Live Debate: Communications and Digital Committee - 16th Jun 2026

Communications and Digital Committee

Tuesday 16th June 2026

(began 1 month, 1 week ago)

Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded

14:31

Speaker 1

-

Meeting of the Communications and Digital Committee. In this session, we will be continuing our work on the BBC Charter Review. The BBC is just one of the UK's public service broadcasters, alongside ITV, channel four and channel five. We're looking forward to hearing from each of those broadcasters today, as well as from Sky. It's worth mentioning that the culture, Media and Sport Committee in the Commons also has an inquiry into the BBC Charter Review, and I think. I imagine that some of you, if not all of you, will be speaking to them as well.

It's worth pointing out that we are choosing to look at different aspects of the charter review, particularly, but not entirely things like supporting growth, how the BBC supports growth. The BBC supports the wider creative industries and things like technology and innovation, so that there's a focus to what we're trying to do here. So it's not exactly the same as there. So, um, before I move on to questions, could I then ask each of you to introduce yourselves and your role, as well as to explain very briefly how the work of your broadcaster is funded?So can we start with you, Stephen?

14:32

Speaker 2

-

Of course, I couldn't catch the last part of that question. Sorry.

14:32

Speaker 1

-

Very briefly, how the work of your broadcaster is funded.

14:32

Speaker 2

-

Of course. My name is Stephen Lotinga. I am group managing director of corporate affairs for Sky. That means I lead on all of our interactions with government and Parliament and obviously in particular areas of interest, like the charter renewal. Um, in terms of Sky sky's, one of the UK's largest media and entertainment companies. Um, we are not a PSB as has already been noted, but we do invest hundreds of millions of pounds everywhere every year in UK originated content.

And obviously, um what we would refer to as public service media content such as Sky news and Sky Arts. Um, we run a subscription business, so obviously we seek to provide the best of both our own content others to our customers. And what makes us slightly different from the other people appearing for you today is we have what we would call a vertically integrated business. So we only do we invest in, um, programming ourselves. We also have run a distribution platform.

And we also obviously provide connectivity to people so they can access our content and others.

14:33

Speaker 1

-

Thank you. And Mitchell Simmons.

14:34

Speaker 3

-

Hi. Good morning. Sorry. Good afternoon. My name is Mitchell Simmons. I'm vice president for policy and government affairs at Paramount. I'm covering all our suite of brands that we have in the UK, but primarily here to talk about channel five, which is one of the smallest public service broadcasters in the UK, obviously plays a distinctive role in the PSB ecology. It's somewhat of an alternative voice, providing trusted news, original UK drama, factual programming and we have a unique year round commitment to kids TV programming via milkshake on the main channel and a key, um, shift in the role of five in recent years has been towards lower tariff drama in the regions and providing a being a PSB for those in the non-metropolitan areas.

Areas of the UK. We are primarily funded by advertising, whether that be through digital, terrestrial television or on sky's platforms or elsewhere.

14:34

Speaker 1

-

Thank you. Martin Baker.

14:35

Speaker 3

-

Hello, I'm Martin Baker, I'm the chief commercial affairs officer and managing director of Paralympics of channel for. Uh, I my responsibilities include most of our commercial dealings with suppliers, that is to say, independent producers and our legal functions and our regulatory functions, as well as my responsibility over Paralympic Games. Uh, we are the other publicly owned PSB in the UK, the other being the BBC. Uh, and in that sense, we manifest the existence of plurality in public service media provision, publicly owned. Uh, and we are funded overwhelmingly by advertising and sponsorship to the tune of around 90%, 10% from other sources of revenue.

14:35

Speaker 1

-

14:35

Speaker 3

-

I'm Magnus Bruch, I'm director of strategy, policy and regulation at ITV. And I'm responsible for our corporate strategy, but also our relations with government and regulators. So ITV is a UK listed company with two divisions to ITV, ITV, M and E, which is our distribution and business. And we're proud to be a public service broadcaster and have been since our inception in 1955 and also the home of ITV. Our very rapidly growing streaming service. The other bit of ITV is ITV Studios, which is a global television producer, and a number of their productions also appear on ITV.

But we have production businesses all the way around Europe and in the US and Australia.

14:36

Speaker 1

-

Thank you. Thank you all. So the Green Paper suggests that the BBC should make greater use of third party platforms such as YouTube, to reach audiences when they are where they are. How has your organisation adapted its distribution strategy as audiences have moved towards streaming, video sharing platforms and social media?So we can take we can take the same order as we started. If you wouldn't mind.

14:36

Speaker 2

-

No problem. Um, so I'm sure the committee will have heard evidence, um, earlier in your inquiry that obviously one of the key differences between the last time the charter renewal process happened was that the world has changed dramatically. We're no longer just competing with each other. We are competing with huge global platforms, um, for people's attention and time. Social media streaming platforms, obviously video sharing platforms as well. Um, and the way that Sky has responded to that is in particular is launching its own streaming platforms.

So Sky, glass and Sky stream, but also now, um, which helps us make sure that our content and others is available to people in as easy and convenient fashion as they, as they desire. Um, so that's a major way that we have adapted our business. Um, and success really is about, um, making sure that you have provide. Our customers with a convenient and an easy way to access our programming. Um, we can't rely upon the fact they're just going to turn up and access channels in the way that they used to.

Thank you.

14:38

Speaker 3

-

Yeah. I mean, as I noted earlier, I mean, to take a five is a commercially funded public service broadcaster. So it's important that, um, we, we, whilst historically that's been, um, meant that our revenue streams have become by distributing via the terrestrial television television on the main TV in the, in the living room, increasingly now it's our duty and obligation to make sure that we get our content to where the customer is. So that means that we need to be agile enough to make sure that it's on the main TV in the living room, maybe through terrestrial TV, maybe that's through Sky or Virgin or other platforms.

Um, increasingly we're looking for other distribution models. So whether people need to be able to watch it via their iPad or they're on the move, whether they're watching a Roku TV and we've built five streaming as a streaming service that ensures that our linear content is also available on our streaming service, but also that we are putting content on our streaming service, which is attractive, that reflects British life, that does all the things that our linear PSB channel does, and more and increasingly, we've found over the last few years that five has had significant success, particularly in lower tariff drama pushing, um, live audience viewers to our streaming services.

But our goal is to be in places where we can make a commercial return, that we can therefore, um, make enough revenue to reinvest back into PSB content.

14:38

Speaker 1

-

Thank you Martin.

14:38

Speaker 3

-

14:39

Speaker 4

-

I would add that, um, streaming, we have to acknowledge now reflects the majority of young viewing to our services. So it's really essential that one goes where the audience is. And so we adopted an approach some time ago, I think the first PSB to form a partnership with YouTube to, to syndicate our long form content on that platform in order to ensure that we reach them. Uh, but it is a balance of audience and revenue, as Mitchell has said. Uh, and so this is something that we need to explore the, to answer your question, it is interesting that the BBC should consider that there seems no reason why they should not.

Um, but we'd have a reservation about advertising being carried around BBC public service content being carried on YouTube.

14:39

Speaker 3

-

Well, to answer your question directly, yes, we really have changed our distribution strategy. Yes, we're still on satellite and cable and terrestrial television, as you would expect. But actually we're also on ITV is now on about 20 connected platforms. But we've also have most of our content now on YouTube. We're also on TikTok and other social media. In fact, I think we have the largest of all the media services, the largest politics themed account on TikTok. So we are we have had to go where the audience has gone.

The audience has fractured, as I think Steven said, across a load of different platforms and ways of receiving television.

14:40

Speaker 1

-

Okay. Thanks. Additional questions around this. Um, the first part is what trade offs do arise from distributing content through those third party platforms. And also there's the issue of how can broadcasters keep their content visible on third party platforms. I think there's a real concern about the platform's algorithms shaping the editorial and commissioning decisions in ways that actually would undermine public service objectives. So those two things, if you can just talk about what are the trade offs, the plus and minuses of distributing content and how, how we can, as broadcasters, keep content visible, your own content visible on third party platforms.

