PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
BBC Leadership - 11 November 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about the BBC.

As the House will be aware, this weekend, the director general and the chief executive officer of BBC News tendered their resignations, following concerns about accuracy and impartiality at the BBC. This has sparked intense debate across the media and our nation. Today, I want to set out for the House what action is being taken to address the allegations that have been made, and the actions that the Government are taking to support the BBC in addressing this, and I want to address the future of an institution that has been at the centre of our democratic and cultural life for over a century.

The House will know that yesterday, the chair of the BBC, Samir Shah, wrote to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. He accepted that there had been editorial failings, and he committed to a number of steps in response. Dr Shah believes that our national broadcaster, which remains one of the most trusted sources of news in our country, has a responsibility to uphold the highest standards. I agree. Over the past week, I have been in regular contact with him and his team to ensure that where these standards have not been met, firm, swift and transparent action follows. I welcome the steps that have already been set out, and I will keep the House updated as the BBC leadership grips these issues.

The concerns that have been raised are serious in and of themselves, but some in the House have gone even further, suggesting that the BBC is institutionally biased. It should not be lost on us that the BBC has faced criticism from all sides for its coverage of highly contentious and contested issues. It has been accused of giving too much airtime to particular parties, and of giving them too little. Those in the House, from left and right, who are attacking the BBC for not expressing views with which they agree should consider just what is at stake. There is a fundamental difference between raising serious concerns about editorial failings, and Members of this House launching a sustained attack on the institution itself.

The BBC is not just a broadcaster; it is a national institution that belongs to us all. Every day, it tells the story of who we are—the people, places and communities that make up life across the UK. It projects British values, creativity and integrity to the world. It underpins our creative industries, has a footprint in our nations and regions that is unmatched, and is by far the most widely used and trusted source of news in the United Kingdom. At a time when the line between fact and opinion, and between news and polemic, is being dangerously blurred, the BBC stands apart. It is a light on the hill for people here and across the world. Trusted news and high-quality programming are essential to our democratic and cultural life, and all of us in the House should value them, uphold them and fiercely defend them.

The BBC is facing challenges, including some of its own making, but it is doing so in the context of a revolution in the media landscape that has challenged all broadcasters, and polarised and fragmented our national debate. It is time to grip this with a clarity of vision and purpose that will secure the BBC’s future. Throughout its history, the BBC has always adapted and evolved. This is an institution that began in the era of radio, when it was deemed an existential threat to the newspaper industry. It evolved into the age of mass audiences ushered in by the invention of television, and navigated the complexities of reporting during the second world war.

We will imminently begin the charter review, which will set the terms of the BBC for the next decade, and through it, we will collectively write the next chapter of the BBC’s story. Together, we will ensure that it is sustainably funded, commands the public’s trust, and continues to drive growth, good jobs, skills and creativity across every region and nation of the UK. In an era in which trust is fraying and truth is contested across our nation, the charter will ensure that the BBC remains fiercely independent and is genuinely accountable to the public it serves. We will publish a Green Paper and launch a public consultation shortly, and I will set out more detail on that for the House in the coming weeks.

I would like to thank the outgoing director general for his service and his commitment to public service broadcasting over many years. I thank the CEO of BBC News for leading the BBC’s news operation through stormy times. I do not underestimate the challenge of taking on those roles, and the personal toll that that can take on the individuals who hold them. As we write the next chapter of an institution that has stood at the centre of British public life for a century, our overarching goal is simple: to ensure that the BBC can renew its mission for the modern age and continue to inform, educate and entertain, not just for the coming decade but well into the next century. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

I thank the right hon. Lady for giving advance notice of her statement. The BBC is in a sorry mess—sadly, one of its own making—that has resulted in the resignation of the director general and its CEO of news. Those recent leadership changes are a response to the growing number of examples of bias in the BBC, one of which has resulted in a potential $1 billion lawsuit. That is why the Leader of the Opposition has said that the BBC needs to change and needs saving from itself. Otherwise, we may all pay the price, through reputational damage, and from our pockets, as licence fee payers. We all want the BBC to succeed and be the best possible version of itself, but that requires institutional change, and far more than a few moves at the top.

I will first acknowledge some of the many things that the BBC does well, and the ways in which it delivers on its commitment to inform, educate and entertain. Those things range from “Strictly” and “Traitors” to its world-class natural history programming, sport and local radio, and its coverage of major national events, including the recent remembrance services. Those are things that we can all be proud of, and that contribute positively to the BBC’s brand, and its reputation at home and abroad. But the BBC also has a charter obligation of impartiality, and too many examples have come to light of bias at the BBC, particularly in relation to its news and current affairs output. It has often strayed far from its editorial guidelines, including in its coverage of trans rights, its selective push notifications of news, in the Gaza documentary, in the output of the Arabic news service, and in its reliance on stats provided by Hamas. All those things speak to bias at the BBC. At a time when antisemitism is rising around the world, the BBC should surely think twice about distributing questionable data from a terrorist organisation bent on the destruction of Israel. We expect better from our national broadcaster.

I am glad that the BBC chair has admitted an error of judgment relating to the “Panorama” programme on Donald Trump, which involved editing his speech to give the impression that he said something that he did not. The BBC now faces a hefty lawsuit, and we do not want to see the taxpayer, the licence fee payer, or the rest of the BBC suffer because of the poor judgment of the “Panorama” programme makers, who seem unable to distinguish opinion from impartial journalism, and who clearly all thought the same. That is precisely the problem. It is remarkable that in every area of its operations, the BBC seeks inclusivity and diversity, other than in thought, and in political thinking. Does the Secretary of State agree that that must change—that the BBC’s culture needs to change? Does she agree that the BBC must provide a full apology to the US President, and, hopefully, avoid legal action, and does she agree that the BBC would do well to apologise to the British public, too?

