Young People: Gambling Harm

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Thursday 23rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Foster of Bath]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reduce gambling harm among young people.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I begin by congratulating the Minister on what appear to be yet more responsibilities that she is taking on. I welcome this opportunity to debate with her what the Government plan to do to reduce gambling harm among children and young people. In doing so, I declare my interest as chair of Peers for Gambling Reform.

We have long accepted a simple principle: where there is clear evidence that commercial activity harms children, government has a duty to intervene, adopting a public health approach. We have accepted that principle in relation to tobacco, to alcohol and, more recently, to vapes. We are applying it to unhealthy food, to social media, to alcohol and again, more recently, to high-caffeine energy drinks. The same should surely apply to gambling. Yes, of course it is illegal for children to gamble, but a very large number do, so we are clearly not doing enough, despite the protection of children and young people being a core licensing objective in the ill-conceived Gambling Act 2005.

Last year, the Gambling Commission found that 59% of young people had taken part in some form of gambling in the previous year, that 30% had used their own money in doing so and that three in 10 children see members of their own family gambling. Most worryingly of all, it found that some 80,000 children are suffering gambling harm: in common parlance, 80,000 children are gambling addicts and many thousands more are at risk of becoming so. We need to do more to catch up with the rapidly changing gambling landscape, because children today encounter gambling brands almost everywhere. They see gambling companies sponsoring football shirts, stadiums and competitions. They watch televised sports with gambling promotions before, during and after the event. They receive gambling-related content through social media algorithms. They see influencers promoting betting products. Many play games containing gambling-like features such as loot boxes and social casinos that blur the line between gaming and gambling. This constant exposure matters, because it normalises gambling for children, who are learning to see gambling as a routine part of sport, of entertainment, of gaming and of online life.

Dealing with all this is a public health issue, and while the Government are not doing enough, many parts of local government are doing their best. Many councils have already banned gambling advertising on their premises, their land and their vehicles, and others have gone even further. For instance, ahead of the 2022 World Cup, one council launched its anti-gambling harms campaign, “Odds Are: They Win”. It pointed to harmful industry practices having a negative impact on people’s, including children’s, health and well-being, finances, work, relationships and so on. It made it clear that whatever the gambling product, whoever the gambling operator and whichever way you look at it, the odds are they win. The council leader said

“the main aim of the gambling operators is to maximise profits. These profits are the result of customer losses which, particularly during this cost of living crisis, risk having a seriously detrimental impact on people’s lives”.

He went on to say:

“The review of the Gambling Act is now well overdue and the Government must take this opportunity to do more to protect our residents and people right across the country from the harmful practices of the gambling industry”.


That council leader was our new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, so when she responds, I hope the Minister will have her Prime Minister’s words ringing in her ears.

To identify what more could be done, Peers for Gambling Reform recently hosted a round table of experts in the field. Their recommendations included, first, ending the Government’s nonsense claim that that it is possible to grow the gambling industry while reducing gambling harm. Way back in 2018, academics claimed that

“preventing gambling-related harm is not possible without limiting the overall volume of the activity, and hence the profits for the gambling industry”.

Recently, four reports all show that by reducing the volume of gambling activity in the country, the country’s economy would be strengthened and not weakened. Will the Minister at last accept that the Government have got this wrong?

Secondly, experts recommended restricting gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship. Clearly, with 79% of children recalling gambling advertisements, current safeguards are not working. I even saw a computer game the other day with an age rating of 4+ containing gambling advertisements. The UK has more evidence on the harmful effects of gambling advertising than almost any other country in the world, but we are taking much less action. Does the Minister accept that reducing harm among children and young people requires reducing their exposure to gambling advertising? Does she agree with her Prime Minister, who said:

“For the sake of children and young people, it’s time to take a stand … we can relegate gambling sponsorship of sport to the history books”.


I entirely agree with the Prime Minister.

Thirdly, there were recommendations to require greater accountability of digital platforms. Children encounter gambling marketing online through content marketing—designed not to look like advertising—sports commentary, influencer-style content, livestream gambling, affiliate promotions and, of course, illegal offshore operators. Can the Minister say whether the Government will place a specific duty on online platforms to prevent under-18s being exposed to gambling advertising?

Fourthly, experts recommend addressing the convergence of gaming and gambling. Loot boxes, skin gambling, crypto gambling, social casino games and esports-linked gambling are all areas where existing legal definitions and voluntary approaches are insufficient. There is clear evidence of a stable and consistent association between loot box use and problem gambling, with risks likely to be higher for children and young people. Will the Government move beyond the failed industry self-regulation and bring loot boxes and gaming-like digital products within a stronger regulatory framework?

The round table identified other recommendations, such as greater protection for young adults, who are more likely than older adults to experience gambling harm, and further development of the welcome introduction of a gambling element into the PSHE component of the school curriculum—I believe that should be strengthened still further, and my noble friend Lord Addington will touch on this later. All need to be addressed as public health issues, without the involvement of the commercial interests of gambling companies.

Future generations will not ask whether Parliament debated these issues; they will ask whether we acted while the evidence, a vast amount of it, was already before us. I hope that when they do, they will be able to say that this House once again played its part in putting the protection of children ahead of commercial interest. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Foster of Bath]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
“(f) Schedule (Sports rights provisions) (“the sports rights provisions”).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Lord Foster, seeks to create a new “Sports Rights Provision” to the Bill, which relates to the rights of sporting companies with regards to gambling activities.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments standing in my name in this group are ones I have tabled before and, in tabling them again, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests, showing that I am the chairman of both Peers for Gambling Reform and the charity Action on Gambling.

I have brought these two groups of amendments back today because I had a very useful meeting with the Minister, for which I am grateful, and I was able to explain in a little more detail their purpose. This is an opportunity to see if the Minister has decided whether the Government may, in one form or another, be rather more supportive of those amendments.

As I say, I have two groups of amendments. One relates to the need, I believe, to ensure that all sporting venues where the activities covered by this Bill take place are clear of gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship. I will not rehearse all the arguments I have used before; suffice it to say that many major international sporting bodies believe it is the right thing to do. That is what is happening currently with the World Cup, as FIFA does not allow advertising in its stadia. The same is true for the Olympics, the Paralympics and many others. The organisations firmly believe that, among many other reasons, it would be wrong in particular to allow children to grow up believing that the only way you can enjoy a sporting event is by participating in betting on it.

I genuinely believe this is something we should be adopting for all sporting activities in this country, and certainly for international sporting events, on which a lot of gambling ends up taking place. Even though FIFA does not have advertising in the various venues, worldwide, gambling on the games currently taking place is believed to total half a trillion dollars—and that is just the World Cup. Gambling is very big business and it causes a great deal of harm to children and many other people. Tomorrow, the Gambling Commission will be publishing statistics, and we will be able to see how big that problem is in this country.

The second group of amendments relates to the unlicensed use of sports data. Sports data is increasingly valuable. Sports clubs use it to help with their training practices and so on, but it is also very useful for gambling organisations and, indeed, gambling syndicates that are trying to get money off the gambling companies. At the moment, sporting bodies enter into voluntary agreements with various companies that choose to do this work, allow those companies to collect the data and then, through licences, sell it on to other bodies, including gambling companies. That brings them in quite a lot of money. Unfortunately, those licences are currently very difficult to police, and there are all sorts of difficulties with taking action against people who act illegally or use unlicensed data.

This is a very big issue. I have in front of me a printout of a gambling website called LSports. LSports is not licensed to use data from this country, and yet it does. Indeed, it claims to cover 100 different sports, 3 million different fixtures in 15,000 leagues and 2,500 markets around the world. These people illegally—or at least, without a licence—use data which they claim in their advertisements is used by companies in this country such as Sky Bet and Betfred. I am deeply worried that these organisations are scraping data—denying money coming into sports organisations in this country—to feed into gambling companies that use it for all sort of purposes. Even more worrying is that in all their feeds, they include advertisements for illegal gambling websites: ones in this country and others that can be accessed around the world. This includes the largest illegal website in the world, 1XBET, which is supported by the Putin regime and helps fund it. We should not be supporting opportunities like that.

I turn to something even worse, and which is deeply worrying. I have another set of printouts, concerning a company that provides livestreams of major sporting events, including the current World Cup. The live feeds it provides to people, who choose for a variety of reason to get coverage of those events on its feeds, are absolutely full of illegal gambling websites.

The Minister is rightly desperately keen to do something about illegal gambling. I want to do so too, but I also want to do something about the harm that gambling in this country causes. The solution is very simple, and that is what my amendment effectively provides. It says that we should make it illegal for anybody to use the data from companies if they do not have a licence; it is a very simple solution that would make it much easier to bring prosecutions against people who do not have one.

So, I have two groups of amendments: one would make venues gambling advertisement free, and the second would stop people being able to use sports data without a licence. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I thought those were very interesting amendments. I am sorry that I had not read them, but they are interesting and worth considering by the Government.

I want to speak to Amendment 21. I begin by thanking Freddie Daley, whose work with Cool Down and Badvertising has helped to shape this amendment. His research has highlighted the growing tension between local fossil-fuel advertising bans and major sporting events. I know that the Government are not proposing a national ban on fossil-fuel advertising, even though I think they ought to. However, that argument was rejected in Committee and I am not trying to reopen that debate.

This amendment takes a different approach. It is saying that, where a host city or local authority has adopted climate, environmental or advertising policies that restrict fossil-fuel advertising, major sporting events should respect those policies. After all, the Bill is about creating a framework for hosting major sporting events. It should not become a way to bypass decisions that have already been made by local authorities.

We have a very useful example. In 2027, Edinburgh will host the Grand Départ of the Tour de France. Edinburgh City Council has already voted to ban high-carbon advertising, including fossil-fuel advertising, across council-owned spaces. Sheffield has adopted a similar policy, and other local authorities have done the same or are considering doing so. Athletes should not become moving adverts for fossil-fuel companies as they race past Edinburgh Castle and through the city’s streets. These councils have made democratic decisions about the kind of places they want to be. If they have decided that fossil-fuel advertising has no place on their streets and public spaces, why should an international sporting event be treated any differently?

