Media Bill

Viscount Astor Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Thursday 23rd May 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Viscount Astor]

14: After Clause 50, insert the following new Clause—
“Consultation on incentivising recognition by the approved regulator(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a call for evidence seeking views on alternative incentives to encourage publishers or regulators to seek recognition under the terms of the Royal Charter for the Self-Regulation of the Press.(2) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report setting out the Government’s formal response to evidence submitted in response to the call for evidence required by subsection (1).(3) The Secretary of State may not make an order under section 55(3)(ga) bringing any part of section 50 into force until the report specified in subsection (2) has been laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

[Viscount Astor (Con)]

My Lords, yesterday we debated my amendment, and in normal circumstances I would not have moved it again today, but yesterday there were extraordinary circumstances because our debate was overshadowed by a certain announcement. At the very moment when the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, stood up to make what I thought was an important contribution, both Front Benches were attached to their mobile telephones, looking at the news. My noble friend the Minister is the most attentive Minister, and I commend him on all the work he has done on the Bill, but in those circumstances I was somewhat off the ball, as was almost everybody in the Chamber, in listening to what the noble Baroness said. I regret that, which is one of the reasons I thought it was important to speak today.

Neither did your Lordships have a chance to see the letter from Sir Brian Leveson, in which he made some important points. I recommend that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, might read it, so that he can have a good old-fashioned legal row with him. Sir Brian Leveson made two important points, as I will reiterate. He absolutely debunked the contention that the Press Recognition Panel is a state regulator. I will not go into the details, because I do not think it necessary; noble Lords who wish to read the letter can find it in the Library. He also pointed out that Section 40 would not require publishers to pay costs even if they won; it is simply not the case.

It is a pity that we have had such truncated proceedings, because in normal circumstances we would have had Committee, and then everybody would have had a chance to read Sir Brian’s letter and either agree or disagree with it—at least they would have better understood the issues that are raised. Sadly, that will not be the case.

The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was originally somewhat sympathetic to some of these ideas, but with the announcement of the election no Front Bench will put itself on the wrong side of the press—so there we are. But I have to say that noble Lords who oppose my amendment might rue the day because, whoever wins the next election, I suspect that something else might come, and it might be somewhat different. My amendment does not change government policy; it is the Government who are changing their policy. Section 40 was put in by a Conservative Government; it was a Conservative policy. It is no one else’s policy.

It is disappointing. I think the question that always has to be asked is this: are publishers and newspapers going to be the only industry in this country to mark its own homework? That question will be asked again and again; whatever one thinks of Impress and IPSO, there are questions. That is an issue that will come back again and again.

I want to make it clear that I am not going to press my amendment today, so my noble friend Lord Black need not come up with his usual diatribe against me. I enjoy his diatribes, because when one moves an amendment, one sometimes wonders whether one has got it right. When I listen to my noble friend Lord Black, I know I have got it right, and that is an enormous help to me.

It is disappointing that the Government could not consider more carefully the points made by Sir Brian Leveson. I hope future Governments will and that this is not the end of the debate. I make it clear that this is not an attack about press freedom. I agree with my noble friend Lord Attlee. I am trying to make sure that those who are not in a position to have some comeback when they are treated unfairly are protected better than they are now. I beg to move.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Astor for outlining his amendment today. We debated much the same amendment yesterday. I will speak to it and the other amendments in this group.

The Government are committed to a free and independent press which, as I said, is vital to our democracy. There now exists a strengthened, independent, self-regulatory system for the press. The majority of traditional publishers are members of IPSO. Some publishers have joined Impress, while others, including the Financial Times and the Guardian, have chosen to stay outside either regulator, with their own detailed self-regulatory arrangements. These regulators enforce codes of conduct which provide guidance on a range of areas including discrimination, accuracy, privacy and harassment. If they find that a newspaper has broken the code of conduct, they can order corrections.

Given our commitment to independent self-regulation, it is not government policy to review the efficacy of press regulators. The Government have committed to independent self-regulation of the press. This extends to not intervening in or overseeing the work of the press regulators. Accepting Amendment 15 would amount to government regulation of the press and I am not able to accept it.

Turning to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Astor and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, the Government do not interfere with what the press can or cannot publish. That extends to endorsing regulators of which publishers should become members. Consulting on, with a view to creating, other incentives to the press to join a Press Recognition Panel-backed regulator that a consultation might identify would conflict with the Government’s clearly stated position. Indeed, the Government consulted on the repeal of Section 40 in its entirety in 2016—eight years ago—and the vast majority of respondents backed repealing it. That was reflected in our previous two manifestos, as I pointed out. For those reasons, I am afraid I am not able to accept Amendments 14, 17 and 18.

