BBC World Service Funding

[Sir Jeremy Wright in the Chair]

We will start a minute or so early because, as everyone will appreciate, there are a lot of potential speakers and I want to give everyone maximum opportunity to get in. To ensure that no one is disadvantaged by our starting early, let me make it clear that I will also call those who arrive from 3.10 pm onwards.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the funding of the BBC World Service.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Earlier this afternoon, hon. Members may have heard the Prime Minister agree with me that the World Service is a crucial asset of British soft power. Therefore, the debate may be superfluous in some respects, but as we are all here I think we will carry on with it.

There are few institutions in the world that so consistently live up to the values we claim to cherish—truth, independence and freedom—as does the BBC World Service. Together with the royal family, the BBC is one of a tiny handful of British brands known by billions worldwide—and not just known, but trusted. It broadcasts in 43 languages to 400 million people a week, bringing impartial news to some of the most dangerous and controlled places on Earth. It is a beacon for those who are denied the right to free expression, and a trusted voice in a world increasingly awash with propaganda, intimidation and disinformation. It certainly strengthens our hand when we deal with tyrants worldwide. That is why it is so important to ensure its continued funding.

The World Service costs £366 million annually to reach an audience of approximately 400 million people every week—what fantastic value! Across the globe, rogue and authoritarian Governments are increasingly leveraging media to undermine free societies. We see that clearly in Hong Kong, where the Chinese state is targeting journalists who report on the Chinese state’s human rights abuses, and we have seen it in Moldova, where last year’s presidential elections were disrupted by Russian disinformation—false stories pumped on to people’s phones by hostile powers. Those dangers have been only amplified by recent cuts to American foreign spending. The Voice of America was silenced by President Trump.

I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to intervene on him as the MP for BBC Scotland’s headquarters. Given the context that he has talked about, does he agree that investment in the BBC World Service is in fact investment in the defence of our values and the defence of our ideals as a British nation?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The Voice of America was established to broadcast truth and liberty into European nations darkened by fascism and Soviet oppression. When the editor of Russia Today heard that the Voice had been silenced, he said it was “awesome”, which only highlights the importance of the BBC and Britain on the global stage. We should encourage the United States to reconsider its decision and restore the funding, but we must prepare ourselves to fill the gap through the World Service. That will mean additional demands on resources.

The World Service is vital in the battle against misinformation, which is a modern fight unfamiliar to those who will recall a world where all media outlets provided trusted and verifiable facts. Misinformation, along with confused or false facts, has become one of the most pressing global threats, fuelling doubt, division and instability.

The BBC World Service excels in countering misinformation. BBC Verify and its language services are being used to rigorously fact-check. They use cutting-edge AI to rapidly tackle and neutralise viral disinformation. Only this week, we heard how AI has been used to establish a new Polish language service.

This is an important debate. I broadly agree with the hon. Member on the positive influence of the World Service. Would he acknowledge, though, that on occasion—such as on BBC Arabic—standards have fallen below what we would expect, with former Hamas officials put forward as neutral observers? We need to ensure that, exactly as he said, the highest possible standards of international truth and credibility are maintained at the BBC.

I thank the right hon. Member—my recent squash partner—for his intervention, I agree that we must be sure that whatever the BBC says is true; that must be the case. The BBC Arabic service—the language service—disappeared some time ago, and that is to be regretted.

In Pakistan, a video falsely claimed to show the aftermath of an Indian airstrike on Pakistani air bases. That went viral—it was viewed over 400,000 times—stoking widespread fear and heightening tensions with India over Kashmir, but actually it was mislabelled footage of the 2020 Beirut port explosion. BBC Verify debunked the claim and calmed the situation.

In 2023, a false story spread across the internet that alleged that the newly elected President of Nigeria had forged his university degree. There was anger and unrest until a report by the BBC global disinformation team revealed it to be false, which defused the situation.

Those are not isolated stories; they are part of a growing global pattern. The fight is particularly crucial in an era when young people increasingly consume news online. A few weeks ago, I visited a school in my constituency at Bury St Edmunds and asked the children how they got their news. I said, “Do you get your news online?”, and almost every hand went up. Among 12 to 15-year-olds in the UK, only the BBC can compete effectively with the online tech giants. To continue to compete effectively and divert attention from untrustworthy sources, the BBC needs the resources to excel in what a young person recently told me is called the “attention economy”. With appropriate funding for new digital content, the BBC can significantly expand its impact.

In recent weeks, our attention has undoubtedly been drawn to the middle east, particularly to Iran, and the power of the BBC’s digital reach is no clearer than through the work of BBC Persian. It recently reached over 32 million users on Instagram in just five days, despite the platform’s having been blocked by the Iranians. People were so desperate to view trusted BBC news that they risked their safety by using virtual private networks, or VPNs, to bypass Iran’s strict internet censors. Some posts achieved more than 12 million views.

What has been happening at BBC Persian over the past few weeks is a case in point, as my hon. Friend said. It has been narrating events in an accessible way and providing insights that are free from the talking points of the propaganda regime into how people in Iran really feel, and how they are experiencing the conflict. It is a public good for the world. It tackles misinformation and develops our soft power, but it also provides important human empathy in the fog of war. We must bear in mind that BBC Persian journalists and their families are being harassed and threatened here in London. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should celebrate their courageous work and back them with the resources that they need to continue?

I absolutely agree. I first got into this subject when I met World Service refugee correspondents from BBC Persian and BBC News Russian at the Labour party conference. I so admired what they were doing, and it was a real inspiration for me.

