordships’ committee concludes that media literacy ought to be
“integrated within a number of subjects”.
I welcome that conclusion. Subjects such as history, English literature and the history of art have long taught students to interrogate sources in front of them; to ask who created them, for which audiences and for what purpose and to be curious about what has been omitted.
Promoting greater media literacy does not have to mean specific lessons on critical thinking but, rather, encouraging critical thinking at every point in the classroom in history, art, science, English literature, English language and more. Sadly, very few of our state schools offer history of art at GCSE or A-level. Can the Minister say what the Government plan to do to work with brilliant organisations such as Art History Link-Up and the Courtauld Institute, which are working to reverse that? Also, what will they do to follow up on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, about initiatives such as the Superpower of Looking, which do so much to promote visual literacy—as important a skill for the digital generation as it was for analogue ones.
The Government also propose to reduce the number of exams by 10%. Exams should not be a memory game, of course, but a test of how well students engage analytically with ideas and sources. Perhaps the Minister will elaborate on the changes the Government are pursuing with regard to exams and assessments, and how these can be used to improve critical thinking skills. An important element of promoting critical thinking is protecting freedom of speech and expression, allowing diversity of thought and encouraging students to challenge accepted nostra.
We should be teaching students to disagree well, just as we try to in your Lordships’ House. To that end, I agree with the comments that my noble friend Lady Bottomley of Nettlestone made about the importance of debating. Organisations such as the English-Speaking Union do tremendous work in promoting debating in and outside schools. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Cambridge Union, which has a long-running schools debating competition that tries to spread debating in schools. I commend the work that the Government are doing on oracy in strengthening this important work. The noble Baroness, Lady Caine of Kentish Town, is right that this is about strengthening access to the arts in and outside schools. It is through arts institutions such as the Roundhouse, which she mentioned, that we engage people of all backgrounds in that sort of critical thinking.
I was glad that libraries were mentioned throughout the debate and in the Government’s response. At a reception held by Libraries Connected and CILIP here in Parliament last week, I was pleased to meet professionals from four library services, in Newcastle, Northumberland, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire—not, I am sure, chosen alphabetically—which have been working to try new ways of tackling digital exclusion and boosting media literacy in their areas. These include pop-up demonstrations, bookable sessions providing an introduction to AI, and one-to-one support.
However, as the report notes, library services
“are already overstretched and under-resourced”,
so it is important that we equip local authorities to invest in a resource that is already there and can play such a valuable part in delivering this agenda. Perhaps the Minister will say whether he agrees with the very sensible suggestion from Libraries Connected that there should be public library representation on any external bodies that are set up to scrutinise the Government’s work on the new media literacy action plan.
I welcome the announcement earlier this month that the Government will publish a new strategy for our public libraries. As noble Lords know, I commissioned an independent review of public libraries in the last Parliament, which was very well conducted by my noble friend Lady Sanderson of Welton. I hope that the new strategy will build on the insightful thoughts she gave in that review and, crucially, the engagement she had with public library professionals from across the country.
The report highlights the importance of local media, which we know is trusted far more than national and international media. To that end, I echo the points noble Lords made about copyright and AI, which is threatening the very existence of trusted news journalism. As my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond noted, the Government are moving painfully slowly in the face of rapidly changing technology. I echo the points made about the importance of the BBC and public service broadcasters in this regard, particularly at a moment when we look at the BBC’s royal charter. I echo the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, about ensuring the prominence of our public service broadcast content in a crowded media field.
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their thoughts, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, in view of the limited time that we have, I shall try to speak as quickly as I can to allow the committee’s chair to sum up. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed such thoughtful and compelling insights this afternoon. I thank my noble friend Lady Keeley for securing this timely debate.
The quality of the discussion reflects something on which I believe the Grand Committee is united: media literacy is now a foundational skill. It underpins people’s ability to navigate the digital world with confidence, resilience and independence. Media literacy brings clear benefits to individuals and to society as a whole. It gives people the confidence to understand the information they encounter, recognise what is trustworthy and make choices that support their well-being. It helps parents guide their children with clarity and reassurance. It empowers young people to explore ideas safely and participate in learning and creativity. It supports adults of all ages to feel more capable and in control as they navigate an increasingly digital environment.