So, um.

14:41

Speaker 3

-

Offs. Okay. So, um, I mean, if you're an advertising finance PSB, um, you need to maximise viewing, which means you need to be on the platforms that people are using. And I've mentioned what we're, what we're doing. Not all platforms are the same. Not all third party platforms are the same. So we've had very constructive relationships with the UK focused platform Sky Virgin in particular for many years. But the trade offs, I think are most acute in relation to the global online platform.

So the Amazons, the Samsungs, the YouTubes, uh, which have which aren't particularly focused on the future of PSB. Um, and in general, their approach is to try to maximise the amount of revenue that they can make from the content providers that are on their platform. Perfectly sensible ambition from their point of view as commercial players. And look, a good example of the trade off is, is YouTube, which is rapidly becoming a preeminent TV platform in the UK, particularly on the main screen. More than half of their viewing now in the UK is on the main television set, and the truth is they take their standard terms or to take 45% of revenue from anybody who's on the platform, and you get a better deal, as we do.

If you're a slightly bigger player. But the truth is we pay them a material percentage of all our advertising revenue on YouTube, many millions of pounds every year just for being on their service. So that's the most acute trade off that we have. And in the short term, we think there is an incremental benefit from being on YouTube. In other words, we're making we're reaching viewers that we might not reach via ITV on a variety of other platforms, but as YouTube grows, the danger is that it starts to cannibalize viewing materially from other platforms where we do keep 100% of the revenue because other people are not charging, asking us for a percentage of our revenue.

And this is this is a non-trivial problem actually looking forwards. So from an ITV point of view, our margin is well below its 12% or so in our E business. If you're STV, it's somewhere between 6 and 7%. So if you're making a much higher percentage of payers and revenue, that is clearly unsustainable over a period of time and really does, I think, pose a long term threat or medium term threat to the sustainability of commercial PSB. And it's one of the threats, of course, that was recognised in the media bill and the Media Act conversations that happened in this place and in the Commons, a recognition that actually commercial PSB would not be sustainable if these if those pay airways continued and the legislation, which is nearly coming into force, um, does deal with that in relation to a number of connected platforms, but not YouTube and not other forms of social media.

14:43

Speaker 1

-

That.

14:43

Speaker 2

-

I'm happy to add to that. Sorry. Yeah. And look, there are significant benefits obviously, um, particularly, and I think Martin referred to earlier in terms of the reach you can receive, you can, you can gain on these, on these platforms, um, reaching new audiences, particularly younger ones who are young people who tend to be on there. We obviously, because of the nature of our business, we are quite selective about what content we put onto other platforms and what we use them for.

So we are, for example, with Sky news, we're very, very much embrace the importance of being able to distribute content very widely. Um, but a lot of our content we are keeping for our subscription business, so we're not necessarily always putting it on there. And obviously the trade off is the fact that you have, um, lower revenues, you potentially have less control over the access to the data that's related to the audience who are watching it. There are lots of lots of reasons why that you have to be concerned.

Um, I think the original question was potentially about the BBC and YouTube, and I think we would be supportive, obviously, of the BBC seeking to try and make sure its content is available as widely as possible, and particularly recognising the fact that there are particular audiences that can reach by going via YouTube. But our key concern would be making sure that they are consistent in their approach and that therefore, that they are also making sure that that content is available on UK based platforms such as ourselves. Um, and they are one of the things we think that the whole charter should be looking at is ensuring that BBC have a duty about making sure there is availability of their content as widely as possible, and scrutinising the way they distribute that.

Thank you.

14:44

Speaker 4

-

I'm just going to say that the primary trade off is between reach and control, so one can access audiences that you might find hard to reach in other ways. And for a publicly owned public service media publisher like ourselves, that's really important. But you don't have control in the same way as you do over your when you're operating your own platform, or even when you're in a long standing, established distribution relationship, as we've had with Sky for decades. So you have to balance those two things together.

14:45

Speaker 5

-

Can I just ask you, please, to what extent do you research into how much of the content that we're talking about, regardless of this platform, the platform it may be on is actually still being domestically viewed on what we would describe as a television set, as opposed to on smartphones. I pads, other forms of viewing and listening. And does it differentiate between any of you, or do you all have the same statistics?Uh, presumably from the different platforms that you're associated with?

14:45

Speaker 3

-

Um, we, we have. Quite a lot of information and particularly in relation to the use of television sets. So Barb is an industry currency, which measures an awful lot of viewing in the home. In fact, all viewing in the home, I think more or less. Um, so there is a pretty common industry currency. And obviously we have our first party data in relation to use of our own services. So use of ITV. So we know exactly who's used ITV and we can, we can work out what, how that links into the barb.

The barb data. So we do have quite good visibility of who's watching our services.

14:46

Speaker 4

-

And we can tell with YouTube distribution whether it's in the UK or outside the UK.

14:46

Speaker 3

-

And I think the other part of your question is how much of it is on the TV set. And actually one of the one of the really striking things is increasing amounts of viewing is on the TV set. So, I mean, it's been I think YouTube's the viewing to television sets of YouTube has doubled in the last three years, and more than 50% of YouTube viewing in the UK now is on a television set, which is a genuinely startling statistic, I think, because the assumption has always been it's people on phones with cats in washing machines or whatever.

And actually it's just not that at all. Now we have about 30 YouTube channels with long form content. A lot of our content is now effectively published on YouTube. And if you like, YouTube is becoming a television platform. That's their explicit aspiration to go to, to get away from almost it being cats in washing machines to being a long form television platform, competing for viewing, competing for revenue with both us, but also with other television platforms. So it's both a channel selling advertising around content, but also if you like, a platform within which lots of people are aggregating and selling their content.

14:47

Speaker 6

-

Thank you. And to your comment, just about the differences between the, the difference between us. I mean, there's clear difference. We all have slightly different remits between us. So therefore that leads to differentiated ways in which people consume our content. So for example, in terms of linear TV, we have children's TV block every morning on milkshake. Obviously that's very heavy linear viewing because parents want to put their children in front of that environment early in the morning.

So there's a, there's a real differences in each of the between the PSBs, because we have different remits and different strategies into the variances of when people might be watching our content via streaming and which content they're watching via streaming. So drama might be more popular via streaming, for example, than other types of content.

14:48

Speaker 1

-

Thank you. Part of the question I asked earlier was about how you keep your, your own content visible on those third party platforms. Um, and the concern about allowing those platforms algorithms to shape editorial and commissioning decisions. So I don't know if you have any thoughts on, on that particular aspect of it.

14:48

Speaker 4

-

Well, they don't have any direct say over our editorial decision making of what we publish. So there's a clear distinction there. But then we have no material control over how they decide to to surface it. And so there is definitely a challenge of being visible on those platforms. To my point about the trading off between reach and and control, one is not able to influence how, practically speaking, how one's content is surfaced. And that's why it seems appropriate to be talking about the possibility of how prominence towards public service media can be, uh, can be secured.

It can be advanced in this space. I mean, public service media exist for all sorts of reasons, but one of. Them is to create a diverse and different type of programming that you've heard my colleagues talk about. And that exists not through accident. It exists because of regulatory requirement on platforms, old platforms as they were. So it seems logical that it's good to ask the question as to what can the role of regulation play in this space.

14:49

Speaker 1

-

So the next question I'll come to Lord Bishop of Winchester.

14:49

Speaker 7

-

Thank you. Yeah. And this question, I think, um, covers a lot of the areas you've already touched on, but perhaps takes a little bit further, particularly picking up your last comment there, Martin. Uh, we have heard that public service broadcasters reliance on a small number of global platforms and infrastructure providers may present a strategic risk to the UK, given their power to set the terms on which public service content reaches audiences. Um, how serious is this risk in your view?And the supplementary, which I'll give you now because I think you probably want to cover it all together, is, um, what action should broadcasters take themselves to reduce that risk and where, if anywhere, might further regulatory intervention be required?

14:50

Speaker 6

-

I you can jump in.

