PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Media Green Paper - 24 June 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the publication of the media Green Paper.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this urgent question to the House and giving us an opportunity to discuss this important advancement. Yesterday the Government published a Green Paper, “Watch this Space”, to set a new strategic direction for media policy in the UK. The way we consume broadcast media is changing, and television is undergoing a profound transformation, having moved away from a system of traditional channels to a far more fragmented system in which people access TV on demand and on video-sharing platforms. Young people, in particular, are far more likely to access media on their phones and tablets through streaming services and platforms, and the Government believe that we are not adequately equipping that generation with access to high-quality media.

There are three key areas where we intend to act. The first is digital prominence, where we are exploring legislative options to require social media platforms and connected TV interfaces to make public service media content, particularly trusted news, highly visible and easy to discover. This is not about promoting Government narratives or only the BBC; it is about ensuring that brilliant journalism from many of our news publishers—both local and national—and broadcasters can get in front of the public. For that reason, we are also opening a conversation about how we define “public service broadcasting” in the modern age.

Secondly, the transition to internet TV is where we are outlining plans for a managed shift away from terrestrial broadcasting to internet-delivered IPTV. We know this is an essential switchover in terms of both access and cost, but we want to ensure that the transition is managed responsibly and that nobody is left behind. We are therefore consulting on two dates for the switchover: 2034, when current licences expire, or 2044, with any date contingent on a full and watertight transition plan.

Finally, we are protecting major sporting events. We will add on-demand and streaming rights for major sporting events such as the world cup and the Olympics to the listed events regime, protecting free universal fan access as viewing habits shift online.

Taken together, these proposals set out a vision for a future TV and media policy in which everyone can access world-leading public service broadcasting content, including children’s and news programming, away from the misinformation and disinformation that has defined too many of our online lives. This Government will ensure that no matter where people access their TV, they are given access to high-quality programming that informs, educates and entertains, and this Green Paper is the next stage of our ambition.

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I agree with much of what the Secretary of State has said, and there is much to be applauded in the media strategy. The overall intent, which is to ensure that everyone has access to trustworthy news and to counter misinformation, is noble. The challenge and its potential danger is how we do that.

Of the positive elements that the Secretary of State mentioned in the strategy, I welcome the Government’s intention to add on-demand rights to the free-to-air listed sports regime, but there are many controversial aspects. As she said, the plan to close down digital terrestrial transmission by 2034 or 2044 is a major concern, especially for those living in remote or rural areas. The strategy also covers interventions to support media literacy and promoting the questioning of the accuracy of news, but pushing such an onus of responsibility on to the media companies themselves may reduce the responsibility on schools or, indeed, parents. What are her thoughts on that?

We then come to the thorny issue of prominence. The Government are proposing interventions to make trustworthy news providers easily discoverable to counter misinformation, and that includes national and local news publishers and broadcasters, but who decides who is a trustworthy news provider and what trusted content is? Will there be an approved list, or will it be an algorithm or a human being? We need to be careful about descending into some kind of Orwellian society. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are vital to our free society, and the concern of some of the press is that, to qualify for prominence, a newspaper may need to sign up to a state-backed regulator. Can the Secretary of State rule that out?

The proposals in the Green Paper to support our public service broadcasters such as the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 are well intended, especially in an age when there is undeniably so much misinformation online, but a requirement for third-party platforms and social media entities to make such broadcasters’ content prominent is problematic for the obvious reason that their content is not always to be trusted and is not always unbiased either, so who decides whether it is? Many people question the BBC’s coverage of politics in general, of trans rights, of Israel and so on. The BBC doctored a video of President Trump, it fails to call Hamas a terrorist organisation, it has pushed highly questionable content through BBC Arabic and it reprimanded a newsreader for saying “pregnant women” rather than “pregnant people”. There may be plenty of people who like the idea of legislation to push woke or leftie content online, but I am not one of them, and many people agree with me. Can the Secretary of State provide more details about how trusted content will be defined and who will ultimately be the arbiter?