Does the Secretary of State also agree that we need a root-and-branch review of the BBC’s adherence to impartiality standards, particularly when it comes to news and current affairs, and that we need more than apologies and resignations at the top—that we need clear actions on complaints processing, governance, oversight and compliance, to ensure that the BBC sticks to its charter obligations on impartiality, and rigidly and consistently abides by its own editorial guidelines?

The Secretary of State mentioned the next steps and the BBC charter review, but we would appreciate more detail on timelines as soon as possible. What discussions is she having with the BBC leadership about the search for the new director general? Given that the BBC Arabic service is funded in part by the British taxpayer through a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office grant, what discussions is she having with her FCDO colleagues about its future funding and governance arrangements, and about the impact that the BBC’s editorial failings have had on Israel and our partners in the middle east? Action must be taken, and the serious issues discussed today must be addressed, because the BBC must once again become an institution of which all of us, not just some of us, can be proud.

May I thank the hon. Gentleman? I know that the situation that has unfolded over the past week has been of serious concern to him. I say from the outset that I strongly agree with him that two resignations are not the answer to the challenges that the BBC has faced, not just over the last week, but in recent months. I have come to this House too many times to share progress updates after editorial failings. He mentioned examples relating to Gaza and Glastonbury, but there have been others as well. I am pleased that the chairman of the BBC, Dr Samir Shah, has accepted the instances where the institution has made mistakes. I am pleased that he has been open with the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), about that, and I am pleased that he is setting out the concrete actions that will follow.

I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman that clear actions are important; they must be swift, robust and transparent. I also strongly agree with him that there is a problem with consistency and the way that standards are applied, which leaves individual journalists and presenters in a very difficult position. I have made that point to the chairman, and previously to the director general.

I have had discussions with the chairman of the board about the search for a director general. The House should be aware that the Government do not appoint the director general. As set out in the charter, that is a matter solely for the board, but we stand ready to provide support, where it is requested and necessary, to make sure that we get the highest-calibre individual. I understand from the board that there is a desire to move quickly on that, but that the existing director general will remain in place to ensure a smooth transition, and I will update the House as I receive further information.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the BBC Arabic service and funding for the World Service. It is important to recognise that there have been serious concerns and failings on the part of the BBC Arabic service. Dr Shah, in response to that issue, set out in a letter to the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee a number of steps that are being taken. I understand that they include structural changes, as well as staff changes, but I gently push back against the assertion that this issue should affect our support for the World Service. The World Service is a light on the hill for people in places of darkness, of which there are many in the world at the moment. This Government strongly support the World Service and will continue to do so.

Whatever the position regarding Donald Trump, who has said far worse than what was shown in the wrongly edited clip, the only ones rubbing their hands with glee during this debacle are those who do not want a free press—those politicians who have deep pockets lined by goodness knows who, and who cosplay as journalists on RT and GB News to spread division and hatred. I hope that all of us in this House agree with the principle of keeping our public broadcaster free from political interference. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time to review the influence of former Conservative spin doctor Robbie Gibb on the BBC’s board?

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She will be aware that the charter sets a strict legal threshold that must be met before dismissal of a board member, so I am unable to pursue the course of action that she suggests.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The Liberal Democrats have always pushed the BBC to be better, delivering genuinely balanced reporting, rigorous investigation and the best journalism in the world. We believe in a strong, independent, publicly funded BBC that values factuality, scrutiny and accountability in our democracy. The BBC clearly is not perfect, and it is right that we hold it to the highest standards. The “Panorama” editing error was a serious mistake, and we welcome the BBC’s apology. The resignations of Tim Davie and Deborah Turness must be an opportunity for the BBC to turn over a new leaf, rebuild trust and return to its core mission to inform, educate and entertain.

However, it is obvious to everyone that this issue is being weaponised by those who want to undermine the BBC and who would profit from its demise. Without the BBC, we would be more vulnerable to the dangerous misinformation and conspiracy theories that populists such as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and Donald Trump trade on, and we cannot let that happen. As the Government navigate Trump’s latest tantrum in threatening to sue the BBC for $1 billion, what is the Secretary of State doing to stand up for the BBC—Britain’s BBC—which is the most trusted source of information in the world?

Speaking of interference by bad actors, serious concerns remain over the conduct of Sir Robbie Gibb during his tenure on the BBC board. We need to have absolute confidence that the BBC can operate free from political influence, factional interests or personal agendas. If the Secretary of State truly believes in an independent BBC, will she now sack Robbie Gibb, end the political grip on the BBC board and listen to Liberal Democrat calls to guarantee that the appointment of the next director general is transparent, impartial and worthy of the trust that the British public place in the BBC?

The hon. Lady asks if we will stand up for the BBC, and she will have heard my words to the House today. The BBC is one of the most important institutions in the country, and it has stood at the centre of our democratic and cultural life for over a century. How will we stand up for the BBC? We will put it on a firm footing through the charter process that we are about to start. On her concerns about board members, she will have heard the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen).

I thank my right hon. Friend for her leadership on this. I wholeheartedly welcome her words that political figures should not be presenters of the news. Surely that should apply also to the arbiters of news standards. Could these reforms therefore look at the four-person editorial standards committee, given that two of them have resigned, leaving as its most senior member someone who has owned a newspaper in his time, breaching the Independent Press Standards Organisation guidelines—the ex-Conservative director of communications, Robbie Gibb?

My hon. Friend mentions the editorial guidance and standards committee, which has been the source of much debate and scrutiny over recent days. I have discussed this directly with the chair of the BBC. I understand that changes to that committee are planned, and I very much welcome that decision.

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and I echo her words about the director general and the head of news. She will know that the airwaves over the last couple of days have been dominated by a number of debates about the BBC: the concern about bias, particularly on some of the most contentious issues; the ability of the board to govern effectively; and, most of all, editorial standards and accuracy.

