Artificial Intelligence: News Media
Baroness Twycross Excerpts(6 days, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my interest as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
Trustworthy journalism plays a vital role in our democracy. Rapid recent developments in generative AI pose both significant risks and opportunities for news media. We are engaging with press stakeholders on this. The Media Minister and the Technology Secretary each held roundtables earlier this year with publishers and broadcasters to discuss the issues around AI in journalism. The Government will support our news media to capitalise on the huge potential benefits of the technology while mitigating its risks.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, AI poses an existential threat to independent media because of the way it scrapes their high-quality content without either attribution or payment to those who created it, which is an act of theft directly threatening the provision of quality news and the jobs of thousands of reporters. Is the Minister aware that research by market leader Cloudflare shows that, for example, for every 73,000 pages of content scraped by Anthropic’s AI crawlers from news providers, there is just one single referral back to publishers’ websites? Does she realise that without this vital traffic, publishers cannot sell advertising or subscriptions, and their businesses become unsustainable? The free press cannot wait years for copyright reform because there is nothing left to protect. We were promised immediate action on this issue when the data Act went through; when will we get some of it?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We want to get this right and for AI to work for everyone. All our work is around protecting existing rights for creators and the press and ensuring that AI creates new revenue streams for them. We are carefully reviewing all the responses to our consultation to ensure that any proposals taken forward properly support both the AI and creative sectors, including the media.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
Will the Minister undertake to view the opening session of the new inquiry by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, held last Wednesday, into human rights and artificial intelligence? In particular, will she look at the evidence of Professor David Leslie, the director of the Alan Turing Institute, who was very clear that this cannot be dealt with unless there is transnational co-operation? He drew attention to the Council of Europe document, published last September, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory but has not yet ratified. Can the Minister tell us when we will do so?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will need to get back to the noble Lord on the second point. On the first point, I am more than happy to watch the session to which he refers. As noble Lords are aware, we have a number of late sitting days, so I will make sure I use at least one of the evenings to watch what sounds like a really interesting evidence session.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, during the passage of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, the Government asked repeatedly that Parliament trust that they had the interest of UK copyright holders front and centre. So can the Minister explain why the UK Government have now signed a memorandum of understanding with Canadian AI firm Cohere, when Cohere is facing legal action from 13 news media copyright holders, including the Guardian, Forbes and the Atlantic? Does she not agree that the Government might better earn Parliament’s trust if, instead of rewarding with opportunities AI companies which infringe copyright, they limited those opportunities and future Government contracts to companies that lawfully license inputs?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
As I said, we want to, and need to, make sure we get this right for everyone. I am happy to have a conversation with the noble Baroness about the issue she raises.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the way the Government have approached AI and how they are dealing with different stakeholders, especially in the media. There is challenge regarding how the data is produced, but in its editorial guidelines our national broadcaster says that AI is part of the process in informing insight analysis, but not the production process. Are the Government looking at how the BBC and other broadcasters and content providers are adopting their policies to AI?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The BBC did a recent study on the use of AI and has done a quite a lot of work on, for example, the accuracy of chatbots. It is very well placed to get that real sense of how appropriate it is to use it. We want people to use best practice, and we are clear that AI offers the most powerful lever we have for national renewal, but we need to get the balance right, as I and other ministerial colleagues have said before.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the risks in AI of the impersonation of human reporting. A number of jurisdictions are experimenting with and exploring the watermarking of AI content, so that it is clear what is produced artificially and what is produced by people. The former Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg says in an article in the Times today that he is very sceptical of that approach. There is a counter-comment from Professor Michael Wooldridge of Oxford University commending it. Do the Government have a view on watermarking, and are their plans to introduce such legislation in the forthcoming AI Bill?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Without having read the article or looked into it in detail, I am hesitant to give a response, other than to say that we need to make sure that we get AI use up to an accurate level. Ultimately, in terms of news reporting, we are also very clear that the original source—the newspapers—need the revenue they get from people going through their pages for advertising, for example. I am happy to write to the right reverend Prelate on that point.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Select Committee on Communications and Digital, under the chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley. I am as keen to see trustworthy journalism as are the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Black, but before we all go marching shoulder to shoulder, I wonder if we can look at some of the behaviour. For example, in today’s Daily Mail and MailOnline, there are several articles of a highly personalised nature about the Chancellor. I will give noble Lords a flavour.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
My Lords, can the noble Lord sit down, because he has asked his question?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am not sure there was a question there, but I note the noble Lord’s comments.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, earlier this year, 61 countries, including France, China, India, Japan, Australia and Canada, signed the landmark Paris AI declaration, led by President Macron, the remit of which was to ensure AI is open, inclusive, transparent, ethical, safe, secure and trustworthy. So why did this Government refuse to sign it?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Earl clearly raises some important points. We genuinely want to get this right and for AI to work for everyone. All our work so far has been on protecting existing rights. In that context, I am happy to write to the noble Earl on that question.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, further to the points made by the noble Lord opposite, does my noble friend agree that misogyny in any shape or form, including in our newspapers or the media, is unacceptable?
