Streaming Platforms: Age Ratings

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My understanding is that the system that has been agreed between Netflix and the BBFC is that Netflix takes a self-rating approach in line with the BBFC’s classification, which is then verified and audited by the BBFC. Both parties appear to be content.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD) [V]]

My Lords, far more parents allow their young children to play 18-plus-rated video games than allow them to watch 18-plus-rated films. Indeed, one survey showed that 86% of parents do not follow video game age restrictions. What more can be done to persuade parents and others buying video games as Christmas presents for children to understand the harm that can be done to children by not taking seriously the age rating of video games?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The noble Lord raises an important point. We would like to see the Pan European Game Information—PEGI—age ratings, which are used for physical copies of games, also used for online games, and we are pursuing that actively.

Audiovisual Media Services (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Friday 27th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, earlier versions of the AVMS directive regulated linear and, subsequently, online demand TV. This new version effectively replicates all of that but adds to the existing measures, adding video-sharing platforms and bringing them into scope for regulation. As we have heard, the SI, which came into force on 1 November, appears to be a faithful transposition of it into UK law. I therefore welcome and support it—but, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for what it is. Picking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, I also note that, despite the start date of 1 November, the regulatory regime will not be fully operational until late summer next year. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that I am correct and explain why we have not got on with it sooner.

For far too long, video-sharing platform owners have denied any responsibility for material posted on their sites. They have hidden behind the various safe harbour provisions, such as those contained in the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act. For example, when Paramount Pictures sued YouTube for $1 billion for allowing users to upload Paramount material more than 150,000 times, YouTube got away without paying any damages. Fortunately, that is now changing, and VSPs are beginning to recognise that they have some responsibility—hence, for example, the action taken against the postings of Donald Trump.

Of course, the majority of VSPs serving the UK are headquartered outside the EU—not least in the United States—so it might appear that they are exempt from regulation. However, as the Government and the Minister have pointed out,

“most, if not all, US based prominent VSPs will have some form of physical presence in Europe.”

So, UK users of most VSPs will have the protection ushered in by the SI, though often by other EU regulators rather than by Ofcom. However, future trade deals could undermine this if, for example, American-style safe harbour provisions are insisted upon, as they were by the United States in their recent deal with Canada and Mexico. Can the Minister provide an assurance that in discussions with the US over any trade deal there will be no agreement to dilute these provisions?

The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, picked up on a point referred to by many other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll—that we need a tougher regulation than this will herald in. It is a much lighter regime than could be brought in and, we hope, will be brought in with the online harms legislation. We have had months, in fact years, of delay with getting this legislation, so can the Minister give a categorical assurance that the response to the consultation on online harms will be published before the end of the year and that draft legislation will follow shortly afterwards?

As the Explanatory Memorandum makes clear, online harms legislation will enable us to also deal with the obvious problem of the UK’s inability, post 31 December, to have some say in the regulation of the numerous VSPs, such as YouTube and Facebook, which are heavily used in the UK but regulated in one of the other remaining 27 EU countries. Can the Minister confirm that the forthcoming online harms legislation will include measures that will enable Ofcom to regulate, in respect of online harms, all VSPs that serve UK audiences, regardless of the location of their primary establishment? Given that the Government plan to regulate the commercial behaviour of tech platforms, can she explain what she sees as the relationship, in relation to VSPs, between the role of Ofcom and the new Digital Markets Unit within the CMA?

On another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, does the Minister acknowledge that, even with such legislation in place, it will clearly be beneficial for the UK to continue to have some means of influencing discussions within the EU about future changes to the AVMSD? At the end of the year we will lose our membership of the EU bodies that bring regulators together, but we could become observers. Can the Minister update us on plans to do that? Can she also tell us whether she thinks it will be sensible for us to have more involvement in developing the work of the ECTT—the European Convention on Transfrontier Television?

Finally, I turn to a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. Ofcom, in its regulatory proposals, says that there will be a requirement for what it calls “strict access control measures”—age verification measures—to protect children from restricted material that has the most potential to cause harm. Given the numerous areas in which robust age verification is needed, surely it is important that the Government do not leave this decision to Ofcom alone, as the noble Earl rightly pointed out. For example, it makes sense that measures required by Ofcom are aligned with those that the ICO will use for age appropriate design codes. What steps are the Government taking? Does the Minister believe that access control measures should conform to BSI 1296, and be subject to external audit, assurance and certification? Does she believe that VSPs can be trusted to carry out their own age assurances for high-risk content? I look forward to the Minister’s response, but I welcome and support this limited SI.