I shall say a bit about Amendment 16, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Watts and Lord Watson of Wyre Forest, which would introduce a requirement on publishers that are not members of a Press Recognition Panel-backed regulator to publish a reply or correction where they have published information containing a “significant factual inaccuracy”. The requirement would be triggered by a demand made by an individual to whom the information relates. In practice, this amendment would incentivise membership of Impress, as I think the noble Lords know, and, as with the commencement of Section 40, could disadvantage publishers who choose not to join Impress. I think I have made my views very clear, so for those reasons I am not able to accept that amendment either.

I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Viscount Astor (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and for the way that he has conducted the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 14 withdrawn.

Media Bill

Viscount Astor Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Lords Chamber

What is IPSO? One thing we can say is that the noble Lord who chairs it, as is true of previous noble Lords who have chaired it, was a Conservative politician in this House. There are only some things wrong with that; there is not a lot wrong with it, because the noble Lord is perfectly entitled to be. However, it is clear as a bell that it is quite wrong that anybody who is or has in recent years been an active politician should be given the job of regulating the press; I am sure that not many people would take it on that basis. We now have a body whose job is to regulate the press chaired by a man who until recently was a Conservative politician. As I said, it is nothing personal, because there were previous examples, but the ref is wearing the shirt of the team that he is supposed to be officiating over. That alone should move the House to back the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and others.

[Viscount Astor (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 87 is grouped with the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness. I also have Amendments 92 and 94. We have all been somewhat distracted by our mobile telephones concerning the next general election. I have been even more distracted by just having received the result of the 5.30 pm race at Kempton, where my horse came last. I hope that is not an omen for the future.

At Second Reading, I gave a full explanation of why Section 40 should remain on the statute book, so I will now address some of the misconceptions in that debate. It is worth remembering first that the inquiry led by Sir Brian Leveson was concerned that individuals without substantial means caught up in public interest events were unable to seek redress for defamation or unlawful intrusion into their privacy simply because they could not afford to litigate against an all-powerful press. At the core of the inquiry was the importance of the freedom of the press and the vital importance of freedom of expression.

At Second Reading, it was claimed that creation by royal charter is state control. It is the opposite. Royal charter was designed specifically to ensure independence for the press and independence from politicians. The Press Recognition Panel’s charter can be amended only by a two-thirds majority of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Scottish Parliament. That is rather a high bar. I cannot see any way that it could ever be amended and for those three bodies to agree.

Sir Brian Leveson came to a meeting organised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. It was extremely useful and helpful to hear what he had to say, particularly on Section 40. One thing he said was:

“It is important to underline that the Act does not require an adverse award of costs against a successful organ of the press which is not a member of an approved regulator (or indeed against an individual—oligarch or otherwise—who does not avail himself or herself of available arbitration provided by an approved regulator”.


In the Act, Section 40(3)(b) clearly allows the judge, where

“it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to make a different award of costs or make no award of costs”.

Sir Brian concluded that this provision deals with so-called SLAPP litigation fairly and appropriately, thereby providing a way of defeating an oligarch intent on pursuing aggressive expensive litigation in an effort to silence criticism.

The second contention, repeated by my noble friend the Minister, was that Section 40 could stop publication of stories for fear of being taken to court and having to pay both sides’ costs. Sir Brian and the noble Baroness have addressed this issue. Sir Brian said:

“Section 40 does not force news publications to pay costs when they win. The recommendation encouraged news publications to establish an independent arbitration mechanism to resolve disputes which would then protect them from those intent on going to court in SLAPP type legislation while also allowing those without means who have been libelled or whose privacy has been invaded to seek redress without incurring vast costs which could not be afforded”.


Therefore, failure to attempt mediation can be taken into account in cost arguments. Sir Brian added:

“In any event, as I recommended, there is an overarching discretion so that the judge can reach a just and equitable resolution of any costs issue”.


Section 40 does not threaten small publishers who would not be able to fight libel and privacy cases. The reason to join a recognised self-regulator is to allow small publishers to offer an arbitration and therefore protect themselves from adverse orders for costs if expensive litigation was chosen in an effort to force them to retract irrespective of the merits of the case.

