My Lords, when I first put down this Motion, it was really to draw the contrast between the amount of attention we are able to give to media issues in the House of Lords compared with the House of Commons. I do not think we have come out well out of that, but you only have to look at the Order Paper today to see the mass of experience we have in this House in media affairs.
In the time since I put down the Motion, the world has changed profoundly, not least in the change now facing broadcasting and reporting. The old rules and assumptions have been challenged, and a new world seems to be emerging where it looks as if it is the will of the strongest, rather than the demands for justice, that comes first. The result is that the need for impartial editors and reporters, unbiased and concerned only about the truth, has never been so clear. Otherwise, conflicts disappear in a fog of war. You need only name just some of the conflicts still raging to make the point: Ukraine and Gaza are well established, but imagine what could happen if new conflicts were to break out in, for example, Cuba or Greenland.
I should first declare my interest. I was a journalist at the Times for six or seven years. My editor was William Haley, who before that was director-general of the BBC. Later, I myself became chairman of two regional newspapers, including the Yorkshire Post. My views have obviously been influenced by those years, and I have a firm regard for working journalists as well as a firm belief in what their duty should be. Broadcasters should tell the public what is happening as best they can judge from their investigations, and report, above all, honestly.
I doubt whether there has ever been a period when broadcasting has been under more scrutiny and attack. There is scrutiny of the broadcasting organisations themselves, of the policies they pursue and of the people running those organisations and working for them. All of them are caught in the spotlight. The BBC programme “Panorama” is symbolic of what has been happening over the past few months. “Panorama” has rightly been criticised for splicing together some of President Trump’s comments to give the impression that he had encouraged his supporters to storm the Capitol Building. The error was to put the comments together, rather than leaving any space between them. Tim Davie paid a heavy price for that, because he was forced to resign, as was the head of news. Of course, it also led to the $10 billion claim made by Mr Trump against the BBC. It became an opportunity for a rich man to challenge the whole basis of BBC reporting. It is one example of the new world that we have entered.
I hope, incidentally, that the BBC will continue to resist any legal action. What is being claimed is entirely out of proportion to any damage that might have been caused. It certainly does not provide a general condemnation of broadcasting, any more than phone hacking by some of the press provided a general condemnation of all newspapers.
I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on introducing this debate with great erudition and wisdom. I will concentrate on some very important issues. The recent Israel-Palestine war and the American takeover of Venezuela have raised all kinds of issues about the relevance and limitations of the public service media. Some of these issues are old and familiar, and we have learned to live with them; other issues are relatively new. Some, we have not faced before, and it is important to concentrate on those issues and work out a radical response.
The first issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler said, has to do with the BBC. The whole thing began when the BBC attributed certain remarks to President Trump. Obviously, this was not properly researched, and the BBC was wrong to do so. But the question is this: was it wrong that the President was presented in such a manner? The remarks attributed to him were totally in character with what he had been saying elsewhere. Therefore, attributing to him the remarks was simply a mistake of a procedural, administrative kind and not a substantial, malignant kind.
The second issue is that we are told that the BBC has an institutional bias. It is bound to have an institutional bias—every institution has a bias. The House of Lords has a bias in favour of the peaceful, moderate resolution of conflict and against terrorism. Universities have a bias. What does it mean? An institution exists to promote certain values, and these values inform and inspire its actions, and therefore bias is inevitable. We can accept the bias, learn to discount it from what we hear or see, and move on. That is what we do all the time. I watched a BBC programme on India. I found it disturbing and not particularly accurate, but I know that, whatever line it takes, it is bound to be unsatisfactory to somebody. You discount it—what is the big deal?
My point is that we ought to learn to appreciate the limitations of human intelligence and ingenuity. Nothing can be perfectly free of bias of any kind. Every institution has bias. The third thing is the necessity of educating citizens. The BBC and other media exist to promote their programmes and identity. Therefore, they make sure that their audience is manipulated in a certain way. The question is how an audience can resist this kind of manipulation and make sure that it is not taken for a ride. Therefore, public service media have a responsibility to make sure that people are properly able to engage critically with issues and the reporting of them.