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, the Minister keeps saying that the Government want to get this right—and of course, who could argue with that—but does she agree that in the broader sense, there are two fundamental tenets that we should be aware of? The first is that AI cannot be uninvented. The second is that it is developing extremely rapidly, so action to keep it under some sort of control has to be taken rapidly. Getting it right too late will not be the answer.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I agree that getting it right too late would be an issue, but we need to work through all the consultation responses properly. In preparation for this, I asked officials how fast they could do it, and they pointed out that it would not necessarily be appropriate for them to use AI to go through over 11,000 submissions. In addition to going through the submissions, we have announced plans to convene two working groups over the summer to look at transparency and technical tools, as well as a parliamentary group to engage Members as policy is developed. We will be reaching out to key contacts in the AI and creative sectors, including news media, to identify a mix of attendees as we work through our policy in this area.
Arts Sector
Baroness Twycross Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the value of the subsidised arts sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
The Government strongly believe in the benefits of publicly funded arts. The arts are vital to the UK’s economy and our well-being and fundamental to our cohesion as a society and our national story, fostering pride and earning global recognition. A recent report for the Arts Council by the Centre for Economics and Business Research estimated that its national portfolio alone accounted for 7% of the gross value added of the sector, equivalent to £1.35 billion.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, at its best, the ecosystem of the arts and creative industries is a dynamic combination of the non-commercial and commercial, a point well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Debbonaire, in her excellent maiden speech last week. Does the Minister agree that there would be no Steve McQueen, the commercially successful director, without the experimental visual artist supported through the Arts Council by the DCMS? The sectoral plan is a plan principally for the already commercialised creative industries; it is not a plan for the subsidised arts. Is there a plan for the arts and, if so, when will that happen?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Everything we do at DCMS centres around this point, if you look at the work that Arts Council England does in terms of the huge spend on its programmes. I am happy to have a longer conversation with the noble Earl, but the Arts Council England review will look at the whole piece, and the conclusions of the review and the Government’s response will be published next year.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, public subsidy extends beyond public arts venues. Indeed, at the height of the Covid pandemic, £900,000 of public money was paid to support Glastonbury. In that context, does the Minister agree with me that the scenes that we saw from Glastonbury this weekend were absolutely disgraceful? Does she further agree that the BBC must explain its decision to broadcast live and uninterrupted an antisemitic diatribe, a decision for which there must be not only an explanation but personal—not just institutional—responsibility?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My right honourable friend the Culture Secretary will be providing a full Statement in the other place on this matter today. The BBC has issued a statement acknowledging that it should have pulled the stream during the performance and regrets that this did not happen. I share the noble Lord’s sentiments. I found the whole thing appalling—and terrifying, to be honest, that this could happen in our country. Avon and Somerset Police has already confirmed that it is looking into what happened.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Lowry in Salford, which has a successful public-private mixed economy model, as mentioned by the noble Earl, but this depends on our relationship with subsidised national organisations. The National Theatre’s “Dear England” is currently being performed across our stages thanks to that. We are lucky. Recent cuts to London-based national organisations have led across the board to the reduction, indeed jettisoning, of touring. Does the Minister recognise that the creative industries growth plan must focus on collaboration, and that both regional and national organisations must be properly funded for this to continue to be so rich?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Secretary of State is clear that, when she talks about “arts everywhere”, this genuinely means that every part of the country should have access to arts and theatre not just here in London but around the country. I can reassure the noble Baroness that this principle is at the heart of our plans.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
Does the Minister agree with me that, when we audit the arts in simply economic terms, we undervalue them hugely? The value of the arts goes so much towards our social capital, our social well-being and our cultural health. Is the DCMS preparing an audit that will enable us to see this in its full dimension, so that when we do get a coherent arts policy, we will be able to judge how it impacts on the community, on individuals and on social health and well-being?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point. Participation in publicly funded arts programmes is associated with improved mental health and well-being, as well as the impact on social capital and social cohesion to which my noble friend pointed. Research already commissioned by DCMS reveals that cultural engagement contributes approximately £8 billion annually in health and well-being benefits. Engagement with the arts shows improved quality of life, reduced use of health and social care services, and increased productivity. It has a huge public benefit—one that we seek to protect.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has rightly highlighted the multiple benefits of investment in arts and culture, but is she aware of the role that arts and cultural organisations play in the wider economy, both as a generator of product innovations that are then adopted for mainstream use, and, indeed, through the demands that artists make on tech firms to create new products that will deliver their artistic vision? The recent sector plan, as we have heard, understandably exploits the commercial elements of the creative industries. Can the Minister say what work is under way to better understand and leverage the value of the arts and cultural sector in driving innovation and, therefore, financial value across the wider UK economy?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Research shows that, where young people explore creative subjects, their overall attainment improves. The same is the case throughout people’s lives—creativity is so important. For us in DCMS, it was hugely exciting to have the creative industries recognised as part of the industrial strategy. As part of the creative ecosystem, the sector will benefit from the cross-cutting measures in the sector plan and industrial strategy, including greater access to finance. Over the spending review period, DCMS is committing significant funding to safeguard and modernise much-loved arts and cultural institutions across England as part of this creative ecosystem.