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office contributes £104 million a year to the World Service budget of £366 million. The BBC does an awful lot with its licence fee. I was told this week that, for the cost of a cup of coffee a week, it delivers drama, comedy and news across TV and radio, as well as one of the world’s most visited websites. However, money is tight and there are serious fears that its essential work will be chipped away.

Like many, I would describe the BBC World Service as a tool of British soft power. Remarkably, the entire Foreign Office contribution to the BBC World Service is roughly equivalent to the cost of a single F-35 jet. We lately agreed to purchase a whole lot more of those, and that was the right move because we need to boost defence in a dangerous world, but it would be a critical mistake to invest heavily in just one aspect of our security while neglecting another equally essential aspect.

Global inflation and rising costs are putting the World Service in increasing funding difficulties, and without more support there is a risk that it will lose critical technological capabilities, especially among younger audiences. Although broadcast services currently account for two thirds of the World Service’s reach and they remain crucial, the future is digital, and on digital platforms the BBC is not just competing with Russia and China but is up against Facebook, TikTok, Google and the others, so we need sustained investment. Despite all the funding challenges, BBC World Service journalists continue to bravely provide quality journalism in the most challenging circumstances, often at great personal risk. When it comes to Iran we rely heavily on the work of BBC Persian’s brave journalists who face, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) said, threats, asset seizures and passport confiscations just for doing their jobs.

I do not in any way argue with the hon. Gentleman’s tribute to the journalists of BBC Persian, who have endured appalling harassment, particularly of their families still in Tehran. It is also worth putting on the record the bravery of the journalists of Iran International, one of whom was attacked by a thug from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on the streets of London, and who still endure enormous threats and intimidation.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that remark. The World Service is ultimately about the listener. We must bear in mind, when considering the funding settlement for that service, that there are individuals living under authoritarianism whose freedom of expression is so very restricted. They rely on the World Service to provide an accurate and comprehensive global perspective. Funding the World Service is not just about serving elites; it is about earning respect abroad and safeguarding future freedom. Let us not be complacent when it comes to the funding of the BBC World Service. It is an important source of essential soft power and a way for the country to punch well above its weight on the international stage, to spread truth, to lighten the grip of totalitarianism, and in some circumstances prevent the need for us to use hard power at all. That is exactly what the Prime Minister told us this morning.

It has been said that we could not recreate the BBC World Service today if we started from scratch. There is not the political will and no one would be willing to take such a risk. If we lose the World Service, we simply will not get it back. I do not think we should take that risk. The Government were bold to increase funding for the World Service last year, but a more steady and long-term funding arrangement must be put in place to prevent what I fear will be death by a thousand cuts.

Order. I remind Members that if they wish to speak they should continue to bob so I can see that they do. If we are going to get everybody in, people will need to restrict themselves to about three minutes, but I am loath to impose a formal time limit. I call Sir John Whittingdale.

Thank you, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) on calling the debate this afternoon, which is extremely topical, and on convening a very helpful panel to discuss the subject a couple of days ago.

The World Service has always been one of the great assets of this country. When we talk about the UK’s soft power, the BBC is right up there at the top. Its reach into some of the most troubled parts of the world is huge. We only have to reflect back on the stories of people like Terry Waite, who, when he was held hostage in Lebanon, spoke of how he relied on the BBC World Service. The service has become all the more important today, for two reasons. First is the huge spread of disinformation—what is called foreign interference and manipulation of information—being conducted by Russia and China.

The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket mentioned Moldova. I was there a few weeks ago and spoke to politicians there who were trying to counter a tidal wave of Russian disinformation on TikTok and Telegram channels, seeking to influence the parliamentary election coming up later this year. The same is happening in China, with independent media being closed down and huge amounts put into spreading Chinese propaganda. That is one aspect.

At the same time, the other reliable voice, which was provided by the Voice of America service, as the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket said, has been undercut by the withdrawal of funding by the US Administration. I hope that that will be reversed. At the moment, it is on hold; we are told it is under review. But having talked to some of the people involved, they are pessimistic. If Voice of America goes, it makes it all the more important that we have a trusted, reliable source of independent news.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), from a constituency neighbouring my own, is right that there have occasionally been questions about the impartiality of the World Service, as there are always likely to be. I heard the complaints about BBC Arabic, and in some cases I sympathised with them, but overall the BBC World Service is deeply trusted.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. In recent years, we have seen a rise in disinformation, with malign actors seeking to sow division and distrust within communities, across countries and throughout entire regions. One of the key problems with our global information ecosystem is that it takes significantly more time and effort to refute false or misleading information than it does to produce it. That is why continued funding and support for the BBC World Service is not just desirable but essential: it acts as a factual counterweight to disinformation.

There is documented evidence of states such as Russia employing trolls to spread misinformation internationally, in countries such as the UK and India, on platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Twitter. In 2020, Facebook uncovered a Russia-linked disinformation campaign run through a front organisation in Ghana. The operation used fake accounts to post about US social issues such as race, LGBT rights and celebrity culture, aiming to sow division while concealing its Russian origins. Those and similar actions are designed to accelerate societal division and encourage support for illegal and unethical activities such as the invasion of Ukraine.

In contrast, the BBC World Service shares a balanced view of international developments, delivered through news, speech and discussion, on TV, on radio and online, in 42 languages around the world. It is the world’s largest external broadcaster by reception area, language diversity and audience reach, with an average weekly audience of 450 million. It reflects and projects impartial, accurate and independent journalism. In an increasingly competitive global media environment in which authoritarian states invest heavily in state-run media, the BBC stands as a trusted voice globally.

The case for the BBC World Service is about not only the rise of disinformation but the decline of similar global news services, of which the closest in scale was Voice of America, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley).