BBC Charter Renewal

Richard Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Whittingdale]

No, I do not. I suspect the hon. Lady is referring to the board member for England, who I believe has outstanding experience in the field of BBC editorial independence; he spent a brief time in politics. It is worth remembering that the political appointees over many years have come from both sides of the House. There was a chair who was previously a Conservative Cabinet Minister, and a deputy chair who was previously a Labour Cabinet Minister. If there was ever a concern, it was about the appointment of a former Labour Cabinet Minister to a management position. That seemed to me much more concerning since they had direct day-to-day editorial decisions. At the time, although I got on very well with James Purnell and I worked with him when he was Secretary of State, I did not think that he should have been appointed to a management position. But I have no concerns about political interference at the moment.

On the failings revealed by the Prescott report on editorial standards, clearly there need to be changes to the editorial oversight. As was debated a few months ago, there is a strong case for making the editorial standards committee much more independent. It is also at least worth considering—this is part of the Green Paper—whether the job of running an organisation with around £5 billion to £6 billion can be combined with having overall control over the entire editorial output of the BBC. Those are both huge jobs and I think it is becoming increasingly difficult for one person to hold both of them. That is something that needs to be considered.

The biggest challenge facing the BBC, which I sought to highlight in the debate a year ago, is about future funding. We have seen a steady decline in the number of people who are willing to pay the licence fee. The licence fee evasion rate has doubled so that it is now 12.5%. One in eight who should be paying the licence fee are not paying it because they are avoiding their responsibility. On top of that, another 3.6 million, we are told, have declared they do not need to pay it because they do not use the BBC or watch live TV. The Public Accounts Committee recently concluded that that results in a loss to the BBC of over £1.1 billion, and it will go on increasing.

We are seeing more and more choice available through streaming services, which people choose to subscribe to. People no longer turn to the BBC in such numbers for news and current affairs. And of course the licence fee is rising. At a time when the cost of living is high, people will consider whether they wish to continue paying it. So the Government are right to look at alternatives, which is something I have been involved in for over 10 years. When I chaired the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, we produced a report on the future of the BBC. I am delighted to see the current Chair of the Committee with us this afternoon. A lot of the arguments that we considered 10 years ago stand today.

There was one thing I was disappointed to see in the Green Paper. First, before considering how to pay for the BBC, we should ask what we want the BBC to do. Let us first of all decide what the BBC ought to be doing and then how to pay for it. Yet the Green Paper rules out this debate. It states that

“we do not believe a smaller BBC”

is in the public’s interest. By making that statement, we are not questioning whether the BBC still needs to maintain eight national television channels and 10 national radio stations, despite the fact that the alternative choice available has enormously increased over the past 10 to 15 years.

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Member appreciate the importance of the BBC’s investment in the devolved nations and regions, which is all the more important given the fact that private and independent media are withdrawing from some of that coverage and production? This year, the BBC will double spending to £100 million on programmes produced in Scotland and other devolved nations. That kind of investment is vital for my constituents and others.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I completely understand that. The Green Paper contains quite a lot about the BBC’s involvement in providing coverage in the nations of the United Kingdom, and indeed in the languages of the United Kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman believes, as I do, that one of the principal purposes of the BBC is to provide content that otherwise would not be available, then that is a good example of where it is absolutely right that the BBC should continue to invest.

There are some things, however, that the BBC does not necessarily need to continue doing, because there is such choice available. As I say, I regret the fact that that does not seem to be part of the debate within the Green Paper. It seems to suggest that the BBC should go on doing everything it does now, but that then begs an even harder question: if the BBC is to go on spending as much as it does today, how will we pay for it at a time when the willingness to pay the licence fee is declining year on year?

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Baker Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

I will meet him halfway and say seven and a half seconds. These are very exciting projects. As I said, I have already been lobbied by Wigan and Scunthorpe as I have been sitting on the Front Bench, and now I am being lobbied by Salisbury, so that shows the excitement around both the competitions. That is why we introduced the town of culture competition. I look forward to bids coming in and I am happy for officials to work with the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that the bid goes to the right competition.

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

8. What assessment she has made of the potential merits of introducing a cap on the resale of concert tickets.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)]

For too long, fans have been exploited by touts seeking to profiteer from the UK’s booming live events industry. Last week, we announced that time is up for ticket touts and that change is coming, by introducing a cap on the price that tickets can be resold for. We estimate that this will save fans over £100 million a year.

[Richard Baker]

This summer, thousands of music fans in Scotland were dismayed at having to pay hugely inflated prices to see their favourite bands, including Oasis, so my right hon. Friend’s announcement on capping the resale price of tickets will be welcome news for all those fans. Will she consider what further measures can be taken to ensure a fair deal on ticket prices for concert-goers across the UK?

[Lisa Nandy]

I can update my hon. Friend. Among the measures that we announced recently, we have introduced resale volume limits, which will prevent people from reselling more tickets than they were entitled to buy in the primary sale. Alongside the price cap, the Competition and Markets Authority will be able to fine non-compliant platforms up to 10% of their annual turnover, which could mean multimillion-pound fines for rogue firms if they target UK consumers.

