Culture, Media and Sport Committee
Monday 13th July 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
16:32
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Welcome to the meeting of the culture, Media and Sport Select Committee. Today is the final oral oral evidence session for our BBC Royal Charter Review Inquiry, and we are joined by the Secretary of State for culture, Media and Sport, the Right Honourable Lisa Nandy MP and Robert Spectrum and Green, the Director of Media and International at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. You're both very welcome. Thank you so much for joining us. Before I begin, I just need to remind members to declare any interest at the point that they ask their questions.
Can I kick off, please?Secretary of state, we had the BBC in to see us last week, and we asked them about some of the new responsibilities that the Green Paper suggests that they take on. It suggests that there are new public purposes, things like technology and innovation, and maybe mis and disinformation. Effectively, what they said is, yeah, it's a great idea, but we need the funding. It's a fair challenge, isn't it?If you're asking them to do more. Green paper in the future of the BBC?
Can I kick off, please?Secretary of state, we had the BBC in to see us last week, and we asked them about some of the new responsibilities that the Green Paper suggests that they take on. It suggests that there are new public purposes, things like technology and innovation, and maybe mis and disinformation. Effectively, what they said is, yeah, it's a great idea, but we need the funding. It's a fair challenge, isn't it?If you're asking them to do more. Green paper in the future of the BBC?
16:33
16:33
16:33
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah, I do, but I think it is a challenge. I think it's a fair challenge to the government, but I think it's also a challenge for us to meet this moment. But I've been really clear that we're determined to do it, and I think the BBC is in a challenging position at the moment. I watched your session with the chair and the new director general. Um, a couple of days ago, and I think they outlined it in starker terms. I don't need to repeat it here, but you've got the challenge of the funding model.
Um, at a time when all public service broadcasters are struggling with reduced advertising revenues. So for, for the reasons that Matt Britton outlined the challenge of, um, the commercialisation is very great. You've got changing viewing habits as well. And so the BBC, as it's always done throughout its 100 year history, is having to adapt and innovate for that new world, particularly on the technology front, which means investment. They're doing it at a time when fewer people are paying the licence fee.
And against a backdrop where over the last 15 years or so, the licence fee has been more often frozen than not. Not under this government, I should say. We took the decision to raise it in line with inflation, even in the cost of living crisis, but also where a number of concessions have been made that have been unfunded and that the BBC has had to meet. And I guess I would just add to that as a very brief sort of intro to the challenge that we've got is that you're doing all of this against a backdrop in which, um, you're seeing huge consolidation of major players in the broadcasting landscape.
Uh, the BBC, um, is, is one of our biggest, it's our biggest intervention in the creative industries, but it's, it's facing an environment in which scale really matters. Um, so I think the challenge is great, but yes, we intend to, to meet that challenge and to make sure that the BBC is adequately and sustainably funded through this charter.
Um, at a time when all public service broadcasters are struggling with reduced advertising revenues. So for, for the reasons that Matt Britton outlined the challenge of, um, the commercialisation is very great. You've got changing viewing habits as well. And so the BBC, as it's always done throughout its 100 year history, is having to adapt and innovate for that new world, particularly on the technology front, which means investment. They're doing it at a time when fewer people are paying the licence fee.
And against a backdrop where over the last 15 years or so, the licence fee has been more often frozen than not. Not under this government, I should say. We took the decision to raise it in line with inflation, even in the cost of living crisis, but also where a number of concessions have been made that have been unfunded and that the BBC has had to meet. And I guess I would just add to that as a very brief sort of intro to the challenge that we've got is that you're doing all of this against a backdrop in which, um, you're seeing huge consolidation of major players in the broadcasting landscape.
Uh, the BBC, um, is, is one of our biggest, it's our biggest intervention in the creative industries, but it's, it's facing an environment in which scale really matters. Um, so I think the challenge is great, but yes, we intend to, to meet that challenge and to make sure that the BBC is adequately and sustainably funded through this charter.
16:35
16:35
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Um, the Treasury and I have had a number of discussions about this, some of which have been very pleasant and some of which have been slightly more robust. Um but I think there is a shared belief across government, including the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, that the BBC is one of the most important institutions in this country, alongside the NHS. I would say that it's one of the two most important. If the NHS is responsible for the health of our people. I think the BBC is responsible for the health of our democracy and our nation.
16:36
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Um, what about these claims?I don't know if you've had the chance to see some of the other evidence sessions that we've taken, but some people argue the BBC should just be smaller. It tries to do too much. Um, we asked uh, Mr.. If the BBC could be smaller and he said you could have a BBC that did less, but that it wouldn't be able to live up to its current remit. What do you think?Do you think the BBC is trying to do too much?
16:36
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I followed the discussion. I think it was Natasha who started the discussion about Scooby Doo, which then took up a fair chunk of the committee's evidence session. And I think there are fair challenges to the BBC about when it should be competing with commercial broadcasters, and whether that is a good use of public money. But I think instinctively I would say that I am where the BBC current leadership is on this question. I think the BBC is not just the last resort to compensate for market failure.
Um, and I would take the committee back to the sort of reithian principles of inform, educate and entertain. I think the BBC is as much a shared civic space as our town centres, and our church halls are. I think that those civic spaces have been lost over recent years. I think they need nurturing. And when they bring people together as no other public broadcaster is able to do through those shared national moments like the V commemorations, which were the most watched of all time, Remembrance Sunday and other big national moments.
We've got the World Cup going on at the moment, and I think that is something that is worth treasuring and worth protecting. And you can't do that if the BBC just becomes there solely in order to compensate for market failure.
Um, and I would take the committee back to the sort of reithian principles of inform, educate and entertain. I think the BBC is as much a shared civic space as our town centres, and our church halls are. I think that those civic spaces have been lost over recent years. I think they need nurturing. And when they bring people together as no other public broadcaster is able to do through those shared national moments like the V commemorations, which were the most watched of all time, Remembrance Sunday and other big national moments.
We've got the World Cup going on at the moment, and I think that is something that is worth treasuring and worth protecting. And you can't do that if the BBC just becomes there solely in order to compensate for market failure.
16:37
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
This all sounds this all sounds really impressive. The green paper, some some have suggested was a little bit unambitious in that it took some of the funding options off of the table. It immediately said it didn't want to look at the scope of the BBC. Do you think the Green Paper started off on the right foot by being as kind of open minded to the and generally accepting of the challenges that BBC face and the changes that are going to be needed to change it and make it ready to face the challenges of the future.
16:38
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
We very deliberately took an approach in the Green Paper that was as open as possible and closed off as few options as possible, because I believe the BBC belongs to the whole nation, and people have to feel that level of ownership of it. We just touched briefly on the falling numbers of people who are paying the licence fee. I think that is an existential threat to the BBC, and so we have to take the public with us. They have to be able to drive that change, and I think it was right to be fairly open in that approach.
What I would say, though, and this may come through today through this evidence session, is that over recent months, I've had discussions with many members of this committee and other parliamentarians, including my opposite number, Nigel Huddleston. I've talked with the outgoing director general, the interim director general and the incoming director general. Many BBC staff up and down the country, including through the the NUJ and Bectu and with the public, and I've got a much clearer sense now of what we will be proposing through the White Paper, which will be much clearer about the vision that we have for the BBC, and I'd be really happy to share some of that with the committee today.
What I would say, though, and this may come through today through this evidence session, is that over recent months, I've had discussions with many members of this committee and other parliamentarians, including my opposite number, Nigel Huddleston. I've talked with the outgoing director general, the interim director general and the incoming director general. Many BBC staff up and down the country, including through the the NUJ and Bectu and with the public, and I've got a much clearer sense now of what we will be proposing through the White Paper, which will be much clearer about the vision that we have for the BBC, and I'd be really happy to share some of that with the committee today.
16:39
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Excellent, perfect. Well, let's talk about the current situation. And for the BBC, which you just mentioned, the fact that basically 94% of adults are using the BBC, but only 80% of the households are paying. Obviously, that's an issue that in a. First glance is going to require some fairly substantial reform to. The licence fee. Are you considering expanding the scope of the licence fee to include watching content from streamers and video sharing platforms on any connected device?
16:39
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
And that's one of the options that is under consideration. So you'll remember that in the Green Paper we committed to retaining the licence fee. But reform um we ruled out a new tax on households because of the cost of living crisis. We ruled out general taxation because of the risk of political interference. And we said that there would be no levy on streamers, because I had an open mind about this when I came into the job. But I've since, um, come to the view that the, um, that this is an ecosystem, the likes of Netflix and others invest in the UK because of the BBC, but in return that is good for the BBC and it's good for the creative industries as a whole.
And we think a levy on streamers would deter that investment and harm the ecosystem, including the BBC. But there are other options that that are available. One, as you said, is expanding the scope to video on demand services. Uh, could also expand the scope to video on demand services and, um, platforms as well. Uh, there are also options around commercialisation, which I know that you touched on with the new director general. Um, and I guess the final option that I would say to the committee that we're considering is that you could well end up end up with a mix of those different options, uh, to varying degrees.
I'm instinctively, I instinctively think that there are limits to commercialisation. I think there comes a point with commercialisation where the BBC ceases to be the BBC. So I think that has to be approached with caution. But I do know that there's more that the BBC could do to exploit its commercial revenue. But again, take you back to the original, the original challenge that you posed to us, that will depend on there being the investment up front in order to realize the benefits of that.
And we think a levy on streamers would deter that investment and harm the ecosystem, including the BBC. But there are other options that that are available. One, as you said, is expanding the scope to video on demand services. Uh, could also expand the scope to video on demand services and, um, platforms as well. Uh, there are also options around commercialisation, which I know that you touched on with the new director general. Um, and I guess the final option that I would say to the committee that we're considering is that you could well end up end up with a mix of those different options, uh, to varying degrees.
I'm instinctively, I instinctively think that there are limits to commercialisation. I think there comes a point with commercialisation where the BBC ceases to be the BBC. So I think that has to be approached with caution. But I do know that there's more that the BBC could do to exploit its commercial revenue. But again, take you back to the original, the original challenge that you posed to us, that will depend on there being the investment up front in order to realize the benefits of that.
16:41
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Right. So let me just take you back. Thank you. Let me just take you back to those first couple of options that you mentioned, the, um, uh. Expanding the scope of the licence fee to include watching from streamers or from video sharing platforms. It sounds quite straightforward, but it could be quite complicated. How would you imagine that this would be firstly monitored and secondly, enforced.
16:42
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
And so we're looking at a whole range of options around around that at the moment. I think the director general's view is that a household levy is much simpler. It is much simpler, but it's also potentially more regressive. Um, and at a time when the cost of living is really biting for a lot of people, a new tax on households, I think is, is, is too, too challenging to ask most families to accept. So we're looking at a range of options of how you could apply potentially to expand the scope.
Um, you could add, for example, a charge onto people's streaming subscriptions, for example, that would be paid by the consumer. You could have a staggered approach. So it's been suggested to us that, um, uh, you could have a staggered approach where you might pay a small additional amount. Um, if you had a streaming service, um, rather than the full licence fee, or you could expand the scope to everybody who's got one. You could ask them to pay extra as part of their subscription, but you could then um, task the BBC with having targeted concessions for people who needed them or who used BBC services less.
You could also potentially just cut the cost of the licence fee for everybody. Um, if you were to expand the scope. So there's a whole range of options on the table. And I do just want to stress because every time I get into any kind of discussion about the licence fee or how the BBC is funded, it sparks a whole range of new stories that the government has come to a conclusion and has a secret plot to enact it. We haven't.
We're genuinely having an open conversation with the public, with Parliament and with the BBC about this.
Um, you could add, for example, a charge onto people's streaming subscriptions, for example, that would be paid by the consumer. You could have a staggered approach. So it's been suggested to us that, um, uh, you could have a staggered approach where you might pay a small additional amount. Um, if you had a streaming service, um, rather than the full licence fee, or you could expand the scope to everybody who's got one. You could ask them to pay extra as part of their subscription, but you could then um, task the BBC with having targeted concessions for people who needed them or who used BBC services less.
You could also potentially just cut the cost of the licence fee for everybody. Um, if you were to expand the scope. So there's a whole range of options on the table. And I do just want to stress because every time I get into any kind of discussion about the licence fee or how the BBC is funded, it sparks a whole range of new stories that the government has come to a conclusion and has a secret plot to enact it. We haven't.
We're genuinely having an open conversation with the public, with Parliament and with the BBC about this.
16:43
16:43
16:44
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I see, okay, perfect. And then assuming that a reform licence fee is the outcome, who's going to be the people responsible for communicating that to the public because, well, you know, look at the figures. 94% of adults use the BBC, but only 80% of households are paying for it. So that suggests that there's a 14% gap between people who think that the BBC is, um, worth paying for and or sort of don't even understand that they're actually watching BBC services, uh, that needs. To be communicated.
So whose role is it to do that, to tell the public the licence fee has changed and that more households might have to pay?
So whose role is it to do that, to tell the public the licence fee has changed and that more households might have to pay?
16:44
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah. So I'd say there are two, two main, uh, places where. That has to happen. The first is it's our responsibility in government. If we're asking if we're changing the system through the charter and we're asking people to come in scope of the licence fee who weren't in it previously, then we have to go out and make the case and win the argument. I think the second group of people who are responsible for that are the BBC themselves.
Um, and I think they do need to do more to help to communicate what people get for the BBC. Not least that if you watch any Netflix show, um, on any Amazon Prime show, any Apple TV show, it's likely that at some point you'll be watching something that has been made with the support of BBC, the BBC infrastructure, um, that has been made with um staff who've been trained by the BBC. At some point everything comes back in this country, in the creative industries to the BBC.
And so I think the BBC has to do more to communicate that. The final thing I would say is that I also think that people have to believe in what they're getting, and that is why we went out with a very broad consultation, why we've done a lot of work and are continuing to do a lot of work around the country, because in the end, the BBC will last for as long as people are willing to support it, and we've got to make sure that the things that the BBC are providing are the things that people love.