Lord Swire (Con)
Can the Minister explain the logic and the Government’s thinking whereby a British tourist trying to visit a museum such as the Prado, the Uffizi or the Louvre has to pay to go and see those collections, whereas foreign visitors here do not have to do that to see our national collections, which are hard pressed for funding?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The introduction of universal free admission to national museums and galleries was a landmark policy of the previous Labour Government that we are really proud of and do not currently have any plans to change. These museums attract huge numbers of both national and international visitors, which supports jobs and investment across the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Does the Minister agree that small provincial theatres, such as the Blackpool Grand Theatre, the Burnley Youth Theatre and the Dukes Theatre in Lancaster, make a substantial contribution to education and community cohesion and should be viewed as good candidates for continuing public support through the Arts Council?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am not the person who makes the Arts Council’s decisions, but I assure the noble Lord that one of the key things that my noble friend Lady Hodge—who is undertaking the Arts Council England review—is examining is whether the regions have access to high-quality arts and culture and whether everyone is able to participate in and consume culture and creativity.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
Will the Government take the advice of the noble Baroness, Lady Debbonaire, that the state is not the only source of money? Will they take the advice of the chairman of Arts Council England to follow France in offering incremental tax breaks to businesses that sponsor arts organisations, and thereby help alleviate the funding pressures that the sector is currently facing?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
DCMS is not suggesting that there should be one source of funding and that the arts’ only source of funding should be public funding—a mixed economy is really important. DCMS in particular is committed to championing philanthropy, which has a rich tradition in our country. It is key across the DCMS sector, supporting our most beloved institutions, such as our museums, heritage sites and performing arts venues.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Earl’s Question asks an even bigger question. Given the country’s requirement to encourage growth, surely we should invest in the arts much more than we do at the moment. Compared with our European partners and other nationalities, we are doing extremely badly in how we support the arts.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
DCMS has secured £8.2 billion over the next spending review, and we will invest almost £3 billion in capital funding over the next four years—that is an additional £371 million compared with the previous Government’s final year allocation. I appreciate that my noble friend may have a different view but, in our view, this settlement represents a positive outcome for DCMS and the sectors we represent in a really challenging economic context, with increased investment in the creative industries and maintaining a significant capital uplift.
Live Music Industry: Support
Baroness Twycross Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and draw noble Lords’ attention to my entry in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
The Government engage regularly with the live music sector on our shared goal of a sustainable grass-roots music ecosystem and to maximise opportunities for growth. Today we have published our Creative Industries Sector Plan as part of the industrial strategy, including up to £30 million for music. Ministers have recently convened two round tables with the live music industry to drive progress on the industry-led ticket levy, in addition to a round table on improving ticket resale and combating touts.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. This week, 200,000 people will gather at the world’s greatest live music event, but Glastonbury is simply the apex of the great pyramid of the UK’s live and electronic music sector, which generates over £6 billion for our economy and brings immeasurable pleasure to millions. The base of that pyramid is in danger of crumbling without due care and attention, so the Commons Culture Committee has asked me to head a fan-led review of live music in the coming months. Will my noble friend the Minister commit our Government to engaging seriously with the findings of that review and doing their bit to support our world-beating live music sector?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I cannot think of anyone better than my noble friend to carry out this work. We welcome the launch of Parliament’s fan-led review of the live music industry and look forward to considering its findings. From the industry’s own recent fan-led review, we know that fans are deeply invested in supporting live music, particularly local artists and independent venues, but rising financial pressures, dynamic pricing concerns and the closure of beloved venues threaten long-term sustainability. We recognise those same challenges, which is why today, as I mentioned previously, we have announced a major investment to drive growth in the UK music industry.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, will the Government, particularly in the light of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, ensure that existing music venues are fully protected in areas that face redevelopment? If the agent of change principle were to be incorporated by government into primary legislation, that would be very welcome.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that new developments should be able to be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities such as music venues. Existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established. We want to enable new developments such as housing to coexist with culture and infrastructure such as music venues.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister give us some undertaking that the Government will look at well-being and things such as mental health that go with participation in live music, particularly at accessible events? If we lose sight of that linkage, we are losing much of the benefit.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My own health is considerably enhanced by being able to attend events. From a government perspective, it is key that all children have the chance to realise their musical talent and that music events are open to all. That is why the Government are working with Young Sounds UK on a four-year music opportunities pilot to break down barriers to music education for disadvantaged students.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
The noble Earl made an excellent point about the agent of change. The ad hoc committee on the review of the Licensing Act 2003, which I had the honour to chair, made a specific recommendation that the agent of change should be enshrined in law. Without that, real pressure is put on existing music venues, which suffered terribly, along with the hospitality sector more generally, during Covid. Will the Minister look favourably on enshrining the agent of change into law to ensure a vibrant future for existing music venues?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Government are committed to developing a truly plan-led system with a policy framework that is accessible and understandable to all. To that end, we intend to consult on a set of national policies for decision-making later this year. As I mentioned in a previous response, we want to enable new developments such as housing to co-exist with cultural infrastructure such as music venues. I understand the frustration behind the noble Baroness’s question.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