It is clear that those without financial means are unable to take on the press. However seriously they have been defamed or their privacy has been invaded, they are denied a remedy. We have seen how many millions have been paid in damages against those who have been able to take on newspapers; we do not see the ones that have not been able to. We saw the case recently of a famous actor who had to withdraw a case because of the threat of costs.

They do not get a chance of redress, and certainly do not get one from IPSO. Section 40 provides a warning to wrongdoers to behave; take it away and I believe we will be back to a free-for-all. I believe that my noble friend Lord Black is wrong when he says that Section 40 would be holding a gun to the head of the free and independent press and claims that it would be incompatible with our commitments to the ECHR—as much as I often dislike that court. I do not think Section 40 impinges on press freedom. It is quite the reverse; it protects the citizen and protects the press.

I am afraid IPSO has not worked as well as it should. It is too similar to its predecessor, the Press Complaints Commission. It has never investigated or fined a newspaper; it lacks independence and, many say, effectiveness. It is important that Section 40 provides a useful deterrent that works. The final argument used against it is that it was a manifesto commitment, as my noble friend the Minister quite rightly said. But we have had three Prime Ministers since that manifesto, and most of them totally ignored the manifesto commitments of their predecessors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend, but first I declare my interests as set out in the register. As colleagues will know, I was the independent founding chair of the Independent Press Standards Organisation. I have listened carefully to the speeches that have been made, but I strongly agree with my noble friend that we are really going back over the debates we had a decade ago.

I want to go back to the first principles that my noble friend enunciated. In many ways, free expression is the bedrock of our society, but it is also a privilege—one not enjoyed by many millions of our fellow human beings, and which therefore must be matched by a sense of public duty and responsibility.

We are all familiar with all those egregious cases. As chair, like my noble friend Lord Grade, of the Press Complaints Commission, I found that it was powerless in many cases. I had to have face-to-face meetings with victims to hear for myself their harrowing accounts of their experiences. The PCC was powerless in many cases, particularly where criminal acts had taken place; it was up to the police. One of our sadnesses was that the police seemed so slow to act. Most of the phone hacking cases have now been resolved in the civil courts, but that should not blind us to the fact—I say this to all those who have spoken—that serious criminal acts took place, not just regulatory breaches. So far as regulation is concerned, the key question we have to answer is how to police culture and standards while maintaining independence of thought and deed. It is a very difficult balance.

The rock on which the system is built is the editors’ code, a living document that, as I understand it, is still recognised right across the world as an excellent code. I believe that IPSO has been very effective at holding publishers and publications to account. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, said that IPSO had not been effective because there were a relatively low number of adverse adjudications, and those who have mentioned that have given specific examples. However, press behaviour has improved over the last period. The Press Recognition Panel, which has been lobbying us—lobbying me all the time—pretty hard, largely in its own interests, is funded by the taxpayer, as my noble friend pointed out. I am all for trenchant, highly politicised contributions to this important debate, but I wonder whether it is fair to ask the taxpayer to fund them.

[Viscount Astor (Con)]

My noble friend says that the PRP is funded by the taxpayer, but IPSO is funded by the newspaper industry. Which does he regard as the more independent process?

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

When I gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry, Lord Justice Leveson pointed out to me that it was up to the industry to fund the regulator. When I first gave evidence to him, he asked me to sit down with the main newspaper groups and find a way forward whereby they would fund an independent regulatory process. My noble friend is quite right: it is very important that the industry itself funds the regulator, but the regulator should be independent. That is what I reported in my second line of evidence to the Leveson inquiry, and that is what I believe I managed to achieve.

The proponents of statutory regulation invariably nod sagely and sympathetically when I say all this, but honestly, they have no answers. I believe that state interference is not the answer. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Watson—he sits on a committee with me and I have great respect for him—that Amendment 87A is state regulation in all but name. The system proposed would grind the free press into the dirt with both statutory interference into editorial decision-making and the prospect of endless and often frivolous litigation. Experience also tells us that the principal beneficiaries of such an arrangement would be not individuals who had been misrepresented or traduced but deep corporate pockets and their expensive lawyers, who want to challenge the press at every turn in a war of attrition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The landscape has changed a great deal since these debates were had. There are multiple routes for people to do it, and we think that that is right. The debate is one that has gone on for a great deal of time. Passionate though the contributions have been today, they have not significantly added to the debate that has gone on for a long time. I have little more to add.