14:50

Speaker 3

-

Okay. Um, it is serious and it's serious, I think for two reasons. The first is that the content choices of UK audiences are being shaped by and mediated by a small number of global players, um, as Martin said, we have much less control over how content is surfaced and made available to UK viewers. And secondly, the economics of UK content providers such as the SBS are affected by the operation of these platforms. As I mentioned before, and we start the year with a bill for £150 million for our new services, which none of the global streaming platforms have.

Um, and that's, that's, we have to cross-subsidise that by making money and the more money that's extracted by platforms like YouTube, the less money, frankly, there is going to be to spend on original UK content and news. Um, so this reliance is a practical and economic necessity because of the way in which people's viewing habits are changing. So we have to be on those platforms and in terms of action, I mean, I think it goes without saying that we have to continue to make the best content that people want to watch.

That, I think goes without saying, uh, an initiatives like freely, which is our online, the online PSB platform that we've launched together with all the other PSBs, I think is reduces the risk actually, um, and does give us more control, but it's only one option amongst many, many options in the market for online television content. So I think there is a role for regulation. And I think we've talked a little bit about the Media Act. And I think the Media Act will, will help.

Um it's taking quite a long time to come. I think it's going to be probably around three years after the act was passed, before we get substantive implementation of the most important provisions. So I think haste is important, but also I think regulation has to evolve. Um, and I think PSB need PSB need parallel guarantees that they will be promoted and protected from value extraction by video sharing platforms like YouTube. But I think we do need to move to action quickly.

It's a gap, if you like, that's opened up following the Media Act that there is a new set of platforms, particularly YouTube, but others as well, who are not covered by the media regime.

14:52

Speaker 4

-

And we also need to learn from the data. We need to watch what is actually happening with audiences. Magnus made the point about cannibalization earlier. We're not sure that there is evidence of cannibalization yet, but it's a thing to track very carefully and to what we can do without any other intervention. We can be selective about what we do, and we can track the data and we can learn and we can we don't have to publish everything on YouTube. We will continue, I think, to be selective about it.

14:53

Speaker 6

-

I mean, I would say that, um, you know, PSBs have a choice about how they distribute their content and they need to be able to distribute content on, on with a fair remuneration model on reasonable commercial terms. That's how, as alluded to earlier, it's commercial space on ITV. That's how we then can then reinvest reinvest money into UK originated content. Um we, we as five have made have made a decision that whilst we have a limited amount of content on YouTube, we've not entered into a specific YouTube partnership or a specific, um, in terms of creating first run content for YouTube, because the financial remuneration model is not sufficient that we think, um, elsewhere where we're delivering our remit that it would be a good use of our resources.

Clearly, if the, the terms of that relationship with YouTube and others were to change, then we would be more than happy to distribute via those channels. It's, you know, we have a we have to recognise that we spend a significant amount of. What Magnus alluded to earlier, we spend a significant amount creating a brand and a brand equity around what we do as SBS. And therefore it's correct that we're fairly remunerated for that in terms of discoverability, prominence and so forth. If we're to distribute by some of these third parties.

14:53

Speaker 2

-

Yeah, I'm not going to repeat, sorry, I.

14:54

Speaker 1

-

Think we've got a further question coming in here.

14:54

Speaker 2

-

Okay. So I won't repeat what the others have said, which much of which we agree with. Um, I think our we obviously have a slightly different perspective as a business operates a platform ourselves directly. I think our key concern is we've been a strong supporter of the idea of giving prominence to public service broadcasting content. I'm grateful for the kind remarks that others have made about their relationship with Sky. We do feel that the Media Act is a significant intervention into the marketplace, but at the same time, we feel that it puts us at a competitive disadvantage where we are a UK based business who are seeking to build our business here and build constructive relationships with certain global platforms, have been referred to already, who are not under the same regulation.

So that obviously has an impact upon our ability to invest, to innovate and as a business, which where our customers are largely both accessing PSB content, but also paying specifically for certain additional content, they want to watch. The fact that we are we are being required to give greater prominence. Um, whilst others are not obviously puts us at a disadvantage. But how to monetize that content on our platforms. Thank you.

14:55

Speaker 4

-

14:55

Speaker 6

-

You just talked about the Media Act and but that deals with prominence on digital TVs. It doesn't really deal with platforms and prominence and discoverability. Um, demos has just come out with this report on online prominence for SBS, which talks about giving algorithms and recommender systems some sort of have some sort of intervention in those systems so that every now and again there is a PSB piece of content that does appear. Would you like to see a I mean, albeit the media act is being rather slow in being rolled out, would you like to see another or.

Yes, an addition to that which covers online content and the way that online content is rolled out in favor of the SBS?

14:56

Speaker 3

-

Yes, I think I think a degree of preference for PSB combined with obviously intervention around the commercial terms, because there's no point having preference if actually it's uneconomic to put the content onto the platform, because we can't afford to, to make the content in the first place, because we have to pay where the money, which was, which was the insight of the original Media Act and the original Media Act was about prominence, inclusion, and fair value. You need those three elements together. Um, if you don't, if one of those is missing, then the regime doesn't work.

And just to the algorithmic prominence point, I mean, we already have that in the media. That's not a that's not a massive development. It's effectively the Media Act says that where an algorithm is deciding on a connected, a regulated, connected platform, that particular sorts of content ought to be served. That prominence still applies in relation to the content that that surfaced algorithmically. So it's not a Rubicon here. We've done this before, and actually a degree of preference in the results is YouTube already provides a degree of preference for, for certain news providers and for certain kids content.

So again, there's nothing terribly revolutionary about this.

14:57

Speaker 6

-

Could you see it going further, though.

14:57

Speaker 3

-

Further in the sense in terms of covering more platforms?

14:57

Speaker 6

-

Um, no, in, in, in going further in pushing SBS and their content online.

14:57

Speaker 3

-

Well, I mean, I think the Media act goes quite a long way actually, in terms of, in terms of the prominence obligation. And Stephen may want to speak to this as a platform operator, but, um, it's quite comprehensive in the way it thinks about the mechanisms by which content may be surfaced. I mean, on something like YouTube, I mean, I think about 80% of our content viewing on YouTube comes through algorithmic recommendation. So that's a platform that's driven by algorithm fundamentally. So you do need to overindex on the preferences within the algorithm because they don't have the same fixed tiles and, and, and app based presentation to anything like the degree that a Samsung or a sky or others have.

So it's slightly horses for courses, depending on the nature of the platform. So, um, there are certain platforms where algorithms are very important. You have to, you have to regulate appropriately for the particular platform. But I think many of the tools are there or the concepts are there in the media act regime.

14:58

Speaker 6

-

Stephen, you seem to be seem to think that's a commercial barrier having having these recommender systems that that push content in favour of SBS.

14:58

Speaker 2

-

I think they need to be very carefully designed in the sense that we need to think long and hard about what we're trying to encourage and incentivize in the marketplace. So what I mean by that, for example, is there's lots of really important content that's produced by the SBS, but also by commercial providers as well. We wouldn't want to be in a position where we had to give much greater prominence to, for example, the PSB news channels than we would for Sky news. We think Sky news is very clearly public service, media content, and therefore the fact that it doesn't originate from a PSB, we don't think it should be put at a disadvantage on that basis, because if you were going to do that, you would create a a situation where people are less inclined to invest in that if they were not going to receive the same kind of prominence.

So if we were in a situation on our own platform where we were not able to promote PSB, our own Sky news channel, that would be quite difficult to to manage commercially.

14:58

Speaker 1

-

14:58

Speaker 8

-

Thank you. So we've heard a great deal about the need for collaboration between UK broadcasters um to. To respond to the dominance of global streamers and technology companies. Do you agree with this?And if so, what specific areas present the strongest opportunities for collaboration. Um, Steven, do you want to start.