Legislative Reform (Renewal of Radio Licences) Order 2020

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Friday 27th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the order and in doing so I particularly welcome, as others have said, the addition to it of small-scale multiplexes and the potential benefit that that could bring. Before I say anything further, however, I want to give huge praise to the Government for achieving something that I have never seen before. I have spoken in a number of debates recently and have had to look through explanatory memorandums that, frankly, I have not begun to understand. The explanatory document, as it is called, that we have been provided with for this debate is exemplary. I praise it and ask the Minister to pass on my thanks to all those in her department who were responsible for its production.

I have only two things to say about the order. The first is that the Minister referred to the announcement made back in February that there will be a review of digital radio. I believe that this is long overdue. The Government promised that when certain criteria of radio listenership were met, there would be a review. Those criteria were met in May 2018. In May 2019, the Government announced that they intended to have a review, but it took them until February 2020 to announce that review. We will not get the results until March 2021, and no doubt several months after that before we get a response from the Government on what they intend to do.

This will not be a pleasure for the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, to hear, but I have long argued that we should be more urgently looking to have the same sort of radio switchover as we have had so successfully in relation to television. I am firmly convinced that were the Government to invest money in improving the digital infrastructure, there would be huge benefits not just in terms of radio listening, but so much more; that funds would be saved for the operators in that they would not have to have dual transmission; and that there would be an enormous benefit to the Treasury through the auction that could then take place of the analogue spectrum that had become available. I am disappointed that the Government have adopted what they call the “listener-led” approach, and I note that the Minister has said that she “reasonably thinks” it is likely that analogue will come to an end by the end of the current decade—another 10 years—which I personally believe is a wasted opportunity.

The other thing I want to remark on is the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. Both referred to the vital importance of local radio. In my view, local radio has been diminished by the reduction of the requirements being placed on it. Now, far too often, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, pointed out, they are putting out the same music that you can hear on any other station. We need to look at ways of regaining genuine local radio that covers local news issues, holds local politicians to account and tells the stories that involve local people. That, sadly, is being diminished in this country. The addition of the small-scale multiplex and the possibility that that brings for new entrants is of course very welcome. It is one of the reasons I support this order, but of course there are other huge benefits in the order in that it will save the readvertising costs that would be incurred.

Covid-19: Creative Industries

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The noble Baroness raises important points. As I said earlier, we take this issue seriously. We were encouraged by some of the work done by the Creative Industries Council, which published its Diversity & Inclusion Progress Report in, I think, May. We are beginning to get more clarity on the baseline from which we are moving. There is better diversity monitoring, better strategies to develop a talent pipeline and clear strategies to address leadership. As I say, there is a great deal of work to be done and much in train.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the BBC plays a crucial role in supporting our creative industries and developing greater diversity, with schemes such as its Diversity Commissioning Code of Practice. The new director-general has set a 50%, 20% and 12% target for workforce diversity at the BBC itself in terms of gender, race and disability. Does the Minister welcome this initiative, and is her department giving leadership by pressing for higher departmental workforce diversity targets than currently exist?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

We absolutely welcome the announcement from the new director-general about targets. I believe I am right in saying that my department is one of the most diverse in Westminster.

Gambling Legislation

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2020 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Foster of Bath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to review gambling legislation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have committed to review the Gambling Act 2005 to make sure that it is fit for the digital age. We will announce further details in due course. However, we and the Gambling Commission are not waiting for the review to make gambling safer. Already this year, we have banned credit card gambling, tightened protections for online gambling in lockdown and consulted on further safeguards on product design.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that reply. However, given that we have a third of a million problem gamblers, including 55,000 children, and one gambling-related suicide every day, action is urgently needed. I am delighted that the Minister acknowledges that some action can be taken without needing to wait for a review, and, in fact, without needing primary legislation. For example, we have a fairly tough regime for games that take place in physical premises—a regime that includes limits on stakes and prizes—but, bizarrely, no such one for online gambling. As the online gambling companies cash in on the pandemic, make more profit and put more lives at risk, will the Government now take urgent action to address this particular problem, as recommended by your Lordships’ Gambling Industry Committee?

Gambling Advertising

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

I thank my noble friend for his honesty and his question. We will obviously be reviewing a range of options when we come to review the Gambling Act. The evidence around the impact of advertising on problem gambling, as opposed to all gambling, is really not clear, with much suggesting that, particularly for young people, it is parents and their peers who have the greatest influence on their behaviour.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD) [V]]

My Lords, among problem gamblers, 55,000 are 11 to 16 year-old children, many of whom use legal music and film download websites that are often funded by gambling advertising. Will the Government immediately consider legislation to enable these sites to be blocked, and not wait for the long overdue review of gambling legislation?