The Minister’s response is very welcome. Although the agent of change principle was introduced—I played some part in that in my role in the other place—local councils still do not seem to be getting the message. Does she accept that the money in music these days is in venues and events and therefore that people need to be able to learn their trade in small venues? Otherwise, our enormously successful music industry will not maintain its position. Nobody starts by playing at The O2; they start in local venues. Can we get that message through to local authorities?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I think that many local authorities recognise the significance of grass-roots music venues, not least as a way of attracting people to live in their areas. The Government are also of the view of my noble friend that supporting grass-roots music is vital. To that end, we are providing £2.5 million for Arts Council England’s Supporting Grassroots Music fund for the coming year.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, one way in which the next generation of talent develops its skills and craft is through international touring, which has been so important in building fan bases and growing skills. The mention of artists touring in the post-Brexit UK-EU summit was very welcome, but it is not clear what next steps are being taken to resolve the absence of touring arrangements in the post-Brexit agreements.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Baroness is correct that it is a positive sign that it was mentioned in the announcement following the UK-EU summit on 19 May. Both the UK and the European Commission are committed to supporting travel and cultural exchange, including the activities of touring artists. We are continuing to engage constructively with the European Commission to address the challenges that touring artists and their support staff face, while respecting regulatory frameworks on both sides. My colleague, Sir Chris Bryant, has held a number of bilateral meetings with other countries and the Commission to try to move this forward.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
Given that music has disappeared from many state schools, what are the Government doing to bring music back, particularly to primary and secondary school children?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
This Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that every child has access to quality creative education, including music. As noble Lords will be aware, we launched an independent curriculum and assessment review, which seeks to deliver a broader curriculum so that young people do not miss out on music and the arts. The Government are also working with Young Sounds UK on a four-year music opportunities pilot to break down barriers to music education for disadvantaged and SEND students.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the publication of the sector plan which the Minister mentioned today. As that recognises on page 50:
“Grassroots venues are struggling to break even”,
why are the Government making their job even harder with their changes to business rates and national insurance contributions?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
On the business rates question, I will throw back to the noble Lord this Government’s fiscal inheritance. We recognise that grass-roots venues have faced a challenging set of circumstances in recent years, and that is why we are committed to working with industry to maximise the uptake and impact of the voluntary ticket levy.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for allowing me again to draw attention to the fact that the department has today published its Creative Industries Sector Plan. That identifies the music industry and other parts of the cultural sector as a high-growth subsector and sets out the actions from the Government and industry to drive music sector growth. As a number of noble Lords have highlighted, this has to include action on grass-roots music, which is the platform on which so many people start their careers.
Casinos (Gaming Machines and Mandatory Conditions) Regulations 2025
Baroness Twycross Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 12 May be approved.
Relevant document: 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 17 June.
Casinos (Gaming Machines and Mandatory Conditions) Regulations 2025
Baroness Twycross Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross
That the Grand Committee do consider the Casinos (Gaming Machines and Mandatory Conditions) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak to these regulations, which were laid before the House in draft on 12 May. This instrument has been considered by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and was not drawn to the special attention of the House. It is part of a package of statutory instruments that, together, make a number of changes to the legislative framework for land-based casinos.
If these regulations are approved by both Houses, I intend to sign two related statutory instruments that follow the negative procedure: the Gambling Act 2005 (Commencement No. 6 and Transitional Provisions) (Amendment) Order 2025 and the Gambling Act 2005 (Premises Licences and Provisional Statements) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2025. The former extends existing casino entitlements, and the regulations we are debating today introduce protections—equivalent to those for 2005 Act casinos—for converted casino premises as a result of the extended entitlements.
The premises licences and provisional statements regulations amend existing procedures so that a converted casino operator can apply to its licensing authority to vary its premises licence to enable it to exercise the extended entitlement. We published the negative instruments in draft on 12 May, the same day that these regulations were laid, to provide transparency about the range of changes we are proposing and to allow for proper scrutiny. None of the interconnected legislative instruments will be made unless the protections in these regulations are approved by Parliament.
The Government are focused on economic growth. I believe that enabling a responsible gambling sector to grow is compatible with creating an even safer one. We have already brought forward measures to improve consumer protections, including the introduction of stake limits for online slot games and establishing a statutory levy on gambling operators, to fund the research, prevention and treatment of gambling-related harms. Our manifesto also committed to working with industry to ensure responsible gambling, and we acknowledge the difficulties that land-based gambling businesses, particularly casinos, have faced since the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, following a consideration of the best available evidence, we intend to proceed with a series of reforms for the land-based casino sector.
Since being appointed, I have visited casinos and witnessed the contributions that they bring, with jobs, tax revenues and support for the night-time economy. The casino sector directly employs around 10,000 people, with many in non-gambling roles such as hospitality. Venues are often steeped in history and feature bars, restaurants and, in some cases, theatres. The sector generates £866 million in gross gambling yield each year, with up to 50% of this paid in gaming duty. We intend to implement measures that are estimated to increase this GGY figure by £53 million to £58 million.