14:59

Speaker 2

-

Look I think there are I'll take the second part of question first. I, I think there are lots of areas, um, for collaboration. Um, and we already do collaborate in many areas already. Um, we collaborate on skills and particularly trying to make sure that we have a industry which is going to be fit for the future. Um, and particularly around, for example, AI as well, we are currently working and collaborate with the BBC on trying to make sure that we are able to respond to the way that our news content is being used by AI, um, companies.

So I think there's lots of rich areas for collaboration. I think that again, my initial point, um, earlier in the hearing around, um, where we'd like to see the greatest collaboration is around the distribution of BBC content. We think that we can play an incredibly important role in that. We do that with all of the SBS, but there are areas where that's not always easy. So for example, we don't currently have BBC content on our Sky go app. Um, we've recently been asked by the BBC to reduce the amount of what's called native VOD content.

So effectively, real time native digital streams on our Sky Q platform. So again, these are not actually to do with commercial arrangements. These are to do with a preference for the BBC to have people accessing their content via the iPlayer. We want to see a consistent approach. So if they are using platforms such as YouTube, we think that should be made available to as many people as possible. And as a British based business, we think that that should be through our platforms as well.

15:01

Speaker 1

-

15:01

Speaker 6

-

I'm sure. I mean, I think it's worth taking a slight step back a little bit, which is that I think we absolutely welcome, um, the idea that, you know, even in the framing of the, of the BBC, BBC charter by the Green Paper, that this next BBC charter should not just be about the BBC and the role it plays in sustaining it for the next ten years, but also the wider collaboration and benefits that this BBC charter can have for the wider PSB ecology and the broader, broader audiovisual sector in the UK.

So I think that's absolutely welcome. And I think if there's one thing to come out of this charter, this is one of the most important things I think we see in terms of a new obligation. Um, absolutely. As Stephen says to the earlier part of his answer, I think we would completely agree. And I was like, accessibility training standards, um, digital. Technology. There are, there are presumably lots of areas where we could collaborate more effectively.

Clearly, you know, we are also fiercely competitive when it comes to having the best content and reviewing the overnights the next day and checking who got the best ratings on what type of content. And that's important because that's healthy. But at the same time, there are clearly areas where we can collaborate. And I think we welcome this, the the idea that it should be that the BBC, um, as part of its obligation, should be ensuring that it can collaborate with other SBS.

15:02

Speaker 4

-

Yeah, I would agree with that completely. Um, in fact, we've had a relationship with the BBC in terms of partnering on other activities for a considerable period. We act as the, um, airtime sales agent for advertising on the BBC. S commercial suite of channels in the UK, UK, TV, we've been doing that since 2010, so there is a long record of collaborating where in areas where the viewer won't notice. It's important that what one does in those spaces doesn't imperil the benefit that comes from the plurality of public service media provision.

And I would say particularly publicly owned public see public service media provision, but there's plenty of scope for more. But the rule would generally be it's not touching what the what the audience sees.

15:03

Speaker 8

-

15:03

Speaker 3

-

Yeah, I mean, look, there's a long history, isn't there, of particularly, um, partnership and distribution. So Freeview freely Freesat, um, and um distribution in particular because, and we've all shared, I think the, the key criteria for me of successful collaboration is where you can share risk control and finance. And those are proper partnerships. And actually you're most likely to find those in distribution because none of us can do that by ourselves. The BBC can't do it by itself. In order to set up a TV platform, you need to have some friends.

Um, and you need to share the costs and the risks and so on. And those have been the most successful partnerships, but there are definitely other areas. And so, um, you know, we're in conversations with the commercial space and sky around a potential, joint online advertising platform for SMEs, for example, which is in the public domain. So there's lots of things I think that we can do.

15:04

Speaker 8

-

Steven has touched on this briefly already, but, um, it would be helpful to just go over briefly the what are the barriers that have prevented deeper collaboration to date?Yes. If you just want to go on the.

15:04

Speaker 2

-

Line, we are we are obviously very different businesses in terms of the fact that we have different funding models. We have different obligations and commercial incentives. So, um, I think Magnus said that collaboration works best when there is kind of a, a genuinely shared objective. Um, I think that, I mean, I've already touched upon the importance of distribution, but there are other areas that where we could collaborate on more in the future. We are all, um, considering what the next switchover process is going to look like.

So there's clearly going to be areas where we really need to collaborate to make sure we take all audiences with us. So I think, as I say, competition is a really healthy thing. We do that every single day and competition achieves some really great results. And it's one of the reasons why we have such a wonderful, varied media and broadcasting sector in the UK. Um, I, we are in favour of the BBC collaborating more. Um, I think the barriers are not that significant to achieving it, but there is a really important role for competition remains within the sector.

Okay.

15:05

Speaker 8

-

Thank you Mitchell.

15:05

Speaker 6

-

I mean, I think I sort of agree with that. I mean, I think the, the historic barriers were because of the media industry was at a certain place in time in the way that we distributed in a way that we reached our audiences. I think that that is now radically changed over the last ten, 20 years. And I think the SBS on much and the BBC are much more open to collaboration on things, as Magnus has alluded to. And I think looking forward, there are lots of challenges, like the future of IP distribution, that we will be required to work together on.

So I don't see it. I don't see the historic barriers having any impact on future collaboration.

15:06

Speaker 4

-

I would say they're probably down to competition concerns. Some of us bear the scars of Project Kangaroo, from the late noughties. Um, and I'd say there's probably some concerns around driven by the need to, to conserve plurality leads people to think, no, we can't, can't really can't really share in certain spaces. And it's probably been a bit conservative in terms of overall approach. So I think that's probably it's a fair challenge.

15:06

Speaker 3

-

Yeah, I think look, I think there are there are also there are different incentives. I mean, the BBC would tend to prioritise reach and attribution. We would tend to be interested in monetization and cost savings. So that can be an issue. Um, and, and again, it makes it important to be aligned because if you're aligned on the objective, then those, those, those other things make less difference. I mean, there are just also practical things and we've got legacy tech, we've got, um, different contract durations.

Um, and, and look, the other thing to say is that if you're doing, as anybody who's ever done a four way commercial negotiation, they're not straightforward. I mean, just personalities, you know, all of those sorts of things. So it's non-trivial, which is why I think it's so important that you have that alignment in the objective to start with. If you've got a shared objective, then then all of those things can be overridden. Thank you.

15:07

Speaker 1

-

To.

15:07

Speaker 4

-

15:08

Speaker 9

-

Mitchell, you just talked about how there have been the historic barriers between between SBS and distribution and but now there's, there's, you see a bright future, a future collaboration. However, the BBC has always stuck pretty firmly to having a walled garden of I play and BBC sounds and hasn't wanted to have that opened up to to competitors. I mean, it's also traditionally like to have its online distribution put through those two portals. Obviously now with the with the YouTube partnership, that has changed to an extent.

Do you think that iPlayer and sounds should be opened up and to to other PSBs?

15:08

Speaker 6

-

So we definitely welcome the conversation that's been, um, started by the green paper and the concept of opening up the iPlayer, I think. So that's my kind of first response. I think the, the slight question is when we talk about open iPlayer, there needs to be some question about what what the design of that is. What do we mean by open iPlayer?Because certainly government in its you know, government talks about open iPlayer. The BBC has mentioned open iPlayer.

We have a number of broadcasters on this on this in this room, who probably all have a slightly different version of what open iPlayer should mean. How how should content be remunerated where where it should sit?What?What will it be?Look, from our perspective, we think that the idea of um, iplay being much more open to other SBS and being more of a PSB player would be welcome. We think it's important, of course, within that, that there's some kind of delineation between the commercial PSBs who will want to have advertising and sponsorship around commercial content, but we need to protect the BBC's core ad free environment.

We think that's very important. And the other question we have around the open iPlayer model is that there also needs to be a separation between the BBC's, um, uh, pure public service remit operations and its commercial commercial elements. So for example, if we're going to have, um, more PSB content on, on iPlayer, which I think we would, we would welcome and we, we're open to that discussion. We, we also must recognise that BBC Studios and UK TV, which exist as commercial divisions, shouldn't have any kind of preferential access to iPlayer.

