Gaza: BBC Coverage

10:36:00

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State if she will make a statement on the coverage of Gaza by the BBC.

As the House will be aware, Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK. It is my view and the view of this Government—I hope it is shared across the whole House—that Hamas is a terrorist organisation guilty of heinous acts of terrorism over many years, including the appalling terrorist and antisemitic attacks carried out on 7 October 2023. That is a position I set out clearly in public in the media this week. That tragic day and the conflict that followed have had real-life impacts on communities across the UK, playing out on our streets and overseas, and every one of us has a duty to take the utmost care not to exacerbate the situation. That is why I have discussed editorial guidelines with the BBC director general in recent days. The BBC has clear editorial guidelines to report Hamas as a terror organisation proscribed by the UK Government. That was its policy under the last Government, and that remains its policy now. I held discussions with the BBC director general earlier this week at my request in order to seek urgent answers about the checks and due diligence that should have been carried out ahead of the screening of a recent documentary on Gaza, and about the commissioning, the payment and the use of licence fee payers’ money. I also sought cast-iron assurances that no money paid has fallen into the hands of Hamas and that the utmost care was taken to ensure that that was the case. I expect to be kept informed about the findings of the internal BBC investigation, and I will be happy to update the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) and colleagues across the House on its progress. Across all the issues on which the BBC may report, the BBC’s operational and editorial independence from the Government is an important principle that we intend to uphold. As a former Minister at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member will be aware that it is for Ofcom as the independent regulator to ensure the BBC fulfils its obligations under the charter and broadcasting code. Nevertheless, as I have set out publicly, it is essential that the BBC maintains the highest standards of reporting and governance, as the public rightly expect. I have made those views clear to the BBC. That is crucial to ensure that the BBC retains the confidence of the public.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. The documentary “Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone” was broadcast by the BBC on 17 February. It purported to show what everyday life was like for people in Gaza—a topic of huge sensitivity. As the UK’s public broadcaster, the BBC has a duty to provide accurate and impartial news and information, which is particularly important when it comes to coverage of highly sensitive events. In this case, it is clear that the BBC has fallen far short of those standards. Shortly after it aired, reports emerged that the documentary was narrated by the son of a senior Hamas figure. Initially, the BBC defended the programme as an “invaluable testament” to the conflict and kept it available on iPlayer. Only after a significant public backlash did the BBC decide to withdraw it. Then we learned that on at least five occasions, the words “Yahud” and “Yahudy”—Arabic for “Jew” and “Jews”—were changed to “Israel” and “Israeli forces”, or were removed from the documentary; and then we learned that up to £400,000 in public funds might have indirectly supported a terrorist organisation. However, I regret to say that the Government’s response to these allegations has been just as concerning. On Monday the Secretary of State refused to say whether Hamas, a proscribed terrorist organisation, should be described as such by the BBC, but I was glad to hear her comments today. On Tuesday the Home Secretary, the Minister responsible for addressing threats related to terrorism, said that she did not “know the details” surrounding this case, despite allegations that £400,000 in public funds may have indirectly supported this organisation. For that reason, the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the director general of the BBC requesting a full independent inquiry to consider this and wider allegations of systemic bias against Israel. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her response to my correspondence on this matter. I understood from her letter that she had raised these concerns about the documentary with the director general—and she has just confirmed that—and it was right that she did so, but I must press her further on the letter’s contents. Did she make it clear that, in this case, the BBC has fallen far short of the standards expected of the UK’s public broadcaster? Did she receive any assurances from the BBC that taxpayers’ money has not been funnelled to Hamas? Did she support our calls for a full independent inquiry into the documentary? What commitment did she receive from the BBC that this will never happen again, and if a criminal investigation has to take place, what will happen?