A media-literate society is also harder to mislead. It is better able to engage constructively in public debate and more confident in using new technologies. In short, it contributes to a more resilient, more connected society in which everybody can take part. Our ambition is therefore very clear. We want every person in the United Kingdom to benefit from strong media literacy skills and to feel informed, confident and able to participate fully in the digital world.
Achieving that ambition requires a whole-of-society effort. The Government have an important leadership role, but lasting progress depends on co-ordinated action across our public systems, including health and education, and on close co-operation with regulators, civic society, industry, communities, families and other related or interested stakeholders. When each part of society contributes, we create a digital environment that supports opportunity, strengthens trust and helps people thrive.
The Communications and Digital Committee’s report highlighted both the importance of media literacy and the need for stronger co-ordination in how it is delivered. Since the report was published, and since the Government set out their response, we have focused on strengthening delivery and learning across the system. This work is now being taken forward through the cross-government media literacy action plan, which brings departments, regulators and partners together behind shared priorities and sets the direction for the coming years.
Within this plan, we have established a clearer framework for delivery. It is grounded in evidence, aligned with Ofcom’s statutory responsibilities and focused on the areas where media literacy can make the greatest practical difference. This reflects a deliberate shift from strategy to action, ensuring that our commitments translate into support that reaches people and communities across the country.
Alongside this, the Online Safety Act provides an important foundation. It establishes the regulatory protections that people rightly expect when they go online, while also strengthening the wider environment in which media literacy can develop. The Act updated Ofcom’s media literacy duties. Ofcom already had a statutory responsibility to promote media literacy, but the Act introduces more targeted responsibilities. These include helping the public understand harmful online content and behaviour, including misinformation and disinformation, and addressing risks faced by groups who are more likely to experience harm, including women and girls.
The Act also requires Ofcom to publish a media literacy strategy. The first of these was issued in October 2024, as some noble Lords mentioned, and has already begun to shape practical delivery. Ofcom is now taking forward a range of initiatives under that strategy. These include training for teachers, targeted support for older adults, work focused on elections and AI-generated content and the development of a place-based approach that strengthens local delivery through trusted community organisations. We are also working closely with Ofcom to ensure that our approach complements the regulator’s role and supports co-ordination across the wider system. I am grateful for the thoughtful contributions we have heard today.
I will now turn to points raised by several noble Lords in response to the themes that have emerged across the debate. Due to the pressure of time, if I have not responded to all questions, I will get my officials to go through Hansard and ensure that every question is answered, with a copy placed in the Library.
My noble friend Lady Keeley spoke about the importance of leadership and co-ordination. I want to be clear that the Government have strengthened their approach in response to that challenge. Strong cross-government working underpins our approach. Media literacy has been embedded across key policy areas, rather than treated in isolation. The media literacy action plan brings departments, Ofcom and partners across society into a single, co-ordinated effort shaped by evidence and the practical experience of those delivering the work on the ground.
This is the first time that the Government have taken such a comprehensive approach to media literacy. The plan has been shaped through collaboration across government and is informed by lessons from civil society organisations and international partners. Our aim is simple: to meet people where they are, through the places and institutions they trust, and to build on what we know makes a real difference.
In practice, this means raising awareness of media literacy and improving access to reliable information, preparing children and young people for a digital future, strengthening support in communities for those most at risk and ensuring that government action complements Ofcom’s statutory responsibilities. Funding for the local media strategy will be announced very soon. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is currently considering whether the BBC’s contribution to media literacy should be more clearly reflected in the public purposes. Taken together, this creates a more joined-up and effective approach, and we will continue to support effective co-ordination and delivery across government.
By 2029, the action plan aims to make a tangible difference by improving critical engagement with online content and access to trusted information through education, libraries and local services. We will keep progress under review and publish updates on GOV.UK so that families, educators, communities and parliamentarians can see how delivery is progressing and how our approach evolves as new risks and opportunities emerge.