It's why, when I first became culture secretary, I did my first visit to Mediacity to meet hacker T dog, who hails from Wigan, one of Wigan's finest. And because I wanted to reset the conversation and remind people of some of the things that we all love about the BBC, I appreciate. Bite size is a little controversial in this committee, but the children's programming more generally, I think, is something that the whole country believes in about the BBC and values and wants to protect, and I think it is incumbent on us to make sure that we support those things through the charter, so that people aren't just being asked to pay, but they're getting what they need from the national broadcaster.
Um, and I think they do need to do more to help to communicate what people get for the BBC. Not least that if you watch any Netflix show, um, on any Amazon Prime show, any Apple TV show, it's likely that at some point you'll be watching something that has been made with the support of BBC, the BBC infrastructure, um, that has been made with um staff who've been trained by the BBC. At some point everything comes back in this country, in the creative industries to the BBC.
And so I think the BBC has to do more to communicate that. The final thing I would say is that I also think that people have to believe in what they're getting, and that is why we went out with a very broad consultation, why we've done a lot of work and are continuing to do a lot of work around the country, because in the end, the BBC will last for as long as people are willing to support it, and we've got to make sure that the things that the BBC are providing are the things that people love.
It's why, when I first became culture secretary, I did my first visit to Mediacity to meet hacker T dog, who hails from Wigan, one of Wigan's finest. And because I wanted to reset the conversation and remind people of some of the things that we all love about the BBC, I appreciate. Bite size is a little controversial in this committee, but the children's programming more generally, I think, is something that the whole country believes in about the BBC and values and wants to protect, and I think it is incumbent on us to make sure that we support those things through the charter, so that people aren't just being asked to pay, but they're getting what they need from the national broadcaster.
16:46
16:47
16:47
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thanks and good afternoon, chair and committee. Um, so we've, uh, the public consultation on the Green Paper has concluded. We're working through the responses that we got over 120,000 of them. Uh, we're looking to, um, firm up the white paper by the end of this calendar year. There will then need to be, um, we need to present a draft charter which has to be debated in Parliament before ultimately it's adopted by His Majesty the King in council. And obviously we need to conclude the whole process by the end of 2027.
Um, because that's when the current charter expires.
Um, because that's when the current charter expires.
16:48
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Then some of the suggestions that are in this paper are in the green paper and that we've talked about during the inquiry, such as, um, funding changes or new digital functions, would they be, I mean, some of those are quite complicated. Would they be ready to go by the end of 27, or would they be a sort of gradual implementation?
16:48
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Um I think there are if I may. Two um responses to. That there's a choice as to what you might put in the charter and what you might put in the framework agreement that sits alongside the charter, which, which is a document that allows you to get into a bit more detail about the delivery and implementation of some of the charter provisions. And then, of course, there's always the choice of staggering and sequencing when, for example, new provisions might come in. That's something that we would need to work through when we're finalising the charter and the framework agreement by its name.
The framework agreement is agreed with the BBC. Um, unlike the charter, um it's so there's a debate, a conversation that could be had there.
The framework agreement is agreed with the BBC. Um, unlike the charter, um it's so there's a debate, a conversation that could be had there.
16:48
16:49
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you very much, Caroline. Secretary of State, I'm going to try and push you to, for absolute clarity on one point. So which has already come up today in the Green Paper. It was clear and. Explicit on page 71 that you were discounting the idea of either general of funding the BBC, either through general taxation or through. It says through a household levy, we might debate the difference between household levy and household tax. So I got the other way around in the Green Paper household tax.
Um, then on your interview on radio four, more recently, you said something, uh, I think a little different. You said to me again today rather than more nuanced, I know you also say this thing that if somebody asks you about an option and you refuse to totally rule it out, everyone says it's ruled in. But given that you did explicitly rule it out in the green paper, can you just give us not just for us, but for the sector?Just give clarity about whether, uh, the principle of a household levy, albeit maybe in different ways, that is still under is it is or is not under consideration.
Um, then on your interview on radio four, more recently, you said something, uh, I think a little different. You said to me again today rather than more nuanced, I know you also say this thing that if somebody asks you about an option and you refuse to totally rule it out, everyone says it's ruled in. But given that you did explicitly rule it out in the green paper, can you just give us not just for us, but for the sector?Just give clarity about whether, uh, the principle of a household levy, albeit maybe in different ways, that is still under is it is or is not under consideration.
16:50
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So I guess part of the confusion about this is that different people in this debate seem to use the same terms to mean different things. So what we've ruled out are three things. The, the, the levy on streamers, streaming, streaming companies, which I talked about, the general taxation, which I think we're clear about. And then the new tax on households. So that would essentially be a kind of flat tax, a bit like council tax or something like that. Um, or just a charge per household where you ask people to pay a new tax in order to fund the BBC instead of the licence fee.
Um, what we, I don't think I said anything different on radio four because I've been clear about that in my mind for at least 12 months, if not longer. Um, but what we have tried to do.
Um, what we, I don't think I said anything different on radio four because I've been clear about that in my mind for at least 12 months, if not longer. Um, but what we have tried to do.
16:50
16:51
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
We've made no decisions about how we're going to fund the BBC, apart from ruling out these options. So I think I did reference on on radio four that we'd ruled out some options, but I'm not sure if I was explicit about what they were, but we the, the position that we outlined in the Green Paper remains. We've ruled out those three specific options. We are looking at other options.
16:51
16:51
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I'm not sure that it does really. I mean, what we what we don't want to do is, um, is to charge households more for the BBC across the board through a new, you can call it a tax or you could call it a levy, but we don't want to do that. We ruled that out specifically because we are in a cost of living crisis. And we think that would be too difficult. The difference between that and the option that I was just discussing with the chair about expanding the scope, is that there are people who currently rely on the BBC.
They use the BBC that it may not think they do or know they do, but they may, for example, use the BBC website. They may well listen to BBC radio. Um, or they may be watching shows that are on streaming, on demand services that have been made with BBC money, BBC staff and BBC infrastructure. Um, and I think that is a fair option to consider, but like I said, we genuinely haven't come to a conclusion about whether that's the right option or not.
They use the BBC that it may not think they do or know they do, but they may, for example, use the BBC website. They may well listen to BBC radio. Um, or they may be watching shows that are on streaming, on demand services that have been made with BBC money, BBC staff and BBC infrastructure. Um, and I think that is a fair option to consider, but like I said, we genuinely haven't come to a conclusion about whether that's the right option or not.
16:52
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
How would you respond to the suggestion that in trying to add up all these things, so the traditional kind of TV licence base, plus, if you've got video on demand, you're on some other platform or you're adding a fee to the streaming fee subscription in a. Fact, what you're just trying to do is come up with a formula which includes every household in the country. So wouldn't it be simpler administratively from a cost perspective, to just have a charge on every household in the country?
16:52
16:53
16:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
You could you could still have exemptions. Yeah. But the, you know, one of the things that that would catch is you'd have, you know, an older person who lives alone on a very low income, paying the same as a family, where you've got two very high income earners, um, and several people watching. So, um, I don't think it is the same because essentially the problem that we're trying to crack is that the BBC has to be adequately funded. The vast, vast majority of us use it.
And yet fewer and fewer of us are paying for it. And that's the challenge that we're trying to solve. Um, I mean, once once the BBC is gone, we will regret it. And so this charter is the most important of its kind because we've ducked the question about how to put it on a sustainable footing for too long. And whilst I'm sort of treading with care here because we genuinely haven't made the decision about this, and because there genuinely are no easy solutions to this, if they were, this committee and others would have come up with them by now.
I think what we have to be clear about what we're trying to achieve, we're trying to achieve a situation in which the BBC is sustainable, that it can continue to not just survive, but thrive, and that those of us who are using it are paying for it.
And yet fewer and fewer of us are paying for it. And that's the challenge that we're trying to solve. Um, I mean, once once the BBC is gone, we will regret it. And so this charter is the most important of its kind because we've ducked the question about how to put it on a sustainable footing for too long. And whilst I'm sort of treading with care here because we genuinely haven't made the decision about this, and because there genuinely are no easy solutions to this, if they were, this committee and others would have come up with them by now.
I think what we have to be clear about what we're trying to achieve, we're trying to achieve a situation in which the BBC is sustainable, that it can continue to not just survive, but thrive, and that those of us who are using it are paying for it.
16:54
16:54
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Um, because I was I was asked about it, um, several months ago and I was concerned that not to be clear about this would deter investment into the UK. There's something quite magical happening in the UK at the moment. You've got some of the biggest streaming companies in the world who are here, investing in, in very large numbers, not just in London and the South East, but right across the country, partly because of British creativity, partly because of the BBC, but also because everybody is on the hunt at the moment for locally rooted stories with universal appeal.
And the UK is brilliant at it. Um, and that is in turn having an incredible knock on effect in jobs and growth and opportunities in every nation and region. And I was concerned that the lack of clarity around that would deter that, that partnership and that investment.
And the UK is brilliant at it. Um, and that is in turn having an incredible knock on effect in jobs and growth and opportunities in every nation and region. And I was concerned that the lack of clarity around that would deter that, that partnership and that investment.
16:55
16:55
16:55
16:55
16:55
16:55
16:55
16:56
16:56
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you. Um, so this is, uh, I'm going to talk a little bit about advertising, although this touches on to the financial sort of case you mentioned earlier with regards to how important NHS is to the nation's health, which I completely agree. And the BBC, you mentioned its importance to sort of democracy and sort of nation and statehood. So how do we invest in the BBC?Um, we've got this, you know, it's a challenging time in terms of sort of advertising. And there is a, um, I.
Suppose a model already there with regards to UK TV. So do you see that being a potential avenue to increase advertising income into the BBC?
Suppose a model already there with regards to UK TV. So do you see that being a potential avenue to increase advertising income into the BBC?
16:57
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Um so I think the director general put it very well when he talked about the hammer blow that um the. ABC moving into advertising would strike to other public service broadcasters. And I share that view. I think those words hammer blow a mind actually not his. But that is my view. Um, advertising revenues are falling. Our public service broadcasters are really feeling the pinch. And I would say that if you look at the consolidation across the broadcasting landscape and the need to protect and preserve distinctly British content that our public service broadcasters matter now more than ever.
And that's not just about the BBC. So I think that advertising is the wrong approach for the BBC, because it's the wrong approach for the for the wider public service broadcasting ecosystem. I also think specifically in relation to the BBC, that what advertising does is it changes the nature of the organisation. Um, because the incentive is to chase ratings um rather than to inform, to educate and to entertain. Um and so I would be really concerned about the distorting impact that introducing advertising to the BBC would have.
Um on. On the nature of the BBC, I think we'd lose the thing that is most precious and most distinct about it.
And that's not just about the BBC. So I think that advertising is the wrong approach for the BBC, because it's the wrong approach for the for the wider public service broadcasting ecosystem. I also think specifically in relation to the BBC, that what advertising does is it changes the nature of the organisation. Um, because the incentive is to chase ratings um rather than to inform, to educate and to entertain. Um and so I would be really concerned about the distorting impact that introducing advertising to the BBC would have.
Um on. On the nature of the BBC, I think we'd lose the thing that is most precious and most distinct about it.
16:58
16:59
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah. So a couple of things on this. Um firstly I was interested in the discussion that you were having with the BBC about um the role of iPlayer and whether that can be broadened in order to reflect more, uh, public service media content. Um, we've already seen a really positive agreement struck with S4c's to ensure that more of their content is seen on iPlayer. Um, the discussions ongoing with channel four, I think that would be a really positive thing. Um, second thing I would say about revenues is there are a number of ways in which the BBC thinks that it can increase its commercial revenue.
One of those ways which I don't think was discussed in any detail at your previous evidence session, was the use of the BBC archives. But the BBC is sitting on a treasure trove of, um, of footage from times gone by. Now there's challenges around the rights to that, how it can be used, how it's licensed that I know the new director general is keen to overcome. There is also there is, you know, as we've discussed with this committee, a lot about the role that AI plays and some of the challenges that it poses to the creative industries.
But there is also the potential through the creative content exchange that we're pioneering here in the UK, for the BBC to use its archive in order to help drive, um, AI system. Aims by by making that content available for a fee through the Creative Content Exchange, which in turn raises money for the BBC to be reinvested in creative content and helps to improve those AI systems. So there is a potential win win there if we get it right. But again, to come right back to the beginning of this conversation, all of this rests on the BBC having sufficient income to be able to invest, um, in the short to medium term in order to, to realise the benefits of that.
One of those ways which I don't think was discussed in any detail at your previous evidence session, was the use of the BBC archives. But the BBC is sitting on a treasure trove of, um, of footage from times gone by. Now there's challenges around the rights to that, how it can be used, how it's licensed that I know the new director general is keen to overcome. There is also there is, you know, as we've discussed with this committee, a lot about the role that AI plays and some of the challenges that it poses to the creative industries.
But there is also the potential through the creative content exchange that we're pioneering here in the UK, for the BBC to use its archive in order to help drive, um, AI system. Aims by by making that content available for a fee through the Creative Content Exchange, which in turn raises money for the BBC to be reinvested in creative content and helps to improve those AI systems. So there is a potential win win there if we get it right. But again, to come right back to the beginning of this conversation, all of this rests on the BBC having sufficient income to be able to invest, um, in the short to medium term in order to, to realise the benefits of that.
17:00
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you. I mean, the DG sort of mentioned last week and you've sort of concurred with regards to sort of that historic back catalogue. We see organisations such as Disney are able to monetize that. And so I understand the issue around sort of rights. But um, at the moment we're not doing anything with it, just even 10 or 15 or 20% of that sort of back catalogue where it's rights free or the BBC own those rights can still sort of create an additional income into the organisation.
So, um, not so much a question, but an observation that you've concurred with, with the director general. That's certainly something that we would like to see because, you know, we've mentioned sweating the assets as a term a number of times. And so in terms of meeting that challenge of advertising, that's something that, you know, we.