Order. That should have been two minutes. Please will everyone measure how long they have? It is unfair, because we have a lot of business to get through.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to the House, and also for raising it with me. As he knows, I have a long history of taking antisemitism extremely seriously—for instance, when it poisoned my own party—and I will always speak out without fear or favour when I see it raise its ugly head. I am, however, deeply disappointed by his attempts to pretend that the Government have been anything other than robust on this. He will know that in the media interviews to which he referred, I made it crystal clear that the UK Government and I believe, and have believed for a long time, that Hamas is not only a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK but a terrorist organisation, and we will continue to describe it as such. He will also know that in one of those interviews I made it clear that I had requested a meeting with the director general of the BBC to discuss the matter. “Of course, the BBC is not there as an instrument of Government. Ministers seeking to interfere with editorial decisions or the day-to-day running of the organisation would be in nobody’s interests, in seeking to build the trust that is so fundamental to its core purpose.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2024; Vol. 746, c. 103WH.] Those are not my words but the words of the last media Minister, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), whom the right hon. Gentleman served alongside. He was a Minister in that Government. The hon. Lady is now the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition. If he disagrees with her, I suggest that he take that up with her, but this is far too important an issue to be treated as a political football.

Along with several other Members, I visited Israel and the occupied west bank last week, but there was no access to Gaza for us. In fact, the closest we got to it was viewing the utter devastation of Gaza City through a telescope. Over the last year during the war, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, at least 162 Palestinian journalists have been killed in Gaza, and the BBC and other journalists have had no access to Gaza whatsoever. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is as unacceptable as any attacks on the independence of the BBC?

Yes. The duty to report on what is happening to people in Gaza is absolutely fundamental, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has raised the issue of journalists, access and protection and safety a number of times. That is why the Government believe that the BBC and others have the utmost duty to exercise care and due diligence in the way in which they report on this conflict. It is in no one’s interests for the public not to have confidence in the information that they are receiving.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I commend the Secretary of State for her response to the urgent question; we agree with the position being taken. I cannot imagine what it must be like to be a Palestinian child in Gaza. In the first six months of the war alone, 2% of the child population was killed or injured, and tens of thousands more will have been orphaned or left homeless. Given this humanitarian catastrophe, many in this House today will find it deeply disappointing that, due to errors made in the production of this documentary, we are instead discussing why it was pulled, rather than the pressing matter at hand. Many of us will share the regret that we have ended up in this situation. Clearly, innocent Palestinian children have suffered terribly over the past 16 months. Does the Secretary of State agree that, regardless of today’s discussion, it is vital to shine an ongoing, credible and sustained spotlight on the plight of children in Gaza?

Yes, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his careful and considered words on this. In the last year I met with the British families of some of the children in Gaza and the stories are absolutely horrifying. We have a duty to ensure that those stories are told, and that people can have confidence in what they are being told.

I thank the Secretary of State for getting to grips with this issue so quickly and acknowledging that what happened on 7 October and what happened subsequently in Gaza is of huge significance; her understanding gives me hope. Will she commit to coming back to this Chamber and updating us on the outcome of whatever happens with the BBC investigation?

I am happy to say to my hon. Friend, who has a long-standing interest and has been a real champion for children in Gaza for many years, that I will be more than happy to keep colleagues updated as this progresses and to update the whole House at the earliest opportunity.

I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

The BBC has definitely got questions to answer here, not just on the dealings over this film but on the wider concerns about the representation and reporting of the Gaza conflict. As the Secretary of State said, Hamas are a proscribed terrorist organisation yet they are referred to as such in just 7.7% of instances of reporting by the BBC. It took four days after broadcast for this programme to be taken off iPlayer, and at that point the BBC said there had to be further due diligence with the production company. It is not the first time that the BBC has had issues with its due diligence, but in subject matters as sensitive and incendiary as this, language matters, and treating issues like this with detail, sensitivity and impartiality matters especially. The BBC board is meeting today. How confident is the Secretary of State that the board is providing the necessary challenge to executives to maintain that due diligence and to maintain the trust in the organisation?

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the BBC board plays the critical role in ensuring that the BBC reaches the highest possible standards, which she and I, and indeed all Members of this House, expect. They will have heard her words and mine loud and clear: we expect them to play that role. They must do that, and part of my job is to hold them to account for what they do and do not do in relation to this.