That last point has led the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which I chair, to issue invitations today for the non-executive members of the BBC editorial guidance and standards committee Dr Samir Shah, Caroline Thomson and Robbie Gibb, and the former external independent advisers Michael Prescott and Caroline Daniel to appear before us in the weeks ahead. In the meantime, what support is the Secretary of State’s Department giving the BBC at every level to steady the ship?

On charter review, I heard the Secretary of State use the words “imminently” and “shortly”, but I have heard similar words since the beginning of the year, so could she be more specific on the timeline?

First, I welcome the action that the hon. Lady’s Select Committee is taking, which she has announced to the House. To maintain confidence in the BBC, it is absolutely essential that the BBC is transparent about the actions it has taken and the actions it intends to take. It is very welcome that she is ensuring that the fullest explanation is given not just to this House, but to the public.

On the timing of the charter review, the hon. Lady will have heard what I said to her Committee when I appeared before it recently, which is that we will start the charter review process before the end of the year. I will of course return to this House as soon as the timing is finalised to give Members a chance to debate it.

The hon. Lady asked what action we, as a Government, are taking to support the board through what is clearly a tumultuous time. I have been working very closely with the chairman of the BBC in recent days—I have spoken to him daily—and with the director general. We have been clear as a Government that we stand ready to provide all the support the board needs to appoint the highest calibre person to the post of director general and to consider what changes it might want to make to senior leadership structures and roles as a result of its deliberations. The BBC is of course independent of Government and it is essential that it is given the space to be able to get on with that process, but we have been working very closely with the BBC chairman, at his request, in order to make sure that the BBC can continue to thrive.

Now, more than ever, the role of the BBC in our national story and our democracy and the trust we put in it are vital. Trust is not given; it is earned, and we cannot shy away when things go wrong. Does the Culture Secretary agree with me that the charter should focus on transparency, accountability and measurable commitments to impartiality as the surest way to ensure that trust in the BBC is retained?

I do agree with my hon. Friend. As well as the very important issues around standards, I would add trust, accountability and independence from Government—any Government, including ours—because the BBC plays a critical role in holding up a mirror not just to society but to Governments of all political persuasions. I would add that the BBC has always been one of the strongest drivers of the creative industries across every nation and region. As part of the charter review process, we will be working to strengthen that to make sure that the BBC is able to tell the story of our whole nation, and not just some of it.

I join the Culture Secretary in paying tribute to the director general of the BBC—I found him helpful on issues such as antisemitism—but the problem with the BBC goes much deeper than the current leadership. Does she agree, first of all, that it goes to the cultural disposition of the BBC? People who work for it have an overwhelmingly metropolitan outlook and obsess about issues such as Black Lives Matter and Palestine in a way that suburban and provincial England does not obsess? Moreover, my constituents are sick of waiting for the lecture from the BBC in output such as drama. That is the case from other broadcasters, but the difference with the BBC is that my constituents pay for it. There is a real problem with the BBC now, whereby many people feel that it represents half the United Kingdom and not the other half. Does she agree that, for those of us who want the BBC to succeed, that must be addressed as a matter of urgency?

The challenges the right hon. Gentleman describes do not specifically relate just to the BBC. I have voiced concerns, as have many Conservative Culture Secretaries previously, about the overwhelming concentration of the media industry in one background and from one region. I believe, as many of my Conservative predecessors have done, that that needs to change. I would caution focusing particularly on the BBC, because that is a problem for the media industry as a whole and therefore for the public debate. The BBC over the years, through its work at Media City in Salford and at Digbeth Loc in Birmingham, is one of the organisations that is at the forefront of changing that. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, though, that there has to be a level of internal challenge within any successful organisation. In the discussions I have been having with the chairman of the BBC and the director general in recent days, that has been the subject of many of the concerns that I have raised.

As a former journalist and former member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I know more than most some of the failings of the BBC, but I also recognise some of its great strengths, not least in combating misinformation online. I know many of its journalists personally and many, many of them take ultra seriously their duties to provide fair, impartial and, yes, fearless news coverage. It is the fearlessness that often upsets this House, on either side. Yes, this was a serious error by the “Panorama” team and a correction should have been issued swiftly, but that does not mean that the BBC as an institution should be undermined. There are enemies on the left and the right who want to see the demise of the BBC, and they would rue that day should it ever happen.

I agree with my hon. Friend first on the point he makes about the seriousness of some of the failings and the need to uphold the highest standards. I also agree about the challenges and attacks that the BBC faces from both left and right. The real division in the debate over the BBC is not between left and right; it is between those of us who think that the national broadcaster is there to represent their world view and those of us who believe that our national broadcaster is here to challenge all of us.

The internet is full of people who think they are in touch with a bigger truth and that it does not matter what happens to all sorts of littler truths along the way in getting that bigger truth across. In his letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), the Chair of the Select Committee, Samir Shah spoke of the “sacred job” of the BBC to use evidence that can be trusted. That is more important than ever. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is events such as these that give ammunition to people who say, “Disregard the BBC—don’t look at the mainstream media” and consider all sources to be the same? The most worrying thing is not that a mistake happened, because mistakes happen in big organisations; the most worrying thing is that it took this long for it be corrected. Does the Secretary of State agree that in future, corrections must always be made swiftly and proactively?

I have reflected concern about the time it takes to respond to the BBC leadership, not just in relation to this episode, but previously. It really does undermine trust and confidence in the BBC. When a process takes time, and if there is no proper explanation as to why it has taken some time, it leads people to believe that there is complacency at the top of the organisation. I think the chairman has heard that loud and clear and has taken it on board as part of the learning from this episode. I have shared some of my frustrations with the BBC leadership and the failings that have happened over the past 16 months with this House, as have others, because the BBC holds such an important place in our national life and must command the trust of the whole public.

I think we can all hear the Secretary of State’s frustration that we are in this position. She is absolutely right that there must be a period of introspection at the BBC about how this has come to pass, because it is true that trust in our national institutions is declining. However, I must take issue with her comment that the BBC is a national institution that belongs to us all. My constituents—and, I wager, those of Members across this House—are deeply concerned by the political attacks on the BBC, whether from home or abroad, and want to see it protected, because they think they own it. The honest truth, however, is that at the moment they do not own it. In the past, my right hon. Friend has been interested in these ideas; with the charter renewal coming up, might she meet a group of us to look at how ideas such as mutualisation and allowing the public to be part of running the organisation might be the future in giving back trust and confidence in the BBC and genuinely protecting it from political institutions?

I stand absolutely by the assertion that the BBC belongs to us all. It is funded by the licence fee payer, but more than that it is one of the few shared spaces and places that we have in this country. I was reflecting on this on Remembrance Sunday as I stood at the Cenotaph, and did so before that at the VE Day commemorations earlier this year: there are very few broadcasters in this country that could provide those moments where the entire country stops and comes together through a shared experience. I would of course be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss her suggestions.

The BBC has said that the editing of the “Panorama” programme gave the impression of a

“direct call for violent action”—

something it then described as an “error of judgement”, which seems an extraordinary understatement. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that although this was considered by the editorial guidelines and standards committee in May, nothing was done? Should not as a first step the editorial guidelines and standards committee be made far tougher and fully independent? Will the Secretary of State consider that and other measures as part of the charter review she is undertaking as a way of strengthening the impartiality requirement that was inserted in the previous charter review?

I thank the right hon. Member for his suggestion. I look forward to having more detailed conversations with him as we start the charter review process. As he is a former Culture Secretary, I welcome the opportunity to have those conversations. He raises the specific issue of the committee meeting that took place in May. My understanding is that there was a meeting in January, then a further meeting in May at the BBC’s own request, but there was then a failure to follow through. I do not want to speak for the BBC. It is not my role to answer questions on behalf of the BBC about how it took those decisions, but I note with interest that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee will be calling members of the editorial guidelines and standards committee to appear before it, and I am sure that that will be one of the things the Select Committee seeks to probe.

I do not think any reasonable person can think that the programme put out by “Panorama” was a mistake. It was clearly manipulation with a purpose, and unfortunately it follows a long line—I will not list all the examples, as other hon. Members have done that, but they include Gaza, anti-women trans issues and Europe. To give an example from my constituency, a programme was put out a few years ago called “People Like Us”, where contributors—young women—had been paid to fight and other contributors had been sent on holiday in order to get them to say particular things. I do not think that the biggest threat to the BBC is some conspiracy. I hope my right hon. Friend agrees that the biggest threat to the BBC is a failure to uphold objectivity and the standards we expect from the BBC.

I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s view about the seriousness of the failings, which the BBC has accepted this week, and the need for clear, robust, firm and swift action in response. I would, though, remind the House that the BBC is responsible for thousands of hours of output across multiple channels, including some of the most popular and entertaining programmes in this country and some of the highest-quality children’s television in the world. It is also responsible for the BBC World Service, which is renowned and revered the world over. It plays an essential role in our global democracy and is responsible for regional news that is highly trusted. It reaches stories, people and communities that others cannot reach. I say that not to downplay in any sense the seriousness of the concerns that have been raised this week, but just to make clear that the BBC as an institution is essential to this country, and that when we hold it to the highest standards, it is because we need it to thrive.

To interrogate honourably, the BBC needs to have a level of integrity, yet it has diminished itself in ignoring a report for six months that looked not just at one “Panorama” programme but at a litany of failures. The BBC piously shows religious observance to the principles of integrity and impartiality, but when challenged and criticised, it sacrifices all that on the altar of supreme arrogance. Hearing today that the high priest of partiality Jonathan Munro continues to defend the editorial decisions of the “Panorama” programme, does the Secretary of State believe that he too must go?

The right hon. Member will have heard the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). It is not for me or any Government to decide who is employed by the BBC and who is not, but I agree, of course, that integrity and impartiality are vital.

Like some other colleagues in the House, I often start my morning with Dotty on BBC Radio Cambridgeshire and end my days with Amelia on “BBC Look East”. I say that because it demonstrates that the BBC is much more than its editorial decision making at the national level. Every day, thousands of BBC staff are telling our stories, representing our communities and being part of the fabric of this country.

As a former official of the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Communications and Theatre Union, I have spoken to many BBC staff and members of the National Union of Journalists and BECTU over recent days who are horrified by some of the coverage of this matter. They want accountability, and they want the BBC to restore its trust, but they also want to hear the message that their work is valued and that they are part of the future of the BBC and public service broadcasting. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the talent that makes the BBC an institution and that that talent needs to be nurtured, while dealing with the leadership?

I thank my hon. Friend not just for the point he made but for the compelling way in which he made it. Like him, I have been astonished by the calibre of BBC staff, whether the back-office staff who so often do not get the credit, the journalists who work tirelessly in communities up and down the country to tell stories that otherwise would not be heard, or the young apprentices who start out with the most incredible opportunities and go on to have amazing careers because of the institution that the BBC is and the work that is done to support them.

I know that this issue has had an impact on many BBC journalists. I want them to hear directly from the Government how much we value, treasure and support them. I also say to the House that in all the conversations I have had with major investors who come to this country to invest in film and TV production, they say that the BBC is—for all of them, without exception —a major draw because of the work it does in skilling up a generation of talent and providing the institutions and facilities those investors need to come here.

I welcome the tone of the statement, but this is not just about editorial challenges for the BBC; there has been a total lack of deftness in dealing with talent-related issues and other scandals over the past few years. There are also governance issues with BBC Studios—a commercial organisation with separate whistleblowing schemes—hiding behind the BBC brand. Will the Secretary of State reflect on the broader skills that are needed to make the changes necessary so that the BBC can maximise its huge global opportunities in both news and productions?

The right hon. Member is right to raise the lack of deftness—and, I would add, the lack of urgency—in the handling of some of the issues that have arisen in the past couple of years. Let this be the moment that that changes. That is the tone and nature of the conversations I have been having with the BBC’s senior leadership. I also echo the points he made about the skillsets required to ensure that the BBC can get on to a firm footing as we begin this next chapter.

I am no BBC basher; I want to protect it. This morning, along with a number of cross-party MPs, I wrote to the Secretary of State asking if she would ask the BBC board exactly why it delayed issuing an appropriate apology over the “Panorama” Trump edit, because, as we know, that delay inflicted further damage on the BBC, which is our country’s most trusted news source. I agree with Hannah Barnes, who said yesterday in a New Statesman article that the corporation

“must turn this crisis into an opportunity.”

Will the Secretary of State also seek clarity from the former director general Tim Davie on the worrying words in his resignation letter about how the BBC needs to be championed and not weaponised?

I thank my hon. Friend for the letter that I received earlier today. I have discussed the delay in issuing an apology with the BBC and been given a full account by the chairman of the board. It is not for me to answer on behalf of the BBC, but she will have heard that the Select Committee intends to call members of that BBC committee, and I am sure the Select Committee will raise that question with them.

Debates about partiality are something that we in Scotland are more than familiar with—particularly those in the 50% on the side of Scottish independence—but these sustained attacks on the BBC by forces that seek to undermine it and mould it into their instrument must be resisted. Surely that could be assisted by the sacking of Robbie Gibb. Will the Secretary of State assure me that with any changes in leadership, BBC Scotland’s editorial independence will be maintained and it will continue to serve us according to our national debate and our political culture?

The hon. Member will have heard the comments I made about the legal threshold that must be met for any changes in leadership. The Government appoint the chair of the BBC; we do not appoint individual staff members. The board member that he mentioned was appointed by the last Conservative Government and his term was renewed just weeks before the general election, so I cannot take the action that he requests.

The hon. Member mentioned the nations and regions, which are close to my heart as well. Through the charter review process, we will seek to ensure that the BBC’s direction can be driven through its nations and regions and that people in every part of the UK can see a fair share of content that reflects their lives, their communities and their contribution.

I spent time yesterday with journalists at BBC Radio Cambridgeshire admiring their dedication and professionalism, which stands in marked contrast to this shabby debacle that sullies a great institution’s reputation. Is not part of the problem the fragmentation of what should be a public service? Frankly, this failure is symptomatic of the long-term fragmentation of so many of our public services as a consequence of the Conservative Government.

As I said to the House just a moment ago, the charter review marks the start of the next chapter of the BBC’s long and proud history. That will be the moment when we can come together as a whole House and a whole country to agree the future of the BBC.

There are certainly many questions—particularly for those who deliberately set out to destroy the BBC—but I want to ask the Secretary of State this one. In the absence of the ability to remove certain members from the board, will she make a commitment that all future appointments should be conducted through a transparent process rather than being political appointments?

The House was asked to approve the terms of the last charter. Similarly, the House will be asked to approve the terms of the next charter, which will set out how the BBC will operate for the next decade. It will certainly look at appointments, transparency and structures, and that will be the hon. Member’s opportunity to get involved.

Many have expressed their annoyance at the BBC in recent days for being too woke, too Tory or too liberal—or, in my case, for allowing the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) to appear on the “Question Time” panel more often than he has appeared in his own constituency. Is not the fact that the BBC has been attacked by every side evidence that it continues to make every effort to maintain balance in a world of increasingly polarised and divisive media?

My hon. Friend makes the important point. Although none of us should seek to downplay the seriousness of the failings that the BBC has admitted, accepted, apologised for and now must show tangible action to address, the BBC is and remains the most trusted source of news in this country, and one of the most trusted sources of news all over the world. We lose that at our peril.

Like many in the Chamber, I want to see the BBC rebuild public trust and return to its core mission, but it must be recognised that as a result of its pro-gender-ideology bias, it failed to adequately report on issues such as the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in children, the placing of violent men in women’s prisons, and the loss of women’s medals in sport to biological males. On top of all that, it has attributed the crimes of violent men to women. Calling a male sex offender “she” can never be responsible, impartial journalism. How does the Secretary of State intend to ensure that the BBC moves away from its current ideological approach on gender to one based on facts and evidence?

I gently say to the hon. Lady that she said she wants the BBC to return to its core mission, but that is deeply contested, as we can hear in the House. I do not believe that it is the role of elected politicians to tell any broadcaster what it can and cannot produce and what it can and cannot say, or to get involved in the minutiae of editorial decisions. I do think it is the right and proper role of the House to ensure that editorial standards are robust, thorough, well thought through and consistently applied. That is what the Government have been seeking to uphold in the conversations we have had with the BBC in recent weeks, and we will continue to do so.

These are indeed uncertain times for the BBC and for the people who work in it. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that we remember that the Reuters Institute’s Digital News Report 2025 found that the BBC remains the most trustworthy news brand in the UK, with 60% of respondents rating it highly for trust? Does she also agree that the BBC must respond to criticism in a considered and proportionate manner and carry out investigations with regard for due process, and that it should not be subject to political interference nor, for that matter, interference from commercial competitors?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the point about trust. The BBC is one of the most trusted institutions not just in our country but in the world. We seek to ensure that it upholds the highest standards because that is of such value and importance to all of us in the United Kingdom. I thank him for his words.

I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State confirm that the nations and regions will form a very important part of the BBC charter review. To that end, she will know that over 90% of S4C’s funding is derived from the BBC licence fee. In the process of the BBC charter review, will the financial stability of S4C be a key consideration for the Government?

I have been pleased to meet the leadership at S4C after what has been a difficult time. This Government reaffirm the importance of S4C to our national life, and I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman as we start the charter review process to make sure that that continues.

