Media Literacy (Communications and Digital Committee Report) Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate

Baroness Keeley

Main Page: Baroness Keeley (Labour - Life peer)

Media Literacy (Communications and Digital Committee Report)

Baroness Keeley Excerpts
Monday 16th March 2026

(1 day, 12 hours ago)

Grand Committee
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Moved by
Baroness Keeley Portrait Baroness Keeley
- Hansard - -

That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Communications and Digital Committee Media literacy (3rd Report, HL Paper 163).

Baroness Keeley Portrait Baroness Keeley (Lab)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this debate on the report of the Communications and Digital Committee’s inquiry on media literacy. In doing so, I will focus particularly on national leadership, the responsibilities of technology platforms and delivery in schools. This inquiry was the first undertaken after I took over as chair of the committee in early 2025, and I place on record my thanks to all the members of the committee, our witnesses and our excellent committee team, who worked hard on the inquiry, the report and the communications around the publication.

Media literacy is fundamental to a healthy democracy. An early inquiry by the House of Lords Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee concluded in its report that:

“In the digital world, our belief in what we see, hear and read is being distorted to the point at which we no longer know who or what to trust”.


There is even more urgency now because rapid technological change, particularly the rise of social media and generative AI, has transformed how information is produced, distributed and consumed. One of the most striking consequences has been the growing dominance of online platforms and social media as primary news sources. Ofcom data from 2024 found that 71% of people consume news content via online providers, overtaking television news at 70%. This is accompanied by a steady decline in news consumption by TV, radio and newspapers. This shift changes what people see and how they see it. Online platform recommender algorithms tend to prioritise content based on keeping the user engaged rather than focusing on accuracy or public interest.

In a world of polarising views and declining interest in traditional news, it is more important than ever that children and adults have the skills to think critically about the content they access and create. It is encouraging that the UK has improved in international rankings for media literacy since our report was written. In the Open Society Institute’s 2026 European media literacy index, the UK ranked 10th, having previously ranked 13th. However, we should not be complacent about that improvement nor assume that the positive trajectory will continue without sustained effort. It was clear from the evidence we received that we are not currently doing enough in the UK, either in schools or outside them, to improve media literacy. A key concern for the committee was that the Government may not be dedicating sufficient attention or resource to this issue. We heard that, despite the aims of the previous Government’s 2021-24 media literacy strategy, the UK’s media literacy sector remains fragmented, underfunded and underevaluated.

This may in part reflect how responsibilities for media literacy are divided between the Government and Ofcom. Following the introduction of new duties under the Online Safety Act 2023, Ofcom now has a statutory duty to publish a media literacy strategy. Until this morning, the Government did not have an explicit up-to-date media literacy strategy and their activity on this appeared to be folded into wider work on digital inclusion and online safety. In their response to our report the Government said they would publish a media literacy vision statement. The new media literacy action plan published today as part of the Government’s Protecting What Matters social cohesion strategy appears to be the main vehicle for that vision. It is a welcome step towards greater clarity and co-ordination.

However, important questions remain about the scale of ambition, the resources attached to the plan and the extent to which it responds to the specific concerns raised by the committee, so I ask my noble friend the Minister what resources and delivery mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that the plan translates into tangible action and measurable improvements in media literacy.

The action plan refers to strengthening community-based provision, including through libraries and other trusted spaces, which we welcome. But without discrete long-term funding lines dedicated to media literacy, there remains a risk that initiatives are short term and piecemeal. Action 20 in the plan, to provide funding for local projects that support media literacy under the digital inclusion innovation fund, is a telling example. The Government awarded funding to over 80 projects but only one explicitly references media literacy, although the action plan does identify two further digital skills projects that partly cover it. Moreover, I understand that this funding must be used by the end of March 2026.

The committee recommended that:

“The Digital Inclusion Innovation Fund should include significant long-term investment in discrete media literacy programmes”.


Clearly, that has not happened yet, with at best three out of 80 projects covering media literacy. Can my noble friend the Minister clarify when the funding provided in the digital inclusion innovation fund runs out and update us on when we might see significant long-term investment in discrete media literacy programmes, rather than it being an add-on to broader digital inclusion work?

There is also a question over whether the action plan provides the sustained direction and cross-government co-ordination necessary to close the gaps that our inquiry identified. The committee concluded that, although Ofcom may have statutory duties on media literacy, it is not the right body to deliver a nationwide media literacy programme. We were clear that only the Government can fill the current “leadership vacuum” on media literacy delivery. I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister how the Government will ensure that the action plan published today is delivered in a way that complements Ofcom’s statutory strategy and avoids the duplication or confusion of roles. Can he reassure us that the two bodies are working together effectively?

We also call for the Government to nominate a single Minister to take responsibility for its media literacy work. In their response, the Government explained that Kanishka Narayan MP has clear “ministerial responsibility” for online

“media literacy coordination and strategy in government”,

while my noble friend Lady Lloyd has responsibility for media literacy insofar as it relates to the Government’s work on digital inclusion. The media literacy action plan also mentions the DCMS Minister, Ian Murray MP, and DfE Minister, Olivia Bailey MP. Can my noble friend the Minister reassure us that the Government’s media literacy work benefits from coherent and unified ministerial engagement, with clear co-ordination and accountability?