I welcome this statement because I think it is important that we talk about our tone in public life. I worry that sometimes the public outside the Chamber do not see this House as being the best arbiter of appropriate tone. In fact, in recent days I have heard jokes about suicide, I have seen sexism and so much more. Does the Secretary of State agree that we should lead from the front and set a good example in this House on how we police our own boundaries and language?

My hon. Friend, as always, has taken care to strike the right tone, and I thank him very much for raising that. [Interruption.]

Order. The question was not relevant to what we are discussing; that is the problem.

I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said and welcome her clear criticism of this documentary, but may I return to some of the—at best—mistranslation that happened during the documentary that my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State referenced? Instances of the Arabic words for “Jews” were changed to “Israeli” and, possibly worst of all, one interviewee praised the Hamas leader for his “Jihad against the Jews”, yet the BBC translated that to “fighting Israeli forces”. That is not an error in Google Translate; it is clearly a deliberate attempt to completely misinterpret the approach towards Hamas and the situation in the middle east. Can she give me an assurance that she will be robust in challenging those translations, because those terms are clearly antisemitic and take a pro-Hamas, pro-terrorist viewpoint?

I am more than happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I discussed the precise use of language with the BBC director general earlier this week. On the question asked by the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), I also discussed the use of the full term “a proscribed terror organisation” by the UK Government and the frequency with which that term is used by the BBC. I made it clear that I, as the Secretary of State, believe that it is incredibly important that the BBC adheres to its own guidelines.

Hamas are a proscribed organisation and that is as it should be. The Israeli military has banned international journalists from Gaza and at least 162 Palestinian journalists have been killed in Gaza in the last 500 days. Does the Secretary of State agree that BBC and all media coverage of Gaza can only benefit from journalists being allowed in to report on the ground, a point raised with me by some constituents in the past few weeks? Does she further agree that journalists must be protected from harm, in line with international law?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that she has done over many years, including as the director of Medical Aid for Palestinians. She knows better than anyone in this House what is happening in Gaza—I think she may be the only Member of the House who has recently been in Gaza to see the conditions that many hon. Members have described. I very much agree with her point about journalistic access and safety. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) that us setting the right tone in this House is essential.

I am sure that Members across the House all agree that the most important issue is the maintenance of the ceasefire. Hostages need to go home, aid needs to get in and a peaceful future needs to be built. What more can this Government do to ensure that the stories of those affected are heard, to continue the international determination for the maintenance of the ceasefire?

When I met British Palestinians whose family members are in Gaza and when I met the families whose loved ones had been taken hostage by Hamas, and had been held or continue to be held in Gaza, I made a commitment to them that, in opposition and in government, we would continue to use every opportunity to shine a spotlight on what is happening to them. I think they will be very encouraged by the words of the hon. Lady. It is a particular to tribute to the House that Members from every political party are raising these issues and ensuring that we continue to tell those stories.

Since the Hamas atrocities of 7 October, tens of thousands of Gazans have been killed by Israeli forces, and hundreds of thousands more have been subject to unimaginable suffering. It is essential that their stories be told and it is unacceptable that the BBC should have chosen to tell them through those connected to Hamas. We understand that the BBC is not allowed into Gaza, so will the Secretary of State confirm where this programme was subcontracted and to whom? On the issue of translation, does the BBC not have a translation guide? Is that publicly available? If not, should it be? Finally, when Israeli Ministers and others call for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza or for the elimination of the Palestinian people, surely that must be reported in a way that highlights that that is illegal and the cause of immense distress to many in this country?

My hon. Friend speaks powerfully about the careful use of language and the way in which we all have a responsibility to uphold the highest standards on that. On her specific question, having had discussions with the BBC, I can confirm that this was not a BBC programme; it was commissioned by an external organisation.[Official Report, 4 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 8WC.] (Correction) That in no way absolves the BBC from the responsibility to undertake due diligence on a programme that it airs. When it is aired by our national broadcaster, it is granted the legitimacy of our national broadcaster, and that is why these standards matter. I will take away her suggestion about a publicly available translation guide, which might help to assuage some of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), and discuss that with the BBC.