Finally, can the Secretary of State confirm how extensively she has engaged with the industry to come up with these proposals?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that series of questions, and I will do my best to answer them all as swiftly as I can. First, he rightly talks about the importance of getting the transition right and choosing the date of 2034 or 2044 well. He talks about the particular challenges in remote and rural areas, which this Government recognise. As he knows and as we have discussed before, there are also particular issues for older people, people with disabilities and others. We are working with the industry to put together a watertight plan to help people make that transition and ensure that nobody is left behind. We are asking these questions now precisely to make sure that we are ready and do not leave people behind.

On media literacy, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the onus cannot just be on media companies alone. There is a responsibility on all of us, including schools and those of us in public life, to make sure we are equipping our young people with the skills they need to be able to navigate a completely transformed media landscape from the one we had in this country when he and I were growing up. I want to reassure him that this is not about pushing all the responsibility on to media companies and letting everybody else off the hook. We all have to work together to achieve this. It is not just about young people, either. There are serious challenges with people from every generation seeing information online that is just simply false.

Who defines trustworthy news—who decides what is trustworthy news and how we decide what is trustworthy—is one of the most challenging aspects of the consultation. The hon. Gentleman will know that the definition of public service broadcasting is set out in law, but trustworthy news is a separate matter and that is precisely why we have asked the question.

I would gently push back on some of the narrative that the hon. Gentleman advanced about the BBC. It is still the most trustworthy source of news not just in this country but across the world. On Monday, I was on “Newsround” explaining the consultation and the social media ban that we are introducing to the generation of children who will be most affected by it. It strikes me that there is no other country in the world that has quality programming like that through their public service broadcaster, so I think we should be careful about not trashing the BBC. He and I have shared serious frustrations about some of the specific issues that he mentioned, and we should always demand the highest quality content, but I still firmly believe that the BBC is one of the best broadcasters in the world.

I welcome this bold Green Paper, which refers to:

“access to, accurate news, and informative and entertaining content that reflects the diversity of the UK and brings audiences together.”

Will my right hon. Friend do all she can to uphold the practice of independent, rigorously researched journalism in this world of algorithmically driven clickbait content that monetises hate? Given the record fines it has had from Ofcom, is there any way of reining in GB News—and maybe even looking at the effectiveness of Ofcom?

My hon. Friend asks a number of questions and I will try to address them. First, in the Green Paper we have deliberately broadened out access to good quality trusted news and content to potentially include print media as well. It is not lost on me that during the Southport riots people were seeking out the Liverpool Echo and other local news outlets to try to find real information, as opposed to the misinformation and disinformation they were seeing online. She will know that alongside that, one of the things the Government have done is publish the first ever local media strategy to try to support that industry to be able to continue to provide high-quality news.

My hon. Friend mentions algorithms. One reason we are particularly keen to ensure the prominence of quality, trusted and high-quality content online and on platforms such as YouTube is that at the moment the algorithms decide what children, in particular, see. I commend YouTube for its work on YouTube Kids, but we need to see more of that. At the moment, we are putting up with a situation where the older generation tends to watch traditional television on television sets and can easily find good-quality content and trusted news, but the younger generation tend to be on devices online and cannot do so. That is not acceptable.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The Green Paper rightly recognises the severe financial challenges facing our public service broadcasters, which have been vividly exposed by recent devastating cuts at the BBC. The Liberal Democrats have long proposed that the BBC World Service should be fully funded directly from Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office budgets, protecting its vital global footprint while freeing up £221 million a year to be reinvested at home. Will the Secretary of State take on board our proposals? What urgent conversations has she had with her Foreign Office colleagues to make that a reality?

Turning to online spaces, the proposal to highlight trusted news sources on social media is welcome, but unfortunately this is just a sticking plaster over the fundamental issue that big social media platforms are already rigged against truth, fairness and impartiality. The real threat to our democracy are the harmful platforms themselves, which use algorithms deliberately engineered to amplify foreign disinformation while systematically choking out trusted journalistic sources. Should the Secretary of State not be focusing the full weight of her Department, and that of her colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, on cleaning up social media platforms once and for all, rather than fighting a losing battle against bad actors on systems that are built to work against us?

The hon. Lady rightly talks about online regulation. She will know that that is primarily the responsibility of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, but my colleague the Secretary of State and I work very closely together on that. We must ensure that we both take action to deal with the scourge of misinformation and disinformation online, which she rightly talks about, but that we give people access to news they can genuinely trust and that that news is much more readily available. The two things should be seen together.