My Lords, running a media business is not easy. In today’s world, traditional broadcasters face two serious threats: competition from big tech, both economically and for people’s attention; and falling levels of public trust, especially in broadcast news. I will focus on the latter, but I will come back to it in a moment.
Traditional broadcasters’ survival calls for consolidation. We are starting to see that happen with Sky’s planned acquisition of ITV’s channels and digital platform. In my view, the BBC and Channel 4 joining forces in some form or another is a likely next step. It is unclear what Channel 5’s American owners might do but it is worth saying that, even though the channel is American owned, it does a brilliant job of serving rural audiences and those in post-industrial and seaside towns, who frequently raise concerns about representation in programming on other PSBs. Although ownership is important and I am against foreign Governments owning any of our broadcasters, if there is to be a future for public service broadcasting in the UK then that is not where we need to start.
First, we need to be clear why public service broadcasting matters and ensure that its failings, as seen through the eyes of the public, who pay for it and for whose benefit its special status exists, are properly addressed. I think we are all clear that the purpose of public service broadcasting is to promote Britishness—not just British talent, but British values and all aspects of British life. Broadcasters seem to find that last bit most difficult, because they tend to want to change those bits of Britishness they do not like so much. If big tech is an external threat to PSB, this is a threat to its future from within.
This is why some adults have become increasingly distrustful of broadcast news over the last 10 years and are turning away in particular from the BBC. For these audiences, the fact that they are going now is enabled by choice; the choice is not pulling them away, as too many who work in the media want to believe. We have to understand that, in today’s world of endless choice—much of it high quality—public service broadcasting is of value only if it strengthens our nation and communities by promoting British values and reflecting the different facets of British life with respect. This is magnified when it comes to the BBC and will become even more so if American owners of commercial PSBs cannot see sufficient financial benefits to justify the regulatory costs and choose another path.
Noble Lords will note that I am not my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter. It is customary on these occasions to thank the proposer of the Motion. I would very much like to do so for the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. I go further and say that, over the years, he has been a much more vigorous defender of the BBC and other public service broadcasters than many of his colleagues in his former party.
The irony in this debate is that politicians are normally not to be trusted, because we are all obsessed with news and current affairs, unlike the public. Over 20 years ago, 20 million people used to watch BBC News; now it is lucky to get 4 million. However, we need to remember that 12 million people watched “The Celebrity Traitors”, millions are regular followers of “EastEnders” and “Coronation Street”, and more people listen to “The Archers” than watch BBC News. We must never forget that, despite our regional and national differences, UK broadcasters provide much of the glue that binds us all together in our common watching and listening practices. The public service broadcasters are entitled to much of the credit for this.
However, 2026 brings a number of problems, particularly for the public service broadcasters. Will the reduction in TV advertising threaten the viability of Channel 3, Channel 4 and Channel 5? Will Sky be allowed to buy ITV, and what would be the protections for impartiality in that event? As a side issue, will Netflix or Paramount be allowed to buy Warner Bros. Discovery? As a personal interest, will more sport be shown free to air? Will the digital-terrestrial transition to internet protocol delivery be implemented without damaging the ability of people without internet service to watch TV? Will the decline in watching and listening by the under-30s be arrested?
As previous speakers have said, there is then the issue of the BBC. Its immediate problem is to find a new director-general, especially as all the suggested candidates in the press would appear to have to take significant pay cuts to accept the job, even if they wanted it. We must move towards a new charter and funding arrangements in 2026, to be implemented in 2027. The Government have recently published a Green Paper and I have no doubt that many noble Lords will suggest solutions in this debate, but it must be remembered that, on Christmas Day, nine out of the top 10 programmes were BBC programmes. A major issue in this debate which has seemed to be ignored so far is what to do about non-payment, which is now a significant problem for BBC budgets and is rising to an unsustainable level.
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I am regularly commissioned to present “Thought for the Day” on the BBC, as well as weekday and Sunday services. I also occasionally work with a range of other UK and global broadcasters, from GB News to Times Radio and LBC, providing comment on religious and ethical news stories.