I do not need to repeat the reasons we brought in Committee on why this matters. This year’s Tour de France has already had to shorten a stage because of extreme heat, for the first time. Here in the UK, running races have been cancelled this week and other sporting events and transport are affected. Climate change is already changing how major sporting events are organised, yet sports, including cycling, continue to provide a valuable advertising platform for fossil-fuel companies, and these adverts are no accident. Fossil-fuel companies do not sponsor cycling because they sell bikes; they do it because it allows them to associate their brands with healthy lifestyles, beautiful places and active travel, rather than with the filthy emissions that are driving our climate emergency.

Sports such as football and cycling were once full of tobacco sponsorship. As the evidence of harm grew, public attitudes changed; the rules changed and the sport adapted. Today, that relationship feels completely out of step with the values that sport represents. I believe we are beginning to see the same shift in attitudes towards fossil-fuel advertising. If sporting events are allowed to sidestep local advertising bans, they risk becoming one of the last remaining routes for fossil-fuel companies to advertise in cities that have deliberately chosen to restrict that advertising. We should not be asking cities to choose between hosting world-class sporting events and sticking to their climate commitments. This amendment would make sure that they do not have to.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, recognising the significant national event taking place this evening, I will also endeavour to keep my remarks brief and I have no intention of taking this Report into extra time. However, as we commence today’s debate on the Sporting Events Bill, it is only fitting that we acknowledge this momentous occasion and the commendable efforts of the England team. I join the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and your entire Lordships’ House in wishing our national team the very best of luck this evening, wherever the players might have been born.

Amendments 2, 3, 4, 23 to 28, 36, 39 and 40, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, seek to regulate sports’ rights provisions and gambling advertising. I thank the noble Lord for coming to the department to discuss his position in more detail. While it is not appropriate for the Government to intervene in commercial sponsorship and advertising arrangements, we will not hesitate to take steps where necessary to ensure that these arrangements are socially responsible. As the noble Lord noted, FIFA and the Olympics and Paralympics have their own restrictions. The Government have already implemented a number of reforms in this space. Just today, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, we launched our consultation on banning unlicensed sponsorship within sports and other sectors. This Government are also committed to tackling illegal gambling through the Gambling Commission and our Illegal Gambling Taskforce, with our most recent task force meeting taking place yesterday.

Regarding the sharing of sports data with unlicensed operators, this Government have no reason to believe that it is currently a significant issue. However, if needed, we will not hesitate to consider this further through our task force. I would be happy to continue discussing this with the noble Lord, Lord Foster, including on the additional information he gave today.

Amendment 20 would require regard to be given to the protection of children and vulnerable persons from harmful or age-restricted advertising when applying the advertising provisions to an event. The advertising offence in the Bill is designed to protect event owners’ commercial rights by preventing unauthorised advertising in a restricted zone. The Advertising Standards Authority has many rules to help protect children from harmful or age-restricted advertising. Advertisers should ensure that adverts do not include anything likely to result in physical, mental or moral harm to children, or anything that encourages unsafe practices. On top of that, products such as alcohol and gambling should not be promoted irresponsibly; they should always be promoted responsibly. Adverts must not, for example, link them to social success nor encourage recklessness.

Amendment 21 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would require advertising in a restricted zone to comply with local authority policies, including those related to the climate and the environment. The noble Baroness gave some powerful examples of the impact of climate change on current sporting events. I assure the noble Baroness that any advertising activity undertaken in a restricted zone will have to be in accordance with existing legislation and other regulatory requirements, including local authority policies. Advertisers will also need to consider the Committee of Advertising Practice and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice codes’ rules on environmental claims. With these points in mind, I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response, and I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for his contribution. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that I find it strange, given that the IOC always requires a sustainability requirement in its plans, that this is not included in the Bill before us today.

There is no question that I desperately hope the England team will do infinitely better tonight than I have done. Despite all my training and my workup before this performance, the Minister has just provided a stonewall to me, and I have lost at this stage. But there are always other rounds, and I look forward to those. With that, I wish the team the very best of luck. I will enjoy watching it tonight, hopefully in an arena that has no advertisements, no marketing and no advertising. I hope that they do better than I did. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee—I had not quite got myself in the right position to start proceedings. This is a probing amendment that looks at some of the minor problems that arise when a big Bill such as this comes out. The amendment probably refers more than it should to licensed premises, but it is a way of finding out how the Government perceive we should proceed. For those small firms that are making a living and are affected by this, what happens next if we take on the structures in the Bill? This has been one of the small niggles we have had about these Bills and processes. Let us see if we can get it right or at least give certainty to those affected. I beg to move.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, at Second Reading, I raised the example of the butcher in Weymouth who, during the 2012 Paralympics and Olympics, was threatened with a £20,000 fine because he displayed in his shop window five strings of sausages in the shape of the five Olympic rings. He eventually got around this by changing the circles into squares, but it was a rather ludicrous example of the extremes to which some of the arrangements can go.

We are in a bit of difficulty, because before us we have a framework Bill which refers to lots of regulations to come, but we do not know what they will be. Yet at the same time, we all want to ensure that particularly SMEs can share in the benefit of hosting the sorts of events covered by the Bill. We therefore need to ensure that the regulations on association are flexible enough to protect the sponsors, who have paid a lot of money, but not be overly zealous in how we treat our small businesses, particularly those where the event is taking place.

Although my noble friend’s amendment relates to licensed premises, it could equally apply to all others. I want to test with the Minister a couple of questions. I am genuinely delighted that the impact assessment and Explanatory Memorandum, on pages 19 and 20, already give many exceptions that the Government are planning to introduce and which presumably will be picked up in the regulations. However, there are one or two areas where they do not go as far as many of the major sporting bodies have already gone. In 2012, many of our athletes were upset at not being allowed in any way, shape or form to thank the various people who had sponsored them over many years—an example could be one of my noble friend’s licensed premises supporting a particular athlete. They were not allowed to do so because of the tight restrictions: there was no way there could be any link between that unofficial sponsor and the individual athlete.

Equally, there were very strong regulations concerning what words could and could not be used. There was a whole list: you could not use “champion”; you could not even mention “London”, let alone “2012”. I am delighted that the IOC has, through changes to rule 40, made significant relaxations that now allow, for example, under certain circumstances, an athlete to thank their unofficial sponsor and the unofficial sponsor to refer to the athlete they have supported. There are various conditions around that.

However, there have also been changes to the language. The butcher I referred to earlier would now be allowed, under the IOC rules, to say “champion banger” or “gold medal sausage”. So, significant changes have taken place. Will the Minister ensure that relaxations and flexibilities such as those already introduced by the IOC for the Olympic and Paralympic Games will be covered by the regulations that will follow for each of the events covered by the Bill?

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the observations made by the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Foster. This follows the line of the issues I raised on Monday concerning the impact assessment and the various impacts on small businesses. This amendment is clearly a probing amendment, but it is intended to establish protections for small businesses that may by chance get picked up in one way or another. We must ensure that we do not damage those businesses. As many of us said on Monday, mission creep ends up negatively impacting small businesses, often by chance.

I welcome the broad principle of this amendment, and I hope that further discussions will ensure that those protections, whether they be for individuals or businesses, are pursued.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I support my noble friend Lord Holmes’s amendment. Just over a year ago, Jarrod Bleijie, who is the Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development in Queensland, came to visit this House and listened intently to a debate on sport. One of the aspects that he focused on was that Brisbane was actively integrating digital twin modelling into the preparations for the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The technology is being utilised across several phases of development, including urban planning, venue design and, as my noble friend mentioned in particular, transport optimisation. The points that my noble friend made are very relevant, because the Queensland Government’s SEQ—South East Queensland —digital twin initiative is leveraging predictive analytics to model traffic congestion, crowd movement and transit scheduling. This was exactly the point that my noble friend made about modelling in the locality. On the construction side, foundational projects such as Cross River Rail have built immersive replicas to test structural functionality and simulate passenger flows prior to their completion. There is no doubt that the importance of digital twin modelling in all major spectator sports events is now both understood and implemented.

My noble friend is right to alert the Government to embracing within the Bill, in some form, in the right terms and with the right phraseology, the challenges of integrating digital twin modelling as it stands. It will unquestionably morph into more sophisticated forms in the future. It would send a signal to potential bidders that we are very much on top of this technology and legislation.

Amendment 96 is focused on a cyber resilience plan. I do not want to be pedantic, but we really need a cyber security strategy, because that would provide the framework for what I think my noble friend seeks to achieve. We absolutely need to redouble our efforts to prepare for and prevent cyber threats. Everybody involved in major spectator sports events around the world now is completely focused on this important factor. There are too many bad actors out there looking to disrupt major events. Unfortunately, the major events that command global television coverage are targets for them, as was seen in the many cyber threats on the Paris Olympics. This will only increase.

The more we highlight the importance of these issues by placing them in the legislation in a suitable way to indicate that we are very cognisant of the importance of this as a part of preparing for any bid and, indeed, for the delivery of games that could face these threats in the future, the more we will be well-received internationally. The whole purpose of the legislation is to send a signal to the international federations—the IOC, FIFA and others—that we are not only prepared but aware of the major challenges that we face and that we are responding to them as a country. With those very few remarks, I absolutely support my noble friend’s intent.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, the point about cyber is really important. At Second Reading I referred to my involvement in the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Prior to the Games I had the opportunity of visiting the transport management hub, a group that, among other things, had put gizmos in all the traffic lights throughout London so that they could change the lights at a moment’s notice to enable traffic to move through. A cyber attack on that would have brought the whole of London to a standstill.

The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, raised this as an important issue, but he did not point out that this is a reality for sports organisations already. The latest research shows that 84% of the major sporting bodies around the world report that they have had at least one cyber attack recently, and 57% say they have had more than one. This is a very real issue. I look forward to the Minister’s response. It is vital that we have it included, ideally on the face of the Bill.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I will briefly run through the amendments in my name. One of the things about the Bill that we do not really like is the fact that there is nothing on infrastructure. It may be implied. My Amendment 78 is trying to put some infrastructure in there.

Amendment 77 is about the accommodation. Much of what we are talking about and much of the reference in the last debate about the legacy from London has been to do with accommodation of athletes, et cetera. If we do not get that in a games bid, suddenly it loses one of the big attractions when it comes to renovation, especially on the model of the London Games. I hope we get some reference in there. Championships may be different. They are different things with different structures. In Birmingham we had a thing about repurposing and borrowing the accommodation that was used, and in London we created new stuff. I hope we get a few thoughts on that.