[Baroness Barran]

The noble Lord raises a very important point, which I am happy to take back to my colleagues in the department and the Minister responsible.

EU: British Musicians

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

I fear it is probably not appropriate for me to go into any detail about the nature of those negotiations. It has been said publicly that details on specific sectors will come in the next stage of the negotiations. The Prime Minister has been clear on multiple occasions as to his views on an extension to the negotiations.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, at present a system is in place that prevents the double payment of social security payments when our musicians travel to EU countries. Can the Minister assure us that her department is pressing our negotiators to ensure that any bilateral deal includes continued access to this system? Will she publish her department’s analysis of the impact of failure to obtain such an agreement?

[Baroness Barran]

The department is leading a major programme of work across all our sectors which is trying to ensure that they, and our arm’s-length bodies, are well prepared for the end of the transition period in relation to this point and more broadly.

Gambling Act 2005 (Variation of Monetary Limits) Order 2020

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2020 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)]

My Lords, Section 99 of the Gambling Act 2005 imposes monetary limits on the per-draw and annual proceeds of any lottery promoted in reliance on a lottery operating licence. This order will amend the per-draw sales limit from £4 million to £5 million. As a consequence, the maximum prize limit will increase from £400,000 to £500,000, due to the rule that the prize must not exceed 10% of per-draw proceeds. This order also amends the annual sales limit from £10 million to £50 million.

In July 2019, the Government announced proposals to help society lotteries: that is, fundraising lotteries run by charities and other non-commercial organisations such as sports clubs or local community groups. Last year, society lotteries raised over £330 million, in support of a diverse range of charities, including hospices and air ambulances, which so many in this country rely on. The current annual sales limit has been in place since it was implemented in 2007, and the per-draw sales and prize limits have been in place since 2009. Indeed, the issue was looked at by the DCMS Select Committee in 2015, which recommended that the department and the Gambling Commission examine the sector in some detail. This led to the 2018 public consultation. I am grateful to the committee for raising this important issue.

I know that stakeholders on both sides have strong views, evident in the 1,600 responses the department received to its consultation. A key consideration in developing the changes being debated today has been the relationship between the National Lottery and society lotteries. Together they raise around £2 billion a year, improving our communities and life in this country in countless ways. It is imperative that any changes enable both to grow, and that society lotteries’ growth is not at the expense of the National Lottery. As Minister for Civil Society I can say that this is particularly close to my heart, as the sector benefits considerably from funds raised by the National Lottery.

I can assure the Committee that we have considered in detail the relationship between society lotteries and the National Lottery. The final package is underpinned by independent, evidence-based advice from the regulator, the Gambling Commission. It has advised that the changes I am bringing forward today will preserve the balance in the sector and maintain the key distinction between the National Lottery, which offers the largest prizes in support of many good causes, and society lotteries, which offer smaller prizes with a focus on a specified good cause.

I say very deliberately that society lotteries should have a clear focus on the charitable and not-for-profit purposes they support, and it is of the utmost importance that players know which causes they are supporting with their ticket and how much of the ticket price is going to support the cause. I am therefore delighted to see that the Gambling Commission is currently consulting on additional transparency measures for society lottery licences. I take this opportunity to thank it for its consideration of the issue and I look forward to seeing its conclusions.

The most significant change is the increase to the annual sales limit to £50 million. The current limit of £10 million is restrictive for larger society lotteries wishing to grow. Some have set up additional lotteries or an umbrella structure to facilitate growth, which incurs high administrative costs and can be bureaucratic to operate. For large charities operating at or close to the existing limits it is costly to add additional licences, either within an umbrella structure or a multiple-society structure. For example, in response to the consultation, Cancer Research UK estimated that moving to a multiple-society model would cost around £345,000 to set up, with additional annual running costs of around £130,000, thereby reducing the proportion of income for its charitable purposes.

For most societies, a £50 million limit would mean that they no longer need to hold more than one lottery operating licence, leading to cost savings and higher returns to good causes. It also means that society lotteries approaching the current annual sales limit can continue to grow and raise valuable funds for their beneficiaries without stopping or slowing their draws, as some do at present. This order includes transitional provisions to allow licence holders to benefit from the increased limits straight away on a pro rata basis, rather than having to wait until the beginning of the new calendar year.

