Dr Rupa Huq

It is a genuine pleasure to follow three excellent speeches, with which mine will overlap to some extent. Ofcom’s role is vast. It has grown exponentially since it was set up in 2003, and it now has in its clutches online harms and the whole minefield of regulating social media, but my focus today will be on broadcasting. Parliament decided that—uniquely—broadcast news should be impartial, and it is more important than ever that the airwaves provide a vital counterbalance to the partisan, clickbait world out there online. Arguably, nowhere can Ofcom’s ineffectiveness be seen more than in that most glaringly obviously anomalous broadcaster of them all, GB News—the telly wing of the Reform party. Some of these criticisms apply similarly to its close bedfellow, Talk TV and radio. The Communications Act 2003 laid down the law, quite literally, on impartiality in “news in whatever form”—those are the actual words used. Sections 319 and 320 set out the Ofcom broadcasting code. However, GB News and Talk TV and radio flout these rules daily, and they make no pretence at all of objectivity. This question has already been raised by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade): what other channel would platform a serving MP and party leader—the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who has been emailed—with a regular show? That would not happen anywhere else. Other hosts include ex-MEPs from what used to be called the Brexit party and a Reform MP, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), who has also been emailed. It is all part of a one-sidedly right-wing roster; Jacob Rees-Mogg is as leftie as it gets. On the rare occasions when airtime is afforded to someone from the other side, they are set up as a punchbag to be pilloried. Let us remember how Gary Lineker was pulled up for his tweets. BBC directors general have always insisted that their presenters leave their politics at the door, but there is no such rule for GB News. In fact, to have right-wing politics appears to be a prerequisite to be a presenter. Look at the subject matter: rape gangs, small boats and Muslims—the Reform party’s greatest hits. Section 2 of the Ofcom broadcasting code spells out the duty to protect the public from “harmful and/or offensive material”, section 3.2 explicitly forbids “hate speech”, and section 3.3 stipulates: “Material which contains abusive or derogatory treatment of individuals, groups, religions or communities, must not be included in” broadcast television and radio services, yet all those occur daily on these Ofcom-regulated services, in contravention of the rules. Manifold examples exist. Some have already been mentioned. In January, GB News host Josh Howie said that “the full inclusion of LGBTQ+ persons…includes paedos”. What! Ofcom received 70,000 complaints and ruled that GB News had breached its broadcasting code, but after an on-air apology there was no further action. In June, right-wing influencer Based and Bougie claimed on the channel that gay men are “more prone” to “sexual deviancy” and “child sexual assault”. Ofcom received 3,000 complaints and opened a formal standards investigation to which there is no conclusion yet. In July, Caroline Farrow, a well-known anti-gay rights and anti-abortion activist, stated that pride “is not about gay rights” but has become about celebrating “bestiality” and “paedophiles”. Ofcom received 12,000 complaints, and we are still waiting. Those are not examples of rogue guests; they are people invited for their extreme views in the age of clickbait. The story is the same with presenters. On Talk radio last year, Mike Graham stated of dinghies that we should “destroy them, set fire to them, flamethrow them, do whatever you want with them.” There is no published Ofcom action. It has twice upheld complaints against that anchor, but there are no published financial penalties or statutory sanctions. This August, Talk radio presenter Kevin O’Sullivan spoke of the “infestation of thousands and thousands of illegal migrants in our country”. Ofcom decided after assessing it that there was no breach. We know that similar remarks have been made by Reform politicians after ITV’s secret filming led to resignations. In normal life, public figures who make or are associated with inflammatory or hateful remarks face professional, social and organisational consequences; with Ofcom, don’t hold your breath. In fact, as its remit has expanded, Ofcom’s published investigations have shrunk; there are fewer and fewer, and long delays. In 2019 there were 142 editorial cases, but by 2025 there were just 36, and decisions in recent years have been glacially slow. How can Ofcom justify this steep decline and abject lack of urgency, accountability and transparency? Why do these channels feel so able to act with impunity? There is a clear pattern, and unless Ofcom imposes meaningful sanctions to prevent recurrence, it is just going to happen again and again. Clearly, Ofcom is not doing its job. It is not feared and breaches just seem blatant. Ofcom was once an arm’s length regulator, but it has turned into a curious mixture of free-speech warrior, drum-banger for those lot and passive complaints handler. It often says, “People didn’t complain in the official form, so we are not doing anything about it.” It has defended at all costs channels that style themselves as disruptors but are actually echo chambers lazily putting out the same old content. In April 2022, Boris Johnson, as Prime Minister, was interviewed by a husband-and-wife couple of his Back-Bench MPs. It all looked very cosy, but