So, um, not so much a question, but an observation that you've concurred with, with the director general. That's certainly something that we would like to see because, you know, we've mentioned sweating the assets as a term a number of times. And so in terms of meeting that challenge of advertising, that's something that, you know, we.
17:01
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I mean, I've discussed this with some of the staff at the BBC as well. I mean, one of the challenges is not just the challenge around rights. It's also there are challenges around the archiving system that the BBC currently has. It needs to be upgraded. Um, and, you know, there is a challenge at the moment of even just finding the right, the right footage and the right, the right programming. Um, you know, when you've got the funding challenges that the BBC has had, and I think the, the director general said that they'd lost over £1 billion over the last decade in income.
Inevitably, its investment in things like archives, that that will go first because you never start with programming that is popular. Um, so we've got to, we've got to solve that as part of the charter. And I think that the, um, the point that you made about Disney, the comparison that you made with Disney as well made, um, we've got to make sure that we can get the BBC on that similar footing as well. Thank you.
Inevitably, its investment in things like archives, that that will go first because you never start with programming that is popular. Um, so we've got to, we've got to solve that as part of the charter. And I think that the, um, the point that you made about Disney, the comparison that you made with Disney as well made, um, we've got to make sure that we can get the BBC on that similar footing as well. Thank you.
17:02
17:02
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
No. So the BBC, obviously you've got commercial parts of the BBC that operate in a different way. What I think I share with the BBC leadership is a caution around extending advertising across the board to BBC programming, for all of the reasons that I gave and the impact on the, the the ecosystem, but also because I talked a bit earlier about the need to bring the public with us. People have to believe in the BBC. It has to be their BBC.
If you're being asked to pay a licence fee and then you're watching adverts like you would on any other channel, I think people would then be entitled to ask what are they actually paying for and why are they paying extra when they're seeing the same adverts as they're seeing on other channels?So, um, for that reason, I think moving the BBC into the same realm as, say, ITV or channel four is a problem.
If you're being asked to pay a licence fee and then you're watching adverts like you would on any other channel, I think people would then be entitled to ask what are they actually paying for and why are they paying extra when they're seeing the same adverts as they're seeing on other channels?So, um, for that reason, I think moving the BBC into the same realm as, say, ITV or channel four is a problem.
17:03
17:03
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Yeah. I mean, as I think has come through from this discussion, we are very mindful of working through what the impacts would be on the BBC itself and also the what the impacts might be of any changes on the broader ecosystem. And this is an ecosystem which is held in a certain balance. And we're very conscious of, um, the, you know, risks to, to rocking the boat on that given the, the challenges facing the whole sector at the moment.
17:03
17:03
17:03
17:04
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Um, so, uh, every ten years when we come to renew the charter, um, there is an existential question about the BBC's right to exist. If for whatever reason, God forbid, I decided not to renew the charter, the BBC would cease to exist through this process. So at the end of 2027, the BBC would be no more. Um, I think that is something that we wouldn't accept for any other institution of its importance. We don't accept it for the Bank of England.
We don't accept it for the National Health Service. And so when I said that this will be the last charter of its kind and that the BBC will be put on a permanent charter, that was what I meant, that its existence won't be up for. Question what will still be debated, discussed and agreed through the charter process. Every decade is the terms of the BBC what its remit is, its structures and its funding arrangements will be questions for future governments to negotiate with the BBC and Parliament.
We don't accept it for the National Health Service. And so when I said that this will be the last charter of its kind and that the BBC will be put on a permanent charter, that was what I meant, that its existence won't be up for. Question what will still be debated, discussed and agreed through the charter process. Every decade is the terms of the BBC what its remit is, its structures and its funding arrangements will be questions for future governments to negotiate with the BBC and Parliament.
17:05
17:05
17:05
17:06
17:06
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
We've just been trying to nail down a little bit, not only with you, but with some other. It's a phrase that's just come out everyone saying permanent charter the whole time now. And we're trying to understand, I think, just what it means and what would be different in practical terms. I think in practical terms there would not be a difference. Is that fair to say?
17:06
17:07
17:07
17:07
17:07
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
No, of course it would be unsettling. But I mean, that is for future governments and parliaments to decide. We're certainly not proposing to do that as a government, but you've got to recognise to Damian that this is a historical anomaly. I mean, the BBC came into existence 100 years ago to ensure that Britain was at the forefront of a new form of technology, wireless technology. There was a great deal of tension with Fleet Street, who saw this as quite existential for them, and the charter was process was negotiated on that basis.
I think we now all accept as a nation that the BBC is a permanent part of our landscape and a much valued and much loved part of our landscape. And so we're correcting a historical anomaly to prevent that sort of disruption and upheaval that we see every decade.
I think we now all accept as a nation that the BBC is a permanent part of our landscape and a much valued and much loved part of our landscape. And so we're correcting a historical anomaly to prevent that sort of disruption and upheaval that we see every decade.
17:08
17:08
17:08
17:08
17:08
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
And thank you for every time there's a statement or a UQ, you always say how important the BBC is to the national story and all those things. So that's reassuring. I mean, the axe is swinging. There's all these very brutal cuts coming and you've acknowledged that as well. I just found you met with Matt Britton and said there's worries about the morale of staff. Um, I just wondered, have you had meetings with the unions about. Brilliant.
17:09
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yes. So I've recently met with Bectu and with NUJ. I've met with their leadership, but I've also met with workplace reps across the BBC from both of those unions. I have to say to you, Rupert, I am concerned about the cuts that were announced. Um, I'm concerned I've raised those concerns directly with the director general, although admittedly they were made and decided before he took up his post. I do find it somewhat strange that the cuts were decided before he was, uh, before he took up the post.
But after he'd been announced, um, and particularly what I'm concerned about is that through the charter process, we intend to build on the work that Tim Davie did to build out the footprint of the BBC across every nation and region of the United Kingdom. We intend to devolve more commissioning power. We tend to ensure that the BBC becomes what ITV actually was formed originally to do, which was to be the engine of the nations and regions and ensure that every part of the country was heard in our national conversation and the direction of travel of the cuts seems to me to be slightly at odds with that.
But after he'd been announced, um, and particularly what I'm concerned about is that through the charter process, we intend to build on the work that Tim Davie did to build out the footprint of the BBC across every nation and region of the United Kingdom. We intend to devolve more commissioning power. We tend to ensure that the BBC becomes what ITV actually was formed originally to do, which was to be the engine of the nations and regions and ensure that every part of the country was heard in our national conversation and the direction of travel of the cuts seems to me to be slightly at odds with that.
17:10
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
It seems they've had a lack of financial planning. It's almost like the black hole that nobody saw. If it's that severe, I think it's 1 in 10 jobs. There's more cuts being announced in September. Just I don't know. I just wondered which of the kind of funding obligations the conservative government's put on the BBC. Would you be prepared to maybe reopen?So I'm glad you've unfrozen. I mean, they always sold it as a populist thing.
We're freezing the fee, but if you're financially planning, you want a rising income. So it's good you've done that. Things like for example, the, um, the. Fee payment for over 75 year olds comes out of the BBC budget. Now, in theory, that's kind of a welfare thing. Is that something that maybe they could there be some give on that?And then the other one I've asked you in the chamber before, is their argument that National Insurance rises for people like schools and hospitals for these big public service employers?They're a bit protected.
Is there any way we could look at that?
We're freezing the fee, but if you're financially planning, you want a rising income. So it's good you've done that. Things like for example, the, um, the. Fee payment for over 75 year olds comes out of the BBC budget. Now, in theory, that's kind of a welfare thing. Is that something that maybe they could there be some give on that?And then the other one I've asked you in the chamber before, is their argument that National Insurance rises for people like schools and hospitals for these big public service employers?They're a bit protected.
Is there any way we could look at that?
17:12
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Um, so the first question about the sort of concessions, um, just want to be absolutely crystal clear with the committee that we're not going to remove the over 75 concession that is currently funded by the BBC. We haven't got an alternative way of paying for that from government. And so that is a responsibility that will remain with the BBC to be found out of their existing budgets. But I do recognise the challenges that you've posed. One of the ways that we've tried to alleviate that is by making sure that on each occasion, I think there have been two now where I, as the Secretary of State, have signed off the the licence fee amounts that we've lifted that in line with inflation, which I think has only happened a handful of times over the last 15 years, but has happened in every year under this government.
The other thing that we've done is we've increased the amount of Fcdo funding to the BBC World Service by 42% since we came into office. I recognise that this isn't sustainable. Um, the situation facing the BBC is not sustainable. That's something we have to fix through the charter. But we have pulled every lever at our disposal to be able to help alleviate the situation for the BBC in the short term.
The other thing that we've done is we've increased the amount of Fcdo funding to the BBC World Service by 42% since we came into office. I recognise that this isn't sustainable. Um, the situation facing the BBC is not sustainable. That's something we have to fix through the charter. But we have pulled every lever at our disposal to be able to help alleviate the situation for the BBC in the short term.
17:13
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah. So, um, I one of. The things that I'm very keen that we do through this charter process is to remove the political appointments from the board. I think that's damaged the public perception of the BBC. And actually having met Bectu and NUJ reps, I can tell you very compellingly that it's damaged staff confidence in their own leadership. Yeah. Um, we envisage a stronger role for the nations and regions, not a weaker role. The problem that I have with the current system is the political appointments.
Um, not the fact that the nations and regions are represented. Um, and we, NUJ and Bectu made a very, very strong and compelling case for having workers from the BBC on the board. So that is almost certainly something that we're going to pursue.
Um, not the fact that the nations and regions are represented. Um, and we, NUJ and Bectu made a very, very strong and compelling case for having workers from the BBC on the board. So that is almost certainly something that we're going to pursue.
17:14
17:14
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Um, so we are still discussing this with the BBC and others, but I'll share with you, if I might, my initial thinking around this. Um, I think it is right that the government continues to appoint the chair because I think there has to be some level of accountability through government back to Parliament. It's not lost on me that in the many crises that the BBC has had in recent years, it's been me who has been called into Parliament in order to account. And I think it's therefore very important that the continues to be some link.
But there are four political appointments on the board currently that I think have caused some serious damage to the BBC's reputation. I make no comments about any of the individuals who hold those roles. No. And I want I want to be really clear that I've worked with all four of those individuals, and I have no problem personally with any of them. The problem is the system whereby the government appoints, um, all of those post holders to the board itself. Um, I think one of the ways that we can, um, address that is having, uh, workplace representatives on the board of the BBC for the first time in its history.
Um, I can't tell the committee, actually, I can't, I can't emphasize strongly enough the gulf between what I hear from BBC employees and the account that I'm often given from BBC senior management, including the board, but also the senior executive team is really stark. Um, and I think for a healthy organisation, that is one way that we can address that. The second thing is that I've wrestled a lot with the question of accountability, because every time I appear in front of Parliament, uh, questions about the lack of accountability of the BBC come up from, from members, from all parties.
I had originally looked very closely at proposals made by Tessa Jowell and Francis Maude and some of my predecessors around Mutualisation. Um, I think the example of the National Trust is quite a cautionary tale. Um, and so the direction of travel that we're moving in as a government is to strengthen the accountability within the BBC to the nations and regions to make sure that there is that level of internal challenge that doesn't currently exist at the moment, I.
But there are four political appointments on the board currently that I think have caused some serious damage to the BBC's reputation. I make no comments about any of the individuals who hold those roles. No. And I want I want to be really clear that I've worked with all four of those individuals, and I have no problem personally with any of them. The problem is the system whereby the government appoints, um, all of those post holders to the board itself. Um, I think one of the ways that we can, um, address that is having, uh, workplace representatives on the board of the BBC for the first time in its history.
Um, I can't tell the committee, actually, I can't, I can't emphasize strongly enough the gulf between what I hear from BBC employees and the account that I'm often given from BBC senior management, including the board, but also the senior executive team is really stark. Um, and I think for a healthy organisation, that is one way that we can address that. The second thing is that I've wrestled a lot with the question of accountability, because every time I appear in front of Parliament, uh, questions about the lack of accountability of the BBC come up from, from members, from all parties.
I had originally looked very closely at proposals made by Tessa Jowell and Francis Maude and some of my predecessors around Mutualisation. Um, I think the example of the National Trust is quite a cautionary tale. Um, and so the direction of travel that we're moving in as a government is to strengthen the accountability within the BBC to the nations and regions to make sure that there is that level of internal challenge that doesn't currently exist at the moment, I.
17:16
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Mean, previously there was the old model of regional consultation boards that might be one to look at bringing back because again, we're all licence fee payers. And like you say, we feel a bit frozen out. It doesn't feel completely transparent that we know what's going on. Um, the chair of the BBC said that he would support the licence fee being set by an independent body. And there is worries that, look, if the polls are right, we're, you know, if it's true, we get a Farage government, an independent body setting the licence fee would be a good thing to safeguard all those things that we treasure and value.
About the BBC. What would be your views on that?
About the BBC. What would be your views on that?
17:16
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Um. My instinct we have, we haven't looked at that. And as far as I'm aware the BBC haven't put that to us as a proposal. But my instinct is that there does have to be a level of accountability, um, democratic accountability around the licence fee. It's not something that we ask people to pay. It's something that people have to pay. Um, not just if they want to watch BBC services, but if they want to watch television itself.
Um, so I would be cautious about removing um, accountability to the public at a time when I think most people feel that there should be more, um, you.
Um, so I would be cautious about removing um, accountability to the public at a time when I think most people feel that there should be more, um, you.
17:17
17:18
17:18
17:18
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I mean, if there were a compelling proposal around it, like I say, I haven't had anything from the chair on that or any, any sort of suggestion from him that he would he would like to see it. But if there are compelling proposal around it, of course we would look at it. What I would say, though, is that independent bodies, um, can look at for would look, for example, at the, the financial situation of the BBC. You do have to be mindful of the context that we're in, which is that we've had a cost of living crisis in this country for nearly two decades, certainly since the financial crash and in some parts of the country for longer.