Um, that because you know, the, the, the PSB, SBS have. So we need to make sure that the, the design of what the iPlayer means is something that we as PSBs and, and the BBC can all agree to. I don't think we're yet at that stage, but we're certainly in favour of engaging in that conversation. I mean, to.

15:10

Speaker 9

-

Realise what you've just said. It's going to involve really completely rebuilding the whole technology behind iPlayer. Should the part of the charter ensure that there are funds available to to to make sure that the that there is an open, uh. Open iPlayer and which, which has the features you've just described.

15:10

Speaker 6

-

Well, I definitely think that we, you know, it's not part of this, this committee's work, but certainly a well funded BBC that can deliver on its on its remit and has the the funds in order to engage in innovation in the market. But certainly we think in the shorter term then maybe, you know, whether whether a wholesale or building is required or not, that we should start working together on, um, small steps of market testing and seeing what content can be shared. And we should start that conversation as to whether, whether what the funding question might be around that is, is not something, you know, that for today necessarily, but certainly it could be a possibility in the future.

15:11

Speaker 9

-

Martin, how do you see an open iPlayer and if so, how would it manifest itself?

15:11

Speaker 4

-

I think we find it very interesting idea. Uh, we noted with interest when um, S4 was taken on to the iPlayer at the beginning of the year, and we wondered whether that was the beginning of, you know, potentially an opening up. We know there has to be a public interest test process gone through, so it's not something they can just decide. Uh, so I think it is, it's definitely interesting. And it feels like why not one start with why not as opposed to why.

15:11

Speaker 9

-

And Magnus, I mean, for you, it's quite a delicate time. I know we can't talk about it, but um, are you would do you think it ITV would be interested in.

15:12

Speaker 3

-

Well I think so. So the, the challenge that I think all of us face is that we're national players in what is becoming a global market. And all of our competitors, our global competitors are amortizing their costs across the whole world. So, um, there is some. Theoretical logic, I think in a single PSB streaming destination. But the truth is it's one sentence in the BBC green paper response. Um, it's very difficult to tell actually what they have in mind and I think um, it doesn't seem to be a proposal of shared control.

As far as I read it. Um, and in. There, it's an invitation to become a tenant of the BBC on iPlayer. Um, and it's clearly possible that all of our own players would wither as a result of that. And so I think we need to be careful. And back to the point I made about what are the partnerships that work there, the ones with shared control, with shared risk and shared funding. I think those are the sorts of things we're interested in understanding.

But there's also, of course, a big commercial challenge. So in a world of dynamically served advertising and data rich advertising, iPlayer is not currently set up to provide to monetize content. And that's clearly fundamental for anybody with a commercial PSB, uh, business. Um, and there's just a set of questions I think about how long would it take, even if you can sort out all the other elements around control and so on, how long would it take to get to a position where this was a viable proposition commercially, bearing in mind you've got commercial negotiations and also technical build and implementation and so on.

And frankly, that could take years. And we don't really have years. So it's not I mean, I'm not ruling it out completely, but I think we've got a lot of questions.

15:14

Speaker 9

-

Imagine that because this is this the suggestion is that iPlayer becomes a UK public service broadcaster. Um, device, uh, platform. It would exclude you. So you would have an objection to that.

15:14

Speaker 2

-

Yes. I mean, look, we, we, we have the view that the UK benefits enormously from having a variety of different distribution channels. Um, I imagine everybody in this room probably accesses their content in different ways. And that is one of the wonderful rich areas. And that competition drives innovation. So we would have concerns about any approach which concentrated too much control over discovery into a single, um, platform. And I think to the point you were making, I'm an overlord.

The minute you start talking about, um, carving out. Parts of the licence fee to pay for this, effectively, you are distracting from what we believe is the core purpose of what the BBC should be doing, which is really investing in that content of the greatest public value. So I think, um, we would be very cautious about this as an approach or a solution to the, to, I think by, by trying to address, um, global competition issues, by removing competition domestically is not a, not a good outcome.

15:15

Speaker 9

-

15:15

Speaker 1

-

Thanks. I think Tom has got a short.

15:15

Speaker 5

-

Very short one. The most expensive.

15:15

Speaker 10

-

Sorry. The most expensive. Um item. For most of you is news. Um is there any scope for um corporation. On delivery of news or. Is that out of the question. I mean. I once. Worked for ITV and it stays in my mind that one grumbled at at one one ITV law. Um captain of industry said why is it costing us half £1 million to send Sandy gold to Vietnam, to Afghanistan?Well, news is expensive indeed.

Um, and yet each of you. I bet I could tell whether I was watching ITN. Or Sky or BBC or channel four. You've managed to keep a distinctive face. But but but the clear pressures for delivering a comprehensive news service. Are there any cheap ways of doing it?

15:17

Speaker 3

-

I mean, I mean, you might you might say that we're already. I mean, so if you take channel five and channel four and ITV, we're effectively already sharing an awful lot of the overhead in providing the news services through its n uh, in. The sense that we have the same office, we have a single management of ITN. And yet each programme coming out of that structure is completely distinct and completely different, and is serving a different agenda, a different audience. And so is editorially very distinct.

But the infrastructure behind those new services is to a large extent shared. So we think that is a very sensible model. Um, the harder thing for us, I have to say is in regional news, um, where obviously it's just us and the BBC and we have looked in the past at whether there's a possibility of sharing. We about ten, 15 years ago we looked at whether we could save money from collaborating with the BBC. And, and we found, broadly speaking, that we couldn't.

And in fact, actually what we discovered was we could save the BBC some money if they collaborated with us. So the. It's not it's not easy in regional news, but as I say, I think in national and international news, we're doing what we can. And obviously Sky and the BBC are separate. But but I think that's a model potentially that cost sharing model.

15:19

Speaker 1

-

Thank you. I'm going to come to Diana Baroness King.

15:19

Speaker 11

-

Yes. To continue on collaboration. Um the Green Paper as Mitchell already has uh, has touched on, suggests that the BBC should play a stronger role in driving growth across the UK, particularly in the nations and regions, and in supporting the creative economy. So do you agree that a new BBC public purpose focused on it is a good thing to have emphasised, and if so, what do you see as being the most important areas, not just for you to collaborate together on and with the BBC, but also with other partners in the nations and regions.

Who'd like to start?Mitchell?You were you were saying this was very important earlier on.

15:19

Speaker 6

-

So yeah, look, I mean, I think in terms of nations and regions, five is really leant into that over the over the past few years, as I, as I mentioned earlier, I mean, five years ago, five had five hours, six hours of drama on its, um, on, on its service last year, had 100 hours of UK originated drama. Next year will be this year will be about 120. We think it's really important that the question that that our sector works together on things like skills training, um, that we, we push things out to the regions where we can, we've got a big programme in the North east at the moment where we've made a number of dramas.

Interestingly, the BBC has also pushed into into the North East. I think the question I would slightly frame it, though, is that sort of what comes first?Is it growth as the goal for the BBC charter?Um or is growth I think is one of the um your previous previous witnesses said, is that a sort of um positive externality of the BBC just delivering what it's supposed to do in the regions if you, if you work with more independent producers in the regions, if you, if you invest in training programmes in the regions, then the economic growth will follow.

And I think I do worry slightly about a BBC charter that tries to almost put the cart before the horse and suggest the BBC should be thinking about economic growth before it should be thinking about its PSB remit. I do worry slightly that the BBC could end up tying itself up in, you know, economic commitments and spending in regions, rather than just thinking to sort of Stevens point earlier. What are the best stories that need to be told?Where's the best places to make UK originated content and the economic growth and the growth in the sector will follow?

15:20

Speaker 11

-

Just on that, though they're not mutually exclusive, are they?Not in two boxes. I mean, doing exactly what you've said arguably could drive the growth of the sector and the economy. Yeah. Um does anybody else, uh, Martin.