As the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has reminded us, broadcasting operates in an international context of increasing polarisation against a background where the greatest global political powers are retreating rapidly into levels of imperialist control and expansionism not previously seen in most of our lifetimes. It is a context in which truth is subservient to expediency and honesty is sacrificed to personal or political advantage. Many broadcasting organisations, especially those which are politically aligned, have little interest or incentive, except where regulators require it, to do other than collude with the political masters of the age. In such a world, the place of broadcasters who seek to offer a balanced range of perspectives and prioritise facts over partisanship has never been more vital. Public service broadcasting—and in the UK that does mean particularly the BBC—with a funding mechanism not wholly dependent on courting advertisers or placating the government of the day, enables a level of impartiality, and thereby public trust, that exists both here and beyond these shores. Moreover, the BBC, uniquely among mainstream broadcasters, continues to afford a place for the religious and ethical input necessary to support our British values.
Moreover, the value of such a public service broadcaster goes far beyond its own output. Let me offer a brief analogy from another sector. Some 26 years ago, when the then Labour Government introduced the asylum seeker dispersal scheme, I worked with a couple of friends to set up a not-for-profit accommodation provider. We bid for, and won, the contract for Yorkshire and the Humber. We did that not only because we thought we could run a good service for our region, but to offer a comparator against which the standards of service to be provided by the commercial organisations operating in other regions could be judged. In the same way, I would argue that public sector broadcasting sets a vital standard against which we both can and must judge the performance of all our broadcasters.
My Lords, I also join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for inspiring this debate at what is a crucial time for broadcasting.
The Green Paper the Government published on the BBC starts off with a reminder of what, despite all its travails, the BBC delivers for this country:
“It is not just a broadcaster—it is a national institution”,
and
“If it did not already exist, we would have to invent it”.
Those are my sentiments entirely. The Secretary of State also singled out the BBC, along with the NHS, as the two most important institutions in our country. She said that:
“While one is fundamental to the health of our people, the other is fundamental to the health of our democracy”.
Seeing the BBC not only as another media organisation but as a cultural organisation, and part our social infrastructure, is crucial.
The BBC is central to our democracy as the nation’s most widely used and trusted source of news, national and local. Of course, we all benefit from the BBC’s global news services, now reaching around 453 million people each week, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, reminded us. This example shows that this country’s soft power needs to be built on and enhanced, and not, as at present, diminished.
The BBC is also the nation’s storyteller. The truth is that the streamers like Netflix, Apple and Amazon are commissioning content that will work on an international scale. Of course, we all value and love that. However, the total number of hours they make about the UK is in the thousands, not the tens of thousands that the public service broadcasters produce. I watched the immensely powerful documentary “Our Girls: The Southport Families” on BBC1, about the families of the three girls murdered in that dreadful attack last year. I do not believe that would have been commissioned or made by a streamer. James Graham, the illustrious playwright and screenwriter who, in my time, wrote the BBC1 series “Sherwood”, said that:
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for securing this debate and for his thoughtful introduction. My remarks will be confined to public service broadcasting and the BBC.
As we have heard, we are operating in a very challenging media environment in which the case for public service broadcasting does not weaken but sharpens. The need to reinforce its values and purpose, and to reassert its role and the BBC’s mission in particular, matters more rather than less today. What is at stake is not simply the future shape of a broadcaster but the BBC’s continuing ability to help hold together the social fabric of our society and evade the dangers of fragmentation.
The BBC was established to serve the whole of society. Its mission to inform, educate and entertain was conceived as a durable public settlement, built on universality, editorial independence, impartiality and responsibility to public interest. The question before us not whether the BBC should evolve—it must—but whether the changes under consideration strengthen or weaken this ability to discharge its founding principles and duties to the public.
Some proposals in the current consultation would, if pursued without care, place real pressure on the BBC’s capacity to provide a universal service. If we are serious about the BBC as a public service broadcaster, then reform must be judged against its mission and purpose and not just against market pressures.