And, um, I do think there are political considerations that come into this, like I said, to take the public with you. You can't ask people to pay more at a time when they don't have more. Um, and that in the end is a political decision. And it's one that has to command the support, not just of the government of the day, but of Parliament as well. Um, and I understand the anxiety around future governments who aren't necessarily favourably disposed towards the BBC, but in the end, that is democracy.
Yeah.
And, um, I do think there are political considerations that come into this, like I said, to take the public with you. You can't ask people to pay more at a time when they don't have more. Um, and that in the end is a political decision. And it's one that has to command the support, not just of the government of the day, but of Parliament as well. Um, and I understand the anxiety around future governments who aren't necessarily favourably disposed towards the BBC, but in the end, that is democracy.
Yeah.
17:19
17:19
17:19
17:19
17:19
17:20
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
And it's really exciting to hear about employees on boards. Um, and you were saying about us needing to ensure that it's their BBC and that they need to believe in it and that we need to build out. So what more could the BBC do to persuade audiences who may not see it as relevant?To think that the BBC is there for them?
17:20
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Um, so the BBC has done some some really good research on this, that there are certain, uh, audiences that they don't reach in particularly large numbers who don't see themselves reflected in that story. Um, I think the most obvious of that is young people, by which I don't mean that young people don't watch or engage with the BBC. I mean, I've got an 11 year old who watches Newsround every day and uses bite size, albeit I know it's a bit controversial. Um, but um.
Um there's, you know.
Um there's, you know.
17:20
17:21
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
There are, there are rightly different views in a democracy, but um, you know, the, the, the, the new leadership team is very keen to do more to reach young people and to make good programming for young people and to work with other public service broadcasters who already do this very well, like channel four and channel five as well. Um, I think though the, for me, the most stark challenge that we have as a country is that where you live in this country will very much depend on how you feel.
Uh, whether you feel that this country is working for you, whether you feel that this country is getting better and far too many of us, depending on where we live in the country, don't see ourselves reflected in the story we tell ourselves about ourselves as a nation. I think that's partly been because of the changes that we've seen to ITV, which really used to tell that story from the ground up in every in every nation and region. It still does a very good job on lots of things, but I think there has been a gap that has emerged that under Tim Davies leadership, the BBC has started to fill.
And so the discussion that Rupert and I were just having about structures, we have looked at whether to bring back regional boards in the BBC, and that's one option that's under consideration. I'm not, um, messianic about particular structures, but what I do want to see is commissioning power devolved to every nation and region so that those nations and regions are deciding for themselves what content is made. My counterpart in the Scottish Government, Angus Robertson, raised with me a little while ago the instance of traitors where um people were bussed in to Scotland from London in order to make distinctly Scottish content and then bussed back out again.
Now, you know, I guess the message to broadcasters from those of us who don't live in London in the South East, is that we can see you and we can see when this is not distinctly Scottish or northern or, uh, you know, Eastern Region content. And, um, we want to see our lives, our stories, our communities, our accents, our experiences reflected in the broadcasting that we have at the BBC does do a very good job at that, but far too much of its commissioning power is still held in, in broadcasting House, in my view.
Uh, whether you feel that this country is working for you, whether you feel that this country is getting better and far too many of us, depending on where we live in the country, don't see ourselves reflected in the story we tell ourselves about ourselves as a nation. I think that's partly been because of the changes that we've seen to ITV, which really used to tell that story from the ground up in every in every nation and region. It still does a very good job on lots of things, but I think there has been a gap that has emerged that under Tim Davies leadership, the BBC has started to fill.
And so the discussion that Rupert and I were just having about structures, we have looked at whether to bring back regional boards in the BBC, and that's one option that's under consideration. I'm not, um, messianic about particular structures, but what I do want to see is commissioning power devolved to every nation and region so that those nations and regions are deciding for themselves what content is made. My counterpart in the Scottish Government, Angus Robertson, raised with me a little while ago the instance of traitors where um people were bussed in to Scotland from London in order to make distinctly Scottish content and then bussed back out again.
Now, you know, I guess the message to broadcasters from those of us who don't live in London in the South East, is that we can see you and we can see when this is not distinctly Scottish or northern or, uh, you know, Eastern Region content. And, um, we want to see our lives, our stories, our communities, our accents, our experiences reflected in the broadcasting that we have at the BBC does do a very good job at that, but far too much of its commissioning power is still held in, in broadcasting House, in my view.
17:22
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think they've made an astonishingly good start. I think, um, it was a core part of Tim's, um, time as director general to build out that footprint. And I think Matt Britton talked to you about the, the stuff that he'd seen happening in Cardiff, which is genuinely mind blowing the way that the BBC has been able to be the catalyst for a golden age of programming in Cardiff and the surrounding area. Um, but I'd like to see us go much further and much faster.
Um, in particular, I'd like to see the commissioning power devolved to the nations and regions, not least because there are a lot of brilliant Indies in this country. I mean, he talked, I think, to the committee about Bad Wolf. Um, but there are lots of brilliant Indies who really do drive that locally rooted storytelling with universal appeal. Um, that every major streamer and investor is on the hunt for. Um, those Indies have struggled a lot in recent years. And one of the reasons that they struggle is because if you want to be commissioned as an indie, you have to try and convince somebody hundreds of miles away in the capital city that you've got a great story.
You have to get on a train to London. Oftentimes you're meeting will be cancelled at your own expense. You have to bid and pitch for that commission, and then you have to hope that somebody is enlightened enough to understand the value of that story. Uh, in a part of the country that feels and sounds and is very different. And I think we're missing a trick here. And I think the BBC has always been at its best when it's been a first mover that has helped to unlock things that others then then step into.
And I think this is one area where we could do far more.
Um, in particular, I'd like to see the commissioning power devolved to the nations and regions, not least because there are a lot of brilliant Indies in this country. I mean, he talked, I think, to the committee about Bad Wolf. Um, but there are lots of brilliant Indies who really do drive that locally rooted storytelling with universal appeal. Um, that every major streamer and investor is on the hunt for. Um, those Indies have struggled a lot in recent years. And one of the reasons that they struggle is because if you want to be commissioned as an indie, you have to try and convince somebody hundreds of miles away in the capital city that you've got a great story.
You have to get on a train to London. Oftentimes you're meeting will be cancelled at your own expense. You have to bid and pitch for that commission, and then you have to hope that somebody is enlightened enough to understand the value of that story. Uh, in a part of the country that feels and sounds and is very different. And I think we're missing a trick here. And I think the BBC has always been at its best when it's been a first mover that has helped to unlock things that others then then step into.
And I think this is one area where we could do far more.
17:23
17:23
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I've long thought it should shift north. I think it would be one of those moments where the BBC showed itself to be the first mover. Um, a bit like the work that was done at Mediacity all those years ago. That really has been a catalyst for a completely different broadcasting ecosystem opportunities opening up for people across the country, different mindset and way of thinking, more internal challenge within the BBC. Um, you know, I think back to the glory days of, of ITV and when Granada Television in the North West, which, you know, well I know um, was in its ascendancy and it really, it was the place that and local newspapers were the place where working class kids from towns like Wigan and Bury could get their entry point into the television industry and go on to become some of the best in the world.
Now, I think the BBC still does a lot of that, but I think for most young people growing up in towns like mine, those opportunities just don't exist anymore. And I think we should be ashamed as a nation about that. And this charter is one of the ways that we can set that right.
Now, I think the BBC still does a lot of that, but I think for most young people growing up in towns like mine, those opportunities just don't exist anymore. And I think we should be ashamed as a nation about that. And this charter is one of the ways that we can set that right.
17:24
17:24
17:24
17:25
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Yes. Just to supplement what the Secretary of State has said, I think the the other part of the answer to your question is not just what the BBC makes and the decision making processes that result in what it makes. But it's then how it makes that content available, how it distributes that content. And we are seeing the BBC do more on iPlayer. They've just reached a new partnership with YouTube, so they've got to go to where the audience is, particularly those younger people that you mentioned go themselves to find their content to ensure that it's accessible and considered to be relevant.
17:25
17:25
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah, I agree with that. I mean, I think you heard a lot in the evidence session from the BBC leadership about the strong recognition that they have to be more accessible when they're making great quality content that does reflect the lives of a broader audience, that those audiences have to be able to find it, which I think is the point you're making, Robert. But the, the, the, the area where I think we've got the most work to do actually is in making sure that that content is genuinely driven by those communities and the people in them.
Um, and, um, like I said, under Tim's leadership, the BBC made a huge start in increasing their regional footprint. What I want to do through this charter is not just move the people and the funding, but move the power as well.
Um, and, um, like I said, under Tim's leadership, the BBC made a huge start in increasing their regional footprint. What I want to do through this charter is not just move the people and the funding, but move the power as well.
17:26
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
I just really quick in terms of working class representation as well, because sometimes it's all well and good moving where stuff is, but actually you still lack getting more people from working class backgrounds involved. And what else do you see can be done to make sure that we get more working class representation in the BBC and at all levels?
17:26
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah. So this is something that I discussed with um BBC staff. So as well as the meetings that I've had with Bectu and NUJ reps, I've also done discussion groups with BBC staff in different parts of the UK and asked them specifically how we can help. I think I got a very clear message that there is a challenge getting into the industry, and obviously we will continue to work very hard to encourage young people from a very early age to be able to open up opportunities for them to go into the BBC, for the BBC to continue to do the outreach that it does very well, certainly in the North west, where I'm an MP, they do.
They do a stunning amount on that. The the the really big challenge that they identified for us, and I don't have an answer for you today, Vicky, but it is something that is exercising me greatly through this charter process is what happens once you get in and through the door is that often, especially being working class. But there are there are other other groups as well that are underrepresented. It's knowing how to advance. And so much of the TV industry is so casualised.
It depends on who you know and what you know, that if you don't know what to wear, if you don't know when to push and when to hold back, if you don't know who to talk to and you don't have the confidence or the networks to be able to ask, then you that's when you hit a glass ceiling. And that glass ceiling, that glass ceiling comes very early on. That's, that's what we've got to change. I wish I could say I could solve it for you today, but it's something that I'd really love to talk to the committee about more.
They do a stunning amount on that. The the the really big challenge that they identified for us, and I don't have an answer for you today, Vicky, but it is something that is exercising me greatly through this charter process is what happens once you get in and through the door is that often, especially being working class. But there are there are other other groups as well that are underrepresented. It's knowing how to advance. And so much of the TV industry is so casualised.
It depends on who you know and what you know, that if you don't know what to wear, if you don't know when to push and when to hold back, if you don't know who to talk to and you don't have the confidence or the networks to be able to ask, then you that's when you hit a glass ceiling. And that glass ceiling, that glass ceiling comes very early on. That's, that's what we've got to change. I wish I could say I could solve it for you today, but it's something that I'd really love to talk to the committee about more.
17:27
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Just very briefly and in defence of working class kids in London who ended up working in telly, I can assure you that we still exist down here. I just the point I wanted to sort of push on is I appreciate the BBC and is, uh, you know, the thing we're discussing and charter is what we're discussing. But in the context of the wider media landscape, could more pressure be put on the kind of new media, um, companies to locate outside of London, given that, you know, the conversation around, um, young people growing up in towns and cities across the country traditionally would have needed a big organisation like the BBC to make a breakthrough.
But now YouTube is democratising that a lot. And, uh, young people are able to create content in their bedrooms and find a voice internationally without having to rely on gatekeepers previously. So perhaps maybe more wider thinking around how we make those spaces open to people, that might be an easier sort of conversation.
But now YouTube is democratising that a lot. And, uh, young people are able to create content in their bedrooms and find a voice internationally without having to rely on gatekeepers previously. So perhaps maybe more wider thinking around how we make those spaces open to people, that might be an easier sort of conversation.
17:28
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I mean, I really agree. And look, Natasha, I wasn't saying that there aren't huge challenges for working class kids in London in breaking into industries like TV industry. I think what does strike me, though, is how often young people who want to break into the industry, because 88% of the TV and broadcasting industry is concentrated in London and the South East have to move to London, and then the housing costs just become completely prohibitive. So if there weren't enough barriers already, you face the sort of perfect storm.
But it's not to say that there aren't challenges there that we need to crack either. Um, and could, could other companies do more?Yeah, absolutely. And I don't think I've met anybody in the broadcasting industry over the last two years without saying, what are you doing to help break open these opportunities?And what are you doing to invest in other parts of the country?I have to say, with some of them, it's an absolute open door. So I guess I'd cite Netflix as an example of where they really do believe that the the stories that they need to find can't just be found in one part of the country.
I mean, I said it the other day, but I'll say it again, any country can make TV shows about posh boys playing gangsters, but not every country can make Gavin and Stacey and Derry girls. And so it does really matter that they have a footprint outside. It matters for them, not just for us.
But it's not to say that there aren't challenges there that we need to crack either. Um, and could, could other companies do more?Yeah, absolutely. And I don't think I've met anybody in the broadcasting industry over the last two years without saying, what are you doing to help break open these opportunities?And what are you doing to invest in other parts of the country?I have to say, with some of them, it's an absolute open door. So I guess I'd cite Netflix as an example of where they really do believe that the the stories that they need to find can't just be found in one part of the country.
I mean, I said it the other day, but I'll say it again, any country can make TV shows about posh boys playing gangsters, but not every country can make Gavin and Stacey and Derry girls. And so it does really matter that they have a footprint outside. It matters for them, not just for us.
17:29
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Can I just quickly ask you to. Say we took evidence from Dino Sofos from Persephone. I don't know if you had the chance to see that. We found it quite compelling. He said he wanted to turn the BBC building in Sheffield into a radio theatre north and include studio space that private sector could hire. So using the space for recording podcasts and skills training and genuine work experience, and as um bio said earlier, one of the themes of our questions across this last few weeks has been about sweating the assets.
Do you agree that BBC should think more creatively about how it uses its existing city centre buildings in ways like that?
Do you agree that BBC should think more creatively about how it uses its existing city centre buildings in ways like that?
17:30
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah, definitely. I mean, one of the things that I heard recently from one of the staff who was I met as part of the sort of engagement exercise, was that she's the only staff member who works in their building. And so it's not open access to the public anymore. They used to have school groups coming in. They used to have I mean, the BBC still invest hugely in things like choirs and orchestras and so on, but they used to have a lot of that.