The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter are about having a strategy towards a bidding process and making sure we have the capacity to intervene and get on with it. Even if it is seen that we have the capacity here, you have to organise it and bring it together. What are the Government thinking about to bring that latent capacity together and make sure it is always there? There are opportunities here. In most of the discussion on the Bill, I have not heard, “Oh no, we don’t want to bid; it’s a horrible inconvenience that will ruin my day”. I remember certain protests about the 2012 bid down in Greenwich being the best ones.

If we are assuming that it is going to be a good thing, where is the capacity? What are we doing to draw it together? There is a series of suggestions here, to be treated as probing amendments at the moment, about how we can do this and about infrastructure. Please can we have some thoughts on this? It is a very important part of this process going forward. If we do not bring it in, I think this is a Bill for a championship as opposed to a games. It fits better for a championship, when you are using sites and moving around the country, as opposed to a games. I hope the Government can say that I have got it all horribly wrong and missed something here. I wait to be informed.

Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Foster of Bath]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
“(f) Schedule (Sports rights provisions) (“the sports rights provisions”).”

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, in addition to moving Amendment 2, I will speak to the 11 other amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Addington. I declare my interests as the chair of Peers for Gambling Reform and of Action on Gambling.

Together, my 12 amendments cover just two issues. The first is illegal gambling relating to events covered by the Bill, and the second is ensuring that venues hosting events covered by the Bill are free of gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship. The Minister has been taking a very keen and welcome interest in tackling the gambling black market. My first group of amendments, relating to sports data, is, in fact, going to help her, because data is the new gold in sport. While still dwarfed by TV rights, the use and sale of data is increasing dramatically. It is currently estimated to be worth $5 billion globally—an estimate that is expected to increase threefold by 2031.

This data is used in a number of remarkably different ways—from sports teams wanting to understand their players’ performances to event organisers providing fans with knowledge to help them create and choose their fantasy football team, for instance. Crucially, however, it is also used by betting companies to help them manage their risk but also to provide their customers with in-game gambling options using real-time data—data that can, because of latency issues, arrive sooner than from a TV feed. This becomes increasingly important with the rise of gambling on the so-called prediction markets. Therefore, to monetise this value, organisers of events covered by the Bill already sell global data rights to organisations known as aggregators, which gather the data and then sell licences for it. They use things like AI camera systems in the gathering of that data. In the current World Cup, Stats Perform serves as FIFA’s first ever official and exclusive world betting data distributor.

These licences are voluntary and are difficult to enforce. At Second Reading I explained, for example, how relatively easy it is for data scouts to go into stadia where events are taking place, collect data and send it on without having permission. This leads to an economic loss to the sport and to those who have licensed the data to then sell on to betting companies, but it also has significant integrity implications. If data can be manipulated by unscrupulous data suppliers, so can the betting markets themselves. In the other licensing agreements such as broadcasting rights, we are used to understanding how and why we need to protect them and have introduced new legislation over the years to help reduce piracy, but this is less true of data piracy.

--- Later in debate ---

On the basis of the points I have made, covering a number of important areas, and recognising again that the Bill is tightly framed to develop a framework aimed at securing and delivering major sporting events, I ask that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for her support for my remarks. I neither accuse her nor imply anything about who her support will be for the next leader of her party. I merely point out that almost everything she said is word for word what Mr Andy Burnham, now MP, said only two weeks ago.

I am also grateful to others who have spoken. I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, subsequently by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and then picked up by the Minister, that we should be basing our decisions on principles: I entirely agree with that remark. But it seems to me there is one principle that we have accepted in this country for a very long time: that public health issues need to be dealt with at public level. The Government have accepted issues around unhealthy food, to put it like that, as a public health issue. They have also accepted, as the Minister has said from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, that gambling has to be treated as a public health issue. Therefore, I genuinely believe that we have got a principle that all noble Lords on all sides could get behind in relation to these amendments.

I genuinely accept that the Minister is keen to keep the Bill as narrow as possible, but she pointed out in her remarks that the Bill is about protecting the rights of the event organisers—her very words. I therefore do not understand why we are placing measures in the Bill to protect rights in terms of ticketing, advertising and so on, yet she is not prepared to put a similar protection for the rights of event organisers in relation to their sports data. It seems that there is an absolute equivalence with all the other rights that we are protecting. Failing to do that in the way I am proposing means that there is a real opportunity for the growth of the black market, which she is keen to prevent. I ask her to look again in detail at this particular issue. It has been very carefully thought through. A lot of people have been engaged in work on this, and I hope that we come back to it at a later stage in our deliberations.

On the black market, we need to be very careful to be alert to the fact that a lot of the growth in the black market is coming from people who have withdrawn themselves from gambling using a programme called GAMSTOP, and suddenly, because of all the advertising for a big event, they want to gamble again. They are not allowed to on the legal market, so they end up going to the black market, which is why we now have advertisements that say “not on GAMSTOP”. It is wrong to allow that to happen. I hope that the Minister will look at that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, having sat through the entire legislative process, minute by minute, of the Olympic Bill, along with the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath—there were not many of us there—I am slightly perplexed. I recall what we had to pass, which was certainly not easily transferable. Whether it was done by primary or secondary legislation, it was, frankly, tedious.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but I remind him that, during that long deliberation, I moved an amendment that changed the Title of the Bill to the Olympic and Paralympic Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, until the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, spoke, I was beginning to feel incredibly isolated as a rugby fan in your Lordships’ Chamber. Only two of us have now mentioned rugby as a major sport.

I thank the Minister for her excellent introduction to this very important Bill and for the praise that she gave the important work of the late Tessa Jowell. It was through her that I was able to join the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, as a member of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic board. As the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said, long before 2012, a great deal of work had to be carried out to provide the necessary legislation. Had the event-agnostic common legislative framework that is proposed in this Bill already been in place, much time would have been saved.

While I want to propose a few additions, I fully support the Bill, as I do the proposal from my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter, that international cultural events be included alongside sporting ones. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Paul of Shepherd’s Bush, I very much hope that the secondary legislation that will follow will lead to measures that are proportionate, and not to situations such as the one in 2012 when a butcher had to dismantle his window display of strings of sausages in the shape of the Olympic rings.

The 2012 Games also made me realise the importance of tackling ticket touting. It is an issue I have progressed in other places at different times. Notwithstanding the important point about the international aspect of ticket touting, I am genuinely pleased that the Government are taking action on this, including within the Bill.

I want to raise two issues. The first, on gambling advertising, has been foreshadowed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the second is on sports rights. I declare my interest as chair of Peers for Gambling Reform and as a member of the all-party group on intellectual property. I believe that we should all be worried about living in a country in which 1.4 million people, including 80,000 children, suffer from gambling disorder, with individual lives destroyed, families and communities impacted and, tragically, far too many gambling-related suicides. The Minister is well aware of my concerns about gambling advertising and its ubiquitous presence within sport.

Time prevents me detailing all my concerns, not least those about the impact on children and young people, who are constantly being led to believe that the enjoyment of sport is closely linked to gambling on outcomes within sporting events. In this country, we have more research on the links between gambling advertising and gambling harm than almost any other country. That research shows that gambling advertising leads people to start gambling, existing gamblers to gamble more and those who have stopped gambling to start again. This is especially relevant during major sporting events, when the volume of gambling advertising, and illegal black market gambling advertising, grows massively, leading to increased gambling harm. On Monday, the Nationwide Building Society published research showing that 83% of 18 to 24-year old existing gamblers expect to gamble more during the World Cup, with a quarter of them saying that they will do so to hopefully get more money to pay essential bills.

What can be done? Section 8 of the Bill, which has already been referred to, enables the establishment of “restricted advertising zones” around designated sports events and the regulation of what advertising activity may take place within those areas. However, these provisions currently appear to be primarily intended to deal with ambush marketing, and to protect official sponsors and commercial rights holders. I believe they should go further. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, raised a concern about what other international bodies say about this. It is worth reflecting that the IOC has always maintained a strict “clean venue” policy that prohibits sports betting and gambling sponsorship associations with the Olympic and Paralympic Games. FIFA has a similar clean-venue policy for the men’s World Cup. Several other international sporting bodies have rules which allow domestic bans in host countries to supersede their own rules. I hope the Government will consider adopting a similar clean-venue policy in the Bill, so that no gambling advertising is allowed in the restricted advertising zones of the events covered by the Bill.

Additionally, if UK TV and radio coverage of such an event is by a commercial broadcaster, I hope the Government will also consider banning gambling ads during transmissions, or at least until the watershed. Many other countries, including Italy, Belgium and Australia, have adopted far more stringent safeguards where gambling advertising and sport intersect. I believe we should be doing the same.

I turn to the issue of sports rights. In addition to the many other benefits that have already been referred to, the sports sector is now a major economic powerhouse for the UK and, at a time when we need to promote growth, sport can support that in many ways, from tourism to event management, and so on. It is vital that this Bill ensures we have the best framework to support relevant sporting events.

The Bill includes measures to ensure that sports event organisers have the right to ensure that those seeking association with the event must have the correct permissions in place and, in many cases, pay for that association. In most cases, this is easy to arrange and police. For example, spectators, broadcasters and sponsors all have clear conditions and payment arrangements. However, despite the enormous profits that gambling companies make from bets on sporting events, with the exception of horseracing and its horserace betting levy there is no explicit statutory requirement for gambling companies to pay sports organisations for betting rights—an issue that I hope, separately from the Bill, the Government will consider.

To get around that, many sports organisations attempt to assert copyright and database rights over their fixtures and statistics, and gambling operators enter into voluntary commercial data agreements to purchase official data to ensure that they have fast and accurate betting markets. For example—I will use football rather than rugby, since that is what everybody is talking about—data from the English Premier League, the Scottish Premiership and the EFL is licensed through Football DataCo to Genius Sports, which then sells that data to other parties, including gambling companies. But unlike a specific sport’s rights, those are voluntary arrangements and are much less easy to enforce. Indeed, enforcement is even harder when sports data is often scraped by third parties and sold to betting companies without the permission of the sporting event, which has little or no means of redress.