Many of the restrictions that apply to land-based casinos derive from legislation that had not envisaged the rise of online gambling. In light of this, restrictions on product availability in casinos are now less important for protecting customers than factors such as the design of products and the quality of monitoring. We therefore intend to change the restrictions that apply to the supply of some products, giving casinos greater freedom about what they offer customers. None of this will be at the expense of protecting customers from gambling-related harm.
There are two types of casino licence. The first is for those who were already operating when the Gambling Act 2005 came into force, which I will refer to as “converted casinos”. The second are those created by that Act. The Act created two types of casino within this licence category, which I will refer to as “small casinos” and “large casinos”. Converted casinos are generally allowed only 20 gaming machines, or at least one is a category B machine, regardless of their size. This compares to up to 80 machines for small casinos and 150 for large casinos.
To support the sector, this package will give converted casinos the option of having the same gaming machine allowance as small casinos. For converted casinos with a gambling area that is smaller than the minimum required for a small casino—500 square metres—a sliding scale will apply for gaming machine allowances commensurate with their size. This will more closely align the rules for all casinos.
Converted casinos will have to abide by a number of strict conditions in order to increase the number of machines they offer. If they wish to site 80 gaming machines, they will need to meet the same size requirements as small casinos. This means that they must have a gambling area of at least 500 square metres, a non-gambling area of at least 250 square metres and a table gaming area of at least 250 square metres. They will become subject to a maximum machine-to-table ratio, meaning the number of machines in the casino cannot be more than five times the number of tables available for use. An additional protection prevents these casinos from siting more than 80 machines within casino premises that are connected to each other. Smaller converted casinos will be allowed to increase their gaming machine entitlement depending on their size. Their table gaming and non-gambling areas will need to be at least half the size of their gambling area.
These rules are vital to ensure that customers are offered a mixture of gambling and non-gambling opportunities when they visit a casino. The strict requirements on how much space can be allocated to each activity will mean that, even with an increase in the number of machines, casinos will not be overwhelmed with an electronic offering. This instrument also introduces a maximum gambling area for converted casinos. In allowing converted casinos a similar entitlement to small casinos, it is fair and consistent that they are subject to similar restrictions. Therefore, all converted casino premises will be limited to a maximum gambling area of less than 1,500 square metres, matching the maximum gambling area allowed for small casinos. However, a conditional exemption is made for casinos that currently operate with a gambling area of 1,500 square metres or more.
This package of instruments will also allow betting to take place in all converted casinos. The current regulatory framework prohibits these casinos from offering betting products, whereas venues licensed under the 2005 Act can do so. The prohibition makes little sense, as a casino customer can place a bet on their mobile phone while in the venue but not with the casino itself. This change will allow converted casinos not only to offer a new gambling product but to invest in other parts of their venues, such as sports bars. A limit would be put on the number of separate betting positions or self-service betting terminals that can be offered by the casino.
Finally, I draw the Grand Committee’s attention to two changes that this instrument will make to small casinos. They are currently required to comply with a maximum machine-to-table ratio of 2:1, whereby for every table in use, the casino is permitted to offer a maximum of two gaming machines. This ratio will be updated from 2:1 to 5:1, to align small casinos with large ones and to prevent operators from having to provide tables for which there is no customer demand. Small casinos are also currently required to have a minimum table gaming area of 500 square metres; as a result of these regulations, this requirement will change to 250 square metres. This will amend an anomaly whereby the minimum gambling area and minimum table gaming area were required to be of the same size.
This is a sensible package of measures that will update the outdated restrictions that currently apply to land-based casinos. It strikes the right balance between supporting the sector to grow, while still ensuring that those who visit these venues will be protected from gambling-related harm. I beg to move.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for setting out what is, in many ways, a very technical SI, as well as the two related SIs to which she referred.
I understand that a lot of the pressure and motivation —if not the only motivation—behind this measure is economic growth and the international competitiveness dimension. However, I certainly had some concerns on reading through the SI. Perhaps I am unique in this —I do not know—but it seems to me that the regulations would potentially alter the split between gaming machines and table-based gaming, which I think the Minister referred to, from 2:1 to 5:1. That is quite a considerable shift. The latter form, table-based gaming, represents a less intense gaming experience and is, I would argue, potentially less harmful to consumers. The Minister will know that 25% of casinos in this country are in the poorest decile of the country; we should therefore be concerned about the connection with gambling harm. Has there been a corresponding increase in space and opportunities for customers to take a break from gambling? There has been an increase in the space available for gambling machines. If there has been an increase in the areas for non-gambling, what is that increase, and what sort of facilities do these areas represent?
It is very clear in the analysis and the evidence that the annual increase in income for the gambling sector after three years is between £52 million and £63 million per annum—the gross gambling yield, I should say—with a median figure of £58 million. I recognise that that is obviously subject to costs and tax, but it still represents a considerable increase. Should we not at the same time be increasing the amount that is put aside to help with gambling addiction and gambling harm? There is no indication of that happening here in the measure.