15:21

Speaker 4

-

You know, I mean, I completely agree with that. It seems axiomatic that if they do more, then it's likely to lead to growth, particularly if they spend more with independent producers, and particularly if they do more in the nations and regions. So it seems it would follow. So having a specific duty around economic growth per se, um, you need to understand precisely what that was trying to get at that you couldn't already get.

15:21

Speaker 11

-

Okay.

15:21

Speaker 3

-

Thank you. I do think that's the point. What is the BBC going to do differently with this duty than without it?I mean, what is going to be the practical effect of of imposing the duty I think we'd need to understand, because the BBC's role in driving economic growth, I think, is about its scale of its spend across the UK fundamentally.

15:22

Speaker 5

-

Driving activity and driving investment in the UK creative industries. And there's really only two things that matter with that. One is the scale of its funding. And the second is the efficiency with which it translates that funding into actual spend on content. Those are the two things that matters, and I don't think either of those will be affected by a growth duty, in truth. And I do see the point that Mitchell makes, which is actually there's a danger that it's used as a way of retreating further from niche public service content, which the market finds very difficult now to provide in the name of growth.

Um, and that that becomes a, it becomes less of a PSB and more of a growth engine. And that's actually a subtext for more entertainment, more, more mainstream programming. And none of the other genres that we can't provide.

15:23

Speaker 4

-

I'm afraid we. Wild agreement. We are of the view that this should be an outcome of the BBC's activities rather than the primary purpose, and I think you could see a. I think you heard from previous witnesses, um, previous sessions about the possibility of a skewing where the BBC is thinking about commissioning content which could lead to, um, be very successful export as opposed to its primary public value purpose.

15:23

Speaker 3

-

So you're all aligned and aggregated around your response to that. Um, but alignment and aggregation is also something that I think earlier you were saying you could all do better, um, in order to drive the best interests of our, our broadcasting creative economy. Um, so that being the case, just one example, um, you all mentioned skills, you all mentioned training. Um, yet there are significant skills gaps and shortages right across the film and TV industries, albeit obviously, we know at the moment there are, uh, there's also quite a lot of underemployment.

So take that as an example. Um, if growth is left as it is, um, what can be better achieved by you aligning and aggregating your work, particularly in the nations and regions?

15:24

Speaker 6

-

Well, I would imagine the answer to that is a degree of efficiency in truth over who you are reaching, how you're reaching them, where you were doing it from. Uh, so it's probably a good list of practical stuff that we haven't done is the honest truth. Um, but we would need to go and do that. Uh, you're right to note that they've done more in training than we've all mentioned training, I know. Um, yes. And in our own case, having established offices throughout the nations and regions in the UK since 2018, we see more and more of that activity.

And it's great, but you're also right to point to the challenges of the casualised industry as it is and how dependent it is upon consistent flows of production work. And they have been horribly interrupted in recent years. Yes. Well, obviously by the pandemic and the effect of that. And now by a very tight and difficult ad market.

15:25

Speaker 3

-

Anybody else want to comment on?

15:25

Speaker 5

-

Well, all I'd say, I think, is that the BBC is a sort of superpower in terms of training and development in our sector, in terms of the amount that we can spend. And that's terrific. It's one of the areas where the BBC can make a big difference and does make a big difference, to be fair. Um, but I think as with any superpower, the question is can they collaborate in an international organisation, so to speak, with other PSBs?And I think one of the things for us is that we do have within the sector screen skills, which you'll be very familiar with.

Um, and I think there is an important question about whether screen skills can do more to help coordinate and really identify where the gaps are, and ensure that the funding then flows into those gaps. And above all that, we make sure that we're training people for the jobs that actually exist to the point about underemployment and indeed, retraining people to move from one genre to another. So, I mean, classically, to move out of factual production and into scripted, for example. I mean, that's an area where, you know, there could be, I think, more industry effort, but I think we need to be realistic about the amount that we will have to spend on that versus the BBC, but acknowledge the fact that we probably do need more coordination about where those that money is directed.

15:26

Speaker 4

-

Yeah. All I would add is, I mean, out of the 20,000 people that Sky employees in the UK, half of those are outside London and the South east. So we do actively seek to make sure that we are employing right across the UK. And we have we all have our own initiatives in our case, Sky Up Academy, where we make sure that there is at all of our major sites, opportunities for young people to come in and, and, um, have access to the experience of working in our sectors, which I think is really important.

But clearly the best way to do that is to build upon existing examples of collaboration. So screen skills is a very good case in point. We've also collaborated around um, apprenticeships and some of the issues that we were facing in terms of the nature of how programmes are produced and how we could better do that, but we should be building upon those. It's a real challenge for the whole sector.

15:26

Speaker 1

-

15:26

Speaker 8

-

I'll just add sorry, I think it was mentioned in previous session, but obviously also probably the BBC as a leader in this. Also coordination between the screen funds. So whether that's screen Northeast or Creative Wales we're all working with independently, there's probably an area where um, we can direct um conversations and collaborations as well.

15:27

Speaker 3

-

Excellent. So the other part of the growth agenda is actually the government and the industrial strategy obviously identified film, TV media as one of the priority subsectors along with computer games. Um, we just received, um, the one year on from the minister that relates to the tech industries, the one year on report of their industrial strategy. Um, and there's significant investment and significant developments that have gone on right across the piece. Um, I just wondered on your reflections in relation to the progress of the industrial strategy for the creative industries, and particularly subsector plans to partner with you all in relation to moving forward, the growth agenda in a variety of ways, whether you've got any thoughts or reflections on that, as we're doing one year on moments.

15:27

Speaker 4

-

I mean, my CEO, Dana Strong, sits on the advisory council, so I'm going to be incredibly supportive of the work that the council has been doing. Um, but I think. Broadly, her reflections would be, is that, um, that we need to be much more urgent in our response. Clearly, the primary driver of um, we've recognised the sectors which are going to achieve growth for the UK. We have to make some hard decisions. And that requires making choices. And um we're very much up for that.

We recognise the fact that we may not always be the beneficiaries of that, but we would support both Parliament and the government in driving forward that activity. We think it's incredibly important for long term.

15:28

Speaker 3

-

Urgency. So a sense that more needs to be done more quickly is what I'm getting from you and anybody else want to comment?

15:28

Speaker 5

-

Yeah, I mean, I would agree with that. And I think, you know, think big and think quick. Um, because that's what the rest of the world is doing. And that's what all our competitors are doing. And we need to do the same. And, and that includes, I think Parliament as well in terms of the speed with which EU. Address questions, some of which we've talked about today, because they are probably the most important bits of ensuring that our sector continues to be sustainable in the UK.

And that commercial PSB continues to be sustainable.

15:29

Speaker 3

-

I've run out of my questions now, and Lionel's not. It's fine.

15:29

Speaker 1

-

Um, we've touched on and I pick up your doubts about this new public purpose of driving economic growth for the BBC, but the Green Paper does suggest putting research, development and innovation back at the centre of BBC's public service activities. So what role, in your view?Whatever, you know, bearing in mind your doubts about about having growth as as a new public purpose, but what role should the BBC play in supporting research and innovation across the UK media sector?

15:30

Speaker 8

-

I. I can, I can I mean, so look, I think you may end up with a similar answer to the one you had before, I'm afraid. Um, I think the broader question which, which we've touched on is about a well-funded BBC. So the question about why has R&D fallen under the last BBC charter?Is it because there's not an obligation in the charter, or is it simply because of the funding of the BBC itself more broadly?Um the. Absolutely.

We think the BBC has a, a has a revenue model, which means that it is, you know, it can take risks in terms of R&D that maybe we as commercial operators are not able to make because we we won't have those resources for. You might need as many failures as you have successes. And we absolutely think that this ties, therefore, to the concept of collaboration, where if there's innovations or R&D that can benefit, not just the BBC, but PSBs or even the wider broadcasting sector on areas like accessibility or discoverability or audience protection standards, they're clearly we think that that's a benefit for the BBC.

