Horseracing Industry

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as the chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Risby, on securing this debate. I have only had the odd flutter on the Grand National and occasional visits to the wonderful racecourse in my former constituency of Bath, so I am conscious that some noble Lords are far better qualified to speak on this issue than me. Nevertheless, I have raised a couple of concerns in your Lordships’ House on a number of occasions relating to the sector and the industry on the issue of drones and gambling, and on wider gambling reform. I will concentrate on just those two, and I apologise for not picking up other issues raised by noble Lords.

One of the ongoing challenges for the racing industry is the use of drones to film races without the permission of the course. This is being undertaken by some in the betting community to beat the slight time lag from official TV feeds. This is very worrying for the integrity of betting markets. I believe that this desperately needs to be addressed, so I would very much welcome comments from the Minister on what the Government propose to do about it. In particular, I hope he would be willing to consider looking at broader sports rights to protect sporting events from the use of drones and to enable the organisers of sports, including horseracing of course, to have much greater control over the events that they are responsible for.

More generally on wider gambling reforms, some in the horseracing sector have argued that the proposals for reform advocated by me and other members of Peers for Gambling Reform will do great harm to the industry. Indeed, articles in the specialist media accuse me of being ignorant, economically daft and, on one occasion, even delusional. So, since I very much hope that the Government will adopt the proposals that we recommend, which stem from the proposals of your Lordships’ Select Committee on gambling, I hope I can reassure the Minister and the Committee that they will not have the impact that some believe they will.

We have to remember that well over one-third of a million people are deemed to be gambling addicts, including as many as 60,000 11 to 16 year-old children, impacting the lives of well over 2 million people in this country. Most tragically, we have hundreds of gambling-related suicides every single year, so reform of gambling is urgently needed. Since horseracing and gambling are inextricably intertwined, such reforms will clearly have an impact but, I argue, not to the degree that some have suggested. Despite what media reports have claimed, I am not a gambling prohibitionist and I do not want to ban the entire sport. Indeed, the opposite is the case: I hope it will flourish.

I cannot help but note in passing that while the amount of support for the horseracing industry that comes through the statutory horseracing betting levy has gone down, as the noble Lord, Lord Risby, has pointed out, it is still something like three times the amount of money that comes in from the voluntary levy to help research, education and treatment for gambling addiction. That is why I would like to see a statutory levy that brings in more money.

I turn briefly to the other recommendations and their relationship with the industry and, first, our recommendations to limit the links between sport and gambling advertising. I make it absolutely clear, as the Select Committee does, that we believe those proposals should exclude horseracing and greyhound racing. That is not an issue.

Secondly, we are calling for the introduction of affordability checks. Surely it is important that consumers can afford to bet in the way they do, yet some in the industry have argued that such checks will deter the vast majority of punters and even cause a huge surge in the use of black market gambling, with dire consequences for the horseracing industry. Of course, this ignores that fact that some checks involving the sharing of financial data are already required in relation to money laundering and the existing and recent requirements of the Gambling Commission.

The impact of our proposals on horseracing will be limited because, first, they are targeted at online gambling. No checks would take place at a racecourse under the proposals, so traditional gambling at the racetrack would not be affected. Secondly, for online gambling, where horseracing now also resides, we want them to be triggered at a level of £100 a month. Even one of the gambling industry’s own reports, authored for it by PwC, determined that high-spend gamblers are defined as anyone losing more than £75 a month. So a level of £100 as the trigger really will not affect any but the smallest proportion of online customers, those who are likely to be suffering or at risk of suffering a gambling disorder. Thirdly, it is perfectly possible to do the checks in an unintrusive manner. After all, the gambling industry already shares data with credit agencies so should not need to ask for additional evidence from customers in all but a few cases. Affordability checks should not be a threat to the industry.

There is one area where I acknowledge potential issues that need to be addressed. Traditional, on-course betting is very different from what takes place online. At a racetrack there is a long time gap between races and punters have time to reflect on their financial position before making the next bet. Online there are very few of the limits, whether on stakes and prizes or on speed of play, that apply to land-based gambling. I acknowledge that there may well be impacts there, but I think they could be limited.

The noble Lord, Lord Risby, agreed that the horseracing industry wants to protect people from gambling-related harm but without disproportionate measures. I genuinely believe that the proposals we are recommending achieve both the things he wants.