For the vast majority of the sector, increasing the per-draw sales limit incrementally from £4 million to £5 million, combined with the new annual limit of £50 million, will provide both the headroom for further growth and the flexibility to increase the size and frequency of draws as operators wish. Where individual per-draw lottery sales exceed £250,000, the maximum prize cannot be more than 10% of the proceeds of that lottery. The maximum prize limit will increase from £400,000 to £500,000. We know that most society lotteries only offer relatively small prizes compared to their sales, but this change will allow for some additional flexibility, while remaining distinct from the largest prizes offered by most National Lottery games.

The Gambling Commission will be monitoring the impact of the changes carefully and the Government will keep a keen eye on progress, in particular to ensure that additional funds are directed to good causes and do not lead to an increase in administrative expenses. To satisfy ourselves in this regard, the Government will review the impact of the changes 12 months after implementation, looking at new data and evidence that has emerged over the course of the year. As part of this, we will look again at the case for a £1 million prize, as well as the link between sales and the maximum prize, and returns to good causes. Once we understand the impact of the current changes, we will also look at the case for a £100 million licence and any additional conditions that may accompany that.

To conclude, by increasing the limits we will enable society lotteries to raise even more funds for the causes they support by reducing burdensome administrative costs. Recent research published just last month by the Gambling Commission shows that the National Lottery and society lottery sectors are both currently growing, with participation up two percentage points for both, meaning that overall funds raised for good causes are growing. I welcome this approach. It is clear that society lottery funding brings tangible benefits. The Carers Trust stated in its response to the consultation:

“Unrestricted funding gives us the flexibility to allocate funds to projects and posts which are harder to fundraise for, and contribute towards our overheads and running costs.”


I look forward to seeing the impact of these changes on organisations working in my sector, and I commend the order to the House.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise, but this is not quite as simple a statutory instrument as the Minister has said. There are a number of issues and questions that I want to put to her. I was delighted that, on 19 November last year, we were able to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the National Lottery and the staggering £40 billion that it has been able to give to good causes since it was introduced by John Major in 1994. Equally, we should celebrate the incredible work done by small-scale society lotteries that have provided funds for hospices, schools, clubs and many other good causes alongside the National Lottery.

My concern is that the original, untaxed society lotteries were characterised by relatively low prizes and generally limited distribution footprints. Those factors traditionally differentiated them from the National Lottery and, as the Minister said, that distinction helped them both to thrive and funds to go to good causes because they were not in competition.

However, then came the idea of grouping together a number of these society lotteries under a single umbrella; two key examples are the People’s Postcode Lottery and the Health Lottery. I have argued on many occasions that, although both of them undoubtedly do good work, they are being allowed to operate contrary to the concept of there being a single national lottery.

As I intend to demonstrate, notwithstanding what the Minister said, they are already having a damaging impact on the National Lottery. Currently, they are run by private external lottery managers and their revenues have increased dramatically, from £179 million to £736 million over the last 10 years. The measures in this statutory instrument look set to cause even greater damage to the National Lottery than has already been done. We must gauge the measures being proposed against the impact that they will have on the National Lottery.

Your Lordships’ Committee on the Social and Economic Impact of the Gambling Industry, of which I am a member, has already taken evidence on some of these issues. From that, we know that running concurrently to the legislative process we are discussing today—the Minister has already referred to this—is a public consultation by the Gambling Commission in response to concerns about transparency raised by the previous Lotteries Minister.

Public trust and confidence are vital to preserve the integrity of both the lotteries and the charities that operate and rely on them. Where sales are in the hundreds of millions of pounds and the purpose is charitable, it is only right that the levels of transparency are high—higher than they are now. Players should be able easily to find out how often prizes are awarded, how good causes are chosen and how their money is spent.

For example, we know that the National Lottery has operating costs of about 5% of revenue but, as the Select Committee heard in January when both Camelot and the People’s Postcode gave evidence, the People’s Postcode Lottery has operating costs of 28%; it spends almost as much on operating costs as it does on giving to charitable causes—in marked contradiction to what the National Lottery does. I also understand that the Health Lottery spends more on expenses than it returns to good causes, although this information is not easy to ascertain. Indeed, DCMS noted that

“the two sector leaders currently return amongst the lowest proportion of revenue to good causes.”