I apologise, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) also asked me about Ofcom. She will know that we recently appointed a new chair of Ofcom. We believe that Ofcom must do more to act decisively and quickly in this space.

On the BBC World Service, the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) will know that the Government have already stepped in, with the support of the FCDO, to ensure it continues to be funded, but colleagues across the House will have seen recently the funding cuts that were announced at the BBC.

The hon. Lady rightly says that one of the pressures on such broadcasters is the fact that they are currently trying to broadcast through two distinct channels, so it is important that the Government grip that issue. She will know that the charter review is running in parallel to this process. We wanted to look at it all in the round. It is our intention, through the charter review, to ensure that the BBC is adequately funded and that it goes on not just to survive, but to thrive until well into the latter part of this century. She will also know that we recently announced that through that process we will put the BBC on a permanent charter, so that it exists for all of us forever.

I declare an interest: I worked for a public service broadcaster and my husband still does. I say as somebody who understands the sector a bit that it is not just about public service but about recognising Britishness on our screens and in the media and, essentially, protecting what it is to be us, as well as providing opportunities for people to get into the sector. I really welcome the thinking on this issue, but can the Secretary of State give us a bit more detail on how the changes will ensure that our public service media are protected for the future, so that people can continue to access high-quality news and content in general, and are given opportunities?

I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend says. We have lost many parts of our civic realm: thriving town centres where people come together, the social clubs that used to exist all over our country, and the youth clubs that we are busy rebuilding. I thank her for all her help and support. I believe that the media, and in particular public service media, are an essential part of that civic realm. Whether it is VE Day, Remembrance Sunday or the world cup which we are all currently enjoying, public service broadcasters provide the shared moments where we come together as a nation and celebrate what it means to be us. We are determined to grip these issues and not allow us to drift into a transition, so that our public service media are adequately funded and are able to continue to do that.

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that the media landscape is changing so quickly that no sooner was the ink dry on the Media Act 2024 than it was almost obsolete. We know that for the first time YouTube has overtaken the BBC in audience reach, which is why the Green Paper is really welcome, but I wonder whether it is a first step towards a new and more extensive media Bill that reflects the nation’s viewing habits and reaches a definitive definition of television. The Green Paper talks about new television when talking about video-sharing platforms, YouTube and so on. We need a new definition of television to reflect technological change. Finally, the consultation refers to media literacy, but surely if we are really planning to future-proof that, we should be talking about AI literacy too—and not just for children.

On legislation, we will of course keep that option open and will not hesitate to legislate should we need to do so. We deliberately drew the parameters and contours of the Green Paper very broadly so that we could have that very open discussion and work together to ensure that we then take the action we need to take.

On a slightly more reflective note, the point that the hon. Lady makes about the ink not being dry before the landscape had changed is particularly true in the online space. Rather than thinking about a piece of legislation, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology and I have been reflecting on the probable need to legislate quite frequently to keep pace with change.

When it comes to media literacy, I agree with the hon. Lady about AI. I think there are two parts to the issue: first, ensuring that we have the right regulation so that people can trust what they see and that we do nothing in the AI space that prevents good-quality journalism from being able to thrive; and secondly, equipping and empowering the people of this country with the skills and ability to navigate AI.

Right now, Britain’s adversaries around the world are investing heavily in disinformation designed to disrupt democracies across the west; we are seeing the impact in this country as well. I welcome the regime set out to promote truthful content on social media, but promoting the good content is not the same as tackling the bad. I worry that there is quite a disparate approach across Government—across Ofcom, DCMS and the defending democracy taskforce. What will the Secretary of State do to pull together across Government to address disinformation and misinformation from hostile states around the world?

I reassure my hon. Friend that I am working closely with the Secretary and State for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Home Secretary, as well as with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who leads the social cohesion taskforce that is specifically looking at misinformation and disinformation, and at how we join up across Government to tackle the issue. We have recently had a huge debate in this House about the defence of our nation, and, given the global climate, we are rightly stepping up to invest more in defence, but there is a war being waged in our communities—on our streets, online, on social media—that we have got to take as seriously as we take equipping our armed forces with what they need.