My noble friend Lady Keeley also asked how the Government will ensure that media literacy receives sufficient focus within wider digital inclusion work. Media literacy is a core part of our work on digital inclusion. It helps people build the skills and confidence to use online services safely and effectively. Consistent evaluation of the media literacy programme is crucial. The media literacy action plan includes action to encourage the use of the Ofcom evaluation toolkit to ensure consistent, high-quality education. The digital inclusion innovation fund was designed to build an evidence base for effective digital inclusion interventions. The project will conclude by March 2026. Lessons from the fund will inform future support to help more people get online with confidence.
Several noble Lords asked about social cohesion. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
My Lords, there is a Division in the House, so the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes. There was a medical emergency in the Chamber earlier, which is why everything is out of sync. We have a hard finish at 8 pm, so if noble Lords vote swiftly come back, we might start before the 10 minutes is up so that we can complete.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, before we were interrupted, several noble Lords had asked about social cohesion. On 9 March, MHCLG published the Protecting What Matters strategy—which the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, mentioned and which was the subject of the Statement during dinner break business this evening—a cross-government package of measures to support integration, strengthen social cohesion and counter extremism.
Media literacy is referenced as a supporting element within that wider plan. That is why it is embedded in the digital inclusion action plan and supported through the £11.9 million Digital Inclusion Innovation Fund and its associated committee, chaired by my noble friend Lady Armstrong. This funding backs innovative projects delivered through trusted local settings, particularly reaching vulnerable and excluded groups.
We agree with my noble friend that technology platforms also have an important role to play. That is why companies such as Google, through Be Internet Legends, and Meta, through Get Digital, are already reaching millions of people. Ofcom’s strategy rightly places collaboration with platforms at its heart, including through media literacy by design. The Government welcome Ofcom’s consultation on how platforms, broadcasters and streaming services can go further, with recommendations expected in spring 2026.
The Government also recognise the importance of sustainable funding for media literacy. However, we do not believe a separate levy is the right approach. Media literacy is already supported through programmes linked to wider priorities such as online safety and digital inclusion, alongside Ofcom’s role. This avoids duplicating the Online Safety Act levy or placing additional burdens on businesses.
Several noble Lords asked about having a specific Minister responsible for media literacy. I spend most of my time at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and I can assure noble Lords that my colleague in the other place, Minister Narayan, holds ministerial responsibility for online media literacy, providing strategic leadership and championing join-up and delivery across government. I also assure noble Lords that he has regular conversations with the Technology Secretary on a daily basis to ensure that media literacy is at the heart of the Government’s agenda.
The committee also reminded us that, although media literacy is a vital life skill, many adults remain unaware of its value or how it relates to their daily lives. This is why the Government are using their voice to raise awareness and guide people towards trusted support. In February, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology launched the “You Won’t Know until You Ask” campaign, which supports parents and carers of children aged between eight and 14 and focuses on something very simple: encouraging conversations about what children see online. Many parents want to have these conversations but are unsure where to start. The message of the campaign is straightforward and reassuring. Parents do not need specialist knowledge. They simply need to ask. The campaign is currently running across Yorkshire and the Midlands. By testing it regionally, we can learn what works best and how to reach families effectively.
Alongside this campaign, we have launched the new “Kids Online Safety Hub”, developed with the Department for Education. The hub offers practical guidance to help parents ask open questions, build trust with their children and encourage critical thinking, which several noble Lords mentioned this evening. It also connects families with trusted advice and support. The campaign and the hub are grounded in evidence and shaped by expert input and testing with parents. Early engagement has been encouraging, particularly through schools and trusted community networks.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for drawing attention to the independent curriculum and assessment review, chaired by Professor Becky Francis. As noble Lords know, a consultation is currently happening; we hope to be able to publish its findings by spring 2027, with implementation in 2028. The review was clear that media literacy is a vital skill for young people in a rapidly changing digital world. The Government have welcomed the review and are taking steps to progress its recommendations. As part of that, we are committed to strengthening media literacy in the updated national curriculum. We want all children to leave school with the knowledge, understanding and skills to enable them to use technology creatively and purposefully while becoming discerning consumers of information.