The noble Lord, Lord Barber of Chittlehampton, told us that he has been the chairman of Somerset County Cricket Club. Speaking to me on Monday, he told me about the effort the club makes to prevent the activities of in-ground so-called data scouts, who feed micro-level match data, such as ball-by-ball outcomes, to whoever will pay them—whether gambling companies or betting syndicates. More sophisticated operations also exist—especially, as it happens, in horseracing—where people are using drones to capture data, which they then sell without the agreement of the organisers of the event. When this happens there are potential integrity issues, and certainly the sport event loses potential income. In relation to association measures, will the Minister ensure that this is addressed in the Bill by, first, ensuring that there are tough penalties for those who capture data without permission and, secondly, requiring gambling companies to use only data licensed to them by official sources? I hope that can be extended more widely. This is a very welcome Bill. I am delighted to support it.

Casinos (Gaming Machines and Mandatory Conditions) Regulations 2025

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Grand Committee

[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 Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I am absolutely delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. I share the concerns that he expressed. I am not going to oppose this statutory instrument but I want to raise some concerns about it, not least in terms of the potential impact on increasing gambling harm.

The Minister has been very generous with her time in speaking with me on a number of occasions recently; I am very grateful for that. She already knows that I have considerable concern about the Government’s current approach, which seems to suggest that, in the wider desire of the Government to increase the whole state of the economy in the country, they also want to grow the gambling industry as part of that. I have argued with the Minister—although I know that she disagrees—that it is simply not possible to grow the gambling industry without also having an increase in gambling harm, whereas she and the Government believe that it is possible both to grow the industry and to reduce the level of gambling harm. You would not increase the tobacco industry and expect it to reduce the consumption of tobacco; the same is true for products in the gambling sector. No doubt this debate will continue between me, the Minister and others over the coming months.

If I look at this statutory instrument, I have some real concerns about it. We have with it an impact assessment. A few minutes ago, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, asked a simple question: could we have some more data about the length of time spent on these machines? He will be delighted to know that, on page 19 of the impact assessment, that data, which we are told is

“a useful insight into how customers currently play on gaming machines”,

is provided. Unfortunately, however, all of the figures are blacked out. We are advised that this is helpful information, yet it—together with many other bits that would be very helpful to us—is blacked out.

The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, is concerned about some of the parts of the report that talk about the possibility of these measures leading to increased gambling harm. Paragraph 2.68 says:

“Overall, the existing evidence on the causal link between increasing the number of gaming machines in casinos and harm is inconclusive”.


So it is not convinced. It goes on:

“Although we have data on gaming machine participation rates and harm, we are unable to confidently state the nature of the causal connection between the two”.


This evidence that we have, the most useful bits of it blacked out, suggests that even the Government are not sure about the level of harm.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Media Bill

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Lords Chamber

Now is a golden opportunity for the Minister to show that the Government believe in levelling up. I ask them to help local people find out about their local area on a local radio by whatever means works for them, not for Ofcom.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, it is an extremely surreal moment to stand up just as the Prime Minister is about to walk out of the door of No. 10, maybe to announce a general election for 4 July. Of course, if that does happen it means we will be dealing with these very important issues during the wash-up process.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

I just wanted to let the noble Lord know that Downing Street is delaying the announcement for 10 minutes so that we can hear his speech in full.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

I am always grateful for suggestions from my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey.

The amendments that have already been debated are extremely important. I am particularly grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, for explaining the somewhat complex details surrounding the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. These amendments are really important in the context of going back to the sort of local radio stations we used to enjoy. He is also right to point out that a number of our debates have already demonstrated how important it is for Parliament to give a clear direction to Ofcom about its various activities.

I will concentrate on my Amendments 75 and 76. On Monday, I referred to the vital importance of Sections 319 and 320 of the Communications Act in creating an impartiality framework for TV and radio, building on earlier ones. That tradition of impartiality is the basis for the very high level of trust in our broadcast journalists—a tradition as vital for radio as it is for television. As I said on Monday, in an era of disinformation and conspiracy theories, spread so easily and quickly via social media, those impartiality requirements and the trust they engender in broadcast news and information are more important than ever. However, they are now under threat from a combination of a new generation of opinionated news stations and what appears to be the increasing reluctance of Ofcom to implement Parliament’s will.

Those impartiality rules, laid down by Parliament in 2003, are very clear. Section 319(2)(c) of the Act lays down that one of the standards objectives to be enforced by Ofcom is that

“news included in television and radio services is presented with due impartiality and that the impartiality requirements of section 320 are complied with”.

Section 320 states clearly that, for every radio and television service, due impartiality must be preserved in—this is critical—

“matters of political or industrial controversy; and … matters relating to current public policy”.

In simple terms, I believe that means that the due impartiality requirements must apply equally to both news and what we might call current affairs.

Recently, however, Ofcom seems to be making a distinction, allowing greater latitude for current affairs programmes to escape the due impartiality requirement. The distinction was first raised on 21 March last year in an Ofcom blog posted by its then group director for broadcasting and online content, Kevin Bakhurst. It was headlined, “Can politicians present TV and radio shows? How our rules apply”. Mr Bakhurst stated that,

“generally speaking, if it’s a news programme, a politician cannot present”,

but

“They are allowed to present other kinds of shows … including current affairs”.


Yet that distinction between news and current affairs appears nowhere in the relevant statute; nor did it appear in Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code or in the guidance that accompanies the code, yet Ofcom now clearly sees a distinction.

Last month, looking further into the issue of politicians presenting programmes, Ofcom commissioned IPSOS to carry out some focus groups among audiences. One of the conclusions in the IPSOS report was:

“Participants thought they could easily distinguish between news and current affairs … However, in practice, the presentation and style of these types of content blurred the line between news and current affairs which confused participants”.


IPSOS concluded that:

“The most prevalent opinion was feeling uncomfortable with politicians presenting current affairs content”.


While Ofcom appears to want news and current affairs to be treated separately, audiences have difficulty distinguishing between the two, so, just as the 2003 Act intended, news and current affairs programmes should both be covered by Sections 319 and 320 of the Act. The arbitrary distinction that Ofcom appears to have made between news and current affairs has no basis in law. After all, both quite clearly relate to

“matters of political or industrial controversy; and … matters relating to current public policy”.

Were the distinction to continue, it would significantly weaken the impartiality framework, so Amendment 75 makes it clear that Parliament always intended news to incorporate current affairs, in line with audience expectations.

This brings us back to the issue about partisan presenters. We have some outstanding radio show presenters with well-known political allegiances, including some from this House. I mention in passing the excellent programmes on Times Radio presented by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and the newly ennobled noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika. We would not want to banish them from the air waves any more than we would want to banish, say, Nigel Farage from GB News. We are a liberal democracy, and we want to protect those contributions, but surely only if their shows live up to the same standards of impartiality required for news programmes.

Given the very high trust that audiences have invested in our broadcast services, as well as the clear audience discomfort with politically partisan presenters, we should seriously consider whether additional impartiality guardrails might be necessary for programmes hosted by well-known figures with well-recognised political allegiances. Amendment 76 addresses the rules around partisan presenters, whether on news or current affairs programmes, and it offers the simple proposal that the Secretary of State should review whether an enhanced duty of impartiality for such presenters might be necessary. The current rules around impartiality should not be allowed to be weakened by a regulator, certainly not without Parliament’s permission. Taken together, Amendment 75 and 76 seek to protect the legacy of trust which our broadcast media has taken decades to construct and which must not carelessly be disregarded.

--- Later in debate ---

There is clearly a balance to strike here, and it is right that Ofcom, as the independent regulator, retains the flexibility to keep these matters under review and to take a decision based on the best and most up-to-date evidence, rather than being unduly restricted in legislation.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

The Minister is missing the fundamental point. There is a simple question: does he believe, and is it the Government’s view, that the due impartiality regulations contained in Sections 319 and 320 of the Communications Act apply to both news and current affairs programmes?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I will happily write to the noble Lord with more detail on that, but we think the Bill strikes the right balance.

--- Later in debate ---

I want the fast-growing online radio channels to be a huge success, easily and universally accessible. The Minister has been very generous with his time, and met me twice about other concerns in the Bill. I ask him to meet me again, so that we can work together to make Part 6 of the Bill as effective and future-proofed as it possibly can be.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, which suggests that there should be a post-enactment review by the Secretary of State as to whether radio selection services should be extended to other devices. I fully support the case that he has made.

Amendment 81, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, gives us an example of some of the things that need to be done and included in the Bill. His amendment, which seeks to extend the protections outlined in the Bill, would help future-proof the legislation and ensure that it keeps pace with rapidly changing audio-consumption habits. It is worth pointing out that this change was a key recommendation from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee during its pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Media Bill last year. Amendment 77, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, which seeks to expand the scope of the regulation to cover non-voice-activated in-car infotainment systems, is another very good example of something that should be done now.

There is another area that should be addressed in the Bill that is covered by my Amendments 79 and 80. Amendment 79 would require voice assistant platforms to share data with broadcasters on the use of their radio services, and Amendment 80 would prevent tech platforms charging broadcasters for that data. The free flow of data is crucial—for commercial radio, community radio and even the BBC—in order to create a direct relationship between the listener, broadcasters and, in the case of commercial organisations, advertisers, to help them exist and grow.

Tech platforms are currently not obliged to share data with radio broadcasters on the distribution of their audio services. Any personal data shared between tech platforms and broadcasters would of course need to be subject to user consent and compliant with data protection legislation. Following consent, better access to data can help drive innovation in radio and audio services, unlocking new levels of personalisation and curation for the benefit of audiences. It is also vital for commercial radio broadcasters, as they depend on advertising revenues for their survival. Increased data transparency will therefore support commercial broadcasters of all sizes in taking advantage of targeted advertising, which is more attractive to advertisers and can command a higher price. In the long term, that would help to support the sustainability of the commercial radio sector as it becomes more reliant on online listening.

Access to data is currently inconsistent between tech platforms. For example, while Google and Apple provide virtually no data at all to radio broadcasters, Amazon provides some limited data through its Radio Skills Kit platform. However, there are important user insights that are not provided—such as age, gender, location and other interests—which would support the development of more personalised content.

This amendment would ensure a minimum standard for consistent, high-quality data to be shared with radio broadcasters by regulated radio selection services. It would also secure a minimum level of data access for all broadcasters, ensuring that tech platforms cannot engage in gatekeeping behaviours by revoking data access and/or charging broadcasters for the provision of that data. Without intervention, broadcasters will be at a disadvantage compared with the tech platforms, which have access to all the data generated by the listeners of UK radio on their voice-activated devices. In the long term, there is a risk that that data asymmetry could undermine the clear benefits that the Bill brings in levelling the playing field between UK radio broad- casters and large tech platforms.