This House ended the licensing of the press on 3 May 1695, when it declined to renew the relevant legislation. That makes the definition of news sources difficult. Perhaps that is why the Green Paper talks about prominence for public service media and “potentially” for local and national news sources. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is unthinkable to have a situation where we would be promoting BBC and Channel 4 news, but not our major national newspapers and trusted local news sources?

That is precisely why we have asked the question. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there are different ways of approaching the issue. One is, quite simply, to promote public service broadcasters. We think we may be missing a trick there, which is why we have asked the question in the consultation.

The Secretary of State’s dedication to trusted news and promoting public service media is really welcome, but I am sure she shares my concerns that this will be dramatically undermined by the recent announcements of brutal cuts at STV and the BBC, as thousands of jobs and programmes are at risk of being lost. Will she urgently intervene to project jobs and the future of public service media?

The Government have been talking to the journalism trade unions to ensure that people are protected when those cuts are made, and that we do everything we can to protect that really good quality—not just the journalists, but the technical staff and others, particularly those across our nations and regions, who feel vulnerable to those cuts. The cuts at STV and the BBC are precisely why we need to manage the transition and get it right. We cannot duck the question of when we make the transition, because doing so places incredibly onerous costs on public service broadcasters in an already very tight funding landscape. As my hon. Friend will have heard me say to the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), we are determined to manage the transition well and ensure that nobody is left behind.

During a recent bombing of Tehran, a power outage hit that city and 20,000 bots promoting the cause of Scottish nationalism turned off instantaneously. I say that not to question in any way the legitimacy of a political position—admittedly one that I disagree with—but because it reveals the extent to which our country is under daily assault from those who would seek to tear us apart. What plans does the Secretary of State have to build out from this media Green Paper and take a whole-of-Government approach in order to enhance media literacy, to bear down on the conduits that are driving disinformation in our society, and to ensure that our armed forces and security services have precisely the resources they need to secure our integrity as a nation?

The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions, and I strongly agree with the essence of what he is saying. There is a war being waged in our communities and on our streets, and on local online forums as much as on national ones. When the recent by-election in Makerfield was triggered, overnight the targeting of people in my town of Wigan with misinformation and disinformation went through the roof. That is often deliberate, it is often triggered by foreign state actors, it can have an extremely disruptive influence on communities, and it is something that we need to deal with. The Green Paper deals with questions of media literacy and prominence, and other measures that we think will help, but nobody in this House should take this as the beginning and end of the conversation. I am working closely with colleagues across the House—including in Defence—to make sure we are equipped on every front for the war that we find ourselves in.

The Secretary of State will be aware that terrestrial television is not just an entertainment platform but a resilient form of communication that reaches into communities where digital, broadband or mobile signal quite simply do not have the reach or the reliability. Does she share my concern that the switch-off of terrestrial TV in either 2034 or 2044 could cut off communities in my constituency from that resilient communication platform, and will she meet me to discuss my concerns?

I am confident, having heard my hon. Friend championing his constituents in this House, that he would never allow that to happen, and neither will we. I am happy to offer him a meeting with the relevant Minister.

On a similar theme, undoubtedly near the top of the Secretary of State’s to-do list today is to answer written question No. 11584, which is due for answer tomorrow. The question is about the threat posed by the BBC World Service apparently discontinuing its longwave transmitters at Droitwich, Burghead and Westerglen. What we want to know is: how will closed societies like Russia be able to receive news information when they are subject to the suppression of all the internet-based routes?

I will, of course, ensure that the right hon. Member gets the answer to his written question in a timely fashion—by tomorrow. I am also more than happy to follow up and discuss it with him.

I welcome the Green Paper’s focus on media literacy, so that people in Portsmouth have the skills they need to identify misinformation and disinformation. As viewing habits change and technology develops, can the Secretary of State reassure the House and residents in Portsmouth, particularly those who may be less confident online and have limited access to digital services, that any transition towards internet-based television will be carefully managed?

I am really happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. That is why we are getting on the front foot now and working with industry to manage the transition. Access is obviously extremely important, but so too is affordability, and we are looking at that closely.