It is essential that the editorial independence of the BBC is protected at home and abroad. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether she or anyone in her Department had contact, formally or informally, with the Israeli embassy about the documentary before it was pulled from iPlayer? And will she say when contact was first made between her and the BBC, between the programme being airing and then being pulled from iPlayer?

No.

I thank the Secretary of State for her very clear statement. The bigger picture that the Opposition are missing here is that the British media at large have greatly suffered from a lack of access in Gaza during the deadliest war on record for journalists. My former colleagues have variously been denied entry and had unnecessarily prolonged and risky exits, and our Palestinian contributors have been stuck in a living nightmare. Will the Secretary of State ensure that she continues to safeguard British media interests and their reporting abroad and work with Foreign Office colleagues to enlarge access for journalists in Gaza?

I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. As I said in answer to an earlier question, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has raised this issue, and he and I are working very closely together on it. My hon. Friend will be aware that the BBC World Service plays a critical role in ensuring that free and fair information is available all over the world, which is why we rightly expect the highest standards from the BBC.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s robust view on the BBC. However, the problem is that the BBC does not refer to Hamas as a terrorist organisation, as it should. Indeed, the problem is that David Collier, an investigative journalist, could actually go through the documentary and identify all the errors that were made while sitting at his computer. If the BBC cannot do that, something is seriously wrong, particularly when it is in the position of commissioning this documentary, not doing it internally. Can the Secretary of State make sure that when she talks to the BBC, it makes extra efforts to ensure that if it commissions these sorts of documentaries, they are actually accurate and not using terrorists and potentially funnelling money to terrorists?

I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. That was part of the discussions I had with the BBC director general earlier this week. I would expect an organisation like the BBC already to have robust systems in place on that, and I have been assured that that is part of the internal review.

Does the Secretary of State agree that across all the issues that the BBC may report on, its operational and editorial independence from Government is an important principle that should be upheld?

Yes, I very much agree with my hon. Friend, not least because it is the role of broadcasters to hold a mirror up not just to society, but to the Government, and to hold us to account. That is why I very much agree with the words of the media Minister in the previous Government, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), who said that the BBC is not “an instrument of Government. Ministers seeking to interfere with editorial decisions or the day-to-day running of the organisation would be in nobody’s interests”.—[Official Report, 27 February 2024; Vol. 746, c. 103WH.]

Once again, the BBC has got it badly wrong, since 7 October, with its treatment and description of Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Once again, we are told that lessons will be learned. Does the Secretary of State think that the BBC is incompetent, negligent or just riddled with antisemitism?

I have been absolutely clear with this House that I think the BBC has serious questions to answer. The director general was very clear with me earlier this week that it has serious questions to answer and that it intends to answer them in full, and I will make sure that is the case.

It is quite clear that the BBC has not shown the standards of journalistic integrity that we expect of it in the case of this documentary or through its coverage of the 7 October attacks and the war that followed. Danny Cohen, the former BBC director of television, says that the BBC is “institutionally hostile to Israel”. Can we have an inquiry into not only this incident, but the BBC’s relationship with Hamas, the independence of its reporters in Gaza from Hamas and its wider coverage of Israel? If there is evidence of BBC funds reaching a proscribed terrorist organisation, will the Secretary of State join me in saying that there should be a full criminal investigation?

Ensuring that no money has fallen into the hands of Hamas is the duty of all of us. The last Government were very clear about that in relation to the aid budget, and we are very clear about that too. The BBC needs to be as clear, or there must be consequences. I also reassure the hon. Gentleman that in December I convened a roundtable with the Jewish community to discuss antisemitism in the arts and the creative industries more generally. I was appalled by what I heard at that meeting, which was convened by Lord Mann and the Board of Deputies of British Jews. We are working very closely together to stamp out the many unacceptable practices that we have seen creep not just into the BBC, but across broadcasting and the arts more generally since this appalling conflict began.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her answer to the urgent question. We all agree that the genuine inaccuracies and misrepresentations in this documentary, and in all reporting, must be addressed, and that steps must be taken to prevent them from reoccurring. We also all agree that there is no place for antisemitism or any other racism anywhere. The BBC has been accused by more than 100 of its staff of giving Israel favourable coverage in its reporting of the war on Gaza, and criticised for its lack of accurate, evidence-based journalism. The letter, sent to the BBC’s director general and chief executive officer, said: “Basic journalistic tenets have been lacking when it comes to holding Israel to account for its actions.” Its signatories included more than 100 anonymous BBC staff and more than 200 people from the media industry. The letter also said: “The consequences of inadequate coverage are significant. Every television report, article and radio interview that has failed to robustly challenge Israeli claims has systematically dehumanised Palestinians.” What steps—

Order. We have got to get to the question, please.