In a crowded market, attention is treated as a commodity to be harvested. As a public service broadcaster, the BBC should be enabled to stand apart as a public service resource which manages attention with care. This distinction matters.
That is why universality matters—which is not, in my view, a relic of the analogue age; it is a design principle for the digital one. Without universality, we do not share public conversations, and we fragment into parallel areas. Then there is of course the global dimension, but that global credibility rests on the trust built at home. The authority with which the BBC speaks abroad depends on the integrity, independence and accountability of the system here in the UK. Weaken that settlement and the global voice will weaken.
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I briefly declare that I am the co-chair of the All-Party Group on Creators, which means I meet a lot of YouTube influencers. I am also a broadcaster on Times Radio. In fact, I should be plugging my show right now on Times Radio—it is on Fridays at 10 am—but I have chosen instead to listen to some excellent speeches.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for securing this important debate, and also say how thrilling it was to see the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, appearing as the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter. I know it is something he has wanted to do for years, although I gather that the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, will later be appearing as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. I feel like I am in the middle of a pilot for a new BBC comedy series.
Back in 2009, when I was still the opposition spokesman, I suggested to a media analyst that the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 should merge. She told me I was a complete idiot—but I was obviously making a point about scale. Although we are still a large, medium-sized country, we know we need scale in broadcasting. The BBC cannot compete—that ship has sailed—against the global streamers such as Netflix, Apple, Amazon Prime and, of course, YouTube, which we never talk about, but which has become the absolute Goliath in terms of media broadcasting. So, what we are really debating here is how we secure the future of the BBC in this new ecosystem.
Of course, the BBC is not the only game in town when it comes to producing high-quality British content. It is also worth pointing out that it is not just the licence fee that funds high-quality content. The tax credits for film and television, which the last Government introduced but which have been secured by this Government, are also vital in securing good quality British content. But the BBC really is, as far as domestic broadcasting is concerned, the only game in town.
12:47 pm
20 of 63 shown
The BBC is an organisation whose reports are relied on around the world. My firm view is that broadcasters should be independent, honest in their reports and not constrained by outside influences, either political or commercial. Broadcasting today is being used as a weapon of war and the danger is that the whole truth scarcely emerges. Those comments are obvious enough when it comes to Russia and China, where no pretence is made of providing a balanced account of what is happening in the world and how balance can be maintained. But elsewhere, the position is more difficult and more complicated.
One of the greatest scandals is not what is being reported; the scandal is what is being prevented from being reported. Take Gaza as an example. We have here an area that has been reduced to rubble, but with no journalists there to record this destruction and its impact on human lives. It is not just the broadcasters that should be under scrutiny; it is the organisations and nations that are preventing honest journalism from taking place and depriving the public of knowledge.
The BBC is an organisation whose reports are relied on in this country and around the globe. We should not allow ideological prejudice to get in the way of judgment. We should remember that the BBC continues to be used more than any other media provider in the United Kingdom, with 94% of adults using at least one of its services during an average month. I say this not because of some nationalist pride but because any attempt to make one mistake a general denunciation of the whole organisation is simply wrong.
It should be remembered that the BBC often gets it right when others are still at sea. When I was reporting for the Times from Beirut, at the time of the Middle East war in 1967, there was total confusion in the press corps about what was happening. Two American reporters showed the way forward by ignoring Voice of America, or some such station, and turning instead to BBC Overseas for their information. I do not know if that would be the case today, although it seems to me unlikely that even American reporters overseas are going to flock to Fox News. What I do know is that, globally, BBC services reach 450 million people each week, which shows some of the international reach that the corporation has. I believe that, in our uncertain world, it is surely important that there are some services that the public can rely on. We can take pride in what we have achieved.
Attacking the BBC has become something of a national sport. Strangely enough, I do not object to that, as it keeps the BBC competitive and on its toes. What is also keeping it looking forward is the competition that it receives from other broadcasters—for example, the new competition from broadcasters such as Times Radio, or the importance of “Channel 4 News”, which must have won more viewers in its reporting of the Middle East in the last few months.