So, the Minister says how good these society lotteries are—indeed, the individual small ones are—but we discover that the amount of money that these combined umbrella lotteries give to good causes is almost similar to the amount they spend on administration. I hope that the Minister can assure us that she will watch this issue carefully so that we can make changes leading to higher returns to good causes. As a first step, and before any result of the consultation is seen and any major final decisions are made, can the Minister at least ask those two umbrella lotteries whether they will make public the information on the various issues that I have just raised?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran]

I start by thanking both noble Lords for their careful scrutiny of the instrument that we are discussing, and for their questions. Perhaps I might start by trying to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Foster. I spend my life trying to reassure noble Lords, but I will try again. Our clear aim is to set a framework that encourages both the National Lottery and society lotteries to thrive. We will monitor the impact of the changes very carefully, and we will not allow the growth of society lotteries to come at the expense of the National Lottery. I hope that that goes some way towards confirming our intent.

The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, said that part of the purpose of the instrument was to remove the pressure to create umbrellas out of bodies. None of us is quite clear about that; it feels uncomfortable. But, by raising the limit to £50 million, all the current society lottery providers, with the exception of the People’s Postcode Lottery, will be able to move from an umbrella structure back to a single structure. This goes back to the point raised by Cancer Research UK in its response to the consultation: that that will remove some administrative costs, which will allow more money to go to good causes. I think that all of us can align on that. I understand that the People’s Postcode Lottery has also indicated that it will seek to reduce the number of lotteries under its umbrella. So I hope I have addressed that point.

More broadly, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, questioned whether the changes could have a negative impact on the National Lottery. As the noble Lord knows, the Gambling Commission has advised that changes to the limits will have minimal impact on the National Lottery. The reforms are designed to allow society lotteries to raise more money for the good causes they support, but they take very careful account of the relationship between the society lotteries and the National Lottery. The distinctions remain in terms of the size of prizes and the frequency of draws, so we continue to believe that substitution between the two is likely to remain minimal.

The noble Lord cited the Camelot report in terms of the negative impact on National Lottery sales. Again, I can only reiterate the Gambling Commission’s advice, which was based on independent research. It does not believe that it has had a negative impact, and obviously that impact will be carefully monitored. The latest research, published just last month, shows participation in the National Lottery and society lotteries going up by about 2 percentage points. I believe that that evidence was given to the committee that the noble Lord sits on.

The noble Lord also asked about reasonable costs. Obviously with the National Lottery there are economies of scale, but the noble Lord will also be aware that society lotteries have been in existence for a lot longer, and we have a diverse range of business models. The minimum acceptable return that has been agreed with society lotteries is 20%, but obviously the average is 45%. The People’s Lottery is at 32%, but we know that it hopes to increase that. Again, the one-year review will look at this in detail.

[Lord Foster of Bath]

I vowed I would not intervene, but on this I really must, because it is incumbent on the Government at least to define what they mean by “reasonable” in this context. For example, does the Minister think it is reasonable that the People’s Postcode Lottery is spending on advertising 75% of what the National Lottery spends? Is that reasonable when the People’s Postcode Lottery is currently only 5% of the size of the National Lottery?

[Baroness Barran]

I am sure the noble Lord will understand that the decision on what the People’s Postcode Lottery spends on its marketing budget is for it. What we look at for reasonableness is the growth in money going to good causes, and, given that both parts of the sector are increasing at the moment, we are comfortable with that, but we will keep it under close review.

On transparency, which both noble Lords raised, and the consultation that the Gambling Commission is undertaking at the moment, the Government absolutely agree that society lotteries need to demonstrate the highest levels of transparency. The consultation seeks views on new guidance which will allow society lottery operators to provide players with more information about their odds of winning a prize, how good causes are selected and the breakdown of lottery proceeds. I know that my honourable friend the Minister here would not be afraid to legislate if there were concerns about transparency.

The noble Lord, Lord Foster, asked about reintroducing the expenses cap. He will be aware that that was removed in 2005 and, since then, the approach has been to focus on the minimum return of 20%, with flexibility for operators to split the balance. Obviously, the return is currently significantly higher than that, so there are no current plans to reintroduce the cap. The Gambling Commission consultation will also make players aware of how to access information about the breakdown of proceeds before they buy a ticket.

Returning to the noble Lord’s question about reasonably incurred levels of expenditure, I should have added that that is handled by the Gambling Commission, as the regulator for the sector.

Turning to taxation models for the National Lottery, we have discussed them, and options for changing to a gross-profit tax model, with the Treasury, but that remains a matter for the Treasury to decide on.