Um, but I do think and I think it was, um, Jill hand in an earlier session who commented, you know, we don't want the BBC to almost have to ring fence a certain amount of money each year for R&D. Um, that it could be, you know, could be better spent on developing content or putting money into training in the region. So I do think we need to think carefully about simply saying, here's an issue that we have a concern about. Let's introduce a new obligation in the next BBC charter, which ends up in a situation where, again, we end up with the BBC feeling it has to to meet that objective when it may not be strategically best in the interests of viewers.

So I think we are absolutely supportive of R&D at the BBC. I think it should be collaborative. And I think those two, those two areas go well together. But whether it needs to be a strict new obligation in the charter, um, we're not sure surely.

15:31

Speaker 2

-

The history of the BBC has been one of research and innovation.

15:31

Speaker 1

-

Indeed. But as we've heard, it's fallen way under the charter period. So yeah.

15:32

Speaker 6

-

I mean that is a point I was going to make that the BBC is is the cornerstone of PSB in the UK and a cornerstone of the BBC has always been its work in R&D. So it would be curious where it to turn away from that. Not suggesting that they are. So I don't know whether it's sensible to be written into the charter expressly, but it would be a strange thing if they were to deprioritize work in that area.

15:32

Speaker 5

-

I think. I think you do need to take care, though. This is a world in which, you know, there's a lot of companies around with an awful lot of capital to spend on R&D. And I think one thing I would say is you do need to be very targeted to work out as the BBC, where you want to place some bets and why that's going to be in the interests. I think both of the BBC, but actually of the broader sector in the UK.

I think that's the critical question. Um, because you could waste an awful lot of money very fast on innovation, um and not really end up producing something that was of much use. So I think it's about being really focused, having, probably having external scrutiny and external input into the way that you run it and the way that you make decisions about what you're going to fund. Um, and so look, I mean, the BBC was, was the original inventor of television transmitters, which were a way of getting lots of information very quickly to everybody.

And actually, there's a new version of that, which is how do you get enormous amounts of data down wires, the World Cup problem, let me put it that way, because increasing number of people and actually is there, is there R&D that could be done there by the BBC?You know, maybe, um, is there other R&D about um, I don't know. Um editing in the cloud, for example, using AI that they could potentially make a contribution to. So I think it's about work being really focused about the areas that they.

And then making sure the industry comes together and has a degree of input into what the BBC does. Um.

15:33

Speaker 4

-

I very much firmly echo Magnus's comments, I think, um, yes, BBC definitely does have a very proud and rich history of innovation, and I don't think anyone would deny that. But we are operating in global marketplaces now. And um, therefore competing against companies with enormous R&D budgets and sending the BBC off to try and invade what's been already been provided very well by the marketplace, I don't think would be a sensible way to do it. And a very easy way to end up with a substandard product, which, um, can't compete in the marketplace.

And significant amounts of public money has been spent on. And there are obviously great examples of BBC innovation. There are also examples of announcements have been made which have not been, um, so innovative or necessarily a good use of public money. I won't list them now, but I'm happy to. Um, so I think we have to be quite cautious in terms of what we're trying to do. And every time we're talking about using public money in a different way is distracting from the investment in the nations and regions.

The, um, wonderful UK originated content the BBC is capable of producing.

15:35

Speaker 1

-

We'd be interested if you wanted to send us a list of them afterwards. Yes. Okay.

15:35

Speaker 12

-

Can I just follow up on that?

15:35

Speaker 1

-

Well, I think Charles wants to follow.

15:35

Speaker 11

-

Inevitably, what you've just talked about leads to the suggestion that has been made that the BBC should be at the core of any kind of of UK sovereign AI fund, and it should use its massive data to be able to create something that's specifically based on UK data with public service values. The Dutch have just done this with their public service broadcasters in collaboration with universities, libraries, museums. It's called public spaces.nl and has has been quite successful in giving in in giving the Dutch public some sort of feeling that that there is a.

AI. Mechanism which actually is is is for them and has their values rather than just the values of of profitability. Um. For this to happen, it would have to be in, in collaboration with, with all of you, I should imagine all your companies. Is that something that, that you think we should even be doing?Or is it, as Stevens just said, we're just recreating something that's there already supported by global companies with billions of dollars to throw at this issue?

15:36

Speaker 4

-

I mean, I'll pick that up. I mean, I wouldn't claim to have an incredibly good insight into the development of LLMs, but I can see the amount of money that's being spent. Um, every single month by the companies who are driving this forward. And I would be very cautious about suggesting that the BBC would be able to replicate that, or any of us would be able to. Um, I can see the attractiveness of having, um, reassuring the public that there is a model out there which was built in the UK and has UK values, but I think actually we should be focused on trying to make sure that the, the AI companies are behaving responsibly, that they are using our content appropriately, um, and that we are seeking to try and influence by making sure that actually they also use where, where companies allow and give great prominence to UK values and response to people here.

So I focus more on trying to make sure the AI companies are acting appropriately as they exist, rather than trying to replicate their technology from the BBC.

15:36

Speaker 5

-

I think I think the other thing is that our experience of the market is that you can you can pick up tech down the track really quite affordably. Um, and so the BBC were obviously well ahead of their time and it's fantastic. They've made a blaze, a trail with iPlayer, but they sort of built it themselves. And that's terrific in many ways. When we came into the market, we spent a lot less money because it was quite easy to pick up a lot of the tech that we needed.

And there's just a question for Britain there, I think, about whether you want to whether you can now be in the position of the BBC spending and creating iPlayer in a world where Steven says, you've got people basically spending trillions of dollars to create the same thing, or whether actually you're better off being a fast follower and actually picking up an awful lot of this stuff when it gets commercialised. Um, because in the end, it will, they'll have to, it'll have to be commercialised because there won't be models otherwise.

They're putting so much money into it. So I think there's just a question there. And then then it takes you back to what we were saying before, which is where are the niches?Where are the bits that other people aren't going to do, where the BBC can make a big difference and where we can, frankly, feed into the BBC's decisions around what it decides to do and what it doesn't. So I think a degree of oversight. External oversight and input would be really important.

15:38

Speaker 1

-

Veronica, you. To comment on that.

15:38

Speaker 12

-

Yes. I was really interested in the question, both from Magnus and from Steven. Would absolutely agree personally that the BBC may in the past have been leading in technology. But the world has changed very, very dramatically in the last 20 years, let alone 50 years. And using data from the past, obviously, you know, makes sense. What you already have is the value as opposed to competing with the big tech companies globally to do something, you know, bright ideas, they may pop up, but to actually invest people and time at the BBC to try and have a bright idea doesn't seem to be I mean, the fast follower seems to be a much more, um um plausive.

Course of action and I would be very concerned of the BBC suddenly saw itself as as as, as an innovator when it's actually, you know, it doesn't really have that traction anymore. It has many other things, the core values and the core product. But I'm pleased that you, um, had have that caution about it.

15:39

Speaker 5

-

It's interesting, isn't it?Because it almost begs the question, where is the BBC a world leader?And if you were, if the BBC is a world leader in in creative content, in initiating, initiating genuinely content which changes the world. And if you had that franchise, you would say, that's where we need to go because there's loads of other people doing all these other things in tech and AI and all the rest of it. But we have a unique franchise here where we lead the world, and that's where we should double down.

And because they're genuinely world class at doing it.

15:39

Speaker 3

-

Then, as you were saying at the beginning, it's it's how you then distribute that world class information to audiences, um, and audiences then that justify you being a public service broadcaster, making the world class content. So it's Martin's point really. You know, there is an issue here about control, is there not one can be a fast follower and. Speed off the rails. Um, so the balance that Martin was talking about between, between the issues of sort of, as it were doing those deals and control are the ones that are where I suppose the greatest risks slash opportunities are.

And it's managing that. From what you were saying earlier, um, that you see as the path forward.

15:40

Speaker 6

-

And there probably is a role at least as a question about the role for regulation in that. It designed to upweight the, uh, appearance of. The discoverability of UK produced PSM, that it seems a legitimate, legitimate question 70 years ago, and it remains the same, though the platforms are entirely different and the environment is different. But it's the same question.