Staff at the former BBC Monitoring station in Caversham in my constituency played a vital role over many years, monitoring broadcasts from around the world. Indeed, they broke a number of important news stories over the years, including that of the Iranian revolution, which was only possible because of the public service model and the dedication of the staff and their skills. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement today, but can I ask her to say a few words of thanks to the staff of the BBC for their continued work and for the BBC’s vital role as a public institution?

My hon. Friend will have heard the comments that I made earlier in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes). I commend those many BBC staff, particularly those who put themselves in danger to report fearlessly from parts of the world where that is not possible. Recently, I came to this Dispatch Box to pay tribute to all those journalists, operating in Gaza in particular, where the loss of life has been without precedent. We owe them a great debt of thanks and I would like to place that on the record today.

It is a very long time since I was taught to edit tape with a chinagraph pencil and a razor blade, but the fundamental principle remains the same: you do not change the sense of what somebody has said—ever. Those who have read the transcript of Trump’s speech and then compared it with the “Panorama” edit know full well that that programme was a travesty of journalism and deeply dishonest. It also represented a desperate lack of editorial control.

I now part company with some of my colleagues; I believe, and I still believe, that the overwhelming majority of journalists employed by the BBC—and, for the record, those employed by Independent Television and Sky News—work fearlessly, faithfully and honestly to deliver the truth, and, when it comes to those working overseas, as has been said, with great courage also. I therefore hope the Secretary of State will resist with all her power the calls of those on both sides of this House and outside it who would seek to destroy one of the jewels in our national crown.

I am happy to give the right hon. Member that assurance.

I echo the solidarity with BBC journalists that has been expressed across the House. Can the Secretary of State assure me and other Members that measures will be taken in the forthcoming charter review to ensure that all political appointments to the BBC board are made with full public scrutiny, and that such appointees will not be involved in any editorial capacity in future, in order to protect the integrity, credibility and independence of the most important bastion of public service broadcasting in Britain and beyond?

I thank my hon. Friend for his words and Members across the House for the tone of this debate. I know that all Members feel strongly about the failings of the BBC editorial process in recent days, but it is a credit to this House that we can have a sensible and measured debate about the actions needed to address it.

The BBC employs thousands of tremendous journalists who are diligent, truth-seeking and impartial. It is not perfect, but we must defend this national asset. We cannot be left to the wolves of the kind of channels that Trump prefers, which have values of propaganda, not of ethics and integrity. Will the Secretary of State protect our BBC from all further political interference, listen to the cross-party voices here, put an end to all political appointments and remove those already in place, like Robbie Gibb—if not immediately, then in that process?

The hon. Lady will have heard my comments to other hon. Members about the appointments process. The charter review offers this whole House the opportunity to look again at how those appointments are made and which roles exist.

On the hon. Lady’s points about the BBC and the environment in which it operates, the Government are particularly concerned about the blurring of news and fact with opinion and polemic, and therefore the inability of viewers to turn on their TV screens and understand what it is that they are watching. I have previously raised my concerns with the Culture, Media and Sport Committee about politicians presenting news on programmes that are not necessarily deemed news programmes. As politicians, we are required to have an opinion and a point of view. That is very different from presenting impartial facts. The Government are looking to address that matter.

The BBC is unique and special, and it is ours. Yes, it is absolutely a part of the national conversation—but, importantly, it is also a part of the regional and local conversation. I have fantastic local journalists in my patch on Three Counties Radio and on “Look East”, and the fact is that a local story, which a local journalist has gone out to find, can quickly get on to the national stage because of our BBC; that is special. Will the Secretary of State assure me that in the forthcoming charter review she will take seriously the protection and enhancement of local news coverage?

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are looking both at the charter process and at how we can help to support and defend local news through the BBC’s work. She will also know that this Government are developing a local news strategy to help our local newspapers to survive and thrive in an era in which they face significant pressure. She is absolutely right to say that local news is not just about reflecting the whole nation, although it does play that essential role; it is also often the training ground for some of our most talented journalists, who would otherwise not get those opportunities, so we are determined to strengthen and protect it.

I would fight in the last ditch to prevent the BBC from ceasing to be a public service broadcaster and from being broken up. Any large organisation can have bad actors who behave unethically, and that has happened on this occasion, but it does the BBC no service when people parrot the line that the person responsible for this crisis is not the idiot who tampered with Donald Trump’s quote but a former Tory spin doctor, one of 13 members of the board, who allegedly influenced other members of the board to somehow provoke the present crisis. The crisis has nothing to do with Robbie Gibb; it has something to do with a mindset that, on the front page of today’s Guardian, has the whole thing about Robbie Gibb and relegates the fact that a $1 billion lawsuit may be taken out by Donald Trump against the BBC to a tiny paragraph at the end of the article on page 2. If you wants to know what is wrong with some bits of the BBC, read The Guardian today.

I am not entirely sure how to respond to that, but the right hon. Member’s views are now on the record.

We have heard an awful lot today about the professionalism of the journalists at the BBC, and I wholeheartedly agree with that, but there are less of them now than there were last year and we hear that the BBC is in the fight of its life across a whole number of fronts. Well, when you are in a fight across multiple fronts, it seems odd to send some of your best fighters home, but that is what is happening to our journalists where there are less of them in our newsrooms. Does the Secretary of State agree that journalism, delivered free from fear or favour, costs money—and that it costs a lot of money to do it really well? Does she also agree that delivering that has to be at the centre of gravity for the BBC now and in the future, and that how we protect journalism and resource it properly has to be at the heart of the charter review?

I agree with my hon. Friend and I can assure him that that is very much central to the charter review process that we are about to begin. He is right to say that fearless and robust journalism costs money, and it is essential that the BBC is fairly and sustainably resourced for years to come. The Government are keeping an open mind about how that may may unfold, but what I have said—and I am happy to repeat it to the House today—is that we have ruled out funding the BBC through general taxation, because although it is absolutely essential that good journalism is well resourced, it is also absolutely essential that the BBC remains independent from Government and is able to hold us to account without fear or favour.