There is a clear benefit to including data provisions in media sector-specific legislation, as they provide the most relevant opportunity to legislate for the specific challenges facing the media sector, without placing disproportionate burdens on the platforms to make significant changes to their data policies across all aspects of their businesses. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response not only to these proposals but to the others we have already heard.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

As noble Lords have recognised, the provisions in Part 6 of the Bill are designed to secure the ongoing availability to listeners of UK radio services and will help to maintain the huge public value that radio provides as online listening continues to grow.

Turning first to Amendment 77 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, the Government fully recognise how important it is that radio continues to maintain its presence in the car. On the provisions in the Bill, I confirm that, where a radio selection service using an in-car device is voice-activated and connected to the internet, it will fall within the definition of a “radio selection service” for the purposes of Part 6. Indeed, that is further clarified by new Section 362BB(2), which ensures that the assessment of whether the use of a radio selection service is significant can take account of specific usages, including the level of radio listening via that platform that takes place in a vehicle. Therefore, should a selection service have significant usage among in-car listeners, it would be subject to potential designation under this part of the Bill.

However, it is correct that there are no requirements on car manufacturers more generally, as the measures are focused on designated platforms that provide a radio selection service. Amendment 77 would extend the definition of “radio selection service” to include services not connected to the internet but accessed via the in-car system provided by car manufacturers. We are not persuaded that it is necessary to extend specific regulatory protections further, given that the evolution of systems and their integration into cars is ongoing, and given the progress made by the radio industry in the UK and across Europe in securing partnerships with car manufacturers and platforms.

However, we recognise that ensuring continued access to radio in the car will be an important part of the review of the radio market in 2026—to which the Government committed in their response to the digital radio and audio review of April 2022—and we will continue to keep the matter under consideration. New Section 362BA also contains powers to amend the definition of a radio selection service, if needed in future, as listening habits change. While I thank the noble Baroness for the opportunity to set that all out, I hope she will be satisfied and willing to withdraw her amendment.

Turning to Amendment 78, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, I agree with the sentiment that the definition of a radio selection service could change as technology evolves and listening habits change. New Section 362BA also contains powers to amend the definition of a radio selection service, if needed in future. That could include amending the definition to include different ways in which radio stations are selected if a clear need arises in future. As I mentioned earlier, in their response to the digital radio and audio review, the Government committed to a further review of the market in 2026, and the growth and direction of online listening will be an important part of that review. While I am happy to talk to the noble Viscount, if he wishes, I think he will have discerned our reservations about the need for what he proposes, and I hope he will be content to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I will just speak briefly, because I know that we want to get to Front-Bench spokesmen. A lot of detailed arguments have been advanced by those who have tabled amendments in this group and I think they reflect the detailed nature of the measures proposed. I have listened to those arguments and also heard some of the examples of people who have had bad experiences of the media. I sympathise with a lot of what has been said but, when it comes to matters of principle—and I believe that freedom of the press is a matter of principle—I also have the view that there are some circles that cannot be squared.

It is worth us just remembering that, only a couple of months ago, when we were debating foreign power ownership, Lord Ashcroft did a poll which showed that two-thirds of British people do care about freedom of the press. I think we can all agree that people might not always love or approve of everything done in or by the British media, but the principle of a free press, free from government interference, is something that matters to them. I believe it is a principle that serves the public interest and therefore one that Parliament must uphold. For that reason, I cannot support any of the amendments in this group and I will support my noble friend the Minister in resisting them.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I begin by saying that, while I disagree with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Black, said, I agree entirely with him in his view that this Bill is not the right place for discussing Section 40. I am enormously grateful for the best wishes for a speedy recovery that have been passed to my noble friend Lord McNally and I know that he is bitterly disappointed that he cannot be here. He would have been proposing a very simple way forward —that Clause 50 should not stand part of the Bill. The implication of that would, of course, have been that Section 40 would have continued to be on the statute book. But he would have gone a stage further and argued that it would be certainly the view of these Benches that it should not only be retained on the statute book but also should have been implemented.

There have been all sorts of debates about and criticisms of the proposal that came from Sir Brian Leveson. We should accept that a great debt needs to be paid to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for the way in which she has forensically gone through many of those criticisms and debunked them. The one criticism that has not been debunked by her is that it is no longer necessary to have protection of the type that was proposed by Leveson because there is not really a problem now with what the press is doing. I think the noble Lord, Lord Watts, put it very clearly: there are still many examples of wrongdoing by the press. We need to be well aware of the implications of removing Section 40. There would be virtually no access to justice for victims of press wrongdoing. Ordinary people who find themselves defamed, have their privacy invaded or their grief intruded on by wealthy and powerful newspapers in search of higher circulation or clickbait will find themselves virtually helpless.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, may well be right that the degree of wrongdoing has reduced. That does not alter the fact that it still exists and there needs to be a mechanism to help in particular those who do not have deep pockets to ensure that they can get justice. Therefore, it requires the Government—were they to be continuing—to make very clear what their alternative is to provide the protection for those very people. There may not now be the opportunity, given the announcement about the forthcoming election.

We have heard many alternative solutions put forward in the various amendments before us today. There is not now time to go through all the detail. So, on these Benches, we are very clear that the best way forward now would be for the Government to accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Black, that this is not the right place for a discussion of Section 40, that Section 40 should remain on the statute book and that a future Government—whichever party is in charge—should have an opportunity to discuss the right way forward to continue to provide the protection that is still going to be needed. I give way.

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

Can I just make it clear that I did not say that this was not the place to deal with Section 40? I said this was not the place to open a whole debate about self-regulation. I was crystal clear that Section 40 needs to go in its entirety and I hope its repeal will go through with this Bill immediately.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

I apologise profusely to the noble Lord if I misquoted him. Let me say therefore that it is very firmly my view that this Bill is not the right place for a discussion of Section 40 and all the ramifications.

With those relatively few remarks, I very much hope that the Government will consider that the removal of Section 40 should not form part of this Bill, should not form part of the wash-up discussions and should just be kept as it is and we can debate it at a future date, whether we are on the same side of the Chamber or the opposite side.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have already spoken, outlining their rich and often diverging views on this important clause. I understand completely that there are very different views around the Chamber and we have heard them for the last hour or so. I will outline the Opposition’s view on Clause 50 and Section 40.

The Leveson report is now over a decade old. Responding to, rightly, the concerns of the time, Brian Leveson’s aims were to balance the competing concerns of protecting the free press—which the noble Lord, Lord Black, spoke eloquently about—while ensuring high press standards. We have heard noble Lords championing those during the debate this afternoon.

Therefore, while the inquiry helped bring about a press regulator, it did not enforce mandatory membership for news publishers. Rather, it made membership voluntary but introduced incentives for publishers to join, including consequences if they did not. Section 40, which has never been commenced, would make publishers who had not signed up to the regulator vulnerable to paying the costs of those they face in legal cases even if the wider case was ruled in their favour. Press groups have long pointed out the impact this imbalance would have on their ability to undertake free and fair reporting.

The media landscape is now much changed, although some of the issues that were present then clearly are today. It is to be expected that that would be the case some 10 years on. Challenges from the rise of social media, online consumption of media and the consequences of falling advertising revenue mean that we have seen a significant impact on the ability of the press to compete in the market and undertake its vital work.

Additionally, a self-regulatory system for the press now exists—something not anticipated ahead of the creation of Section 40 in the 2013 Act. This alone makes the situation different from 2013 and, taken together, these changes mean that it is right that Section 40 should not remain in the Act as it is. Thus, and for those reasons, we cannot support the clause stand part proposition tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and so ably and so colourfully supported by my noble friend Lord Lipsey.

On Amendment 87A from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his contribution, but we are unable to support his amendment. I know he will be disappointed at that and he made very powerful arguments and a powerful case in putting his amendment to the House.

In our view, Amendment 87A risks wrapping up publications in sometimes spurious legal disputes and opening the door to sometimes repeated and vexatious claims. It would also put the onus of determining factual inaccuracies on the High Court. We do not believe that to be the right place for this to happen.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, as ever, for her carefully thought-through contribution. I pay tribute to her for the work that she has done, very ably and passionately, over many years. Outside your Lordships’ House, I look forward to digesting what Brian Leveson has had to say on this issue and, by extension, his contribution to this important debate. I shall speak to one of the noble Baroness’s amendments in particular: Amendment 84 presents an advantage in keeping parts of Section 40 that provide positive incentives to join a regulator and protections for those that do, while removing the part of Section 40 that has caused so much concern. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Foster of Bath]

88: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“OFCOM Chair discharging duties under this Act(1) Before appointing an individual as Chair of OFCOM, the Secretary of State must ensure that their preferred candidate appears before relevant select committees of both Houses of Parliament to set out how they would discharge their duties under this Act.(2) If a relevant select committee of either House publishes a report concluding that the candidate should not be appointed, and the Secretary of State decides to proceed with the appointment, they must make a statement to either House about why they are proceeding with the appointment, including but not limited to—(a) an assessment of that candidate’s ability to act independently in discharging their duties under this Act, and(b) a response to any findings or recommendations made in a report by a relevant select committee.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to increase parliamentary scrutiny of proposed OFCOM chairs in discharging their duties under this Act.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, we have spent a great deal of time during discussions on this Bill quite rightly talking about Ofcom—its duties and its vital role in supporting our creative industries and in protecting the public. Its primary purpose remains as laid down in the Communications Act 2003: to protect the interests of citizens and consumers. However, in recent years, it has become something of the proverbial Christmas tree on which we have chosen to hang a procession of new regulatory burdens and responsibilities, from regulating the BBC to overseeing online safety.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. I will address Amendment 88 first. The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, brought up an important point about Ofcom’s impartiality and the process for appointing its chairman. I join him in commending the noble Lord, Lord Grade of Yarmouth, the current chairman, on his ongoing work to steer Ofcom through a time of great regulatory change—I acknowledge the change that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, alluded to in her closing remarks. As the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said, he draws on his extensive expertise in the sector.