It used to be a very porous building that could be used for the community and commercially. Um, but they don't even have a receptionist anymore. So there's literally nobody to go and open the door. Um, so what I suppose this comes back to the exchange I was just having with Rupa about my concern about the cuts is that I think the, the, the ability to do that depends on there being a regional footprint. And so if the BBC decides over the next few months to make huge cuts to its regional footprint, then all of those possibilities suddenly become become null and void.
Um, so I do welcome this inquiry because I think this is a moment to just pause and say, are we moving in the right direction or do we need to think again?
It used to be a very porous building that could be used for the community and commercially. Um, but they don't even have a receptionist anymore. So there's literally nobody to go and open the door. Um, so what I suppose this comes back to the exchange I was just having with Rupa about my concern about the cuts is that I think the, the, the ability to do that depends on there being a regional footprint. And so if the BBC decides over the next few months to make huge cuts to its regional footprint, then all of those possibilities suddenly become become null and void.
Um, so I do welcome this inquiry because I think this is a moment to just pause and say, are we moving in the right direction or do we need to think again?
17:31
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The other thing you mentioned, um, the independent production companies and you mentioned Bad Wolf, who you'll know is now the majority stake of that is now owned by Sony. So that's happening quite a lot. The independent are being bought up by, you know, the big, uh, international. Companies. Uh, but one of the things that they've said that would help them enormously to keep work in the UK, a lot of the TV, um, filming is going to Eastern Europe and other countries in Europe because of tax incentives.
As a committee, we recommended um, tax incentive for low budget British films and high end TV, but that's still big chunks of cash. Uh, what they're saying is that there should be tax incentives for that lower budget TV production, which would keep much more jobs and opportunities and skills and what have you here in the UK. Have you had any conversations with the Treasury about that?
As a committee, we recommended um, tax incentive for low budget British films and high end TV, but that's still big chunks of cash. Uh, what they're saying is that there should be tax incentives for that lower budget TV production, which would keep much more jobs and opportunities and skills and what have you here in the UK. Have you had any conversations with the Treasury about that?
17:32
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Um, so we have ongoing conversations with the Treasury about tax incentives, I think in fairness to my colleagues in the Treasury, they are very alive to the fact that the tax credits regime is because we were one of the first, if not the first in the world to implement that. Uh, it's what has helped both the film and TV industry to flourish. Um, it's one of the reasons why we, we moved very quickly in government to introduce the independent film tax credit. And in every spending review and budget, I've had conversations with the Chancellor and with the Chief Secretary to Treasury about how we keep our tax credit regime competitive, because, as you rightly say, and we recognise as a government, other countries are moving fast and we need to remain competitive in order to keep keep up, um, on that specific measure, we haven't made any announcement about that.
So I'm not in a position to give you an answer on that today, but it is something that we're aware of.
So I'm not in a position to give you an answer on that today, but it is something that we're aware of.
17:32
17:33
17:33
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So I think um the director general talked quite a bit about this, given his background about the need for the BBC to, um, innovate, to be able to reach wider audiences, um, to be able to collaborate more. Um, I think he talked about potentially developing the iPlayer so that it can host more public service content. I've talked already about the, the use of the archives and the scope to do more with the archives. Um, I mean, it's not for the government to dictate how the BBC should innovate and stay at the forefront of changing viewing habits and changing technology.
But we're very supportive of their ability to do that. For 100 years, the BBC has been at the forefront of new tech when it comes to communications. And, um, I think if I'm honest, that has stalled somewhat over the last decade, um, because of the funding pressures that the BBC has faced. That's one of the reasons why we're very keen through this charter to, um, to set them on a sustainable path so that they can invest and make sure that they remain at the forefront of that new tech and not pulled along in its wake.
I think, Natasha, there was an exchange. That you prompted on the committee with the director general about Project Kangaroo, uh, and the missed opportunity there. We don't want to be in a situation where, you know, you have some of the best minds in the world looking at innovation and new tech in the BBC, but they're unable to do it, whether it's because of regulation or probably more likely nowadays through lack of funding. Um, and so that's a conversation that we're having with the director general at the moment.
But we're very supportive of their ability to do that. For 100 years, the BBC has been at the forefront of new tech when it comes to communications. And, um, I think if I'm honest, that has stalled somewhat over the last decade, um, because of the funding pressures that the BBC has faced. That's one of the reasons why we're very keen through this charter to, um, to set them on a sustainable path so that they can invest and make sure that they remain at the forefront of that new tech and not pulled along in its wake.
I think, Natasha, there was an exchange. That you prompted on the committee with the director general about Project Kangaroo, uh, and the missed opportunity there. We don't want to be in a situation where, you know, you have some of the best minds in the world looking at innovation and new tech in the BBC, but they're unable to do it, whether it's because of regulation or probably more likely nowadays through lack of funding. Um, and so that's a conversation that we're having with the director general at the moment.
17:35
17:35
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
We've, we've, I've, I've pressed the industry, particularly the public service broadcasters to do more to collaborate and to, um, to innovate together. And there is some, some signs of that starting to happen, um, particularly in discussions between the BBC and channel four. Um, but there are also you'll have seen in the TV green paper that we produced recently that we're very keen to see much closer collaboration between the public service broadcasters and content platforms like YouTube. Um, we'd rather that that was voluntary that they worked together in order to achieve it.
So much was made of the, of our. View that if we have to provide prominence to public service broadcasters in order to achieve that, we will. But what was lost a bit in that discussion is that there is a way for. For example, the BBC and YouTube to bridge the gap between them. At the moment the BBC will say, we can't see. We can't tailor our content well enough towards young people, for example, because Our content well enough towards young people, for example, because we can't see the, um, we don't see the information in the evidence that YouTube has that helps us to tailor that content adequately.
YouTube will say, well, frankly, there's more that the BBC could be doing in order to understand those dynamics and to drive it. I think there's scope for them to move much closer together on that for, for some information to be shared, for the BBC to invest more in tailoring their own content, having greater audience reach and achieving achieving the the outcomes that I think in the end, we all want to see. Um, and, and part of what we're trying to do with the TV green paper is to, to help to solve those problems.
You'll be aware that the challenges for ITV in that regard are different to the challenges that the BBC has. The BBC isn't reliant on advertising revenue, so they don't have the the challenges that ITV has, which is that they invest a lot in their content and the model that YouTube has doesn't allow them to recoup the cost from that. There are different challenges for different public service broadcasters, but we think that there is a scope for them to move much closer together, which will enable more people to see high quality content and drive more views towards those content platforms.
So much was made of the, of our. View that if we have to provide prominence to public service broadcasters in order to achieve that, we will. But what was lost a bit in that discussion is that there is a way for. For example, the BBC and YouTube to bridge the gap between them. At the moment the BBC will say, we can't see. We can't tailor our content well enough towards young people, for example, because Our content well enough towards young people, for example, because we can't see the, um, we don't see the information in the evidence that YouTube has that helps us to tailor that content adequately.
YouTube will say, well, frankly, there's more that the BBC could be doing in order to understand those dynamics and to drive it. I think there's scope for them to move much closer together on that for, for some information to be shared, for the BBC to invest more in tailoring their own content, having greater audience reach and achieving achieving the the outcomes that I think in the end, we all want to see. Um, and, and part of what we're trying to do with the TV green paper is to, to help to solve those problems.
You'll be aware that the challenges for ITV in that regard are different to the challenges that the BBC has. The BBC isn't reliant on advertising revenue, so they don't have the the challenges that ITV has, which is that they invest a lot in their content and the model that YouTube has doesn't allow them to recoup the cost from that. There are different challenges for different public service broadcasters, but we think that there is a scope for them to move much closer together, which will enable more people to see high quality content and drive more views towards those content platforms.
17:37
17:37
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Thank you. Chair. Um, Secretary of State, I'd like to focus on editorial standards and how that feeds into trust in the BBC. Um this committee has had to question the BBC about editorial standards failing to maintain high editorial standards on a number of occasions on, issues including the Gaza documentary, the Glastonbury coverage, the Panorama documentary about President Trump and the BAFTA awards. Matt Britton has made editorial excellence a key priority, and he's already appointed a deputy to support that work. So how confident are you that the BBC will get better at addressing editorial mistakes before they become major scandals?
17:38
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Um, so I won't I won't relitigate the, the, um, the issues around Gaza, Glastonbury, um, the Panorama documentary or the BAFTAs, except to say that it wasn't a particularly comfortable position for me to be in as the Secretary of State to have to, uh, very publicly challenge the BBC on some of those things. And I wouldn't have done it if they hadn't, as a leadership, been far too slow to recognize the problem, to grip the challenge and to deal with it. Um, and I think that the chair of the committee was right to say that the speed with which the BBC has acted has actually increased, the lack of speed has actually increased the severity of the problem.
In many of those cases. I do feel that in the latter days of the outgoing director general and the board, um, have have understood the um, the challenge to the BBC and the damage that this has done to the BBC. Reputationally and the need to grip it. And I think the incoming director general is absolutely right to appoint a deputy, uh, to be able to help to ensure that the highest and most robust editorial standards were upheld. And I think I have seen evidence of workplace culture changing as well, so that people feel freer to speak out.
I think having workplace reps on the board will help with that and changing that culture. Um, and I guess. It's a question really not for me to decide as the, you know, to pronounce on as the government or for, or for this committee even, but for the public will have to make their own minds up. There have been a number of cases that have emerged since the four that you described. Um, some absolutely appalling cases. But I suppose there is a question about whether we're seeing more of this, because there's just more of it happening, or whether we're seeing more of this, because actually the culture has changed.
People are speaking out and it's coming to light now in a way that it didn't previously. Certainly, what I can say is that there was a very there is a very live and recent case that has appalled everybody. And in that case, in the private discussions that I've had with the BBC, I'm much more confident than I have been at any point in the last two years as the culture Secretary, that they're moving with speed and with the appropriate action in order to make sure that that can't happen again.
In many of those cases. I do feel that in the latter days of the outgoing director general and the board, um, have have understood the um, the challenge to the BBC and the damage that this has done to the BBC. Reputationally and the need to grip it. And I think the incoming director general is absolutely right to appoint a deputy, uh, to be able to help to ensure that the highest and most robust editorial standards were upheld. And I think I have seen evidence of workplace culture changing as well, so that people feel freer to speak out.
I think having workplace reps on the board will help with that and changing that culture. Um, and I guess. It's a question really not for me to decide as the, you know, to pronounce on as the government or for, or for this committee even, but for the public will have to make their own minds up. There have been a number of cases that have emerged since the four that you described. Um, some absolutely appalling cases. But I suppose there is a question about whether we're seeing more of this, because there's just more of it happening, or whether we're seeing more of this, because actually the culture has changed.
People are speaking out and it's coming to light now in a way that it didn't previously. Certainly, what I can say is that there was a very there is a very live and recent case that has appalled everybody. And in that case, in the private discussions that I've had with the BBC, I'm much more confident than I have been at any point in the last two years as the culture Secretary, that they're moving with speed and with the appropriate action in order to make sure that that can't happen again.
17:40
17:40
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, I think. I think culture change does take time, and I think that they have shown leadership over recent months with the efforts that they've made around workplace culture, supporting whistleblowers, uh, zero tolerance and taking action in a number of cases. Um, I think. Where I would say there is still a challenge based on my observations. Um. Uh, so there are two areas. One is around the commissioning of third parties in order to produce content.
So you'll recall that that was a particular problem in the case of, um, uh, the master chef. And in the case of the Gaza documentary, and I think it's potentially also been a problem in the more recent case that has come to light. Um, and so I think that needs to be gripped because frankly, if something is going out on a BBC channel, then it, it, um, it has to meet the highest standards. And so that has to be gripped. I think the other area which I alluded to earlier, where I think there is still work to be done, is about staff in the BBC feeling heard, valued and empowered.
I going to share something with you that one of the reps, uh, said to me when we met, which was that she didn't feel that there was any meaningful way to make her voice heard or make things change in the organisation. Now, that is quite stark. It's something I've shared with the senior leadership. I know the incoming director general takes that very seriously, but it would be wrong of me to come to this committee and not acknowledge that. That is how some of the staff are feeling at the BBC at the moment, and we've got.
So you'll recall that that was a particular problem in the case of, um, uh, the master chef. And in the case of the Gaza documentary, and I think it's potentially also been a problem in the more recent case that has come to light. Um, and so I think that needs to be gripped because frankly, if something is going out on a BBC channel, then it, it, um, it has to meet the highest standards. And so that has to be gripped. I think the other area which I alluded to earlier, where I think there is still work to be done, is about staff in the BBC feeling heard, valued and empowered.
I going to share something with you that one of the reps, uh, said to me when we met, which was that she didn't feel that there was any meaningful way to make her voice heard or make things change in the organisation. Now, that is quite stark. It's something I've shared with the senior leadership. I know the incoming director general takes that very seriously, but it would be wrong of me to come to this committee and not acknowledge that. That is how some of the staff are feeling at the BBC at the moment, and we've got.
17:42
17:43
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I did, but of course the proof is in whether things change and whether the staff believe across the board that things have changed, changed. Um, and I think that's a very difficult thing to achieve at a time when you're announcing large cuts, particularly to staffing. Um, so I think this charter process is going to be incredibly important in resetting that. We obviously need the BBC's leadership help in order for that to be reset. I do believe they're sincere, though, particularly the new director general, I believe is very sincere in wanting to do that.
And I was particularly impressed that he'd spent the six weeks in the run up to him taking up the post out in the country, not just meeting senior leaders, but making a point of meeting staff on the front line who, who are who are making the programming and delivering the service.
And I was particularly impressed that he'd spent the six weeks in the run up to him taking up the post out in the country, not just meeting senior leaders, but making a point of meeting staff on the front line who, who are who are making the programming and delivering the service.