Several noble Lords asked how far media literacy will be embedded in the curriculum and what support teachers will receive to deliver it effectively. Regulation alone cannot equip young people for the digital world they experience every day. Children and young people need the ability to think critically about the information they encounter—I agree with all noble Lords on this. They need to understand how platforms, algorithms and emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, shape what they see and how content spreads. Media literacy will be embedded across subjects more clearly so that people learn to recognise misinformation and disinformation, including AI-generated content, and understand how messages are constructed across different media. Changes to the English curriculum at GCSE will support pupils to question what they read, recognise persuasive techniques and identify emotionally charged language.
We are also strengthening citizenship education so that children begin developing these skills early, with age-appropriate learning continuing throughout secondary school. Updated programmes of study will be consulted on this year, with a new national curriculum following in 2027 and teaching beginning from 2028, as I mentioned earlier. We have already taken steps in this direction.
In the interests of time, I will touch on a couple more points and then conclude. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, spoke powerfully about the changing nature of how information is created and consumed. I am grateful to him for highlighting the growing importance of visual literacy. As images, video and AI-generated content increasingly shape the information people encounter online, the Government recognise the need for individuals to be able to interpret, question and assess not only what they read but what they see. We will continue to consider how media literacy, including visual literacy, can be strengthened and kept up to date as technologies and online behaviour evolve.
Several noble Lords asked about democracy. More than two millennia ago, the Athenian historian Thucydides—please forgive my pronunciation—warned how falsehood can erode democratic life, so this is nothing new: it goes back 2,000 years. Today, misinformation and deliberate disinformation spread swiftly online, often outpacing accurate information and eroding trust in institutions and the democratic process. The Government are responding with measures such as the Online Safety Act, which assigns greater responsibilities to technology platforms to tackle harmful and misleading content online. However, regulation by itself is not sufficient. Enhancing media literacy and critical thinking, which is so often mentioned, is crucial for citizens to evaluate information responsibly and to preserve trust in democratic debate and the integrity of our elections.
Finally, we are closely monitoring international developments on digital replicas and engaging with stakeholders on the implications for the United Kingdom. These issues will be considered further in our forthcoming report on copyright and AI.
This debate has shown the strength of feeling across the Committee about the value of media literacy and the importance of getting this right. The question before us is no longer whether we act but how quickly and effectively we deliver. For the first time, the media literacy action plan provides a single map for the work ahead. It brings together education, regulation, trusted information and local delivery in a way that is practical, evidence-led and focused on improving people’s outcomes across the country.
Our ambition is clear: for everyone, whatever their age or background, to have the confidence and skills to navigate the online world safely and thoughtfully. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their insight and the generosity shown in their contributions. The perspectives they have shared this afternoon will continue to inform our work. A more media-literate society is not simply better informed; it is more resilient, more confident and more connected. That is the future we are working towards, and I look forward to continuing that work with noble Lords across the Committee.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister and all noble Lords who have spoken in this wide-ranging debate, with some excellent questions. I thank the Minister for saying that he will later answer any questions to which we have not had an answer.
With a subject as wide-ranging as media literacy, it is difficult to cover everything. I take on board the points noble Lords made about post-16 youth services being an important area, as well as people in prisons. We had quite a rush towards the end of our inquiry to fit in with the timing of the Francis review. Given what happened in that review and that we now have the media literacy action plan, we were probably right to go with that timing, rather than taking longer. It is always difficult.
I welcome the emphasis on critical thinking and thinking independently, which was one of the key things to come out strongly in the debate, as well as the discussion on visual literacy, which we cannot forget. The need for Ofcom to update its definition came up again and again, so we should perhaps keep on that. On the subject of libraries, which were mentioned, we must remember that so many libraries are now run by volunteers, so let us not think that they can take on extra responsibilities without the funding that goes with that. I end by welcoming the wide support for the committee and its report.