If one looks at the theme of the analysis and the evidence, which I have done, it is quite clear. Page 4 of the impact assessment states:
“There is a risk that this measure increases the prevalence of gambling-related harm”.
Page 37 states that
“there is a risk that gambling harm will increase with the implementation of this measure”.
That is my concern: we should be doing something about that. I am not against the measure as such. Clearly, economic growth is desirable, but should we not at the same time be concerned about gambling harm, which it is quite clearly an ill in society, including in some of the poorest communities of the country?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, is right: nothing catches the eye in an impact assessment like a redaction, and there are a number of them in this assessment. I know that some of the information will of course be commercially sensitive, but, if we are to have evidence-led policy, it is important that we can share as much as possible. I look forward to what the Minister has to say about the reasons for the redactions that have been made here.
We on this side of the Committee remain broadly committed to a regulatory framework for gambling that seeks to strike the right balance between addressing harm, upholding consumer protections and recognising the significant role that land-based casinos play in the UK’s leisure and hospitality economy, in the ways that the Minister outlined in her opening speech. We support the principle of reforming the rules governing casinos to reflect changes in technology, consumer behaviour and market pressures, which have been seen over the past two decades.
The proposals contained in this statutory instrument are, as the policy rationale section of the Explanatory Notes makes clear, grounded in the gambling White Paper, which was published by the previous Government in 2023. That White Paper acknowledged the outdated nature of land-based regulation and set out a number of sensible, evidence-led proposals, including changes to the machine-to-table ratio, adjustments to minimum casino floor space and lifting restrictions on in-casino betting. A consultation followed and, in May last year, the previous Conservative Government confirmed their intention to implement these modernising reforms.
The regulations before the Committee today follow directly from that process, so we welcome the fact that the Government have brought them before us. They aim to provide much-needed flexibility to land-based casinos, which have been hit particularly hard by rising operational costs and the impact of the pandemic, in contrast to the growth seen in the online gambling sector. We recognise that a standardised 5:1 gaming machine-to-table ratio, applied fairly across casinos regulated under both the 1968 Act and the 2005 Act, is a proportionate change.
We also support the reduction in minimum table gaming space for small casinos to 250 square metres, which will bring consistency and allow smaller venues to remain viable. Permitting all casinos to offer betting, subject to proportionate safeguards, also aligns the land-based sector more closely with online operators, as the Minister said. So these changes reflect much of what operators have long called for: a level playing field across the different licensing regimes, as well as the ability to offer a wider mix of products and experiences to their customers.
While we support these parts of the reforms, we note that the Government are largely following through on decisions that flowed from the White Paper in the previous Parliament. What is needed now is a clearer vision of how the Government will support the land-based sector going forward, particularly in the face of sustained inflationary pressures; increased taxation, including the rises in national insurance contributions; and rising regulatory compliance costs. We continue to have concerns about the rise of the gambling black market and urge the Minister to do all she can to ensure that her colleagues at His Majesty’s Treasury do not proceed with their tax hike, which we think will hurt bingo halls and much-loved sports across the UK and could fuel the dangers of the black market.
We remain clear that any regulation must be accompanied by rigorous safeguards. As my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, made clear, gambling is never without risk of harm. The land-based sector may not present the same immediacy of risk as online gambling, but the need for effective harm prevention measures remains in this form of gambling as it does elsewhere. The statutory levy, the requirement for casinos to maintain non-gambling areas and the obligations to monitor and intervene with customers who are at risk must be properly enforced. We would welcome assurances from the Minister on how those safeguards might be monitored and what role the Gambling Commission will play in doing that.
I thank the Minister for her very clear introduction to these statutory instruments. I have four questions for her. First, how will the Government ensure that the Gambling Commission is adequately resourced and empowered to enforce the new machine-to-table ratio and the betting provisions across all forms of casinos? Secondly, given the significant transition costs outlined, what specific support or guidance will be offered to smaller and medium-sized casinos to help them adapt to these reforms without risking closures or job losses?
Thirdly, what mechanisms will be put in place to evaluate the impact of these reforms on gambling-related harm and the sustainability of the sector, and when might we expect the first published review? Fourthly, and finally, can she clarify why the Government are taking a different approach to machine reforms in adult gaming centres? I am sure that she is aware of the widespread concerns raised in that part of the sector.
While we support the objectives of these regulations, which rightly aim to bring greater coherence and modernisation to the regulation of land-based casinos, these changes must be the start of a broader, evidence-led strategy for growth, investment and safer gambling. We will continue to press the Government to deliver on that ambition and to ensure that the sector remains sustainable and socially responsible.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
This has been an interesting debate, and I am grateful to all noble Lords for their insightful contributions. It is clear from today’s discussion that all noble Lords share the Government’s intention of and commitment to protecting the British public from gambling-related harm. I am keen to do that while ensuring that those who wish to gamble can continue to do so safely and have protections around them to enable them to do so. As outlined, these changes will modernise the regulatory framework for land-based casinos and allow the sector to grow while still protecting its customers.