17:43
17:43
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think it's too early to say. I think the appointment of a deputy director general is a positive step forward. Um, and I think that the leadership is very sincere about getting this right. The incoming director general told me, and I think he said this publicly, it was his absolute first and number one priority, and I believe him in that. So I'm hopeful that that things will improve. But like I said, it's it's a bit early to say.
17:44
17:44
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Yes, please. Yeah. Actually, the new DG um he's not one that we got to interview here because on these committees I've been on them for ages. I remember the prisons guy when I was on justice. Usually we have a role in that. I just wondered how exactly was he appointed?Was it you who had the final say?Was it the board?
17:45
17:45
17:45
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah, so I have no role in that process at all. Um, it's for the, the, the um, chair of the board to um, to select him for the, the board itself to, to approve, um, and it's the chair is obviously free to discuss it with me, but um, and, and obviously we had conversations over the course of that appointment, but it's not for me. I appoint the chair of the board. I don't have any role in the director general. I think that is right.
Actually. I think that that gives a level of protection against political interference. That is important.
Actually. I think that that gives a level of protection against political interference. That is important.
17:46
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
And I guess it's this transparency point, again, that sometimes these people just emerge and you don't know how. And the CG, the editorial standards and guidance committee, it looks like it came out of the last charter renewal in 2017. So it's not always been there. Uh, James Harding from Tortoise Media, when he spoke to us, he called it a star chamber. It's a tiny thing for people that are deciding on new standards for the whole BBC, which is a enormous mega corporation.
I just wondered, um, there seems to be a complete lack of transparency there. And if you did see the minutes of last week or the last couple of weeks, I've been asking, it's totally unprecedented for a public organisation as big as the BBC to have an editorial plan for one political party. Their plan for reform voters, they won't sort of reveal this. And people are saying, I should just fry it. I mean, if they want, I can write to them again and ask, isn't there a worry that this tiny committee where Robbie Gibb.
Okay, I've said the words for the first time, but, you know, uh, other of our witnesses have said it as well. Yeah, other witnesses have said it. I don't need to say it every week sometimes. And you said there's four people. I'm kind of guessing he might have been one of them. Is it not concerning that such a tiny cabal controls editorial standards for such a huge organisation, and that you get things like, you know, this blooming dodgy dossier with the cherry picked examples?It looked like they were all giving jobs to their mates.
You can be an adviser, you can be the person who cross-checks. Isn't this a bit concerning?
I just wondered, um, there seems to be a complete lack of transparency there. And if you did see the minutes of last week or the last couple of weeks, I've been asking, it's totally unprecedented for a public organisation as big as the BBC to have an editorial plan for one political party. Their plan for reform voters, they won't sort of reveal this. And people are saying, I should just fry it. I mean, if they want, I can write to them again and ask, isn't there a worry that this tiny committee where Robbie Gibb.
Okay, I've said the words for the first time, but, you know, uh, other of our witnesses have said it as well. Yeah, other witnesses have said it. I don't need to say it every week sometimes. And you said there's four people. I'm kind of guessing he might have been one of them. Is it not concerning that such a tiny cabal controls editorial standards for such a huge organisation, and that you get things like, you know, this blooming dodgy dossier with the cherry picked examples?It looked like they were all giving jobs to their mates.
You can be an adviser, you can be the person who cross-checks. Isn't this a bit concerning?
17:48
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I guess what I would say to you, Rupert, is that I think these are questions for the BBC. It's not for the government to decide what a broadcaster, whether public service or otherwise broadcasts or the editorial decisions that they make. As I said earlier to Liz, I found it a very uncomfortable position to have to publicly challenge the BBC, but I will do so where there are questions of public safety for particular groups of people in this country, where there are issues about the treatment of women and and, you know, the highest editorial standards trusts being dented and public confidence in our national broadcaster.
But it's quite a high bar for me to, to reach to, to intervene in that way. Um, and I would just push back a little bit on this question about, I think the BBC constantly throughout its history, has had to think about how it properly and best represents a changing nation. I think about the debates that were being had in the 60s and 70s when you had a wave of immigration that had changed the face of what it meant to be British, you had women playing a bigger role in public life.
You had working class kids who had bigger expectations of the role that they would play. And if you look back at that period, the BBC was constantly embroiled in challenges about how it understood that nation and told its story, and it rose to the moment. But it took some time, and it was not without controversy. And what I would say is, if you look at a lot of the challenges that are levelled at the BBC nowadays about how to sustainably fund it, about being free from political interference, about how to best represent the whole nation as it evolves and changes.
I think these questions actually aren't new. I think these are as old as the BBC itself. And I would also say, and perhaps I should have said it earlier as a sort of counter to to some of the things that I was saying about about trust is that the BBC also does produce some of the most extraordinarily high quality content in the world, and it is and remains the most trusted source of news, not just here but in many countries all over the world, including in the United States.
Now, I think that is something to be prized and something to be celebrated. And whilst I've been tough about the serious failures that have have happened in recent years, the reason that I do so is because I think the vast majority of BBC content is is of incredibly high quality. Nine times out of ten, the BBC is getting this right, and it undermines the good work that the BBC does and trust in an important institution when they don't.
But it's quite a high bar for me to, to reach to, to intervene in that way. Um, and I would just push back a little bit on this question about, I think the BBC constantly throughout its history, has had to think about how it properly and best represents a changing nation. I think about the debates that were being had in the 60s and 70s when you had a wave of immigration that had changed the face of what it meant to be British, you had women playing a bigger role in public life.
You had working class kids who had bigger expectations of the role that they would play. And if you look back at that period, the BBC was constantly embroiled in challenges about how it understood that nation and told its story, and it rose to the moment. But it took some time, and it was not without controversy. And what I would say is, if you look at a lot of the challenges that are levelled at the BBC nowadays about how to sustainably fund it, about being free from political interference, about how to best represent the whole nation as it evolves and changes.
I think these questions actually aren't new. I think these are as old as the BBC itself. And I would also say, and perhaps I should have said it earlier as a sort of counter to to some of the things that I was saying about about trust is that the BBC also does produce some of the most extraordinarily high quality content in the world, and it is and remains the most trusted source of news, not just here but in many countries all over the world, including in the United States.
Now, I think that is something to be prized and something to be celebrated. And whilst I've been tough about the serious failures that have have happened in recent years, the reason that I do so is because I think the vast majority of BBC content is is of incredibly high quality. Nine times out of ten, the BBC is getting this right, and it undermines the good work that the BBC does and trust in an important institution when they don't.
17:49
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
I mean, I don't want to appear BBC basher and people on the left usually aren't, but when you have a prolonged period in government of people on the right, then they can stack it. So that's why your words are so welcome to Depoliticise. And as I say, a lot of these staff feel completely ignored. They have these town hall meetings online and the stuff that people are putting in the chat is completely ignored. So I mean, this. Matt Britton said he would turn over a new leaf.
So I'm glad to see that. There's just the last thing I wanted to ask is about Caesar. Because of the scandals, they've not all been used ones, have they?There's been you mentioned Greg Wallace, there was Hugh Edwards, there was Tim Westwood. So the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority is semi-voluntary now. Um, yeah. How can we put that on a better footing?They came and spoke to us, but it was untelevised because it was all a bit secretive and people had signed NDAs.
So just. Yeah. What's your opinion on that?
So I'm glad to see that. There's just the last thing I wanted to ask is about Caesar. Because of the scandals, they've not all been used ones, have they?There's been you mentioned Greg Wallace, there was Hugh Edwards, there was Tim Westwood. So the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority is semi-voluntary now. Um, yeah. How can we put that on a better footing?They came and spoke to us, but it was untelevised because it was all a bit secretive and people had signed NDAs.
So just. Yeah. What's your opinion on that?
17:51
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah. So as a government, we we back Caesar. We think that I think that there, uh, uh, invention and interventions have been enormously important. Um, and I think the BBC's role in being one of the first to back Caesar, and particularly in, um, insisting that those, that it commissions are also members of Caesar has been incredibly important. This is what I mean about the BBC is often the first mover that can convince others to, to step in to, to where they, they lead.
Um, there are other parts of the industry that haven't signed up to Caesar. I would like to see them do it and strongly encourage them to do it. Ultimately, if they won't, we are leaving open the prospect that we put Caesar on a statutory footing, um, and mandate the industry to support it. But as I said, my preference would be that the industry got its own house in order.
Um, there are other parts of the industry that haven't signed up to Caesar. I would like to see them do it and strongly encourage them to do it. Ultimately, if they won't, we are leaving open the prospect that we put Caesar on a statutory footing, um, and mandate the industry to support it. But as I said, my preference would be that the industry got its own house in order.
17:52
17:52
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I'll try and keep my questions short. Um, and just to declare an interest, I spoke channel four. My husband still works there. Um, so we over the last few sessions have heard the word sovereignty come up quite a lot in the last session, um, with the new DG that that came up repeatedly and we've had evidence um with, with our, um, through the committee, we were talking about six people owning all of our media, owning all of the content that goes out, and also then owning all the data that sits behind that.
So, and in your opening remarks, you talked about, um, the shared civic space at the BBC takes up and kind of the health of our democracy. So what kind of role do you see the BBC playing in the future of protecting the information infrastructure and, um, and trying to push back against sort of the kind of media conglomerates.
So, and in your opening remarks, you talked about, um, the shared civic space at the BBC takes up and kind of the health of our democracy. So what kind of role do you see the BBC playing in the future of protecting the information infrastructure and, um, and trying to push back against sort of the kind of media conglomerates.
17:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think this is something that the new director general is taking incredibly seriously. Uh, I, I think he hinted when he came in front of the select committee that he thinks that this is an area of weakness that needs to be addressed. And I would support him in that. Um, you'll have seen that as part of the charter process. We're keen that the BBC helps to counter some of the myths and disinformation. Um, that has become the norm, uh, particularly online on some sites.
Um, and I saw that um. So, so the question becomes, how does the BBC protect its ability to counter that mis and disinformation?How does it do that in an era where, um, you've got huge consolidation, uh, major players who are operating at scale, not just in the broadcasting, uh, landscape, but also online as well. I was reading with interest the exchange that you had with Matt Britton about, um, about X, the X platform, whether the BBC should be on that. I have to say, I absolutely strongly support the idea that the BBC should be on X, because I think that the BBC is, is the alternative trusted source that you can go to on that site.
The reason I think it's different when it comes to government departments, and the decision that I made to take my department off X, is because I think politicians aren't neutral. We shouldn't be neutral. We have a stance. We exist to advance a viewpoint. And by being on sites where the algorithms are loaded, in order to divide us from one another, um, and to, um, you know, where information is being pumped out that is, is false and misleading. I think that politicians have a responsibility to consider our own role in whether we should help to support and attract people to those sites or not.
And my, my view that I came to was not, but I think the BBC has to be in all of these spaces and has to be able to counter that. And it comes back again to the question of funding and whether the BBC is adequately funded. In order to do that.
Um, and I saw that um. So, so the question becomes, how does the BBC protect its ability to counter that mis and disinformation?How does it do that in an era where, um, you've got huge consolidation, uh, major players who are operating at scale, not just in the broadcasting, uh, landscape, but also online as well. I was reading with interest the exchange that you had with Matt Britton about, um, about X, the X platform, whether the BBC should be on that. I have to say, I absolutely strongly support the idea that the BBC should be on X, because I think that the BBC is, is the alternative trusted source that you can go to on that site.
The reason I think it's different when it comes to government departments, and the decision that I made to take my department off X, is because I think politicians aren't neutral. We shouldn't be neutral. We have a stance. We exist to advance a viewpoint. And by being on sites where the algorithms are loaded, in order to divide us from one another, um, and to, um, you know, where information is being pumped out that is, is false and misleading. I think that politicians have a responsibility to consider our own role in whether we should help to support and attract people to those sites or not.
And my, my view that I came to was not, but I think the BBC has to be in all of these spaces and has to be able to counter that. And it comes back again to the question of funding and whether the BBC is adequately funded. In order to do that.
17:55
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Just picking up on your point about, you know, about politicians and our role in sort of places like. X and, you know, drawing attention to those platforms. And you're right, the algorithms being loaded and, um, seeking out. To, to, to prioritise one view over another is our role then to regulate is our role then to get in there and try and make that a fairer fight. I think, um, when we spoke to Matt last time, that was one of my questions to him is that you're sort of playing in an unfair landscape when you've got the BBC being treated, um, you know, in one way.
And they have to have, you know, at least factual information when they're doing a documentary or something. But platforms aren't held to that sort of standard. Is it not time for us to stop treating these platforms as a new thing and just treat them like all media?
And they have to have, you know, at least factual information when they're doing a documentary or something. But platforms aren't held to that sort of standard. Is it not time for us to stop treating these platforms as a new thing and just treat them like all media?
17:56
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah. So I think there is definitely a role for regulation. Um, you'll have seen the action that we took on grok and also the social media ban that the Prime Minister announced recently. So yes, I think there's a role for regulation, but I think there's another piece to this, um, supporting our trusted sources of news, whether it's public service broadcasters or local news sites, which are often far more trusted. And a great counter to that mis and disinformation. There's a point about media literacy and helping to support, particularly our young people with media literacy, but increasingly as well, um, we're looking at other age groups across the population to make sure that people have the skills they need to navigate it.
And the final piece of that is what we're seeking to address in the TV green paper. People have to be able to find good, trusted, high quality content. And I know that it sparked a whole range of, um, sort of discussions about whether, you know, I'm personally the enemy of free speech and involved in some Orwellian crackdown. Actually very deliberately, we haven't defined what we believe trusted news is where it could be. Um, the industry's own standards, the editors, editors code, for example, it could be defined by type of institution, public service broadcasters, for example, it could be by public consent, what the public consider to be trusted.
We're very open minded about that. But what is not acceptable, in my view, is that currently you have a lot of younger people who are not watching, uh, television in the traditional way where they would be able to find public service broadcasting and high quality trusted news. Instead, their online where algorithms are distorting what they see and acting actively working against their ability to find that. Now, I don't think we can be neutral about that.