Given the trust we place in Ofcom to regulate our media sector, its independence and impartiality are of paramount importance. To that end, the existing processes ensure that the appointment of the Ofcom chairman is designed to give effect to just those objectives. The chairman is appointed by the Secretary of State following a fair and open competition. This appointment is regulated by the office for the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The chairman of Ofcom is designated as a significant appointment by the commissioner. This means that the advisory assessment panel, which advises the Secretary of State, must have a senior independent panel member to ensure its impartiality. This member must be independent of the appointing department and must not be politically active.

The parliamentary scrutiny of this process was enhanced in the update to the Governance Code on Public Appointments in February this year. The updated guidance specifies that, should the responsible Minister not follow the advice of the advisory assessment panel, she or he is required to write to the chairman of the Select Committee when she or he announces the chosen candidate, and must appear before the Select Committee if requested to do so.

Furthermore, the chosen candidate is required to appear before the Select Committee before he or she is appointed. These new processes, which I hope the noble Lord agrees will help to address many of the concerns he raised, will apply to all future appointments to the role. We believe that this process ensures robust scrutiny and promotes Ofcom’s independence. I appreciate the noble Lord’s intention in tabling this amendment and agree with him about the importance of the topic it covers, but, given that this process was updated as recently as February, I consider his amendment unnecessary and hope that he will be happy to withdraw it.

I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for Amendments 90 and 91 relating to Ofcom reporting. Ofcom has been regulating television and radio broadcasters since 2003, and we have confidence in its ability to continue to do so in the face of the changes brought about by the Bill. I appreciate what lies behind their amendments, which would ensure that the scope of the regulator’s functions, powers and duties—as well as its resources and capacity to deliver on its programme of work—is regularly reviewed. I am glad to say that there are already existing legislative requirements for Ofcom to report annually on how it carries out its functions. This information is published and laid before both Houses of Parliament, allowing the public and Parliament alike an opportunity for scrutiny.

In particular, Ofcom is already required to prepare a report on the carrying out of its functions each financial year, under paragraph 12 of the Schedule to the Office for Communications Act 2002. This includes reporting on its work, performance and finances, as well as any other matters requested by the Secretary of State. The last such report was published last July. This existing requirement combines some of the issues featured in the noble Lord’s and the noble Baroness’s amendments. More widely, it allows Ofcom to give a complete overview of its work. I hope that will reassure them.

On the noble Lord’s particular questions, the approach we have taken in the Bill is in line with that of other legislation. We have set out clearly defined principles that we want Ofcom to regulate against, and we have provided it with the tools it needs to do the job. On granular decision-making, it is right that Ofcom make these decisions. It has considerable sectoral expertise and is in the best place to judge the impact of its regulatory decisions. Off the back of the Bill, it will run 11 consultations, which will give a wide range of interested parties in the industry and beyond an opportunity to feed into its operational decision-making. Ultimately, Ofcom is in turn accountable to Parliament in the ways I set out earlier in Committee.

It is crucial that we protect Ofcom’s role as an independent regulator and give it the discretion to do its job. That is the approach we have taken in the Bill. We want to avoid a situation where a huge amount of parliamentary time is taken up making granular decisions about what is on our televisions. Rather, Parliament should set the direction and Ofcom can regulate accordingly, and broadcasters can continue to operate independently in their editorial decisions.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

I am grateful for the Minister giving way, but I wonder whether he can answer the fundamental question that I asked him. Quite simply, if he is saying that the driving documents, if you like, are the royal charter and the licences, what is the mechanism by which Parliament has an opportunity to discuss and amend them, if it so chooses? I also point out that he may have an opportunity, since the noble Lord, Lord Grade, is now in his place, to reiterate the huge praise that has been heaped on the noble Lord’s head in his absence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

I am most grateful to the Minister for the very helpful response that he has given. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 88 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches, we wholeheartedly support Amendment 89 and the case made for it by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I sense that this debate is coming rapidly to a close. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, has doggedly pursued this issue with others and I wholeheartedly congratulate her on her determination to ensure that we maintain a free and fair press without foreign intervention.

This amendment takes the noble Baroness’s critique of foreign state ownership a stage further by seeking to review the impact of the measure on UK broadcasters. Obviously, government should always keep under careful consideration and review the impact of particular policies. This will, I suspect, be a feature of debate from time to time. We need to consider the impact of foreign ownership on all news media outlets, not just the press, and we need to understand, and protect our press from, undue interference. We have made it clear on our Benches, throughout the debates on the future of the Telegraph Group, that we are fully committed to upholding press freedom and the independence of all news outlets.

We cannot tolerate external interference in the politics of our country; that does not really need underlining much more on a day like today. At a time when the media are often being attacked by the exercise of deepfakes, this vital principle takes on a new importance. We need to ensure in the future, as much as we can, that our democracy is protected. A free and independent press and broadcasting sector is key to that, so I hope the Minister will give a considered response to that point.

I particularly pick up on the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, about regulations relating to the amendments we recently passed to another Bill. I do not think they are otiose, despite the calling of an election. They will be important in the future, and she is right to insist that work should be carried on to ensure that they are properly and correctly drafted so that they can be reviewed when a new Government are in place. Her point on the Ofcom review of ownership rules, which is to commence in November, is an important insight and one that we clearly all need to concentrate on and give some thought to while we go through the electoral process.

I am going to go slightly off-piste here before we conclude this debate and thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for the time that he and I have spent together across the Dispatch Box and for the courtesies he has extended to me, my noble friend Lady Thornton and other colleagues during the passage of this legislation. I particularly enjoyed the contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and, although she is not in her place, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, for her continued and assiduous interest in this. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, who is a powerful and important voice in your Lordships’ Chamber.

I suspect we will not have much more debate on the Media Bill, wash-up being the vicious process that it is, but we on these Benches have been happy to support it in the main. I am sorry we will not have the opportunity to give it a bit more detailed scrutiny on Report, but that is the nature of how we do our business. I thank the Minister for his attention to this, and I look forward to listening to his response.

Media Bill

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 20th May 2024 Lords Chamber

I confess that the final amendment is merely a probing amendment, after having noted that there was a difference between the broadcast standards code and the tier 1 standards code where the former includes a ban on subliminal programming or advertising. The tier 1 standards code does not include the same language, and I want to know from my noble friend why that is the case. Even though it might be that the broadcasting code provision has never been used, as it prohibits harmful broadcasting and therefore it is all okay, I am slightly worried that anybody looking at the legislation might say that it is included in the broadcast code but not in the tier 1 standards code and therefore there must be some statutory distinction made between the two codes. I do not think that should be the case. If subliminal material, programming and advertising are prohibited on broadcasting, they should be prohibited on tier 1 services as well. Amendment 58 merely asks that question of my noble friend.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I begin by saying to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that I am very supportive of her Amendment 35. Perhaps like her, I have had communications over several years from the campaign, Turn On The Subtitles, which is doing extremely good work in drawing attention to the way in which putting subtitles on by default and allowing people to be able to turn them off if they wish has been shown to provide huge benefit to children’s learning of reading.

I also say a huge thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. He and I had a brief chat the other day about his amendments. I went away and had to put a wet towel over my head in a darkened room to try to understand them, and I did not get very far. I am enormously grateful that, today, I understood the arguments that he is making. They are very much in support of my Amendment 70.

My amendment seeks to apply the Ofcom standards code—which, as we have heard, is described in Section 319 of the Communications Act—to all on-demand programme services, to ensure that there is a consistency in standards objectives across all platforms. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that we need to find ways to bring the Broadcasting Code and the current tier 1 standards code into unison. The problem is that Schedule 7, as currently drafted, will apply those standards only to tier 1 services, leaving a wide range of on-demand services entirely unregulated. It is worth recalling that the senior executive in charge of implementing the first system of VOD regulation at Ofcom, Trevor Barnes, warned last month:

“The Culture Secretary is given very wide discretion to decide who is, and who is not, caught in the Tier 1 net”.


The amendment removes that discretion and, therefore, offers far greater public protection.

As we have heard, Section 319 encompasses a broad range of standards objectives, including protection for children and protection from material that might cause harm and offence, but I will focus on Sections 319(2)(c) and 319(2)(d), which require that news be

“presented with due impartiality and … due accuracy”,

and, further, that the special

“impartiality requirements of section 320”

be applied—namely, that every TV and radio service must preserve due impartiality on

“matters of political or industrial controversy; and … matters relating to current public policy”.

Those requirements date back to the very beginning of commercial TV in 1954 and have ensured that we have had a highly trusted broadcast media environment that has, so far, resisted the kinds of disinformation and polarisation that is so prevalent in online information services. Preserving that trusted environment not only depends on Parliament legislating for impartiality but requires a regulator that is prepared to do its job robustly and to implement that legislation without fear or favour. For most of its 20 years in regulating the linear world, Ofcom has done just that.

But here there is a spoiler alert—I note that the current chairman of Ofcom, the noble Lord, Lord Grade of Yarmouth, is in his place, and I suspect that he will not be particularly comfortable with the view that I hold. I think it is a matter of concern that, more recently, Ofcom does not seem to apply those rules with the rigour that Parliament has required, particularly in respect of GB News. Two examples will illustrate the problem, but there are many that I could have given.

On 13 January, the GB News presenter Neil Oliver used his programme to link Covid vaccines to the non-existent disease of “turbo cancer”, a wholly fictitious medical condition beloved by conspiracy theorists. That kind of dangerous disinformation, which went entirely unopposed on the GB News programme, should have been a slam dunk for a regulator charged with ensuring both accuracy and impartiality on licensed broadcasters. A month later, after multiple complaints, Ofcom delivered its verdict:

“In line with freedom of expression, our rules allow broadcasters to cover controversial themes and topics … We recognise that these brief comments were the presenter’s personal view and did not materially mislead the audience. We therefore will not be pursuing this further”.


It did not even bother with an investigation.

Last month, the same presenter hosted a journalist, Jasmine Birtles, who suggested that action against climate change was part of a “depopulation agenda” designed to

“remove 7.5 billion people from the world”.

There was no contrary view from either the presenter or other guests on the show. What was Ofcom’s response? It simply announced on its website that the programme

“did not raise issues warranting investigation”.

When challenged, it responded that the views expressed on the show

“were clearly presented as a personal opinion, consistent with the right to freedom of expression”.