15:40

Speaker 3

-

Yes. An interesting. Martin, you just said PSM. In other words, you follow the content, not the not the broadcaster.

15:41

Speaker 6

-

Yes. Public service media.

15:41

Speaker 3

-

If if if Sky is producing public service media, then that would be. Absolutely.

15:41

Speaker 6

-

Have to acknowledge that some of the new.

15:41

Speaker 3

-

Some within that. Yes.

15:42

Speaker 6

-

Some of the new players also beyond Sky, I mean, adolescence is a Netflix show.

15:42

Speaker 3

-

15:42

Speaker 6

-

Show produced by a company which we're partially invested, by the way. But anyway, yes it is. Um, yeah, it would recognise it where it is. It's just that there isn't very much of it coming. With the honourable exception of Sky, there's not much coming from new platforms spending on originated new content in the UK. We still create the vast majority of that.

15:42

Speaker 5

-

Well, and there's no news and you have to pay for it. Yeah. Beg your pardon?And there's no news. Yes. And you have to pay for it. Mhm.

15:43

Speaker 10

-

15:43

Speaker 1

-

Final question. Oh, no. So did you have.

15:43

Speaker 3

-

No, no, I was just.

15:43

Speaker 13

-

Reading the microphone at me. Um, because I've just been in the house to ask a question about sovereign AI models. And I noticed when doing my homework before this committee meeting, that bottom of page 11, page 12. Um, the ITV written submission, uh, deals with that issue. Um, talks about the green paper anticipating the possibility of new opportunities to generate commercial revenue, including partnerships in AI. So one broad question is do you all agree with that. And working with the BBC on that.

And the subsidiary is about the question asked in the chamber just now. Um. Absolutely. Completely agree what it says at the top of page 12, the BBC's archive of high quality content is unmatched. We dare to make this available on a commercial basis, either to AI developers, for example, train their large language models, um, or to audiences via third party platforms. This would have a profound impact on the ability for other rights holders to do the same. I don't quite understand that, especially as what this committee is proposed as one of his recommendations on AI and copyright recommendation number six, and what was being discussed in the chamber is the fact, especially with the US having stopped access to Claude mythos and fable, we cannot rely forever on US Big Tech.

We should not see Chinese open source models as an alternative for other reasons. So the UK needs its sovereign AI model and the BBC and other SBS have got fantastic material with which to train such models. That we would consider as data assets. The BBC being one that provides a data. I can't quite see if it's for a sovereign UK model where the model will be trained using UK legislation. So transparency and respect for copyright. So there will be some payment back to the BBC for however much data it supplies for ITV.

If it supplies data, it might be less so. There'll be less of a payment, but I can't quite see why you're arguing against this. Um, in the context of what I've just described.

15:46

Speaker 1

-

Could I, could I just say because you were, you missed the first part of the question. We have already covered quite a lot of the ground here. So if you want to, to add to what you've already said, and that's if we can take it at that point, really.

15:46

Speaker 5

-

Should I say, on the basis that came out of the ITV submission. So um, and you may not, you may not know what it's talking about. Um so there's two questions. That we talked about before, who is the proprietor of the model and who's, who's funding it and who's developing it. And I think we have covered that. I think the second question is what, what are you using to train it, whether that's a global model or a UK model?And I think our simple point there was to say that the BBC could make the market for that training.

So if imagine a situation in which it did a deal at terms which may be disadvantageous from the commercial markets point of view, there may be no opportunity then for the commercial market, because the model is. So the content library is so enormous that actually, if you feed all that into a into an LLM, then there's really no need for anybody else's content because essentially you've got everything. And so it's more it's a narrower point potentially about the sort of deal that the BBC might do and the basis on which it might do it, essentially precluding the ability of others like ITV or other producers who have archives from the ability to monetize those archives in the event that we could we could sort out the underlying rights issues that we inevitably have with with licensing the archive to LMS.

15:47

Speaker 13

-

It's the other way around, actually, um, the BBC data have a big it is is nowhere near big enough to train a state of the art or near state of the art frontier AI model. If you think about it, they go through the whole of the internet, plus all the Facebook or meta messages and so on. They've been. So actually, the BBC archive is sizable, but not enough to train a model and so on. And therefore having data from other SBS would be very useful.

15:47

Speaker 5

-

I think you're you're therefore making a slightly different point to the one we made in our submission. The concern we had in our submission was about licensing to global, uh, global LMS. I think if your point is about how do you, how do you train a UK. LLM, then I would agree that. And I think that we have another, a different problem, which is how are they going to get enough data even if they got all of our archives and frankly, every archive that exists for every producer, you would only you wouldn't wouldn't be covering a fraction of the 400 hours that are uploaded on YouTube every single day and all the rest of it.

So I think that's, that's a that's a profound problem with creating an effective model in the UK. Will it ever have enough data to train itself effectively?And I'm right at the edge of my knowledge here about about how much data you would need to train an LLM. But my impression is that you need everything in the world sort of thing.

15:48

Speaker 13

-

Well, there is a halfway house where you don't, but it would be useful to have data from other sources. There's also the fact that you can use an app, for example, whisper, to translate audio content directly to text and increase the amount of text available. There's also the fact that the next generation will probably be a vision. Um, language. Model where video data is really useful. And it seems to me that actually our gating PSB data sets, or even the data sets from everybody represented together here and.

But for a UK LLM with UK rules, no large language model has been trained in this country because of the copyright rules that we have. This would be a first showing a could be done. Um whilst having full respect of the UK laws. And that's why I think it's very important. And yes, uh, full disclosure, as a senior advisor to institute, I've been to the BBC to talk to them about this and I've met Peter Archer, the head of AI and so on.

So we are proceeding with this discussion, but I would I think it would be even better if other broadcasters joined in. Yeah, I.

15:50

Speaker 1

-

I think I think we'll leave that there. Thank you.

15:50

Speaker 2

-

It was worth doing though, because we were in great danger of just accepting the evidence that it was all beyond us and we were to get into, um, one of the back carriages that I think that debate that you've just outlined is still alive. And I don't think this committee should rush.

15:50

Speaker 1

-

No, I, I don't know if there are any final points you want us to make about, about the the mandate that we suggest giving to the BBC around R&D?I think it's just anything to add. It's I think because Lionel wasn't here to ask his question and I've had to put it. Um, it's it's this question. We've jumped around a bit. Is there anything else that you want to to add around that. I think there was the notion that the um, clearly.

I think the panel sees R&D as a core part of what the BBC should be doing. Um, but, you know, the extent to which that and growth go into the mandate is, is a sort of a point that you've all expressed your views on. So is there anything else to add on that, do you think?

15:51

Speaker 8

-

I mean, I'll just add to that point. Um, chair, the, the BBC has to be audience first. And therefore if there is R&D that can clearly benefit audiences, that can be shared with the wider sector, whether that be PSB or PSB to, to, to lift everything, then that's clearly of benefit. But we, we are hesitant as you heard heard from us of, you know, pushing the BBC down a road where it is required to entertain, um, expensive, sort of expensive R&D that sort of leads to nowhere.

But clearly, if there is audience focused, viewer beneficial R&D that we can all share or work together on, that's clearly of benefit. I think to be clear, we would absolutely support that. Um, it's just where there's a, where you're, you're forcing the BBC to sort of move out where there's a questionable benefit to audiences that's outside the current charter. We'd question that.

14:14

Speaker 1

-

Well thank you. Thank you. If nobody has anything else to add to that, that's that's fine. I think I think that was really worth exploring actually with you all today and all the questions. Thank you. And, uh, um, you'll be, uh, there is a transcript that will be available. So, um. I think we'll just leave it there. Thank you very much. And we look forward to hearing more about this as we, as we go ahead with our policy letter.

We won't be producing a report at the end of this. It's a it's a policy letter that that is going to be produced after we've had meetings with the leadership of the BBC. But thank you very much for your input.

14:14

Speaker 8

-

14:14

Speaker 3

-

Thanks very much.

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page