It makes the point that British broadcasting is not just the BBC; it is also its strength. It has the long-term competition of ITV and the new services. It has the competition of the streamers, which pick up large audiences. The BBC and ITV have established large home audiences. The streamers have many excellent programmes, but they do not have what I would call the local characteristic. They are, by nature, international providers, operating for an international market. We are fortunate in having, for example, independent production companies based in this country. It adds to the very strength of British broadcasting.
This is a short debate, and I make it clear that, although I have talked mainly about news, which is what I know most about, there are independent British companies providing first-class music, both classical and popular, and excellent drama programmes, all in line with the whole purpose of the BBC charter to inform, educate and entertain.
Inevitably, then, I come back at the end to the BBC. In the months ahead, we will see fierce debates on the charter and the licence fee. Doubtless, the BBC will receive many suggestions of how to modernise for the future. But for all that, we should remember that we have a unique organisation in this country, which has stood the test of time. It provides an excellent service to the British public and it attracts a big overseas following. It is independent, non-partisan and it has qualities that we respect. My view, quite simply, is that we should be prepared to defend the values in British broadcasting that have sustained us over the last 100 years. I believe, above all, that they have served us very well.
My last point to make, in the four minutes, I have is that media in any society have an extremely important role in keeping society going. Social cohesion means that no group should be left out. How do we make programmes that are open to diversity? You cannot leave out certain groups; you have to make them visible and audible. The media have not tended to do that. The BBC has, to my knowledge, failed in educating the citizenry and local groups. I have not seen programmes where an individual has sat down and gone through the way the programme was reported, showing the audience of millions how to read a programme.
I very much hope that we shall resist any false, malignant pressure on our public service media, from whatever quarter it comes.
There is much that is great about the BBC and I want it to be part of our future, but as things stand—this is a big “but”—we and BBC bosses are kidding ourselves if we believe the BBC is the solution to a divided society. It cannot be, unless and until those running the organisation accept publicly that they understand and will address the systemic weaknesses exposed by Michael Prescott’s report that have made the BBC part of the problem and are driving some people away. Up until now, the BBC has appeared to think that if it recognises that it has a problem, it will lose its moral authority. Yet it is losing its moral authority because it is denying that it has a problem. Not changing will threaten its future, and possibly the future of PSB. That is why its strongest supporters must demand that it changes.
Whatever mistakes it makes, these Benches are supporters of the BBC. We share Lisa Nandy’s view of the BBC as a “light on the hill” and we have every hope that it will be safe in her hands as a result.
Turning to radio, I remember in my childhood hearing reports that TV would be the death of it. Nothing could have been further from the truth—but why? Let me offer an interpretation. TV, like film or theatre, invites us to look in from outside, through the screen or proscenium arch. We are observing events that are taking place elsewhere. Radio, by contrast, is immersive. The sound is all around us. When I do my “Thought for the Day” broadcasts, I am in the car or kitchen, train or bedroom, with my listeners. I have apologised at times to my clergy who, some mornings, find themselves hearing me speak to them through the shower curtain. Radio brings a level of immersive intimacy that even 3D movies fail to achieve. Radio needs to be cherished, not marginalised. Its role in broadcasting in the future will be just as vital, if not more so.
Analyses that cross-tabulate trust levels with voting intention continue to demonstrate that the BBC, across all its output, remains a stand-out performer. As we move towards the next charter renewal process, we need to ensure we retain a strong BBC, one with transparent operational independence from government.
“The BBC and the public service broadcasters have a role to train, find and amplify voices that, on paper, may not have an easy, wide audience yet”.
He also said:
“Speak to any American screenwriter or programme-makers, and they are bewildered at our complacency over our PSBs. They wish they had a BBC”.
When I was working at the BBC, we would shy away from the argument that the organisation was also a defence against market failure. Nowadays, that should be part of the reason—not by any means the whole reason—why the BBC exists. For example, programmes about religion, the arts or music are rarely going to be internationally successful. As DG, I lost count of the number of parents who told me how much they valued British content for their children, either as toddlers or later as teenagers using “Bitesize”.