I suspect that we all support the idea of freedom of expression—it is an Article 10 right—but there is no conflict between that right and an impartiality regime that ensures that all sides of any controversial matter are freely presented. That is the law of the land, and it needs to be upheld in both the linear and on-demand worlds.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Foster of Bath]

57: After Clause 37, insert the following new Clause—
“Age rating standardsWhere Tier 1 providers use an age rating or other classification system to comply with the duties imposed on them by or under this Act for the protection of audiences from harm, they must—(a) apply the age rating or classification system used by the video works authority based on their classification guidelines, or(b) apply an age rating or classification system that is judged by OFCOM to be—(i) based on a transparent set of appropriate standards,(ii) applied consistently across content,(iii) informed by regular consultation with the UK public, and(iv) well understood and recognised by the public.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause seeks to ensure that, where age ratings are used by Video on Demand platforms, those ratings are the same as the ones used by the British Board of Film Classification or meet equivalent standards of rigour, transparency, and objectivity.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Storey and with his permission, I move Amendment 57. It seeks to ensure that, where age ratings are used by video on demand channels—and I of course acknowledge that some adopt a different approach to audience protection—the ratings are the same as the ones used by the British Board of Film Classification or meet equivalent standards of rigour, transparency and objectivity. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, who has worked tirelessly on this issue and whose amendments, while having the same effect as Amendment 57, provide much more detail on the procedures to be followed. We on these Benches support them, and the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton.

I welcome the Bill’s proposal to improve audience protection on streaming services through Ofcom reviews, but my concern is that the Bill does not specify on what basis Ofcom should consider measures to be adequate—echoing the point I made earlier on the need for Parliament to have a greater say in guiding Ofcom on the way it carries out its functions. This is a particular problem when it comes to age ratings, as not all age ratings are equally effective for child protection. The present lack of consistency risks undermining public confidence in age ratings in general and I know there is an unusual level of cross-party support on this particular issue.

In the ideal world—as I see it—all streaming content would carry a BBFC age rating. We expect this of cinema and DVD releases, so why not streaming? Netflix, Amazon, Apple and many others have demonstrated that this is achievable. However, in the interests of achieving consensus, at the very least there should be minimum standards to ensure greater consistency where services choose to use age ratings. This is essentially what all the amendments in this group seek to achieve. BBFC ratings are rightly trusted and valued by UK families. The BBFC is designated by the Government, accountable to Parliament and legally bound to take UK public opinion into account, which it does through extensive research. The BBFC is also fully transparent. It publishes its guidelines and provides detailed content advice to help families make informed choices. This is essential to the effectiveness of its ratings.

Streamers working with the BBFC automatically benefit from its transparency and consistency and from the massive public trust it enjoys. Netflix viewers understand what a 12 or a 15 means on Netflix because it means exactly the same thing as in cinemas or on DVD. I have looked at some of the services that do not use BBFC ratings, including Disney+, Paramount+ and Sky’s Now service. I did not find any information on their age rating criteria, nor any evidence of research underpinning their standards. The ratings these services apply are often misaligned with UK expectations. Even where films and series have a legally enforceable BBFC rating, they often choose to apply—bizarrely—a different rating. How can parents know which rating to trust when the BBFC says one thing and Disney says something different?

To give an example: “Beauty and the Beast”, the 2017 live action remake, was a PG in the cinemas and on DVD. It remains a PG online on those streamers that are working with the BBFC, including Amazon Prime and Apple TV, but on Disney+, for some reason, it has been reclassified as a 12+. Another example is “Bohemian Rhapsody”, the Freddie Mercury biopic. This has a BBFC rating of 12. Many families will have enjoyed it together at the cinema. It remains a 12 on Amazon, Apple and the other services that work with the BBFC, but on Disney+ it is 16+. This means that, if a parent wants to let their 12 year-old watch a film that is entirely appropriate for them, they need to set the child’s Disney+ profile to access 16+ content—but that would include many titles with a BBFC rating of 15 or 18.

At the same time, Disney classified a very sinister 2019 adaptation of “A Christmas Carol” involving graphic horror scenes and sexual exploitation as a 9+. While Disney subsequently took this title down, it was a serious compliance failure when it was released with this rating in the first place. But Disney+ is not the only offender. On Paramount+, titles rated BBFC 12 are routinely bumped up to 15+, putting them alongside much stronger material. Do family favourites such as “Mean Girls”, “Top Gun: Maverick” and various titles in the Transformers series really belong alongside violent thrillers and gory horror movies?

--- Later in debate ---

By contrast, these amendments risk putting unnecessary restrictions on Ofcom and could, in effect, preclude change or any new forms of age rating entering the market, undermining the good progress that has already been made. I am sure that is not what my noble friend or other noble Lords would want to see. However, I appreciate the concerns that lie behind the amendments they have put forward; those are weighty concerns indeed. We have committed to listen to the interested parties on this debate, and we will continue to do that as the Bill progresses.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the Minister for his detailed response. Clearly, this is an issue we are very likely to return to on Report.

I have a couple of quick points the Minister might ponder on. He told us that Ofcom will be responsible for drafting the video on demand code. He said that will lead to Ofcom having extensive powers. But I am still left wondering how Ofcom is going to be made aware of the views of Parliament as it comes to draw up the code. How will we have any say in that code before it is finally put into place?

I confess that there were a couple of things the Minister said that slightly worried me. In response to a very simple amendment, which asked that one of Ofcom’s statutory consultees would be the BBFC, the Minister said, “We have discovered that Ofcom and the BBFC meet regularly”. I am sure they do, and I am delighted, but this Bill is meant to be future-proof and things could change later. I cannot understand why, if they meet regularly anyway, the BBFC cannot be listed as a statutory consultee.

Finally, it was slightly odd, given all the powers Ofcom has and how it will be able to do all this work, that when it comes to accrediting those who choose not to use an age-rating system, the Minister’s response appeared to be that Ofcom has too much on to take on that responsibility. I thought that was slightly odd. As I said, we are grateful to the Minister for his response, and I am certain we will be returning to this issue at a later date.

Amendment 57 withdrawn.

Media Bill

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 8th May 2024 Lords Chamber

The last Communications Act was in 2003, over 20 years ago. The next one may well not be for another 20 years. It is our duty, in a very fast-changing media landscape, to future-proof our precious PSB system so that it remains distinctive and British, not just a poor imitation of the American-owned global broadcasters that dominate our digital channels. I ask the Minister, on behalf of the viewers of this country, to support Amendment 9, which would ensure that we have a British television industry to be proud of well into the future.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I hope it was fairly clear from what I said at Second Reading that I would be very likely to support the amendments that we heard in the first group and, in particular, to support Amendment 9, which has just been so powerfully introduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville.

Many of us at Second Reading, as has been reiterated already today, believed that we had a very good understanding of what a PSB was from the Communications Act 2003. Our fear is that the Bill that is now before us is much less clear because of the changes that have been made to that Act, removing the Reithian values and removing the list of genres—from music to the arts, from science to religion. All we now have is a vague requirement of a range of appropriate genres.

These points have already been well made in our deliberations today, so I will not repeat the arguments for them. I wish to pick up just one point: namely, where does Parliament have any say in the future in what will happen to our public service broadcasters? From the debates that have taken place both in this House, at Second Reading, and in the other place, we know that one of the Government’s arguments about this streamlined arrangement for PSBs is that we should not be worried because, as far as the BBC is concerned, much more detail will be provided within the royal charter and, for the other public service broadcasters, it will be provided for within the licences. However, I asked a question at Second Reading to which I did not get an answer. It was a simple one: does Parliament have any say whatever in the royal charter or the licence agreement? My understanding is that the answer is no. I hope that, when the Minister responds on this group, he will confirm that I am correct, and I hope that, in doing so, he will acknowledge that that argument means, therefore, that there is no opportunity for Parliament to have a say on this important issue.

In response to the first group of amendments, the Minister told us that there was a second way in which we need not be concerned. He told us about the rather pointless, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, pointed out, five-yearly “high-level”—as the Minister called it—review, because so much would have changed. He pointed quite rightly, however, to the annual report that Ofcom would have to do, collecting the annual statistics on the genres covered. We should get some confidence from that, because he pointed out that that is contained in Section 358 of the Communications Act, which will be continued.

Well, I had a look at Section 358, which talks about annual reports with statistics on the genres covered, but I noted that, very interestingly, that Section 358(3) states:

“In carrying out a review … OFCOM must consider, in particular, each of the following”—


and the first is

“(a) the extent to which programmes included during that period in television and radio services are representative of what OFCOM consider to be the principal genres for such programmes”.

So Parliament is not going to have a say there, either.

We look to the Bill itself, which also talks about the new streamlined way in which the whole approach to PSBs is set out and how Ofcom will review it. Clause 1(5)(b) states that the requirements of this subsection are

“that the audiovisual content made available by the public service broadcasters (taken together) includes what appears to OFCOM to be … a sufficient quantity of audiovisual content that reflects the lives and concerns of different communities”—

and so on. So, yet again, we have a Bill before us that refers back to a previous Bill and also to something where Ofcom is making decisions on issues in which Parliament has not had the opportunity to be involved.

These amendments are the only opportunity for Parliament to have its say. I, for one, strongly believe that we need to give very clear guidance to Ofcom on what Parliament believes is the appropriate role for a for a public service broadcaster. This amendment gives that very clearly. It would reinstate what was contained within the Communications Act 2003. I very much hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept not only the amendment but the legitimate role that Parliament has in saying what it believes should be the guidance given to Ofcom for the review that it carries out into the nature of our public service broadcasters.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, I too have added my name to Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, which, as he has explained, seeks to define what an “appropriate range of genres” actually is. What worries me is that his amendment has a list and, without that, I do not think that there is any definition of what we think an appropriate range should be.

We are not alone in believing that new subsection (6) is inadequate in its lack of clarity over both what an appropriate range of genres is and how it is going to be monitored by Ofcom. Concerns have been expressed through briefings to noble Lords from the Citizens’ PSM Forum, which welcomes and endorses these amendments. The only change that I suggest is that instead of “religion and other beliefs”, I would prefer “religion and other faiths”, as I think that will ensure that conspiracy theories and the like are not accidently captured by this.