In the case of Oasis, as many in this House will know, one of the great challenges was that many of the fans going into that queue did not know that the surge pricing model was being used, so they did not realise that they would paying vastly inflated prices by the time they got to the front of the queue. The CMA has looked at this and is taking steps to ensure that consumers have the full range of information that they need to prevent that from happening in future.

Youth Services

Richard Baker Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) on securing this debate and on her excellent speech. Youth services are fundamental in my constituency, where in some wards, one in three children are living in poverty. That is completely unacceptable and shows how important the work of the child poverty taskforce will be.

Of course, funding for these vital services was cut by the Tories, but in Scotland, too, under the SNP there has been a 27% decrease in funding in real terms for youth work since 2015-16. This is failing the young people of Scotland who most need our support. Instead, the work of charities such as Fife Gingerbread and Includem should be supported with long-term funding arrangements. Includem’s “Keeping Connected” project, delivered with Our Minds Matter, supports young people in Fife to promote positive mental wellbeing and reduce stress. Such support is all the more important when I understand that in some health board areas in Scotland, children and adolescent mental health services are no longer offering a pathway to a diagnosis of autism, which can cost more than £4,000 to secure privately. That is shocking.

The Scottish Government have been promising to deliver multi-year funding settlements for youth services for nearly 20 years but have failed to deliver beyond isolated examples—welcome as they are—including in Glasgow, and a national fair funding pilot. After 20 years, this should be the approach across the whole sector. Year-to-year funding is a barrier to recruitment and retention of staff, and their ability to build the trust and familiarity that is so vital to the young people they support. If we are to achieve a fairer, better society for all our young people, sustainable funding for these vital services will be essential at all levels of government throughout our country, and in particular those communities, including my own, where too many young people today still do not have the life chances that should be their right.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Baker Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

7. What recent steps the Church has taken to respond to allegations of child sexual abuse within the Church of England.

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

8. What steps the Church has taken to respond to the recommendations set out in the Makin review, published on 18 October 2024.

[Marsha De Cordova]

The Makin report made clear the devastating abuse suffered by children and young people at the hands of John Smyth. In the meeting I had with representatives from the Archbishops’ Council, I raised the need for the Makin review to be a defining and watershed moment for the Church. The review made 27 recommendations, some of which have already been implemented. I am awaiting a full and thorough update from the Church on the detailed progress being made on each recommendation. That work is in addition to the ongoing efforts to respond to the Wilkinson and Alexis Jay inquiries into child sexual abuse. Following these reports, the Church began developing potential new safeguarding models, which will be decided at the General Synod in February.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marsha De Cordova]

The right hon. Member makes a critical point. It is so important for the Church to view this as the chance to turn a corner and make it a watershed moment. We need change, and those responsible must be held to account. I would be happy to discuss this matter further with the right hon. Member if that would be of help, but he should make no mistake that I strongly believe that it is important that the Church is held to account. The Bishop of Stepney—the lead bishop for safeguarding—and the director for safeguarding both welcomed the Makin review when it was first published last year. We must ensure that its recommendations are implemented.

[Richard Baker]

The urgent need for independent scrutiny of the Church’s safeguarding procedures was highlighted both by the Makin report and by the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. What are the current arrangements for independent scrutiny of safeguarding following the dismissal of the Church’s independent safeguarding board? What is the timescale for having a permanent system for independent scrutiny in place to safeguard against such appalling acts of abuse, as highlighted in both those reports?

[Marsha De Cordova]

Independent scrutiny of the Church’s safeguarding work is extremely important. The Church commissioned a series of audits on dioceses and cathedrals by independent safeguarding experts, and several have been completed and published. The independently chaired national safeguarding panel, which includes victims and survivors among its members, currently scrutinises safeguarding, but as I have already pointed out, proposals to strengthen scrutiny in the Church will be voted on at the Synod next month, and the Church will then have to create a plan for implementation once the right model has been approved at that General Synod in February.

BBC: Funding

Richard Baker Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend is completely right. She and I both had the pleasure of serving as Minister; I was delighted to stand in for her while she was on maternity leave, so we have both looked at the issue for some time. We have to look at the overall television landscape. If we allow advertising, or encourage the BBC to compete, it is likely to have an impact on the commercial sector, which completely depends on advertising revenue. Our traditional advertising-funded PSBs—ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5—are already finding it difficult competing in a world with well-resourced streamers, and this would make it worse.

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

One of the weaknesses of the streaming companies is regional and national news coverage and programming. For BBC Scotland, at the moment 99% of the licence fee paid by Scots is invested in Scotland. That is a really important and positive aspect of the current licence fee arrangements that must be protected as we move forward.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. It is the case that the BBC provides more of the core public service content than the other PSBs—the others do, but not to the same extent. National and regional coverage of the type he has described is absolutely a core part of that. I think that needs to continue, and if the licence fee is not able to fund it, there is a case for it moving across to general taxation. There is a world in which the core PSB content is funded out of taxation, and then people could choose to subscribe to the content that is more entertainment based—a subscription model—but it is too early to say.

These are the kinds of discussions that are fundamental to the next charter. I am delighted that the Government are now beginning to consider that. My purpose today is to flag up the extent to which the existing model cannot be sustained, and to begin having the debate.