[Lord Foster of Bath]

I apologise profusely, but too often we hear from Ministers that decisions on taxation are a matter for the Treasury. I entirely accept that that is true, but there is a duty on, in this case, her department to provide evidence to the Treasury to suggest that it should seriously consider making a change to taxation that would, in this case, benefit good causes and the Treasury itself. My question now is simply: has her department recently provided any of the clear, detailed research evidence that shows that a change would make the benefits that I suggest? Has it done it or not? If it has not, will it agree to so do?

[Baroness Barran]

The answer is yes. As the noble Lord is aware, the fourth national licence competition will open in April, and both my department and the Treasury have been looking at the case for how the taxation system should work. I have managed to reassure the noble Lord on one thing, which I shall regard as a triumph.

As we have all agreed, the National Lottery is a uniquely important part of British society. Each year, it raises about £1.6 billion for good causes in the heritage, arts, sports and community sectors; that has amounted to an impressive total of £40 billion over its 25 years. Society lotteries raise more than £330 million a year for good causes, and that amount is increasing year on year. It is right that we do everything we can to support both sectors to grow, thrive and optimise the contributions they make to funding good causes across the country.

BBC and Public Service Broadcasting

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Labour Party on choosing this timely topic and the noble Lord, Lord Young, on introducing a powerful, well-informed and, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, called it, high-calibre debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, claimed that he was the only speaker on the government side here today. I am delighted that your Lordships’ House, on this occasion and on many others in the past, has given him a voice—even if the BBC does not want to do so. I associate myself with the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and consider that the BBC should look again at the way in which it has treated him. Like him, I am a supporter of the BBC—he claimed still to be so—but I am a critical friend of it. Neither he nor I have demurred—nor has anyone today—from the simple premise of the debate: that there is little doubt that the BBC and other public service broadcasters play a vital role in our economy and our cultural life.

Many examples have been given. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, spoke about the educational role of the PSBs; 75% of school pupils, for instance, use BBC Bitesize. We have talked about research and development and job creation, but no one so far has mentioned its important role in exports of both programmes and formats. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury spoke about another important role—levelling up—which is relevant at the present time given the Prime Minister’s desire to see it. That is being done by the PSBs as more of their staff and programme spend are outside London.

Many noble Lords—including the noble Lords, Lord West of Spithead, Lord Young and Lord Haskel, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty—have spoken about the important soft power of the PSBs helping in many ways, including, more importantly in the future, in international trade. The BBC is one of the top four most-recognised British brands internationally. It is known, as the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, put it, as the gold standard; or, as the noble Lord, Lord Monks, said, it is known for its widespread international regard and respect.

However, the biggest contribution that the PSBs make is to our extremely successful and growing creative industries, which are creating employment faster than any other sector. In passing, as it has not been mentioned so far, I ask the Minister—she will say how important the creative industries are; I know that it will be in her brief—to reflect on, if that is the case, why the Government fail to address the concerns of the creative industries, including on the apprenticeship levy, which is not suitable for their use, and the concerns that have been expressed about the post-Brexit immigration scheme that is now coming in and which is irrelevant to them. Also, as we will come on to, why do they not stop trying to cause damage to the BBC?

I recognise that the Government accept the crucial role of the PSB and support it. As I said, there is a great deal of data. For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Young, in talking about research and development, reminded us that for every £1 the BBC invests, we get a return of between £5 and £9. It is worth reflecting that the PSBs collectively are seeking to do more in all of those areas by commissioning more from independent production companies and providing even more support. It is therefore hardly surprising that many people who work in the creative industries have seen real benefit from the PSBs.

One interesting example I discovered yesterday is that, last year, the BBC received 16 BAFTAs and 16 Emmy Awards and, earlier this year, four Golden Globes, and every single one of the British winners of those awards had worked in the BBC at some time in the past. No wonder Philippa Childs said that

“it is the PSBs that are providing the training and skills that the likes of Netflix and others are then happily accepting.”

But, of all the PSBs, as has been pointed out by many, the biggest single investor into the creative industries is the BBC. It is the guarantor of the standards of the other PSBs, as noble Lords have mentioned.

It is worth reflecting—the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, pointed to this with his phrase “salami slicing”—that, since 2010, the BBC has already had to tighten its belt. Only yesterday, the Voice of the Listener & Viewer research was published, showing that, since 2010, the amount of money in real terms that the BBC has for the production of its products for viewers and listeners in the UK has gone down to 70% of what it was in 2010. Now it looks as though the situation is going to get worse.