Gambling Advertising

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Foster of Bath]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship on problem gambling, and in particular the risk posed by the exposure of children to gambling advertising.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords, including the Minister, who are taking part in this debate. I declare my interest as chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform, which was set up to press for the implementation of the recommendations made by the Lords committee on gambling. I am delighted that very many of those recommendations, either in whole or in part, were included in the Government’s White Paper. However, except for the Gambling Commission taking a closer look at bonus offers such as free bets and spins, and the Premier League’s voluntary ban on front-of-shirt gambling logos, the White Paper proposes very little action in respect of gambling advertising.

The Gambling Act 2005 liberalised gambling advertising, and now on Twitter/X alone there are 1 million UK gambling ads a year. Gambling companies’ annual spend on marketing now exceeds £1.5 billion. As the Lords committee noted, companies would not spend so much if it did not work, leading to more gambling and greater risk of harm. Yet very little action is proposed. Surely any Government should have been worried to read just this weekend in the Observer, under the headline “UK children bombarded by gambling ads and images online”:

“Young people feel their internet activity is overwhelmed by betting promotions and similar content”.


If the Government are not worried, other people certainly are. Opinion polls show that the vast majority of the public want a clamp-down on gambling advertising, including Conservative supporters. A very recent opinion poll found that 77% of Conservative councillors agree that tighter restrictions on gambling advertising would reduce gambling-related harm. With the Government doing very little, others are taking action. In March, Sheffield City Council joined over 80 other English councils in restricting gambling advertising on land, buildings, vehicles and even bus stops, websites and newspapers they own. The Mayor of London says that he intends to end gambling ads across public transport in the city. I hope he gets on with it quickly, as one gambling operator is currently advertising that TfL tube and train carriages are now casinos, with bus-stop ads saying: “Your bus is now a casino”. In sport, the absence of government action has led 35 football clubs to decide to go it alone and join the Big Step’s campaign to end gambling advertising in football. Can the Minister explain why the Government are so out of step with all these voices and seemingly so in step with the gambling industry?

I suspect public concern is about to rise because, in July, the Gambling Commission will release new figures about gambling harm. The Gambling Minister in the other place has already indicated that they are likely to show that 1.3 million people will classify as “problem gamblers” and that a further 6 million are at risk. If confirmed, these figures are far higher than those used to inform the Government’s work on their White Paper. This is a real cause for concern, further strengthening the call for action.

If public opinion does not persuade the Government, there are many other justifications for action, including research evidence. When he responds, I suspect the Minister may be somewhat dismissive of the research and claim—as the White Paper does—that it does not show a causal link between advertising and gambling harm. I am prepared to accept that this is largely true, but it does not mean that the research evidence does not support the case for greater action. Academics are clear that, in social science research, causal links are rarely even possible, but they are equally clear that the research findings justify a much tougher stance against gambling advertising. Some 50 academics recently called for “badly needed” restrictions on the promotion of gambling products. They drew attention especially to the unprecedented numbers of young people being exposed to gambling ads via the internet and television, and concluded that

“it has become quite clear that the gambling products being offered and the ways in which they are promoted are harmful to individual and family health and damaging to national life”.

Reviewing the evidence, the Advertising Standards Authority accepted that some studies were robust enough to support a link between advertising and gambling behaviour. The Government’s White Paper itself points to research showing that gambling advertising and marketing leads to people starting to gamble, to gamble more and to recommence gambling. With all this evidence, it is bizarre that the Government are not taking more action.

Unlike us, other countries do not seem to struggle with the evidence, despite having far less of it. Ipsos and researcher Dr Rossi have identified 496 published research papers about gambling marketing here, which is more than the combined number of similar ones in Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, and Spain. Yet on their evidence they have chosen almost full bans on gambling advertising and sponsorship. Can the Minister explain why the UK Government’s assessment of our evidence is so different from neighbouring countries with similar research findings? Does the Minister really believe that there would be 1.3 million people classified as problem gamblers in the absence of gambling advertising?

Frankly, our Government seem confused. In one breath, they say that action is not justified because there is little causal evidence linking advertising to harm but, in another, without causal evidence, they welcome the removal of gambling logos on the front of football shirts as a harm-reduction policy. The Government’s position simply does not make sense.

The Government have accepted that gambling-related harm should be treated as a public health issue, so they should be adopting the precautionary principle and, on the huge weight of evidence, taking greater action. Yet, the Minister in the Commons said, on advertising causing harm, that,

“if new evidence suggests that we need to go further, we will look at this again”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/24; col. 142WH.]

Can the Minister explain what more the Government need before they will act?

I believe that a public health approach to gambling should lead to significant curbs on advertising and a ban on direct marketing, an end to inducements such as so-called free bets, and the removal of gambling sponsorship in sport.

Time does not permit me to detail all that I think should be done. Noting that estimates suggest that as many as 60,000 children suffer gambling harm, I will end with just one area where I believe urgent action is needed: so-called content marketing, which a Guardian headline recently described as “‘Sneaky’ social media ads … luring young into gambling”. Just one example will suffice. A social media post with the heading, “When the barman asks if you want another one”, is followed by a photo of Liverpool manager Jürgen Klopp giving a thumbs-up. That is all there is to it.

This simple, humorous post was by Paddy Power, but there are literally hundreds of them, using cartoons and famous people, posted online by gambling companies all the time. In just one weekend, online gambling ads received 34 million views. Over half were content marketing. Research shows that such posts are particularly appealing to young people and that followers of gambling companies’ online posts are, disproportionately, young people.

Yet the voluntary code governing advertising says that advertisements should be clearly seen as such. I have met with the ASA, which oversees the code, and shown it numerous examples of content marketing that clearly breach the code. So I hope the Minister will agree that the time has come for a complete review of the code and its enforcement, including deciding whether self-regulation really is the right approach.

It is worrying that so many young people know the names of gambling companies, follow them online, think that gambling is part of growing up and see it as part of the enjoyment of sport. Gambling advertising encourages more people to gamble and to develop gambling harms. The figures are alarming, as are the consequences to individuals and our society. The threat to our children should be enough on its own to compel the Government to act. No primary legislation is required, as the Gambling Act 2005 gives the Secretary of State all the powers she needs to regulate gambling advertising as she sees fit. So my simple question is: will the Government get on and do something?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, and I hope what I have said is none the less helpful in relation to the points she raised in her speech, which I welcome.

We recognise that there is good evidence to show that gambling advertising can have a disproportionate impact on those who are already experiencing problems with their gambling, and that some aggressive marketing practices are particularly associated with harm. The noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, mentioned a study which reflects that.

Evidence from the Gambling Commission shows that 35% of problem gamblers received incentives of offers to gamble daily, compared with 4% of non-problem gamblers. Furthermore, while 10% of gamblers with a “non-problem” or “low-risk” score—according to the problem gambling severity index—were influenced to gamble more by direct marketing, this rose to 41% among those with a “moderate risk” or “problem gambler” score.

We also recognise that content often used in gambling advertising can inappropriately appeal to children and young people—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby raised such an instance. That is why we have introduced a suite of measures to further prevent potentially harmful impacts of advertising, specifically for children. Since October 2022, advertising rules have been strengthened to prohibit content that downplays the risk or overstates the skill involved in betting. The rules also ban content that is likely to be of strong appeal to children. In that regard, I will raise with officials the frog-based example that the right reverend Prelate gave. As a result of this ban, top-flight footballers or celebrities popular with children are banned from being in gambling adverts. In line with existing gambling advertising rules, the Premier League’s decision to ban front-of-shirt sponsorship by gambling firms will commence by the end of the 2025-26 season, breaking the direct association between gambling brands and popular players.

The noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, suggested that there should be warnings to potential players on gambling adverts. Robust Advertising Standards Authority rules prevent content and adverts that, for instance, promote gambling as a route to financial success, and adverts on television must direct people to available support services. We are also working with the Department of Health and Social Care and the Gambling Commission to develop independent information campaigns about the risks of gambling—taking that out of the hands of the industry.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I find it difficult that he stands at the Dispatch Box and talks about all these rules, when I gave a specific example of a Paddy Power advertisement—although it is not called an advertisement—that simply had a large photograph of the Liverpool manager, Jürgen Klopp. Does he believe that was a correct thing for Paddy Power to do, or should it have been banned?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Well, as with the case that the right reverend Prelate raised, I will take that up with officials. I was spelling out some of the actions—some of which are still to come in. As I said, the Premier League rules will come in by the end of the forthcoming season. I am sure the noble Lord will reflect that some of the work has been done and some is coming shortly, but I will raise the case he mentions with the team at the department.

As we set out in our White Paper, we are also working closely with the Gambling Commission to take targeted action on advertising to ban harmful practices and ensure that it remains socially responsible, wherever it appears. The commission has recently consulted on new rules to give consumers more control over the direct gambling marketing that they wish to receive, and on strengthened protections to ensure that free bets and bonuses are constructed in a way that does not encourage excessive or harmful gambling. The commission will set out its responses to these consultations soon. Together, these measures will empower customers and prohibit harmful marketing practices, to prevent the risk of gambling harms.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, referred to the powers available to local authorities. As she reflected, these vary from local authority to local authority, but, as we heard in the debate, the metro mayors in London and Manchester are using the powers that are available to them.

There is no single intervention that provides the answer to effectively preventing gambling-related harm. That is why we have taken a holistic approach that includes action on products and protections for players. We recently announced the introduction of stake limits for online slot games, where we have seen evidence of elevated levels of harmful gambling, and are pursuing broader protections, such as financial risk checks that will require online operators to identify and take action in relation to customers who are financially vulnerable. That will prevent runaway losses, which we are still seeing happen too often. The Government are clear that effective and innovative collaboration to get the right mixture of interventions for the population as a whole—as well as those with specific needs or vulnerabilities—is required to tackle gambling harm.

A key part of that approach is the Government’s decision to introduce a statutory levy, which I know has been a long-standing priority for the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and others raised. In his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, dwelt on the importance of evidence. Perhaps I should end my remarks by acknowledging that further work is needed to build the evidence base to ensure that policy and regulation are able to deal with emerging issues.

In response to the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, I make clear that developing quality evidence is a priority for our statutory levy. Through the levy, increased and ring-fenced funding will be directed towards high-quality, independent research into gambling and gambling-related harms, including in relation to advertising. We will continue to monitor the evidence base and, if new evidence suggests that we need to go further, we will look at this again. The Government will also respond to their bespoke consultation on the levy and will set out their final decisions very soon.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for tabling today’s debate and all those who have spoken in it. I am certain that we will return to this topic again before long.