I turn now to specific points raised about the instrument. The noble Lords, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and Lord Foster of Bath, raised concerns around gambling harm. Casinos are a highly regulated environment. They have a significant amount of player supervision alongside a number of protections on gaming machines themselves. Importantly, this instrument contains a number of protections that will ensure that customers will continue to be offered a range of gambling and non-gambling opportunities that help to reduce the risk of harm.
Casinos will be allowed to increase the number of machines they offer only if they meet a number of strict requirements. Operators will have to submit an application to vary their licence to their licensing authority, setting out how they meet these conditions and enclosing a new plan. The licensing authority will have to approve this application before more machines can be offered.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster, raised concerns about dormant licences. As noble Lords will be aware, there is only a limited number of casino licences. Converted casinos can move only within their permitted area and instances of relocation are very rare. Stakeholder engagement suggests there is highly unlikely to be a significant increase in the number of these licences that are revisited. The 2005 Act casinos cannot move from the location that their licence granted them. Therefore, no new casino licences will be granted as part of this process.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I may have got this wrong and I would be grateful if the Minister can put me right. My understanding is that there are 42 currently dormant casino premises licences, which would enable 42 casinos to open. This is not about a casino that exists moving to another location; I am well aware of the rules around that. My simple question was: what prevents them opening under this new, perhaps brighter economic climate that the Government are now providing to casinos?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
It is a licence rather than the premises that cannot be moved. My understanding is that a licence cannot be moved out of the local authority area.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I know that. I apologise for pursuing this but perhaps the Minister will agree to write to me about it. It seems important. I am not talking about casinos moving their licence to somewhere else. They have a licence. They are already allowed to operate within a particular local authority, where its gambling policy allows casinos to do that. There are 42 of those licences outstanding, as I understand it—those are 2020 figures. How are we going to prevent them opening under this new, brighter economic climate for casinos?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
This may be where the noble Lord and I diverge in opinion, because the Government’s view is that the casino sector is one of the most well-controlled environments in the sector. There are clear restrictions on the licences. As the noble Lord is aware, there are 186 converted licences, with over 130 in use. They are allocated to permitted areas and cannot move to new areas. No new converted licences will be created. Our stakeholder engagement and analysis suggests there will not be a significant increase. As the noble Lord indicated, there may be some increase if people think that these licences are more profitable but, as noble Lords would perhaps describe it, this is one of the more regulated parts of the sector. It is not necessarily, in our view, a bad thing that the sector is seen as more profitable to those people who have casinos. I am happy to write; I am not sure I will be able to give a different answer but we will look into that and I will revert to the noble Lord in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, raised a number of questions. On how these measures will be enforced, the Gambling Commission will work together with local authorities on enforcement and licensing applications. There is no requirement for any casino to take up these entitlements. DCMS and the Gambling Commission have jointly commissioned an evaluation of the gambling White Paper measures, and we published the plans for evaluation last year. I will draw those plans to the noble Lord’s attention; we can write to him on that.
The noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Foster, raised—potentially from slightly different perspectives—the issue of adult gaming centres. There were a number of measures in the gambling White Paper in relation to this. We recently set out, in a letter to industry that followed these casino reforms, that we will look at ways of supporting the bingo sector and family entertainment centres. We have paused any reforms to the 80:20 rule, as I want to understand better how the adult gaming centre sector protects its customers from gambling-related harm. I have not ruled out making changes in future, but it felt appropriate to consider this in greater depth. The Government are taking action where it is needed. In our view, these casino reforms are a key part of our wider growth agenda.
On the impact assessment, which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Foster, redactions are standard practice for commercially sensitive information. I will check again with the department on the question of the redaction around the costs; I will write to the noble Lord on that point and copy in other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.
I hope that I have managed to cover most of the pertinent points made by your Lordships in this debate. I am really grateful for all the points raised and for your Lordships’ interest in both the land-based casino sector and gambling more broadly.
Craft Industry: Support
Baroness Twycross Excerpts(1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on securing this important debate and all noble Lords on their thoughtful contributions today. Given the time constraint, I, too, will probably need to talk very fast, and I may need to write to noble Lords after the debate with any responses that I cannot cover in my response.
I hope that what the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, described as the “unsung” crafts have heard their value sung out very loudly today. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, on the restoration and renewal programme, which was echoed by others, including the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, shows how relevant this debate is to the Palace of Westminster, as it is around the country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, mentioned Notre Dame. I am proud, as I know noble Lords across the Room will be, about the role of British craftspeople involved in that project. It is important to recognise that we gain from what Notre Dame gained from our incredible builders, craftspeople and artists.
Many noble Lords will know from previous conversations I have had with them that I feel passionately about craft, as does every noble Lord who has spoken. That includes not just the traditions woven into our inclusive national story or, in the case of a number of noble Lords, their professional lives, but in my case as a means of rehabilitation from serious illness as a teenager and as activities I learned from my mother, grandmother and great-aunt.
As the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said so powerfully in his opening remarks, craft is not an indulgence. It is profoundly human. When I was growing up, one of our closest family friends was a professional potter, Rosemary Zorza. She had a profound effect on me as a child, encouraging my creativity and imagination. However, beyond my personal experience, when I speak of crafts, I mean more than the physical objects that are represented. I mean the communities sustained, the skills preserved and the futures shaped. The craft industry is a custodian of heritage, a source of enrichment and a powerful driver of growth.