Ofcom took no action. Even when Ofcom found that an interview with the Chancellor on the same show—they had a regular show at the time—breached its due impartiality rules, as the programme had failed to present an appropriately wide range of alternative perspectives, no fine was issued. What is the point when broadcasters know that there will be no consequences? What is Ofcom’s answer to all this? We had the new chair, Sir Ian Cheshire, before the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee the other day, and he said that Ofcom’s critics should “set up a left-wing version of GB News.” What? That fails to understand the problem. I must say that Stewart Purvis and Chris Banatvala, the original founders of Ofcom, did not like the way they were named in that response. Sir Ian said, “Stewart and Chris should make their own left-wing show,” but they have never been political. They just want the truth—they want proper journalism—and they had genuine criticisms. Parliament did not legislate for due impartiality to be achieved by balancing one unbalanced broadcaster with another—one partisan with another—so that response smacks of ignorance and arrogance. I hate to say I told you so, but when Lord Michael Grade did his pre-appointment hearing for chair of Ofcom—I have been on the Committee for that long—I said that his outspoken opinions on the BBC and other culture war issues meant that he was politically partisan. He went through and served his term, and now we have this other one, who is described by the Financial Times as a “City grandee”. He is on £120,000 a year for a three-day week—not bad, is it, to get work like that? He told the pre-appointment hearing that he would take these criticisms seriously, and that he would make it his priority, but like all these regulators, once he got his feet under the table, he appears to have gone native. He is reinforcing Dame Melanie Dawes, the chief executive officer—who is apparently on half a million pounds and is reportedly connected to The Daily Telegraph—whose usual standard answer is, “I do not accept that.” That was the answer that we got the other week, sadly. Sir Ian said he would look at the blurred distinction between news and current affairs, which is how GB News gets around the requirements. He said that he would make it an immediate priority. He made all these solemn promises to the Committee, but none of it has happened. In fact, the remarks suggest that he does not understand the regulatory framework that he is responsible for overseeing. He said that he would look into politicians presenting shows. I had to say back to him that if a leftie GB News happened and it was as unbalanced as the real thing, I would be the first to complain. This is not about left and right; it is about right and wrong. Andrew Neil, whom the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole mentioned, resigned from GB News, describing it as the “biggest mistake” of his 50-year career, because of its descent into bizarre conspiracy theories and its love for the nuttier end of politics. He is no leftie, but he is a journalist, and journalism seems to have been lost in all this lazy opinion stuff that is pumped out. Ofcom—what is it good for? It is supposed to be a communications watchdog, but it feels overly reactive, ultimately pointless and toothless. Why does this matter? Like everyone in the Chamber, I have been deluged by correspondence from constituents who want a social media ban, so it is all the more important that Ofcom effectively regulates the broadcast world. This is not Fleet Street; these are public service broadcasters. Ofcom should create a safe space for the young online and offline, because the two coalesce and overlap to a great extent. Young people get their news from feeds. Our news media environment has changed—it is far beyond the “One”, the “Six O’Clock” and the “News at Ten”. When Ofcom was first conceived in 2003, social media was not even a glimmer in anybody’s eye. Nobody would have imagined it. The internet still made a noise—that sort of funny sound. In the years since we have seen the influence of traditional broadcasters disrupted by online news and the two things are intertwined. Ofcom must pull its socks up. There is no incompatibility between freedom of expression and impartiality, but the Ofcom-created rule seems to have been fabricated by some of the right-wing elements within it: under the spurious divide between news and current affairs, a politician cannot read out the news but they can front a current affairs show. In the Boris Johnson era, that divide seems to have been retrofitted on top of the Communications Act in order to green-light GB News, Talk radio and their ilk. They are not public service broadcasters by any stretch of the imagination. For Ofcom to effectively function, there must be rules and consequences when the rules are broken. Ofwat has abjectly failed because it allows the cowboys of Thames Water to leave a burst water pipe through the summer in my seat, put in place a hosepipe ban for the rest of us, and put a fee on our bills. Ofsted was named in a coroner’s report as a factor in the suicide of a headteacher. Ofcom too is a regulator with which we can find a multitude of faults—maybe its brief has become too big. Presumably my hon. Friend the Minister will know more, but it is probably unfashionable for Governments to create more players on the regulatory playing field. Even so, the world has changed and regulation must keep up. In the meantime, it would appear that the woefully inadequate Ofcom is a regulator that is simply not regulating.