And the final piece of that is what we're seeking to address in the TV green paper. People have to be able to find good, trusted, high quality content. And I know that it sparked a whole range of, um, sort of discussions about whether, you know, I'm personally the enemy of free speech and involved in some Orwellian crackdown. Actually very deliberately, we haven't defined what we believe trusted news is where it could be. Um, the industry's own standards, the editors, editors code, for example, it could be defined by type of institution, public service broadcasters, for example, it could be by public consent, what the public consider to be trusted.
We're very open minded about that. But what is not acceptable, in my view, is that currently you have a lot of younger people who are not watching, uh, television in the traditional way where they would be able to find public service broadcasting and high quality trusted news. Instead, their online where algorithms are distorting what they see and acting actively working against their ability to find that. Now, I don't think we can be neutral about that.
17:57
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Agree. Um, but then I suppose going back to that point around. Uh, sovereignty and information infrastructure and how we protect, um, protect that and at least, you know, to make something fair in terms of what people see, surely then the. Argument is that the BBC needs to be bigger in some ways, um, rather than smaller. And when you're having conversations with Treasury, how would that sort of go down if you were talking about making the BBC a much bigger sort of player in this space.
17:58
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Two quick things around this, because at the risk of, um, incurring the wrath of the chair first is, um, that I think the BBC, we've been clear that the BBC has to be adequately funded in order to be able to navigate this new world. The second is that we think the scope for far more collaboration across public service broadcasting, but also between commercial and public service broadcasters. Um, and we're trying to create the conditions in which we incentivise that and support it.
17:58
17:58
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah. I'll give you the example of prominence. So in the TV green paper, we think it's good for, um, uh, platforms like YouTube to have really high quality content. People love BBC content. They produce some of the best programming in the world. And we think, you know, they're not looking for a financial return on that. They're simply trying to extend their reach. So we think it's good for those providers like YouTube to be able to collaborate more.
But equally, there are some barriers that currently exist. If we can't find ways for the BBC and YouTube to collaborate in order to make that happen, we reserve the right to, uh, ensure that people can find that good quality content, but we think there's real, real potential there. Um.
But equally, there are some barriers that currently exist. If we can't find ways for the BBC and YouTube to collaborate in order to make that happen, we reserve the right to, uh, ensure that people can find that good quality content, but we think there's real, real potential there. Um.
17:59
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I mean, the BBC has a really important role to play here as the Secretary of State just explained. But in our, um, watch this space green paper, we're actually also consulting on a media literacy duty on all public service media providers, because that is, there's a, there's a sort of an agreement of responsibilities and, and benefits. And although the BBC is the biggest PSN provider, they're not the only one. And we see a potential there to get a broader range of content providers all pushing in the same direction.
On this.
On this.
18:00
18:00
18:00
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Sorry. Yeah. I just wanted to pick up on what you were saying about your decision to leave X, because obviously you are the Secretary of State for culture, Media and Sport. So the fact that you chose to leave the platform, is it not an admission that there's nothing the government can really do to regulate X or regulate the owner of X?
18:01
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, first of all, I would say, and for the purposes of those many, many people on social media who attack me constantly for not talking about social media too much, that the responsibility primarily lies with DC on social media, which I know you know. But it appears that most of the online world doesn't. One thing I would say is that the decision, the decision to leave is not, um, a. Um. A decision to replace regulation. We've been clear as a government that we do believe that there is regulation needed in the online space.
We passed the Online Safety Act. We want to see Ofcom do more to enforce that. The Secretary of State for science, Innovation and Technology has just appointed um the a new chair of Ofcom in order to really try and put rocket boosters under that enforcement. Um and um as we've announced recently, new measures around social media ban and I think the Prime Minister has also signalled that we will need new regulation in future as this develops. But all governments have to choose the mediums through which they communicate.
I mean, you know, not to get too political because I know Damian will pull me up on it. But, you know, the last government did very little with local media, even to the extent that they published their levelling up white paper and forgot to tell the regional or local media about it. Now it's, you know, their call and every government gets to decide how they communicate and through which medium. As a department, we've placed a lot more emphasis on communicating through local and regional media.
We're not communicating through X because we don't think it's particularly helpful platform, not least because we were very struck by recent studies that showed that on social media. Now, more than half of accounts are bots. And on X, that is the highest of all of the social media platforms.
We passed the Online Safety Act. We want to see Ofcom do more to enforce that. The Secretary of State for science, Innovation and Technology has just appointed um the a new chair of Ofcom in order to really try and put rocket boosters under that enforcement. Um and um as we've announced recently, new measures around social media ban and I think the Prime Minister has also signalled that we will need new regulation in future as this develops. But all governments have to choose the mediums through which they communicate.
I mean, you know, not to get too political because I know Damian will pull me up on it. But, you know, the last government did very little with local media, even to the extent that they published their levelling up white paper and forgot to tell the regional or local media about it. Now it's, you know, their call and every government gets to decide how they communicate and through which medium. As a department, we've placed a lot more emphasis on communicating through local and regional media.
We're not communicating through X because we don't think it's particularly helpful platform, not least because we were very struck by recent studies that showed that on social media. Now, more than half of accounts are bots. And on X, that is the highest of all of the social media platforms.
18:02
18:02
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, it's entirely up to him, and it's entirely up to other government departments. Lots of my colleagues haven't left X, and I respect their right to do so. Um, if I might say there's always been a very lively debate in, in our party, uh, my political party about the role of the sun newspaper. It's felt very, very strongly where I live in Wigan, I represent some of the Hillsborough families. Jo will know this well. It's for individual politicians to decide who they want to communicate with.
And I can see the arguments on both sides. You know, you want to be in the places people are in order to reach the widest range of people and to make your case equally. There are times when you feel that that is not helpful. Uh, it's not going to work. And actually you're legitimising something that you don't believe has legitimacy. Um, so I would say to all of my colleagues, Richard, Homer and I have taken one view, but it's perfectly reasonable to take another.
And I can see the arguments on both sides. You know, you want to be in the places people are in order to reach the widest range of people and to make your case equally. There are times when you feel that that is not helpful. Uh, it's not going to work. And actually you're legitimising something that you don't believe has legitimacy. Um, so I would say to all of my colleagues, Richard, Homer and I have taken one view, but it's perfectly reasonable to take another.
18:04
18:04
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you. I must confess this. I don't recall that decision in the last government not to use local national media. I seem to recall something rather hundred and 80 degrees opposite. But let's we'll leave that. We'll leave that for another day. I wanted to come back to this thing about prominence and how you promote prominence and what gets prominence. And you are quite right to identify that. It's very hard to create a definition.
But I wonder if you'd agree that it would be unthinkable to have a situation where you were promoting the content through legislation or regulation, promoting the content of the BBC and channel four, but not promoting the content of, say, The Telegraph and The Guardian.
But I wonder if you'd agree that it would be unthinkable to have a situation where you were promoting the content through legislation or regulation, promoting the content of the BBC and channel four, but not promoting the content of, say, The Telegraph and The Guardian.
18:05
18:05
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I don't want to cut across you, Secretary of State, but that wasn't I don't think that was the question I was asking. I was asking on the on the question of prominence on social media. Do you think it would be acceptable or unacceptable to have a potential situation where the BBC and channel four news are promoted?But The Telegraph and The Guardian are not?
18:05
18:05
18:06
18:06
18:06
18:06
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Requiring prominence. Uh, of of, of some definition of media on, on online platforms. And one, one potential definition is just public service, uh, public service media. And then there's also a suggestion you could define it some other way and you definitely could, although when you get to that half of the sentence with anybody, you realise how much harder it is than to draw the line. And I'm not I'm not trying to take away that difficulty, but I am just asking is could you envisage a situation where you were saying, we want prominence for these public service media operators, the BBC and channel four, but not others who are also in the quality news business and rely on revenues such as.
And of course, there's a longer list, but such as The Telegraph or the Guardian.
And of course, there's a longer list, but such as The Telegraph or the Guardian.
18:06
18:07
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Is all merging, isn't it?You've got, you've got radio stations doing online stuff. You've got online things doing radio, you've got newspapers creating radio stations, Tellys doing their little thing on YouTube and Facebook. Every talk TV, talk radio, everyone's doing their. There isn't really that distinction anymore. And if whether you're the BBC or channel four or The Telegraph or The Guardian, you a news organisation?
18:07
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah, no, I get I get that, but it's not a news green paper. We're talking about TV. That doesn't mean that we're not looking at other forms of media and seeing how we increase access to high quality media across the board. So we've just been talking a lot about social media, how to help people navigate the online space, what sort of regulation is required, and so on. But we also what I was trying to say twice was that we're also trying to increase the access of young people to high quality print media from an earlier age.
So that might include The Telegraph and the Guardian. It might also include the Manchester Evening News and the Liverpool Echo and some of the Yorkshire Post and some of those really high quality regional papers as well. It's not an either or as far as I'm concerned.
So that might include The Telegraph and the Guardian. It might also include the Manchester Evening News and the Liverpool Echo and some of the Yorkshire Post and some of those really high quality regional papers as well. It's not an either or as far as I'm concerned.
18:08
18:08
18:08
18:09
18:09
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
So at the moment the BBC, like other public service media providers, are bound by requirements around due impartiality. Um, we want to introduce um accuracy into that, uh, proposition, into that purpose, uh, because as the Secretary of state herself has said, um, that, you know, where there is a body of evidence, factual underpinning to, to various viewpoints, then they, that's important for broadcasters such as the BBC to get across as well.
18:09
18:10
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
On a day to day basis, it's for the BBC to enforce. But you're quite right. Ofcom as the regulator would as it does now, would have a duty to monitor the BBC. The BBC's performance. Um. There's then the complaints process that operates, first of all within the BBC, and then with the potential for Ofcom to step in as well.
18:10
18:10
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Um, so the way it generally works is that through the charter or the framework agreement, we would set some general principles. And that's the case across the board actually with a lot of the issues we're looking at in charter review. And then it would fall to the regulator in this case Ofcom, to flesh out some of the detail as it does already in its broadcasting code. The BBC itself has operates to an even higher standard than the broadcasting code, because it has its own editorial guidelines.
And we would expect if a new. If the public purpose is expanded to increase accuracy, we would expect the BBC to reflect that also in its editorial guidelines and standards.
And we would expect if a new. If the public purpose is expanded to increase accuracy, we would expect the BBC to reflect that also in its editorial guidelines and standards.
18:11
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thank you. And um as well, previously you mentioned in the previous question, um about the BBC working with several partners, um who have expertise in order to counter misinformation. Um, what are you doing across government to facilitate that?So conversations between other public service broadcasters.
18:11
18:12
18:12
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah. Um, so the two departments, I would say that politically I've worked most closely with the two colleagues I've worked most closely with on this are Bridget Phillipson and Liz Kendall. Um, so, um, we were just having an exchange about the important role of print media in, as a trusted source of, of information, um, alongside amazing programmes like Newsround, which has the most incredible reach. Um, there's a role for the education system to play in order to help young people to be able to access that as well as the work that they do as part of the national curriculum on media literacy.
Um, but there's also a role for DC in this as well, especially because DC are the primary department that sponsor Ofcom. Uh, now. So although I have a role as secretary of state in relation to broadcasting, DC are the primary sponsor. And so their, their input is really important.
Um, but there's also a role for DC in this as well, especially because DC are the primary department that sponsor Ofcom. Uh, now. So although I have a role as secretary of state in relation to broadcasting, DC are the primary sponsor. And so their, their input is really important.
18:13
18:13
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Yeah. I mean, we are always encouraging the BBC, but all public service media providers to work in collaboration, collaboration with relevant other organisations, um, the government has published a media literacy action plan which promotes this further. And in the watch this space green paper, sorry if I'm pre-empting further questions. We are also floating the idea of a new body to coordinate action across a range of different organisations, not just the public service media providers, but anyone else who's got expertise and capability to promote this.
18:13
18:14
18:14
18:14
18:14
18:14
18:15
18:15
18:15
18:15
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
They do morning live. They do big Brother and Celebrity Big Brother. Um, I think I've written to you on this before. Secretary of State Non-Scripted tax credit. You said earlier that you're into exploring the range of tax credits. So they the programmes they do, they're not drama. And it seems to be we did an inquiry didn't we, on high end drama. But there are high quality shows that are non-scripted. Would you entertain or look at it again?Non-Scripted tax credit versus studios in Manchester, in Wigan, in fact, and in my seat would welcome it greatly.
They keep pushing that with me.
They keep pushing that with me.
18:16
18:17
18:17
18:17
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah. So um. Yeah. And it is. Yeah. Anyway um uh enough for local rivalries. Um the um so I can't obviously make a commitment around tax credits here without an agreement from the Treasury. But as I said to the chair earlier, we are keeping the tax credit regime under constant review. We're aware that other countries are adapting and evolving quickly and we have to stay competitive. So I will look at the specific.
18:18
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Okay, we're not closing the door on it. Good. And then just on the news point and the disinformation, misinformation, we do have a situation where, um. Oh, sorry, did you finish all of yours?Yeah, yeah. Because I think I was down as popping in after those, uh, Deborah Turner's job is still vacant. That was 2025. After those scandals, she went, isn't it worrying when Damian mentioned mergers?I thought he was going to talk about Sky and ITV.
So these things. Yeah. I do feel that there's a time that our news feels a bit like it's sort of shrinking. That post is still vacant. God knows when they're going to fill that. If Sky and ITV merge, that's less, news output. Are you going to possibly refer that one to the Competitions and Markets Authority?And just generally, this whole point people are making about the politicisation of the BBC under the Tories?I mean, there's specific examples today the coalition of the willing are meeting in Paris.
I don't know if that's going to be on the BBC. Um, the E5 meeting in Berlin recently where Keir Starmer was praised by Macron, Maloney, Tusk, it wasn't on the BBC. There is a worry that, you know, good news. Things from our government are not being shown at the moment. And it's there's a kind of lazy cutting corners.