[Viscount Astor (Con)]

My Lords, before the noble Baroness deals with her amendment, I ask that my noble friend the Minister, when he finishes this debate and the letter from Sir Brian Leveson is placed in the Library, might look at it carefully. He was asked whether a regulator recognised by the Press Recognition Panel must be regarded as a state regulator, with all that that implies about government interference and the powers of censorship. He points out that he simply does not understand how this assertion can be made, as the recognition panel simply does not regulate the press. He goes on to say that Section 40 does not force newspaper publications to pay costs when they win. I think the Minister would find it helpful if he read that document. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, would find it even more helpful because—who knows?—in July he might find himself dealing with that issue from this side of the House.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I will certainly read the correspondence. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for quoting from it. I think it bears reading in its entirety, which I will be glad to do.

To continue on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Watts, there now exists a strengthened independent self-regulatory system for the press. The majority of traditional publishers are members of IPSO. Despite Section 40 never having been commenced, both Impress and IPSO offer arbitration schemes for legal claims relating to defamation, privacy and harassment. These schemes are either free, through Impress, or low-cost, through IPSO, for claimants. We do not think it likely that the repeal of Section 40, to which we have long been committed, would have an impact on access to low-cost arbitration.

Media Bill

Viscount Astor Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 28th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Astor (Con)]

My Lords, I will comment on the Bill where it affects newspapers and publishing. It is some years since the Leveson inquiry exposed the culture of lawbreaking by the press. We all must admit that there has been a transformation in the way the press behaves, thanks to both public and regulatory pressure.

There are two regulatory bodies. The first is Impress, which is recognised by the Press Recognition Panel and founded under royal charter. Impress includes much of the regional press but few of the nationals. It has established a good reputation. It is not, as claimed by some, government- or state-backed.

The other regulatory body is IPSO, which was created by the press, for the press. It is controlled by newspapers and, I am afraid, replicates much of the structural failings that plagued the old Press Complaints Commission. But one reason it has worked at all is because there is this threat of Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 being introduced. This has hung over the newspapers as an incentive—or perhaps a threat —to conduct themselves properly.

The Government now seek to remove this section. Indeed, my noble friend the Minister said it was in the 2019 Conservative manifesto—a manifesto from a Conservative Prime Minister and former journalist. That was four years and three Prime Ministers ago. Why does my noble friend think it is necessary to remove it now? Are the Government really so confident that it will never be needed? Is it not a safeguard for the future behaviour of the press? IPSO’s Editors’ Code of Practice, created by an industry-dominated committee, does not meet the requirements for a standards code under the Press Recognition Panel.

This is nothing to do with blocking free speech. Section 40 was aimed at providing financial incentives for newspaper publishers to join an approved regulator. If enacted, it would not, as claimed, force publishers to pay both sides’ costs in court actions if they win or, indeed, if they lose—if they join, that would not come into play—nor would it create an unprecedented barrier to justice because it would apply only if they do not join an approved regulator.

It was disappointing that, during the passage of the Bill in the Commons, the Government rejected an amendment from the Conservative MP George Eustice that would require the Secretary of State

“to consult on alternative incentives to encourage publishers or regulators to seek recognition under the terms of the Royal Charter for the Self-Regulation of the Press”.

We have all seen failures of governance in the water industry and in the gas industry, which come under independent regulators. Those failures were exposed, quite rightly, by the press, but in their own case they want to self-regulate—something they would never condone for any other industry.

It is true that the worst behaviour resulted in criminal cases and some expensive civil actions, but the Press Recognition Panel does not believe that Section 40 should be removed without equivalent or alternative mechanisms being put in its place. I believe that to be the case. It also points out that the definition of a recognised news publisher is confusing where it relates to content coming under the remit of Ofcom, but I will leave that to my noble friend to sort out.

Might the Minister also accept an amendment to include anti-SLAPP measures? Does he not agree that Section 40 currently gives protection to publishers from excessive costs from those using SLAPPs? Without Section 40, how can newspapers be protected from outrageous claims by Russian oligarchs for vast amounts of money? I hope he might consider that. It may be that it could be dealt with under another Bill.

There are other issues in the Bill that I look forward to dealing with in Committee, but I cannot finish without talking about my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s amendment. I agreed with much of what he said. I have a confession to make. There is nothing new about foreigners buying national newspapers to achieve influence. My great-grandfather bought the Observer. The only reason he bought it was to have undue influence. Why else would you buy a newspaper? Looking at other occasions since then, Roy Thomson—a Canadian—bought the Times. He sold it on to Rupert Murdoch, an Australian. The Telegraph was sold to the noble Lord, Lord Black of Crossharbour—another Canadian.