It is essential that the BBC’s independence and impartiality are upheld at all times. I am afraid that serious concerns have been raised about Sir Robbie Gibb’s conduct on the BBC board, including alleged attempts to influence recruitment and editorial decisions. If the Secretary of State cannot remove Gibbs from the board and cannot end the political appointments now, what actions can she take to restore public confidence in the BBC’s governance?

Everyone in this House is right to take with the utmost seriousness the failings that the BBC has accepted have happened over the course of this year, but I would gently push back against the idea that the public has lost confidence in the BBC. It remains the most trusted source of news in this country and, as I said earlier, in many other parts of the world as well.

In terms of the actions that I can take as Secretary of State, I am working closely to support the chairman of the board through what are obviously tumultuous times. The director general has agreed to stay on in order to see the organisation through the transition. We have already had discussions about the process for recruiting for a new director general and the need to strengthen the work of the board and senior leadership when it comes to editorial oversight. That includes, as I said a moment ago, a discussion about the mix of skills and experience that is needed at the highest levels of the organisation.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. It is absolutely right to hold the BBC to the highest standard, because that is the best way to defend our national broadcaster. Does she agree that it is not acceptable for Members of this House who are paid by the BBC’s commercial rivals—in fact, looking at the time, one of them is probably in make-up as we speak—to use their status as an MP to mount sustained and frenzied attacks that have only one aim: to destroy this national institution?

As I said earlier, it is the legitimate, right and proper role of Members of this House to raise serious concerns about the decisions that have been made at the BBC over recent months and the response to them, but there is a difference between that and making a sustained attack on an institution that has stood at the centre of public life for over a century and belongs to us all.

I thank the Secretary of State for her answers and for her statement. It has been clear over the years that there has been a bias in the BBC, and I have had concerns over the last 12 months on at least four topics: BBC bias against Brexit; BBC bias against my party, the Democratic Unionist party—there are elected representatives back home in Northern Ireland who refuse to engage with the BBC; BBC bias for Gaza against Israel; and BBC bias against the free Iran Government in exile, with the BBC promoting the son of a former dictator. My goodness me, it is quite unbelievable. Two people have resigned, but the canker of editorial control is still there. So my question to the Secretary of State today is: when will it end? Is this just a pause or is this the end?

As somebody who has shared my frustrations at some of the failures at the BBC over the last 16 months, and at the response at times, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that throughout this process I have very much felt that there is a recognition of the seriousness of this issue at the highest levels of the BBC. In the conversations that I have had with the senior leadership in the institution, there is also a discussion and a consideration of what wider changes need to be made in order to maintain and uphold the highest standards. He asks when it will end. I think the answer has to be: now.

I welcome the statement from the Secretary of State, and particularly her strong support for the BBC as an institution that belongs to us all. With the BBC regularly rated worldwide as one of the most trusted global news sources, does she agree that a strong BBC acts as a bulwark against misinformation not only in this country but across other critical parts of the world where there are few other trusted news sources, and that the delivery of services to those parts of the world must be properly funded?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and it is not lost on anyone in this House that, at a time when other countries who do not necessarily have the UK’s best interests at heart are investing heavily in state-funded propaganda, it is essential that the BBC continues to be a light on the hill for people in times of darkness.

I have long been a champion of the BBC as a UK national institution, but at the last charter review I raised my concern about the prevalence of a metropolitan elite at the heart of the BBC—not just at UK level but in Scotland—who do not always convey that they understand or indeed respect rural or older constituents such as my own. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in order to preserve the BBC as a national institution, this charter review will convey an understanding of people right across the UK, wherever they live?

I can, and I will. I share the right hon. Gentleman’s view that the story of the whole nation has to be told, and the best way to ensure that it is told is to ensure that all of us are involved in telling it, not just some. When we look at the charter review, there will be a particular focus on our nations and regions. I have said previously that, although I absolutely commend the BBC’s work—it has been a leader in the field of moving jobs, programming and skills out of London—I want to see a shift in commissioning power so that, in every nation and region, we decide the story that we tell about ourselves to ourselves as a nation.

We should be rigorous in holding the BBC to account, especially when it makes mistakes, but does my right hon. Friend agree that some of those who jump on any infraction with glee may have ulterior motives? Does she further agree that the BBC is a beacon of fearless, impartial journalism here and abroad, and that as misinformation and disinformation grow, and as attempts to attack media outlets by those suspicious of their values are on the rise, the BBC is needed more than ever?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the centrality of the BBC to our public life. All of us in this House should rightly be seeking to ensure that the BBC upholds the highest standards while defending and protecting it as an institution and considering together how we can ensure that it stands at the centre of our public life for many more decades to come.

I was pleased to hear the Government announce last week that they will tackle fake news in the curriculum. I always say to children when I go into schools that, “You can trust journalism if you can sue the person who wrote it,” so I actually welcome the writ coming from America, though I hope it can be sorted out, purely to say that if something is wrong, you can do that. The basis of why we are here today—forget all the politicking about who is on the board, what it is about Trump and anything else—is that the BBC faked a piece of news. We have to get to the heart of how that happened. May I ask that the Secretary of State use her offices to work with the current director general to get right to the heart of how this was ever allowed to happen? We have heard and all believe that the BBC is a respected journalistic organisation, but this is probably the biggest crisis it faces because right now we can honestly say that it faked the news.

The right hon. Member asked me to use the office I hold to ensure that we get to the bottom of this and to ensure full transparency, and I will of course do that. The whole House will be grateful to the chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), for taking action quickly to ensure that that account is transparent and open to the public.

Sometimes when assessing things like the BBC, there is the Westminster bubble and then the real world outside. Some of us in Northern Ireland have been pressing the BBC for many years to be more transparent, independent and impartial, so this latest debacle is but one in a long line. We are not talking about light entertainment or drama—no one questions that, and that by and large gets a green light from most people—it is news and current affairs. There is no point in people distracting by introducing a conspiracy within the BBC board. Is now not the time to start afresh with a transformed BBC service to give us the impartial news service that many of us have demanded for years?