I have had an opportunity to see an advance copy of an article by Professor Stephen Barnett, which is to be published shortly. It states:

“Not since the election of Margaret Thatcher in May 1979 has the future of the BBC been seriously threatened by a powerful and deeply hostile government with a massive majority intent on doing it serious damage.”


My noble friend Lord McNally described it in another form by saying that it was score-settling against a mortal enemy.

Professor Barnett goes on to say that the origins of this are clearly in some of the things that have happened in the past. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for instance, reminded us of some of the quotations from the New Frontiers Foundation document in 2004 at the time when it was directed by Dominic Cummings. It is worth reminding the House of a couple of the examples she gave. The NFF said that

“the Right should be aiming for the end of the BBC in its current form”.

It went on:

“There are three structural things that the Right needs to happen … the undermining of the BBC’s credibility … the creation of a Fox News equivalent—


my noble friend Lord McNally warned us about that—and

“the end of the ban on TV political advertising”.

It was therefore hardly surprising that, with Dominic Cummings in tow, the Prime Minister went into Downing Street soon after the election and, as Professor Barnett says:

“Even before the Downing Street boxes were unpacked, the Prime Minister was announcing a ‘consultation’ on whether non-payment of the BBC licence fee should remain a criminal offence—despite a comprehensive, independent review ordered by David Cameron and published less than five years ago concluding that the current arrangements were fair and proportionate.”


I should point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who was concerned about people being put in prison, that you can be put in prison for the non-payment of a civil fine as for the non-payment of a criminal fine.

Professor Barnett—I share his view—went on:

“This was the first shot by a government which knew well that decriminalisation would cost the BBC well in excess of £200 million while actually making life more difficult for poorer households which would simply be pursued with higher fines through the civil courts.”


Worse, we subsequently heard government sources saying that there should be consultation on the replacement of the licence fee with a subscription model, that the BBC should be reduced to a few TV stations, a couple of radio stations and a massively curtailed online presence, and that,

“the Prime Minister is firmly of the view that there needs to be serious reform. He is really strident on this.”

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert of Panteg, and many others that there are many things the BBC could do better—not least in diversity—but, as the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, said, it is childish to send a wrecking ball to the BBC. It is crazy to pray in aid the subscription model of, say, Netflix and Amazon. As the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, and others have already pointed out, given what you get from Netflix for £7.99 and what you get from the BBC’s range of output and services for £13 a month, the two do not compare. A simple figure worth reflecting on is that, last year, the BBC, along with the other PSBs, invested £2.6 billion in the UK to deliver 32,000 hours of original, home-grown content compared with only 210 hours of content provided by Netflix and Amazon Prime combined. There is a huge difference.

The noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, is right that many issues need to be debated but within the context of being supportive of our public sector broadcasters. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury said that the BBC should be cherished. Only today, the Secretary of State said that all the PSBs should be cherished. However, the evidence before us is that that is not the plan of the current Government. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said that we should all be alarmed; the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said that we should be appalled. I ask the Minister a simple question: does she believe that the BBC is the mortal enemy, or does she believe, like many of us, that the BBC is the best broadcaster in the world and one of the best gifts this country has ever given to the world?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran]

I do not want to play “quote wars” with the noble Lord, but he will be aware that my right honourable friend made a speech on this. I have it here somewhere—I apologise, it is hiding in my pile of papers. This morning the Secretary of State confirmed our commitment to the BBC, and I am sure that the noble Lord has read that speech.

On a similar theme, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, talked about an agenda to undermine the BBC. Obviously, the Secretary of State works closely with the Prime Minister on these issues, but the Government remain clear that it is for advisers to advise and for Ministers to decide. That is what we continue to do.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the noble Lord, Lord Monks, referred to ministerial appearances on the “Today” programme. Ministers talk to the public through many different channels, including the BBC. That has always been the case and will continue to be so.

Turning to the economy, public service broadcasting has proved to be by far the largest driver of the UK production sector, as we have heard. Each year, the PSB system invests around £2.6 billion in original programming, of which around £1 billion is spent outside London. The BBC alone spent approximately 94% of its £1.3 billion of content spend on first-run UK-originated programming, making it the single largest investor in British TV content.

As many noble Lords said, public service broadcasters sit at the very heart of the UK’s creative culture and industries, which are renowned worldwide. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, for the shameless plug for “Noughts and Crosses”—I commend it to your Lordships. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Chesterton and Lord Bragg, and my noble friend Lord Lilley noted the breadth of offering that the BBC gives us. Our public broadcasters produce world-class content that stimulates our interest in arts, science and history, and broadens our understanding of our own culture and the world around us. As the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, it is the quality of that content which is so important —I hope I have caught his point accurately

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, talked about the BBC as a bastion of British culture around the globe. It reaches around 426 million viewers and listeners each week, and—as we heard—it is a trusted British brand that is invaluable for our soft power and influence.