Let me get this straight: the Government—either a Minister or, worse, unaccountable civil servants—are planning to decide which news providers are deemed trustworthy and which are deemed untrustworthy; and then the Government, or unaccountable civil servants and quangos, are going to give priority to the services that they deem to be trustworthy, and reduce the prominence of those that they do not like and consider to be untrustworthy. That sounds quite dystopian to me. How can it be seen as anything other than a serious attack on freedom of the press and freedom of speech?

I am not going to take any lessons from him and his disgusting party, given the way that they spread misinformation and disinformation. This House has already come together to define what “public service media” is in law. The definition was passed by Parliament, and I do not recall there being a lot of concern about that; it has been enormously beneficial. One way that we could define “trusted news” would be to follow that definition, but we could also, for example, align with the editors’ code of practice. There are lots of different options, but to somehow claim that this is about the Government controlling what people see is absolute nonsense.

I warmly welcome the publication of the Green Paper. None of us has all the answers when it comes to the fast-moving media landscape, but setting out the challenges and some principled ways forward is a good start. I especially welcome the focus on a duty for media literacy. My personal view is that a public purpose for the BBC on media literacy might be better than one on growth, but that is a debate for another day. Is the Secretary of State slightly disappointed, as I was, in the tone of some of the contributions from the Opposition about the prominence of trusted news? We already have a prominence regime in place; we just need to update it for the modern age. In an era when misinformation and disinformation are rife, is it not more important than ever that people get access to trustworthy news, and is that not what a prominence regime allows?

I agree. In particular, we are letting down a generation of young people, who, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), are often consuming media very differently from my generation and the generations before us. It cannot be right that my generation, who often watch and consume broadcasts on television sets, are able to easily and quickly find high-quality content and trusted news, but the younger generation are not.

The hon. Gentleman makes a similar point to the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. He is right to push us to think about how we can very rapidly adapt to this very rapidly changing landscape. There is a question for the whole House as to how much oversight the House will want to have and how much scrutiny will be given to any measures that we bring forward. The House will have to decide together whether the use of secondary legislation in this space is something that we collectively believe is acceptable. However, there is merit in what he proposes.

As a former employee of the BBC for 15 years, I know the importance of those Reithian principles to educate, inform and entertain, which are at the core everything the organisation does. Dissemination of fake news and misinformation online is a genuine risk to our democracy. Does the Secretary of State agree that even if people are going to trusted sites and sources online, such as the BBC, ITV and Channel 4, there is a real risk of the mix of slop around it polluting people’s ability to see accurate information, and that this demonstrates the absolute need for trusted news sources online?

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton earlier, during the Southport riots, there was an increase in people going to the BBC and the Liverpool Echo to get information; we saw something similar after the Manchester Arena bombing, when people sought out the Manchester Evening News as a trusted source of news. My hon. Friend will be aware that many of those trusted sources are under serious financial pressure, which is one of the reasons that we acted—particularly through the local media strategy—to ensure that they remain available. We want to ensure that those sources are more prominent and easier to find online, but in order to do that, we have to ensure that they are actually there in the first place.

The proliferation of misinformation, invidious algorithms and harmful content are the defining features of the current media landscape, and they are causing real harms and divisions within our communities. We need bold action to tackle this, and that surely includes taking on those who direct and abuse these situations. How will the Secretary of State promote trusted sources when there are people, even in this House, who are prepared to undermine them, and we are losing jobs and services at public service broadcasters?

That is partly what this TV Green Paper is designed to address, although, as I said earlier, it is one part of the whole. Getting regulation online right, getting the enforcement of that regulation right, and being far more proactive through Ofcom in enforcing the existing law, are essential parts of this, as well as the measures that we have proposed around prominence and other areas.

I welcome this Green Paper, which is both timely and forward looking. The Government are right to respond to the fact that people get much of their news from social media nowadays. As more and more people turn to artificial intelligence chatbots for news and information, what work are the Government doing to ensure that trusted sources of information are given prominence?

We have done a number of things in this space. AI summaries online put real pressure on existing publishers, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology and I have met the publishing industry to discuss how we can better protect original sources, which are often far more accurate than the AI summaries that draw on their work. As I said to the Chair of the Select Committee, when it comes to media literacy, we need to equip not just the younger generation, but all of us with the skills necessary to navigate AI.