The charter review will provide us with an opportunity to do just that.

Why does the Minister think the BBC’s national leadership has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of licence fee payers’ money resisting attempts to publish the 2004 Balen report? Does she suspect, like I do, that it might be because the conclusions drawn 20 years ago are very similar to the conclusions that have been made apparent in the now leaked Michael Prescott report, particularly around a culture that makes it possible for it to be okay to doctor and distort the facts to suit a preformed agenda?

That is a question for the BBC, and when members of the editorial committee appear before the Select Committee, I am sure that that is something the Committee will rightly challenge them on.

Earlier this year, as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I had the great privilege of visiting the 77th Brigade—the anti-Russian disinformation brigade of the British Army down in Newbury. The experts on the front line of the information wars told us that the British population are being subjected to tens of thousands of messages every single day designed to seed distrust between Government and citizen and break our belief in our institutions. The United Kingdom is in an incredibly privileged position in that we have a state broadcaster that provides us with something that might resemble a national culture. If we were to lose that, we would be feeding the forces that stand against us. Does the Secretary of State agree that the BBC provides a vital connection to our past that unifies us and that, as well as being a source of education, information and entertainment, it is also a great source of national resilience?

I agree with the hon. Member. If the BBC did not exist in the times that we live in, we would seek to invent it.

To touch on something that the Secretary of State alluded to earlier, one of the vital services that the BBC provides is supporting local media—an industry that I worked in for 10 years. It does that through its local democracy reporting scheme, which helps bring forward the next generation of journalists and reporters. Does she agree that it is therefore imperative that the BBC wins back trust, discipline and a culture of impartiality so that this can be inculcated into the next generation of journalists, so that they can report without fear or favour?

I agree with the hon. Member. That is why this Government will also resist recent attacks on the institution itself by Members from across the House. The local democracy reporting service that he talks about is a vital part of our local democracy. It also helps to create the next generation of journalists who might not otherwise have the opportunity to work in journalism and tell the stories that matter so much to all of us across this House.

Robbie Gibb—faithful or traitor?

Perhaps I can hear my hon. Friend’s views about that over a few drinks later on.

The fact of the matter is this is not just about manipulating the speech of a President the BBC clearly detests. There were other allegations made about promoting Hamas propaganda, producing fake stories about race bias, censoring people who were gender critical, and promoting stories with a one-sided view of climate change, as well as a whole range of other issues. What has been the response of the BBC? It rolls out the lefty luvvies to try to justify its position and then to indicate that it was the victim of some right-wing coup. Does the response not show that this body—which has fabricated the news, misused its monopoly and hidden behind the protection of politicians in this House who were far too cowardly to take it on over the years—is not capable of change? Like many millions across the United Kingdom, I object to paying for it. I hope that in the review the Minister will decide that there should be no more enforced taxation—

Order. I call the Secretary of State.

It will not surprise the right hon. Gentleman to learn that I do not agree with that or with his characterisation of an institution that plays a vital role in this country. I gently say to him that I do not think most people do either. While I am sure the public have been extremely concerned about the serious failings that have been accepted this week by the BBC, it still remains the most trusted source of news in this country.

I say to all Members of this House that there has been a lot of discussion today about individuals being held responsible for all the problems at the BBC, whether they are individuals who serve on the board or as senior executives. My assessment of the failures that have been admitted over recent years is that they stem not from an institutional bias, but from a need to have sufficient rigour and oversight at the top of the organisation that is applied consistently across the board. That is something I know the chairman of the BBC is seeking to achieve, and as a Government we stand ready to support it in that.

In the early 2000s, I lived in Hanoi alongside my husband who was reporting on Vietnam for the BBC, and I saw for myself how he and the BBC worked very hard for truth. He then spent a year in Myanmar, working alongside extraordinarily brave local journalists who sought to expand public broadcasting under a military dictatorship. Does the Secretary of State agree that the BBC’s trusted journalism is one of our strongest defences against disinformation, both at home and abroad?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to the work that BBC Verify does in helping to empower our citizens to navigate a difficult news environment.

“Auntie” is definitively a monopoly. When Mr Reith wrote into the charter that she should inform, educate and entertain with complete impartiality, he did it for good reason. This recent disgusting episode with this “Panorama” programme, where we have undermined our relationship with probably our greatest ally, is just the tip of the iceberg. Would the Minister agree that now is the time to responsibly defund this monopoly? If she does not, would she agree that it is time for root-and-branch reform with a view to ensuring that, in the same way that she has done with football club boards, we see people from across the country who are actually forced to pay for this service represented on the board of the BBC?

It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to learn that I strongly disagree with him on the first point. On the latter point, the issue of accountability to the public, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) raised a moment ago, is something that we have been thinking about with the senior leadership of the BBC and others as we approach the charter review. I would certainly be happy to discuss that with the hon. Gentleman.

Last week, we learned that the BBC upheld a complaint about presenter Martine Croxall. It is alleged that she changed—correctly —the wording of “pregnant people” to “women”. Somehow, the BBC found her eye-roll to have conveyed a personal view. There are two genders—male and female —and one of those genders can become pregnant: women. That is a scientific fact, and it is the view of the Supreme Court. Will the Secretary of State therefore ensure that the BBC leadership abides by the Court’s ruling, and does she agree that the BBC’s lefty, woke agenda is certainly not in step with the majority of right-thinking people, who want common sense at the core of broadcasting?

I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s characterisation of the BBC. It is not for the Secretary of State to start writing editorial guidelines for the BBC on the Floor of the House of Commons, as I am sure most Members would agree. It is my job, however, to work with the senior leadership to ensure that it has the right structures and people in place, so that it can have well-thought-through, easily understood and consistent editorial guidelines of the highest standards that are applied consistently and do not leave presenters and journalists struggling to interpret them.