The BBC also gives cultural definition to communities. These services, whether they are in small local areas or serving the nations of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, are needed to report the stories and things that matter to their audience, and to celebrate the characteristics that make them what they are. Taking this forward is vital.
In my view, the BBC deserves a lot of credit for rethinking its programmes and services for the world we are now in. Audiences continue to spend more time watching the BBC TV iPlayer on average, per week, per person, than they spend on Netflix, Disney Plus and Amazon Prime combined.
Obviously, one of the big questions for the next year is how we fund all this in a way that allows the BBC properly to be what we want it to be. Can the licence fee, a charge for universal services, be reformed to be fairer and easier to pay, and more broadly based? Could the quantum of the licence fee be assessed by an independent body that could help inform the debate about what we, as citizens, think we should fund? There has been a 30% reduction in real terms in licensing income since 2010, done with little or no public debate about the consequences.
The BBC is the largest single investor in UK-made programming, contributing nearly £5 billion to the UK economy each year, half of which is spent outside London. That is important. However, an even bigger question is where and how should we have our culture defined. Let us make sure we have a properly funded BBC that reflects and celebrates who we are in all our rich diversity.
The standing of the BBC rests on the essential principle of impartiality. Impartiality is not about mechanically balancing opinions; it is a disciplined commitment to evidence, context and truth, applied without fear or favour—even under pressure. The BBC, at times, has taken a very narrow and procedural view of impartiality, and it is right to acknowledge that mistakes have been made. But what is needed now is a renewed commitment to impartiality as a professional and ethical standard. Properly understood, impartiality is not a constraint; it is what matters and what makes the BBC trustworthy.
Any reform that compromises universality, editorial independence and impartiality, and the BBC’s ability to remain a significant engine for the creative industries, would diminish the very role it exists to perform. In my view, the charter renewal is an opportunity to refresh the BBC’s original mission and to ensure that any updated framework strengthens rather than undermines the purpose and the ethos of the BBC and that of public service broadcasting. That is the responsibility before us, and it is one which we should approach with care and a clear sense of purpose, and be guided by the principles and values, not just by the market and commercial pressures. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
It is incumbent on all of us to support the BBC. We can be critical friends of the BBC, but we should be careful what we would lose without it. I really react with astonishment and a bit of horror when I see people supporting the move by President Trump, for example, to sue the BBC because they happened to have watched BBC News the night before and disagreed with its tone or supposed bias. The BBC is an incredibly important institution.
When I did charter review with John Whittingdale, we had a very easy time of it. There was not really much we needed to change. We changed the regulation from the BBC Trust to Ofcom, but otherwise we effectively kicked the challenges the BBC faces into the long grass. These challenges are now more real today than they have ever been.
I will make three or four suggestions of areas we should look at. We seriously need to look at a structural separation of BBC News and a merger with the World Service, with its own board, charter and chief executive. I, for one, would welcome the BBC investing properly in local news, which is so important with the death of local newspapers. The BBC has to accept that, realistically, there is no more money. It has to cut its cloth. I was always a bit sceptical of people who said that, because everyone pays the licence fee, the BBC must do everything—and I accept that, by doing a lot, it actually raises the quality of what the BBC produces. However, the BBC seriously needs to look at the breadth of services it provides.
The noble Lord, Lord Hall, mentioned the importance of religious programming and children’s programming. We introduced the content fund, which had a short shelf life but was apparently quite successful. It may be that part of what the BBC does is provide content for other programmers, focused on where the market has failed, such as children’s programming. We need to have a debate about how much of the IP the BBC now keeps. We had a trend of pushing it out to independent producers. If we want the BBC to be more commercially successful, let us look at that.
We need to be more open-minded about subscription—I know that I have to wind up, but I will need to speak for another 15 seconds—but in my view that opportunity should be put forward by the BBC, not by the Government. I would counsel against changing the licence fee. It is very tempting, but the public will see any change as a new tax, not an alternative tax.