The amendment from my noble friend Lady Stowell might work—I hope it does—if my noble friend Lord Forsyth does not get his amendment accepted. However, I would say as a fallback for my noble friend that, in the past, press barons were given a peerage. I suspect that, this time round, the Sheikh did not put in a bid to acquire a peerage. However, if he was offered one and had had a chance to come to your Lordships’ House to listen to the four hours of debate we have had this evening, that might put him off buying the Telegraph.

Gambling Act Review White Paper

Viscount Astor Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness—we had the opportunity briefly to discuss this with some officials earlier, and I know that she will continue to take the opportunities to do that as we implement this. She is right to point to the importance of sponsorship in sport and its impact on children. With the reforms we have made to advertising that has the greatest appeal to children, we have taken action in this area.

The most prominent branding on players’ kits is of course on the front of their shirts. It is not just what people see on the television; it is on the shirts that young supporters buy and wear. So we welcome the action taken to remove that; it is the most effective restriction to break the association. The White Paper sets out further detail: sports bodies are working together to design and implement a cross-sport code of conduct to raise standards for gambling sponsorship across the sector. There is detail in the White Paper and more work to be done.

[Viscount Astor (Con)]

My Lords, I have two questions for my noble friend the Minister. I congratulate him on finally producing the White Paper, which has 256 pages. However, there are two bits missing, so to speak, the first of which is about how these policies will be subject to parliamentary oversight. It is not clear how the Gambling Commission will receive policy decisions from the Government and how it will be accountable to DCMS and Parliament. Secondly, careful reading of the White Paper reveals that, “when parliamentary time allows”, the Government will replace the requirement for the Gambling Commission’s fees to be subject either to the Secretary of State’s approval or to secondary legislation. Does that mean that the Gambling Commission will be able to set any fee it wishes without any oversight from Parliament? The Gambling Commission has not covered itself in glory in the last few years, and it will have to raise its game if it is to take on these significant responsibilities. I declare that I am a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Racing and Bloodstock Industries Group and that I own a horse, which I hope to put a bet on when it runs next month.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The precise design of the levy will be decided by consultation, following which we will introduce the levy by secondary legislation, affording an opportunity for debate in your Lordships’ House and in another place. The Act is clear that all spending on the levy must be approved by DCMS and His Majesty’s Treasury. We do not direct the Gambling Commission on its regulation of gambling more widely—it is an independent regulator—but we work closely together on matters pertaining to this review, and DCMS Ministers will continue to be involved as financial risk checks are developed.

Gambling Harm (Social and Economic Impact of the Gambling Industry Committee Report)

Viscount Astor Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Grand Committee

[Viscount Astor (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome this very good report from the Select Committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Grade, which we finally have a chance to debate this afternoon. I will address my remarks primarily to gambling in relation to horseracing, but it is important to start by pointing out what is missing from this report: the huge growth of illegal gaming sites. A PwC report published in February 2021 estimated that there were 260,000 users of these sites, gambling £1.4 billion a year. We know that those numbers have risen since that report, and there are now estimated to be at least half a million people spending over £2 billion a year on illegal sites.

The reason that this is such a serious concern is that problem gamblers barred from legal sites move seamlessly to illegal ones which have absolutely no protections—no player protection, no anti-money laundering, no tax collection and no sporting integrity. What is even more worrying is that the Gambling Commission seems to concern itself only with legal operators and ignores the evidence of the problem of illegal gaming. It may be that the commission does not see its remit extending to illegal operators based either in this country or outside it. If that is the case, its remit should be extended and it should have those necessary powers.

With the rise of internet gambling, the Government have to make a judgment on regulation. Too little, and it does not work; too much, and it will lead to an explosion in the growth of the black market. Too often in the past, as my noble friend said, the Gambling Commission has not used the substantial powers it already has, whether by fines or orders to make book- makers or gaming companies return bets.

I declare that I own a racecourse—sorry, a racehorse, not a racecourse. I occasionally put a bet on the horse when it runs. It does not win very often, but it did win last year. I ought to also declare that many years ago, on behalf of what was then the Department of National Heritage, I took the Bill which introduced the National Lottery through your Lordships’ House. After the Bill became an Act, we were encouraged to buy a lottery ticket, which we all did. There was then a sudden panic, because we had a letter from the Cabinet Secretary—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Butler—asking us to promise to give the money to charity should we win. My response, which I am not sure ever got back to the Cabinet Office, was that if I won a fiver, I would certainly give the money to charity, but that if I won the jackpot, I would consider my position in Her Majesty’s Government very carefully.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

Not guilty, my Lords.