I urge the Secretary of State to keep a genuinely open mind on this consultation, and to be prepared to drop measures if the evidence does not stack up. The concept of prominence in particular will be very difficult to translate from a linear age to this age without imposing excessive costs and bureaucracy on broadcasters. As we have seen, the concept of trustworthy news is problematic, because one person’s “trustworthy news” is someone else’s propaganda. Just look at the debate between the BBC and GB News—frankly, right now, plenty of my constituents would trust GB News over the BBC. We cannot allow debate on this issue to become an echo chamber for liberal/left groupthink; otherwise, it will further undermine trust and confidence in this place.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that any responsible Government will be careful about how we navigate this landscape, because the definition of “high quality” and “trustworthy” is contested, and we need to protect the plurality and diversity of our news and the broader media industry. I do believe, however, that we have for a long time failed to empower our citizens and equip them with the ability to navigate the new landscape that we are in. The Government are particularly concerned about the blurring of news and fact with polemic and opinion, and that is a space in which we intend to act.

Given that we are in a world of fake news, and the impact of that on public trust, I really welcome the Secretary of State’s work to modernise the prominence regime. The BBC is the jewel in our national crown. People have mentioned the cuts; it is a real shame that we are seeing cuts to really important consumer shows, like “Money Box Live”. Scams are everywhere, so these shows are vital to our nation. Can the Secretary of State say a bit more about the BBC and its importance to our nation?

I will say, very candidly, that I am concerned about the cuts that have been announced, too, and I raised those concerns directly with the incoming director general. The charter review process is obviously ongoing, and I would not want to see the BBC dismantling good structures, dismissing good journalists and closing down good programmes at a time when we are seeking to work together constructively to ensure that it is properly and adequately funded going forwards. There are significant pressures on all our public service broadcasters at the moment, and that is one reason why we have to grip this issue of transition, and work together to ensure nobody is left behind.

My question is in a similar vein to that asked by the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes). I was really concerned to hear of the cuts at the BBC; “The World Tonight” is going, and “Today” is being cut back. This follows on the heels of cuts at “Newsnight”. It seems that the justification for these cuts is that programmes are being reoriented towards young people, which is obviously a good thing in and of itself. However, when I was 18, I did not listen to any of those programmes; now that I am in my 40s, I listen to them all. Do these cuts not undermine the BBC’s mission to educate and inform, and in this age of disinformation, is it not vital that we keep those programmes?

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes), the elephant in the room is funding, because the BBC has not been adequately funded for quite some time. The hon. Gentleman will know that fewer and fewer people are paying the licence fee, which is becoming a major challenge for the BBC. We will set out a range of options, through the charter process, that are designed to tackle that, so that we can protect the high-quality programming that he rightly commends.

We know that misinformation and disinformation is on the rise right across our country, and that was shown in the recent Makerfield by-election; the Social Market Foundation reported that ahead of that by-election, there was a quadrupling of fake news, and that one in six posts on all the local Facebook groups were fake news. We have seen the same thing in my constituency; after a news article was published, the news went rampant across our town that a woman and child had been attacked at a train station. It never happened, but it caused fear and anxiety.

I warmly welcome the Green Paper, but how can we get more support for our trusted local news services, including local papers and broadcasters? They are what residents turn to in times of crisis when they need information. The Secretary of State rightly pointed to the example of the Liverpool Echo.

I was really struck by that report by the SMF, and I certainly recognise that there is misinformation very close to home. My hon. Friend rightly says that that is not new. In fact, my local police force says that the biggest challenge it faces is misinformation and disinformation online, which leads people to believe that more violent crime is happening than there actually is, and that streets are not safe. It causes serious challenges to social cohesion. Earlier this year, we published the local media strategy, which is the start of our ambition for local media—it is the floor, not the ceiling. There is more we need to do, particularly in the online space, to ensure that publications such as the Liverpool Echo are able to thrive.

As a former journalist, I salute the Secretary of State’s ambition to leave no one behind, but as the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) pointed out, the death of terrestrial television risks leaving a lot of people in remote and rural Scotland behind. My constituency has a lot of notspots, and terrestrial television is a key source of news and entertainment. Can I ask the Secretary of State to use her influence in the forthcoming northern powerhouse Cabinet to get broadband rolled out properly across this country?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to talk about the centrality of broadband access. We are looking really carefully at digital exclusion, and we will make sure that this transition does not leave his constituents behind. I am looking to work with him to make sure that we get this right.