My apologies, Mr Speaker. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to investigate and address the unacceptable and biased anti-Palestinian and pro-Israel reporting by the BBC since 7 October, so that it can be trusted by those in this House and by the licence fee payers who fund its existence?

The views that the hon. Gentleman has expressed show what a contested and difficult area this is to report on. While this Government believe it is essential that we shine a spotlight on what is happening to people—particularly children—in Gaza, there is no excuse for antisemitism, or for the sorts of practices that have been alleged against the BBC in recent weeks in relation to this documentary.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s robust response from the Dispatch Box today, and thank her for it. This is an egregious example, but the problem is the pattern of behaviour; for example, the BBC has spent £330,000 of taxpayers’ money on legal fees to cover up the 2004 Balen report into coverage of this conflict. Does the Secretary of State agree that there are valid questions as to why the BBC has refused to submit to an independent inquiry? Does she agree that the findings of the Balen report have been suppressed, and will the Government urge the BBC to publish that report?

The hon. Gentleman is right that there are valid questions to answer. The BBC is a treasured national broadcaster; it plays an important role in our public life and, indeed, in the whole ecosystem of the creative industries in this country. That is why we are determined to hold it to the highest possible standards, and we expect that it will do nothing less itself.

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. We all agree that the BBC’s impartiality is imperative and that antisemitism is abhorrent, but is it not enough that we have stood by as 48,900 Gazans have been killed, including 17,400 Gazan children? Is it not enough that we have stood by as 320 aid workers and 162 journalists have been killed? Does the Secretary of State agree that children, and the narrator of this show specifically, cannot be held accountable for the actions of their parents, or is this just an extension of Netanyahu’s policy of collective punishment of the Gazan people?

Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman that children cannot be held responsible for relationships that they have but, to be clear, if the child in question is related to senior Hamas officials, that is important context for viewers to understand. Not to inform the public about that context falls way short of the standards we would expect of our national broadcasters. Can I also say to the hon. Gentleman that we as a country have not stood aside while over 47,000 people have been killed in Gaza? My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made this his top priority—he has been in the region several times in recent months—and just a few weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Development announced £17 million in humanitarian funding for Gaza to ensure that we support its people. Notwithstanding the very difficult decision that the Prime Minister announced at this Dispatch Box on Tuesday, we are committed to continuing to support the people of Gaza.

The days when people gained their news from the BBC and ITV are long gone. We now have a whole range of media outlets, many of which do not have the same editorial standards as we expect from our national broadcaster, so does the Secretary of State agree that it is vital that we can trust our national broadcaster and that it maintains the highest possible standards?

The hon. Member makes an important point, which I do not think anybody has made yet in this debate, which is that we expect more from the BBC, because it is our treasured national broadcaster. There is a media landscape out there, and we have got to make sure that all our broadcasters meet the highest standards, especially when it comes to this conflict.

I thank the Minister for her answers to the urgent question. The BBC has publicly funded status and therefore has an obligation to report impartially, but that has been called into question since the 7 October atrocities. Will the Minister act to hold the BBC cameraman and the staff accountable for their failings? Furthermore, what measures will be introduced to ensure that the BBC’s editorial standards are raised to prevent the dissemination of misleading, biased and unverified content?

The hon. Member will have heard that I raised a number of issues around this particular documentary and the reporting of this conflict more generally when I met the BBC director general. I expect the highest possible standards. I heard from the director general that he expects the highest possible standards as well and that the review will cover all the areas that the hon. Member rightly raises.