[Viscount Astor (Con)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s response.

Turning back to the Select Committee report, it thoroughly highlights the difficulty of gambling issues. We need some workable basis of affordability which protects without pushing problem gamblers into the illegal unregulated sector. As I understand it, the remit of affordability was not originally part of the role of the Gambling Commission. If it is to be, the Gambling Commission must improve its understanding of the new technology faced by the punters. I believe that that should be a major part of its role, but it must be up to the Government to bring forward guidelines that have a sensible system for both the commission and the industry to manage affordability, and that process must be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The guidelines on affordability to be followed by operators having been set out by the Government, the Gambling Commission must be the regulator.

Gaming operators have the technology; they are quite capable of rigorous checking and spotting those who regularly lose significant amounts of money. It should be in their interest to manage affordability, but, as my noble friend said, it is a conundrum that this business faces all the time. We must make sure that the gaming companies have to prove that they are managing the issue of affordability. If not, they should be fined or, as a last resort, have their licences withdrawn by the Gambling Commission. Indeed, the idea of having an ombudsman to deal with problem gambling is a very good one.

It is important to stress how illegal gaming is spreading throughout the world. For example, in France and Norway, where there are state monopolies for gaming, the black market is now 60% of all money staked, so it is a serious issue. Gambling companies are quick to entice one to have a bet, but I know from talking to those who occasionally bet on horses that if you win three races three days running, they are quick to close your account. They have the technology; we must make sure that they use it and that must be enforced.

Racing is one sport that benefits from a hypothecated tax: the horseracing betting levy. It is based on the gross profits of bookmakers. It provides over £80 million a year to racing and, without the levy support, many racecourses would not be viable. The Horserace Betting Levy Board does a very good job of helping racing. As an aside, I hope that the Government have given up the ludicrous idea a couple of years ago of abolishing the levy board and subsuming it into the Gambling Commission—not a good idea.

As some of your Lordships will know, the levy needs reform because it is based on gross profit. Over recent years, as turnover has increased, gaming companies’ gross margins have fallen but they still make the same net profit, so the levy income is under threat of decline. This is a lesson for anybody who promotes a levy or a tax to deal with problem gambling: if there is to be one, it cannot be based on gross margin, it must be based on turnover; otherwise, it is subject to huge fluctuations.

Your Lordships would expect me, as someone who is keen on racing, to say that online games and slot machines are a much more serious problem than betting on horses. That does not mean to say that racing does not have issues; it has problems and we must deal with them. There is a strong argument that there should be an age limit on betting on horseracing. It might be 21, some even argue for 25, but there certainly should be a rise in the age limit for those betting on horseracing either at a racecourse or online.

I hope the Government will not allow themselves to be bullied by the large gaming companies, now capitalised in their billions and focused primarily, I have to say, on the rapidly expanding US market. I am glad that the Select Committee report recognised that bookmakers should still be allowed to sponsor horseracing and greyhound racing; it allows them to give something back to racing, and racing needs their support to have decent prize money.

I should also say that racing is affected by illegal gambling by the loss of media rights income. If you go to a racecourse, you often see a drone flying adjacent to the course relaying pictures to illegal operators at a much faster rate than television, because they operate at a high-spectrum frequency, as opposed to the low spectrum used by terrestrial television. This allows illegal betting not only in this country but offshore and beats the standard bookmaking market, so it is affecting the integrity of racing. It is very difficult to control, because drones can fly higher or slightly further away and their cameras are so good that you cannot stop them.

I believe there is a solution: follow the money. That is my key message to your Lordships. It is a way of dealing not only with drones but with illegal betting, whether in this country or through foreign-based operators. It is a £2 billion problem and growing. We need an amendment to the Gambling Act 2005 so that we can follow the money, trace it and stop it; otherwise, all the hard work to be done to help problem gamblers will be wasted. It is important to note that black market bookmakers target those who are self-excluded from regulated bookmaking sites. They go for those vulnerable people, and that is why it is important.

I hope the Government will look seriously at an amendment to the Gambling Act 2005. If they do not, I have drawn up a Private Member’s Bill that I hope to get a chance to propose in the next Session of Parliament that will do the same. I have it in my back pocket and am happy to give a copy to the Minister.