But clearly the key issue is that times are changing. Improving technology and greater consumer choice mean that people are moving away from traditional ways of watching TV and towards streaming and on-demand services. Our audiences are being served by many different companies, which have been mentioned this afternoon. In this context, the PSBs must work even harder to make sure that all nations, regions and people of the UK are represented, both on and off screen.

Our public service broadcasters are best placed to create programming with British viewpoints and identities that meet both British audiences’ needs and global audiences’ appetites. They need to utilise and evolve their unique platform to help strengthen our shared cultural identity, and make sure that they work for all the UK audiences that they serve. In this changing landscape, both industry and government need to change to keep that which is so precious to many of us.

I turn now to the future of the licence fee, which was raised by many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Young, Lord McNally, Lord Haskel and Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Noble Lords will be aware that the current licence fee settlement is agreed until April 2022. That includes the licence fee rising by inflation each year. Negotiations for the next licence fee period, from April 2022, will take place in due course, but the Government are committed to maintaining the licence fee model for the duration of the 11-year charter period up to 2027.

[Lord Foster of Bath]

On that point, and very quickly, can the Minister confirm that, as the charter continues until 2027, the Government could change the quantum of the licence fee between 2022 and 2027? Can she assure us the Government have no plans to do that, and that they recognise that the BBC’s scope and remit should remain constant until 2027?

[Baroness Barran]

I am going to cover the noble Lord’s point in just a second. The Government are committed to ensuring that the BBC and all public service broadcasters adapt to the fast-changing market, keeping them at the heart of our world-class TV sector.

In terms of other options for funding, raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and my noble friend Lord Tugendhat, the former Secretary of State for the DCMS noted that the Government were open-minded about how the BBC would be funded in the future and said that this would require a great deal of further discussion and evidence from all sides before a decision was made.

I was asked about the mid-charter review—a matter touched on also by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. It will take place between 2022 and 2024. The BBC charter is clear that the mid-term review will focus on governance and regulatory arrangements and will not be able to consider mission or public purpose. I hope that that addresses that point.

My noble friend Lord Gilbert of Panteg and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Warwick, asked about the transparency of the licence fee settlement and the potential introduction of a licence fee commission. The government response to the Lords Communications and Digital Committee report on public service broadcasting made it clear that we have no plans to introduce a licence fee commission. We believe that it remains appropriate to determine the level of the licence fee in discussion with the BBC. My noble friend asked whether we felt that greater transparency was important. We absolutely agree with that point and with the comments made by Margot James to my noble friend’s committee.

The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, talked about the importance of prudence and deliberation. Obviously, 2022 to 2027 is not the 100 years that he referred to, but I hope that it goes some small way towards reassuring noble Lords that we are at the beginning of a long conversation on these matters. My noble friend Lord Gilbert summarised three key questions: what we want the BBC to do; what it should cost; and how we should fund it. I absolutely hear noble Lords’ anxiety, which comes from their great experience, but surely the form of the funding should follow the function that will be agreed in discussions over the next few years.

A number of noble Lords talked about the importance of the independence of the BBC. I reiterate that the BBC is operationally and editorially independent of government. Government cannot and should not intervene in the BBC’s day-to-day operations.

My noble friend Lord Lilley, the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy and Lady Liddell, talked about impartiality. The BBC obviously has a duty under its royal charter to deliver impartial and accurate news, and it is not for the Government to make judgments about any perception of editorial bias.

Gambling Commission: Problem Gambling

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for his suggestion. There are currently no plans to introduce a statutory levy. As he will be aware, the gambling companies make a major contribution of about £3 billion in tax. The concerns around a statutory levy would be the same for gambling as for tobacco or alcohol, which also carry huge health risks, so there are no current plans to proceed with that.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, the NAO recognises that the Gambling Commission is a small body struggling to keep up with a fast-changing industry, but surely there are some things it could be doing. For example, an increasing amount of gambling is taking place online, which is a growing issue for problem gamblers; yet although we have stakes and prize limits for land-based gambling products, there are none for similar online products. Can the Minister explain why not?

[Baroness Barran]

I cannot explain why not today, but consideration will be given as to whether that is in scope of the legislative review. As I said, one of our tasks is to ensure that the legislation is completely relevant for the digital age.