Last week we had a powerful reminder of how important trusted news broadcasting is when the BBC reported that arson attacks targeting the Prime Minister and his family were orchestrated by Russia. Not stopping there, Russian-backed bots then spread homophobic misinformation about those attacks. We know how the Conservative party responded to that: its deputy chair, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), went on national TV and laughed. Now we can see how this Labour Government are responding to the issue. Can I urge the Secretary of State to go even further on supporting trusted news sources, as a powerful response to misinformation and disinformation online, a lot of it fuelled by our foreign adversaries?

My hon. Friend is right to say that we should demand the highest standards from Members across this House and people in public life. I share his absolute horror at the way that the deputy chairman of the Conservative party responded.

I absolutely welcome this Green Paper. I think it is a really good step forward that we are having this national debate, but in it, I hope that the Leveson inquiry and its proposals will not be forgotten.

The Secretary will be aware that younger people—the majority of the population, in fact—do not watch mainstream television, or read newspapers, either in print or online; instead, they rely entirely on social media for their news, information, opinions and so on. Much of that content comes from behind a cloak of anonymity, and often it is dangerous, racist or abusive. We have a whole generation growing up whose only source of information is anonymous stuff on social media. I realise that we face a very difficult balancing act, in controlling access to wonderful technology and ensuring some degree of accuracy and accountability. I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of this huge problem. Does she feel that there is a way forward on this conundrum through debate on the Green Paper?

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Leveson inquiry. I can tell the House that I met the families of the victims of press intrusion very recently. We have always acted with care in this space to ensure that we protect a free and fair press, but he is right to say that action is needed to better protect people in this space, and this Government are determined to take that action. I share his serious concern about the way that young people consume news. That is partly what this Green Paper is intended to address, but it is also one of the key driving forces behind the social media ban that my colleague the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology announced recently. We have not done enough to protect young people online, and we need to do more.

We come to the birthday boy himself, Chris Vince.

Thank you, Mr Speaker—21 again. I thank the Secretary of State for her response to this urgent question, and particularly for her emphasis on the importance online literacy, which, as a former teacher—Chris Vince bingo in full force today—I know to be really important. I pay tribute to Michael Casey, editor of Your Harlow, an online newspaper that prints tens of thousands of articles every year, and that filled the hole left by Harlow Star when it closed down.

I would like to build on the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), who said that more and more people are using AI summaries to get their news, and are not relying on trusted sources. Is there not a danger that if we, and the AI companies, do not provide support to trusted sources, they will not be able to continue?

I have been working with the publishing industry to make sure that we protect our trusted sources and do not allow higher-quality content to be undermined by AI summaries. It is a concern that we recognise and share, and we will bring forward proposals around that to the House. We have seen lots of very good-quality independent news providers spring up around the country, and it is great to hear about my hon. Friend’s local newspaper in Harlow, but there are too many local news deserts across our country. That is precisely what the local media strategy intends to address.

I have been relying on the BBC to deliver news since the days when Jack de Manio was presenting the “Today” programme and John Snagge was reading the news, and I still rely on the BBC to a considerable extend, but it does annoy me intensely at times, particularly recently, when cuts were announced. The programmes that it seems to be cutting are public service programmes, not ones delivered by the commercial sector. On top of that, we see the demise of news coverage on local radio. Will the Secretary of State assure me that she will convey those views to the BBC? Hopefully, it will have a rethink.

I am very happy to do so, and the hon. Gentleman is right to mention the importance of local radio.

I thank the Secretary of State for her informed answers. The new media Green Paper highlights the importance of continued universal access to good-quality, trusted television. Part of maintaining that access is making the content in the first place. With the news that the BBC Cymru Wales will face £9 million in spending cuts by the end of 2027-28, it is inevitable that Welsh commissions, already on the decrease, will decline even further. How will the Secretary of State protect Welsh-language content from such sweeping cuts, especially considering that access is already limited for us?