I turn now to the responsibilities of tech platforms. The committee felt strongly that technology companies must do more. We considered that tech platforms have a responsibility to help their users to assess what they see on the services and to understand why they are seeing it, where it has come from and whether it can be trusted. However, at present, the platforms face no formal requirements to support media literacy.

Ofcom has developed a set of best practice design principles for media literacy, to which some platforms have signed up, although these recommendations are advisory rather than legally enforceable. There is also a troubling lack of transparency, since only platforms hold the data that would demonstrate what impact any media literacy interventions would have on user behaviour.

The Protecting What Matters strategy talks about increasing transparency around how the platforms operate and giving independent researchers greater access to platform data. That is welcome, but the media literacy action plan will need to spell out in detail how and on what timetable those commitments will be delivered. At present, it makes almost no reference to the role of platforms in supporting media literacy.

Our report called for the Government to establish stronger requirements on technology platforms to implement and evaluate media literacy interventions and to ensure that Ofcom is empowered to take robust action to hold the platforms to account. Can my noble friend the Minister tell us how the media literacy action plan will strengthen Ofcom’s ability to evaluate platforms’ media literacy interventions? What concrete steps will be taken to ensure meaningful data access for regulators and independent researchers? I also welcome his view on whether Ofcom’s current best practice approach remains adequate to ensure that the platforms are truly playing their part in supporting media literacy.

Given the scale of the impact that tech platforms have had on our media and information environment, the committee felt that funding for media literacy programmes

“should substantially come from the technology sector”

itself. However, the Government rejected our call for a levy on platforms to fund media literacy initiatives. Will the Minister say what is the Government’s view on how the gap in funding for large-scale, long-term media literacy interventions will be addressed, if not by a levy?

Finally, I turn to the curriculum and the committee’s central theme: the need to embed media literacy throughout the education system. Children and young people need to engage with this topic repeatedly throughout their time in school, starting from an early age. Yet we found that, at its worst, the teaching of media literacy in schools is being relegated to one-off lessons or even an annual school assembly. That is clearly not good enough.

According to Professor Lee Edwards of the LSE, the Department for Education has in the past shown little interest in treating media literacy as a valued subject. It is therefore welcome to see that the media literacy action plan has the support of the Minister for Early Education and that it includes several actions for the Department for Education. We also welcome that the Government took up the recommendations of the Curriculum and Assessment Review on the need to enhance the coverage of media literacy in primary and secondary curricula.

The Guardian Foundation observed that,

“the key to success is to make sure teachers and schools are properly supported and ensure media literacy does not become an additional burden on already stretched educators”.

Media literacy demands specialist knowledge and confidence from teachers, particularly as the media landscape continues to evolve, so investment in initial teacher education and continuing professional development will be essential.

The need for improved training to enable teachers to teach media literacy effectively was a consistent theme in our evidence. We heard that,

“30% of teachers cite a lack of relevant training as a barrier to delivering effective media literacy”.

Although the action plan recognises the need for teacher training, it refers loosely to “support” for teachers “in line with” the recommendations of the Curriculum and Assessment Review, along with training focused on,

“teaching media literacy skills related to counter-extremism and misogyny”.

Media literacy goes further than those two important areas.

Will the Minister give us further detail on how the Government will ensure that media literacy is incorporated effectively into teacher training and continuing professional development plans to improve teacher training on media literacy? Will he also provide an update on the timeline for delivering the changes set out in the Curriculum and Assessment Review?

Today’s media literacy action plan is a timely opportunity to address the concerns set out in our report, particularly around leadership, funding and delivery in schools. The question is whether the Government will now match their stated ambition with the necessary resources and leadership. I beg to move.

Baroness Wheeler Portrait Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, before we start, I ask noble Lords to ensure that they stick to the five minutes’ speaking time. Although the time allowance is advisory, the Grand Committee may sit only until around 7.45 pm. We need to conclude the debate before then, and a vote is expected in the Chamber, so I ask noble Lords to stick to their time and end at five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---
Baroness Keeley Portrait Baroness Keeley (Lab)
- Hansard - -

I thank my noble friend the Minister and all noble Lords who have spoken in this wide-ranging debate, with some excellent questions. I thank the Minister for saying that he will later answer any questions to which we have not had an answer.

With a subject as wide-ranging as media literacy, it is difficult to cover everything. I take on board the points noble Lords made about post-16 youth services being an important area, as well as people in prisons. We had quite a rush towards the end of our inquiry to fit in with the timing of the Francis review. Given what happened in that review and that we now have the media literacy action plan, we were probably right to go with that timing, rather than taking longer. It is always difficult.

I welcome the emphasis on critical thinking and thinking independently, which was one of the key things to come out strongly in the debate, as well as the discussion on visual literacy, which we cannot forget. The need for Ofcom to update its definition came up again and again, so we should perhaps keep on that. On the subject of libraries, which were mentioned, we must remember that so many libraries are now run by volunteers, so let us not think that they can take on extra responsibilities without the funding that goes with that. I end by welcoming the wide support for the committee and its report.

Motion agreed.