Gaza: BBC Coverage

Commons Urgent Question

The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Thursday 27 February.

“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 anti-Semitic 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 honourable 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 honourable 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”.

15:36:00

My Lords, this is an incredibly serious matter. Public money may have ended up in the hands of supporters of a proscribed terrorist organisation. With the police and Ofcom both saying that they are willing to investigate this matter, and reports today that other broadcasters have used the same boy without making clear his parentage, would the Minister agree that a properly independent inquiry is needed and that the signatories to a letter urging the reinstatement of this contested programme—some of whom have been very well remunerated by the licence fee payer in the past—should not be heeded?

My Lords, it is right that the BBC is conducting a thorough investigation into what happened and who knew what, when. I will not prejudge the outcome of the BBC’s investigation. As the noble Lord is aware, the BBC is operationally and editorially independent of government, but we expect it to continue to follow robust procedures to protect taxpayers’ money and uphold the high standards the public and this Government rightly expect. The noble Lord will be aware of the letter that Ofcom sent the BBC, and the Secretary of State spoke to both the chair and the director-general of the BBC last week. She expects a clear response from them on a number of points.

My Lords, I fully share the noble Lord’s criticism of the particular programme, but we should recognise that that in no way describes the BBC’s general coverage of Gaza. Speaking as a former journalist who covered a Middle East war, I was struck by the way BBC journalists strived for impartiality in all their reporting. As far as I can see, that is the same today.

First, this incident is clearly very serious and, secondly, we expect that high standard of journalism. It is why the BBC has traditionally been a trusted source of news, both in this country and overseas. That is one of the reasons why this incident is so serious. While we are talking about journalism in the context of Gaza, the House should also be aware that a considerable number of journalists and media workers have been killed since the war began. So there is a wider context as well, but, on the specifics, it is right that this issue be investigated.

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Fowler, I was a journalist, but I worked for an independent production company and made documentaries for the BBC. One was about Osama bin Laden, and I was almost driven to a nervous breakdown by the scrutiny the BBC put the programme under, so I am surprised and saddened by what has occurred. The reputation of the BBC is central. However, picking up on what my noble friend Lord Fowler said, does the Minister not agree that, regardless of today’s discussion, it is vital to shine an ongoing, credible and sustained spotlight on the plight of those in Gaza, particularly the children? Therefore, it is essential that BBC coverage continues.

The unfortunate matter at stake here is that the whole issue of shining a light has been muddied by really unacceptable failures in this instance. Clearly, the BBC has a duty to provide accurate and impartial news and information. The voices of people affected in war zones are particularly powerful, but the public really have a right to be able to trust that BBC content is accurate. In this instance, there have been questions over governance, whether the guidelines are strong enough in the first place and whether the oversight has been sufficient.

My Lords, as with every major organisation, people working for the BBC make mistakes, and mistakes must be exposed when they happen, and the lessons learned. But does the Minister agree that the reason why the BBC, as she mentioned already, is the single most respected news organisation in the whole world, from Scunthorpe to Sudan, is that almost everyone who works for it is wholly committed and is doing their best to be fair, accurate and impartial?

The noble Lord makes the really important point that, when we get these incidents, it can be hugely demoralising for people who are working hard to get that accurate, impartial information. There are two issues. We have to make sure that we understand exactly what went wrong, and the BBC is undertaking a thorough investigation into that. As I mentioned previously, Ofcom and the Secretary of State are very cognisant of the issues and want answers, as I know your Lordships’ House will. But that does not and should not detract, and we need to make sure that we find out the answers and move on, because that accuracy and impartial voice of the BBC in relation to news is critical, not least at this really uncertain time.

My Lords, given the very serious allegations of systemic anti-Semitism and bias, does the Minister agree with me that there is a need to look at the BBC’s complaints process? When I have had to use it in a Northern Ireland context, I have found it opaque, vague and overly complicated. Does she accept that there is a need to look at that?

The BBC’s complaints process, in the sense that it is BBC first, is intended to make sure that there is an element of independence from the parts of the organisation that are being investigated. Clearly, if Ofcom has concerns after that happens, that would be looked at. I think the process was set out at the point of the last charter review, and we do not have immediate plans to change that.

My Lords, I understand that one of the particular worries was to do with the way certain phrases were translated, and therefore may have unwittingly biased people or been misleading. Will the BBC publish the principles and guidelines that are used for translation in these difficult situations?

The right reverend Prelate highlights the point that the Secretary of State herself has asked for clarity on: the BBC policy on translations and how a decision over translation of a particular word or phrase might be made. It is one of many questions we in this House and the public need clear answers on. We are clear that no stone should be left unturned by the BBC, or in its response to those who scrutinise its work.

My Lords—

My Lords—

We will hear from my noble friend Lord Katz next, and then the noble Baroness, Lady Foster.

My Lords, I am a long-term supporter of the BBC and the impartiality of its news output. While it pains me to agree with the BBC chair, Samir Shah, who just this morning in a Select Committee of the other place called the latest controversy over this documentary a dagger to the heart of BBC impartiality, sadly, noble Lords will understand—and I am sure my noble friend would agree—that this is not the BBC’s first misstep in this area as far as the Jewish community perceives it, especially since 7 October 2023. Does my noble friend agree with Mr Shah and me that a proper independent review of the corporation’s Middle East conflict coverage—not just this documentary but its wider coverage—is essential if it is to retain our confidence and, importantly, the confidence of the Jewish community in this country?

My noble friend makes a really important point. I go back to the point about needing clarity on whether the issues in this instance, and wider issues, are a failure of governance, whether the guidelines are strong enough and rigorously enforced, or whether the oversight itself is an issue.

I listened very carefully to the Select Committee discussion this morning with the BBC on the showing of the appalling documentary on Gaza. According to Tim Davie, apparently, the board is now very exercised—it appears to have taken it about 18 months to be exercised about anything. In August 2024, over 200 members of the film and television industry signed a letter calling for an investigation into problems of systemic anti-Semitism and bias at the BBC. This follows a series of editorial failures and the employment of individuals who have openly glorified terrorism, particularly since the 7 October attack. Given these deeply troubling happenings, will the Minister support an independent inquiry, as my noble friend on the Front Bench asked for, into anti-Semitism and bias at the BBC?

I should like to be clear that there is absolutely no place for and should be no tolerance of anti-Semitism, whether in the BBC or elsewhere in society: it is a stain on our country. On the documentary, I think it right that in the first instance, the BBC is conducting a thorough investigation into what happened and who knew what, when. I am not detracting from previous incidents the noble Baroness referred to, and when the Secretary of State says and I stand here saying that no stone should be left unturned, no stone should be left unturned in addressing this issue.