I turn to the point on data. The figure quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, covers a broader definition than our current DCMS methodology allows. The most recent DCMS figures from 2024 show that in 2023 the crafts subsector generated around £400 million in gross value added and employed 7,000 highly skilled artisans, which is a significant return for the creative industries. These are, on the whole, small but highly specialist enterprises. We continue to work to improve how such sectors are captured in official statistics, including where their work cuts across different categories such as manufacturing, design, heritage or construction skills. As a Minister, I am keen to understand what the data is telling us so that I can represent the sector effectively in discussions.
I want to add that this is not solely about economics, important though they are. This is about artistry, craftsmanship and our living heritage. From Stoke-on-Trent’s ceramics and Birmingham’s jewellery, for which Birmingham was recently recognised as a world craft city, to Northamptonshire’s shoemakers, these crafts are signifiers of place, character and British identity.
All noble Lords highlighted the pressures faced by the craft sector. This is an important debate for those reasons. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, noted that Heritage Crafts’s 2025 red list of endangered crafts highlighted challenges in education, training and small business support. We recognise these challenges, which is why we support funders such as the National Lottery Heritage Fund, which in 2024 awarded £158,000 to Heritage Crafts for long-term sustainability. It also runs a heritage crafts programme offering bursaries to help people train in heritage crafts or develop their skills. I look forward to meeting the chief executive of Heritage Crafts in the coming weeks to hear more about the issues at stake.
In relation to wider support for the sector, since 2018 Arts Council England’s developing your creative practice programme has supported the development of creative practitioners by providing grants to give them the time, headspace and financial support needed to encourage development and experimentation to enable those practitioners to progress and flourish in their creative careers. Craftspeople specialising in textiles, jewellery or ceramic arts, for example, can apply under the visual artist field.
The spending review was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and others. Following the announcement of the spending review on 11 June—yesterday—DCMS is now moving into the business planning phase to determine how the settlement will be delivered.
It is important to recognise that some of the risks to the sector are very tangible and real. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, referred to the closure of potteries. The Government are working closely with Ceramics UK to ensure the future of the sector with regard to both traditional ceramics and 21st-century, high-tech ceramics. I look forward to the publication of the industrial strategy and hope that noble Lords will find it of interest when it is published in due course.
The right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Chichester and the Bishop of Southwark noted the changes to the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme. I do not want to suggest that we do not recognise the role that the restoration of churches plays in the preservation of skills. However, given where we were fiscally, we had to make changes to that scheme. On its future, funding after 2026 will be considered as we work through the departmental business planning process. In January, the Government announced a one-year extension with a £23 million budget. I stress that 94% of applications will not be affected by the change, but I appreciate that the affected schemes have to explore other means of funding. I have spoken with the vicar of the church in Clapham mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, and I am aware of the issues that the church has with claiming money under the National Lottery scheme.
As the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, mentioned, last year we ratified the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. I recognise the work that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, did on that. He knows that I am as enthusiastic about it as he is, and I am delighted to take his work forward. Ratification has started a timely conversation about what we value and how, collectively, we safeguard our living heritage, of which crafts are a key part. We will create inventories better to map and understand the sector and its issues and to raise awareness. Submissions will open later this year, and I will report to the House about those plans. I am very keen for as many noble Lords as possible to get involved in promoting it in due course.
I now move on to talk about skills and education, and this is where my notes get very messy and I am at desperate risk of running out of time. I think all noble Lords raised skills shortages. This is one of the key areas raised in this debate that I am genuinely most concerned about. I recognise similar concerns to those raised with me by heritage stakeholders across the piece about making sure that we do not lose the skills we need. My noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe noted that people who are retiring are not being replaced, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, raised a very powerful point about the barriers of time and finances for young people to get trained by small family businesses or sole traders.
Organisations directly and indirectly supported by the Government are investing in craft skills, including Historic England, the Churches Conservation Trust and projects funded by the National Lottery. I pay tribute to the leadership of my noble friend Lord Lemos in championing craft and heritage skills through his work at English Heritage. Further excellent work is happening to address demands, such as at the National Trust’s Heritage and Rural Skills Centre and York Minster’s Centre of Excellence for Heritage Skills and Estate Management, and the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, mentioned the excellent work at Saint Paul’s.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and others mentioned that we are reforming apprenticeships, but I recognise that some occupations do not necessarily fit into the very tight framework that some apprenticeships involve. For example, I understand from my noble friend Lady Anderson that it takes up to 10 years to train a master potter. I will pick up these points in writing. I will also pick up the points made in relation to skills, apprenticeships and education with my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern, not least in relation to the point raised by my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe on Skills England. I note the point on trade and will respond to the noble Earl in writing.
In the very small amount of time I have left, I conclude by saying that we will continue to support the craft sector. People in this country produce some of the finest crafts in the world. I am clear that we have an incredible richness of craftspeople in this country, and I am seeking to identify ways to ensure that the sector is supported to grow. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for bringing this debate.