I was recently at the BBC in Cardiff. The importance of Welsh-language content is not lost on this Government, and I have discussed the matter with both the interim director general and the new director general. We have been very keen to impress on the BBC the importance of protecting a regional footprint across all our nations and regions—something pioneered by former director general Tim Davie. Through the charter review process, we are ambitious for more power and funding to be dispersed out of London, so that the BBC becomes the engine of the nations and regions, producing content that reflects all our nations and regions, not just some parts of the country.

I add my voice to those concerned about the transfer to TV over IP. Technology moves very fast, and I accept at face value the Secretary of State’s commitment that no one will be left behind. However, we have had 20 years of change, from fibre to cabinet and now fibre to premises, yet some of my constituents are still on copper to premises, surviving on download speeds of 2 or 3 megabits per second, which is not capable of getting television into their homes, whether the switchover is in 2034 or later.

Can I urge the Secretary of State, before any decision is made, to work very closely with DSIT? No matter what the core statistics say about how many homes have fibre to premises, people will still be left behind, particularly in rural communities. Added to that, in many villages where there is only one fibre provider and no competition, there is fibre and there is fibre, and not all of it is as reliable as it looks.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I am happy to give him that assurance. He will know that the Minister for Media is also a Minister in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and I am sure he will be working closely with his colleagues to make sure that we address those concerns.

Over recent weeks, one of the most frequent adverts served to me and many others on X is an AI-generated fake image of a Member of this House fighting with the Governor of the Bank of England. When half of adults cite social media as one of the sources from which they get their news, can the Secretary of State confirm what conversations she has had with colleagues in DSIT to make sure that these fake-news social media adverts do not become our news?

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that issue, which I have discussed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology. She and I are determined to make sure that we properly regulate the online space so that we protect people from those sorts of fake, generated images.

Many of my constituents in Epping Forest are very worried about proposals to stop terrestrial TV broadcasts from 2034. Like local radio, for many people in both urban and rural areas, and for older and more vulnerable people, terrestrial TV is a lifeline in their daily lives. Will the Government have a strong rethink about this?

As I said in previous answers, we have to manage this transition. We cannot just drift into an unmanaged transition, which is precisely why we have brought these proposals forward early, with genuinely open questions about the date of the transition. I reiterate what I have said to many hon. Members: we are absolutely determined to get on the front foot and make sure that nobody is left behind.

I am confident that everybody in this House wants freedom of speech and freedom of expression. However, we are all against freely available misinformation and disinformation, whether it is about the lack of integration in certain neighbourhoods or international affairs. There is clearly distrust, so something needs to be done. I welcome the Secretary of State bringing forward a Green Paper, but how will the Government ensure that those with the deepest pockets do not get prevalence when we look at mainstream media?

One of the things we are trying to do is protect the plurality and diversity of our media, and also make sure that people have better access to high-quality sources not just of news but of content as well. That includes things such as children’s programming, which are really important. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to recognise that we have lived through a revolution in media and media consumption, and we just have not been quick enough to respond. That is partly what this TV Green Paper is designed to address.

I welcome the Green Paper. Many of my constituents in Stockland Bristol and Fiddington continue to endure very poor or non-existent broadband coverage and mobile signals, so they are concerned about the Secretary of State’s proposal to stop terrestrial broadcasts by 2034. Will she ensure that the proposal does not cut off my constituents in rural areas?

I also represent a largely rural constituency, and I absolutely recognise the challenges that the hon. Gentleman talks about in relation not just to broadband but mobile signals. I cannot get reception in my own house, to be honest. There is a real challenge, which is precisely why we have brought forward these proposals now, with a genuinely open question about 2034 or 2044, so that we can work with industry to ensure that his constituents are not left behind.

I thank the Secretary of State very much for her answers and her positivity in responding to all the questions that have been asked. Mine is a very specific question relating to Northern Ireland, and I think she will be quite perturbed when I give her some figures. With the new media Green Paper pushing for a total IPTV transition by 2034, what specific guarantees can she give to nearly half of all households in Northern Ireland—some 370,000 people—that still rely entirely on digital terrestrial TV via an aerial, so that our rural and vulnerable communities are not left in a digital blackout as a result of the Green Paper’s proposals?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that there are particular challenges in certain parts of the country, and Northern Ireland is very firmly at the forefront of not just my mind but the mind of the Minister for Media as well. I would be more than happy to discuss it further with him, but we will work together to make sure that nobody is left behind.