So these things. Yeah. I do feel that there's a time that our news feels a bit like it's sort of shrinking. That post is still vacant. God knows when they're going to fill that. If Sky and ITV merge, that's less, news output. Are you going to possibly refer that one to the Competitions and Markets Authority?And just generally, this whole point people are making about the politicisation of the BBC under the Tories?I mean, there's specific examples today the coalition of the willing are meeting in Paris.
I don't know if that's going to be on the BBC. Um, the E5 meeting in Berlin recently where Keir Starmer was praised by Macron, Maloney, Tusk, it wasn't on the BBC. There is a worry that, you know, good news. Things from our government are not being shown at the moment. And it's there's a kind of lazy cutting corners.
18:21
18:21
18:21
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
On. On Deborah Turner's role I don't know the timescale, but I do know the BBC is intending to recruit for that, so I think I probably have to defer to to the BBC leadership on that one. On the ITV and Sky merger. Um, you'll be aware it's a quasi judicial process. So I I'm the decision maker in that case. So I haven't looked at it yet. And I can't prejudice the outcome by taking a view at this stage.
So sorry about that. Um, and then on politicization, I just refer you to what I said earlier. I think it's not for politicians to tell broadcasters what they can and can't broadcast. I heard Damian sort of muttering, uh, they didn't exactly give the last government an easy ride either, or broadcast all the good news. Um, I, I think that the BBC does a very good job. I think all our public service broadcasters do a very good job at providing trusted, high quality news, not least Newsround, which is an incredible programme, the like of which most countries just don't have.
Um, and so I would politely decline the opportunity to criticise their news output.
So sorry about that. Um, and then on politicization, I just refer you to what I said earlier. I think it's not for politicians to tell broadcasters what they can and can't broadcast. I heard Damian sort of muttering, uh, they didn't exactly give the last government an easy ride either, or broadcast all the good news. Um, I, I think that the BBC does a very good job. I think all our public service broadcasters do a very good job at providing trusted, high quality news, not least Newsround, which is an incredible programme, the like of which most countries just don't have.
Um, and so I would politely decline the opportunity to criticise their news output.
18:22
18:23
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I do actually, um, I strongly agree. I think I player is an incredible thing and I think it has, uh, more scope, particularly to improve its usability to make it easier to find good, good, good content. Um, not just content that you already know you want to watch, but other content as well. And I was really encouraged by the, the view expressed by the director general that he wants to make sure that they're pushing good quality content towards people, not just along the lines of the things that they already watch, but helping them to discover new.
I think that's always been a core part of the BBC's mission. Um, and I think there's far more that they can do to, to, to use the iPlayer as a jumping off point for people to be able to find more good quality content from other providers as well. But I think in general, that we want to make sure that the vast majority of people are able to see and find, uh, BBC output. I think that young people in particular are not in the places where the BBC predominantly is.
And I think just as in politics, I think with broadcasting, the answer is you go to where people are. Um, and so I strongly support the view of the BBC leadership that they should be exploring all of those avenues, particularly YouTube, in order to, to have wider reach.
I think that's always been a core part of the BBC's mission. Um, and I think there's far more that they can do to, to, to use the iPlayer as a jumping off point for people to be able to find more good quality content from other providers as well. But I think in general, that we want to make sure that the vast majority of people are able to see and find, uh, BBC output. I think that young people in particular are not in the places where the BBC predominantly is.
And I think just as in politics, I think with broadcasting, the answer is you go to where people are. Um, and so I strongly support the view of the BBC leadership that they should be exploring all of those avenues, particularly YouTube, in order to, to have wider reach.
18:24
18:24
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Um, so I think the biggest challenge that they would say that they have is that they need to be able to tailor their content in a way that, uh, is attractive to the audiences that are predominantly on YouTube. And I'm thinking particularly of young people, I think they find that difficult to do when they don't have access to the data and analytics that tells them what sort of things drive good quality content. Uh, it's very different to their traditional way of working. They tend to work through data and analytics rather than in the near absence of it.
Um, but I think they recognized that they do need to invest more in being able to do that and the skill sets that are able to do that. In turn, I think they would like YouTube to do more to help them to tailor that. I think YouTube is willing to do so. So I think it's less of a regulatory challenge, although there may be questions around data sharing, I think it's more of a willingness on both sides to partner together in order to help people access more quality content.
Um, but I think they recognized that they do need to invest more in being able to do that and the skill sets that are able to do that. In turn, I think they would like YouTube to do more to help them to tailor that. I think YouTube is willing to do so. So I think it's less of a regulatory challenge, although there may be questions around data sharing, I think it's more of a willingness on both sides to partner together in order to help people access more quality content.
18:25
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
And moving on to the conversation around prominence, um, specifically from the green paper. Um, and wanting to make it easier for people to find that kind of trust, trustworthy content. And actually, it's not necessarily that new as it came up in the previous session, we regulated in the space of the EPG when that came along to, to provide prominence to public service broadcasters in a similar sort of, you know, technological advancement. So what kind of work have you started doing in this space to sort of scope out the challenges of it?And I guess the secondary point would be in a space like YouTube, where, um, technically it's, it's the eyeballs and the engagement that put you up the, the kind of prominence sort of thing.
If there's been any kind of projections on, on, um, the disruption to the industry that has sprung up from using YouTube, some of the content creators who may be feeling a bit sort of put out by the fact that we're trying to put a public service broadcasting content above theirs.
If there's been any kind of projections on, on, um, the disruption to the industry that has sprung up from using YouTube, some of the content creators who may be feeling a bit sort of put out by the fact that we're trying to put a public service broadcasting content above theirs.
18:25
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I mean, my, my general sense is that, um, content creators, I mean, there is, there is something quite magical about YouTube, the democratisation of that space and the ability for people to be heard that weren't heard before. I do think a lot of content creators, though, would absolutely love the opportunity to be seen and heard through BBC channels and platforms as well. And so I don't think it's necessarily detrimental to them. I think that opening up the BBC into more places and spaces, uh, you know, driving decision making out into every part of the country, um, closer partnerships with Indies in those places.
I think all of that will help. Um, I might defer to you, Robert, on the latter part of that question, if that's all right.
I think all of that will help. Um, I might defer to you, Robert, on the latter part of that question, if that's all right.
18:26
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Yeah. I mean, you're quite right. We had prominence on the electronic programme guides. We legislated for prominence in the Media Act 2024 to reflect a new technology with smart TVs and connected devices, also for audio, not just TV. And, um, talking about prominence on video sharing platforms like YouTube is the natural evolution of that because that's where the audience is are going. We've had a lot of engagement with both public service media providers and the video sharing platforms.
We've held various roundtables. We've obviously just launched a green paper and a consultation. Um, ideally we would reach voluntary agreements for how to do that. Um, we don't believe that there is a zero sum game between giving greater prominence discoverability to PSM providers and those, um, content creators, as the secretary has just said, this is an ecosystem where everybody can learn from each other. And so this is about pushing everybody to the top rather than pushing some to the bottom.
We've held various roundtables. We've obviously just launched a green paper and a consultation. Um, ideally we would reach voluntary agreements for how to do that. Um, we don't believe that there is a zero sum game between giving greater prominence discoverability to PSM providers and those, um, content creators, as the secretary has just said, this is an ecosystem where everybody can learn from each other. And so this is about pushing everybody to the top rather than pushing some to the bottom.
18:27
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Oh very good. Thank you. Sorry, I do apologize. I was just asking about YouTube. I was just going to ask what downsides you see with the BBC policing content on YouTube when it has to. I mean, it's got to pay for the content up front. It can't monetize it through advertising and it can't currently control if the audience will see it. So are there any I mean, what are the genuinely what are the upsides of having content out there other than it's just where the eyeballs are?
18:28
18:28
18:28
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
The downsides. Um, well, obviously when it comes to monetization, as you just mentioned, that is a potential challenge because of the way the BBC is, is funded. Um, but, um, you know, the BBC is still being still recouping revenue in order to produce its content. And we think the BBC should be very proactive in trying to make sure that its content is as available as possible. Um, and as a gateway to lots of other things that people may not instinctively go to.
18:28
18:29
18:29
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Uh, as a general direction of travel, I think it's enormously positive that the BBC has been involved in discussions, uh, not just with S4C, where they've reached an agreement, but with channel four as well. I'm not sure every public service broadcaster will want to put their content on iPlayer, but I think having a place where people can go to where they can access more high quality content from the point of view of the consumer and the citizen is a good thing. Um, and I think that channel four does an incredible job and plays a very unique role in the broadcasting landscape.
But the committee will be aware that channel four has faced significant pressures, funding pressures over recent years. Um, we've appointed a new chair, uh, recently who is, I'm very confident is gripping those challenges. But part of the answer to that, I think, is not to lose the, the Channel Four's unique role and its unique remit. Um, one of the reasons it was set up and I should declare an interest because my dad was on the Annan Committee on the Future of broadcasting that led to the formation of channel four.
But part of it was to make sure that people were seen and heard, and voices and stories were told that weren't necessarily being told through other places. And when I look at the coverage that channel four does of the Paralympics, I think that spirit is very much alive and well. Uh, and they reach much younger audiences than many other public service broadcasters. Um, but they are a small player in an increasingly, increasingly a world that is increasingly dominated by giants where scale matters. And so I think the collaboration is very important.
Now, look, Joe, you raised a challenge about the channel four is funded by advertising, and the BBC is not. Um and so there will need to be a bespoke arrangement around that. Um I understand there are discussions happening between channel four and, and the BBC about that. Um and as a government I don't think we've taken a view yet. Um but the principles are the same as we discussed earlier in the session. I don't want to restrict people's access to BBC content through advertising because of the role that it plays as a shared civic space.
I think channel four is in a different position, and it may be possible to reach a different arrangement for channel four content.
But the committee will be aware that channel four has faced significant pressures, funding pressures over recent years. Um, we've appointed a new chair, uh, recently who is, I'm very confident is gripping those challenges. But part of the answer to that, I think, is not to lose the, the Channel Four's unique role and its unique remit. Um, one of the reasons it was set up and I should declare an interest because my dad was on the Annan Committee on the Future of broadcasting that led to the formation of channel four.
But part of it was to make sure that people were seen and heard, and voices and stories were told that weren't necessarily being told through other places. And when I look at the coverage that channel four does of the Paralympics, I think that spirit is very much alive and well. Uh, and they reach much younger audiences than many other public service broadcasters. Um, but they are a small player in an increasingly, increasingly a world that is increasingly dominated by giants where scale matters. And so I think the collaboration is very important.
Now, look, Joe, you raised a challenge about the channel four is funded by advertising, and the BBC is not. Um and so there will need to be a bespoke arrangement around that. Um I understand there are discussions happening between channel four and, and the BBC about that. Um and as a government I don't think we've taken a view yet. Um but the principles are the same as we discussed earlier in the session. I don't want to restrict people's access to BBC content through advertising because of the role that it plays as a shared civic space.
I think channel four is in a different position, and it may be possible to reach a different arrangement for channel four content.
18:31
18:31
18:31
18:32
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Is something when I went to the annual TV conference last September, something that I urged the public service broadcasters to do, they they all face challenges. They still produce top quality content, whether it's children's regional news, distinctly British content that very few other providers are able to match. But obviously the advertising revenues have been falling for some time. They had obviously real pressures, particularly from Covid and the legacy of that. The indie sector has been under a lot of pressure as well.
Um, and so more collaboration, I think is the future of public service broadcasting. There's been a lot of talk about mergers. Um, I guess what I would say is that I do see, particularly for the BBC and channel four, that they play a very distinct and unique role in our ecosystem. Uh, and that I would, I would be. Reluctant to see them lose their distinct culture, ethos and identity, what I. Would say though, is I think there is more scope for them to collaborate further, uh, to.
Both to save costs and also to extend their reach. Thank you.
Um, and so more collaboration, I think is the future of public service broadcasting. There's been a lot of talk about mergers. Um, I guess what I would say is that I do see, particularly for the BBC and channel four, that they play a very distinct and unique role in our ecosystem. Uh, and that I would, I would be. Reluctant to see them lose their distinct culture, ethos and identity, what I. Would say though, is I think there is more scope for them to collaborate further, uh, to.
Both to save costs and also to extend their reach. Thank you.
18:33
18:33
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Lovely. Thank you very much. And I'm going to finish you off by talking about the thorny subject of DTT and IPTV switchover. I don't know whether that's you or whether that's Robert that's got this, um, this one, but you've opened up consultation on the move from DTT to IPTV with two options. So you're talking about either a managed transition by 2020, 2034 or a managed transition by 2044. I wondered if you could very briefly, because I want to get you out of here, explain the relevance of this to the BBC charter review and then why it's important for the BBC.
18:34
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I mean, if I do a very broad thing and then Robert can do all the technical brilliance, but, um, I. I, um, I one of the pressures on public service broadcasters is the fact that they are still broadcasting in two distinct ways and meeting the costs of that. The BBC takes that obligation very seriously. And I've never had a discussion with the director general or a senior executive where they didn't take their responsibility to ensure that they maintain, reach and maintain the service for both.
Um, until until such a time as we can make a transition where nobody is left behind. The reason we came up with those two dates, um, is because there are some people who think that by setting a date of 2034, which I recognise will be challenging to meet, it will galvanise the industry in order to come up with solutions and move faster to enable that to happen. That would obviously be a positive thing in relation to the BBC's financial situation. Uh, there are others who think that that is not possible, which is why we gave the date of 2044, because we've given a cast iron commitment in the green Paper that nobody will be left behind.
But I don't know, Robert, if you wanted to add something.
Um, until until such a time as we can make a transition where nobody is left behind. The reason we came up with those two dates, um, is because there are some people who think that by setting a date of 2034, which I recognise will be challenging to meet, it will galvanise the industry in order to come up with solutions and move faster to enable that to happen. That would obviously be a positive thing in relation to the BBC's financial situation. Uh, there are others who think that that is not possible, which is why we gave the date of 2044, because we've given a cast iron commitment in the green Paper that nobody will be left behind.
But I don't know, Robert, if you wanted to add something.
18:35
18:35
18:35