Public Service Broadcasting: BBC Centenary

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Foster of Bath]

That this House takes note of the future of public service broadcasting, in the year of the British Broadcasting Corporation’s centenary.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I begin by congratulating the Minister on his re-emergence, which is just in time to celebrate the 100th anniversary of daily broadcasting on the BBC. If, using the TARDIS from “Doctor Who”, Lord Reith could travel to a modern home, he would be amazed by flatscreen TVs, computers and smart speakers, which are all capable of delivering some or all of the BBC’s output. This now includes nine TV channels, 10 national radio stations and a network of local radio stations, a huge web presence and a large archive of programmes—all readily available for just 44p per day.

He would be equally amazed to learn that what he knew as the Empire Service now delivers reliable and trusted international news and other programming in more than 40 languages, projecting soft power around the world. He would be amazed to hear that BBC services reach 492 million people a week, making it the world’s largest broadcaster by reach. He would be impressed by the BBC’s contribution to our world-beating creative industries through investment, skills, training and, not least, BBC-led innovations such as iPlayer, which trailblazed for the global streamers and the creation of a new market for video on demand.

Reith would also see, with Bitesize, CBeebies, “Panorama”, “Frozen Planet”, “Strictly Come Dancing” and the “BBC Proms”, that the principles of “inform, educate and entertain” remain, as does the power to show us what it is to be part of the United Kingdom and to bring people together, as it did during the Queen’s funeral. He would be proud to learn that many believe that the BBC is the best and most trusted broadcaster in the world. It is probably our best gift to the world. Even rivals are complimentary. Netflix, for example, has said:

“The impact that the BBC has had over the last few decades in building the profile of the UK creatively, in nurturing talent, its investment in production and so forth”.


Reith would also learn that we now have other public service broadcasters. We have ITV, STV, UTV, S4C, Channel 5 and Channel 4, which had its 40th anniversary just yesterday. I note that as part of Channel 4’s celebrations it has guest presenters for its longest-running show, “Countdown”, and my noble friend Lady Benjamin in the hot seat this week.

However, with much to marvel at, Reith would also learn, in true “Doctor Who” style, that there are enemies incoming and PSB problems are multiplying. For example, take the Government’s attitude to the BBC. On these Benches, as critical friends, we support a strong, well-funded and independent BBC and oppose attempts to undermine it by seeking to reduce its funding or remit. Yet, we have seen sadly moves by the Conservative Government that have meant the BBC having to do more with less licence fee income. There has been a 30% cut over the past 12 years following the freeze on the licence fee from 2010. There are also rising production costs and new obligations such as funding free licences for the over-75s—a social policy that should be funded by government. Even now, controversial changes to news and local radio stations are being made which other noble Lords will mention. The BBC is rightly adapting to the digital world, but there can be little doubt that changes would have been done differently had its budget not been so severely cut.

Conservative antipathy to the BBC is perhaps not surprising. After all, it was Boris Johnson’s adviser Dominic Cummings who called for the

“end of the BBC in its current form”.

He advised right-wingers to work towards undermining the credibility of the BBC because it is the “mortal enemy” of the Conservative Party. No wonder we have seen repeated attempts to do so from right-wing politicians, think tanks and media organisations—many of whom have a vested interest.

Wider challenges face all PSBs. In return for spectrum allocation and guaranteed prominence on electronic programme guides for linear TV, PSBs are required to meet numerous obligations. These include being free at the point of delivery, providing impartial news and current affairs and distinctly British content, commissioning a minimum number of programmes from independent producers outside the M25 and being available on all platforms.

However, with change occurring at an unprecedented pace, they now face stiff competition from hundreds of other channels and online services. Subscription video on demand—SVoD—services, such as Amazon Prime and Netflix, operate globally, with strategic advantages in financing, data and economies of scale. They have enjoyed rapid success and are unencumbered by such obligations. The effects of this, such as the hyper-inflation of production costs, mean that some PSBs are questioning whether they should remain PSBs. We should be clear about what we would lose: there would probably be less original journalism from ITV and Channel 5, for example, and certainly less British content.

Currently, the PSBs combined produce far more original UK home-grown content than the streamers, producing 35,000 hours in the last 12 months to April, compared with only 831 hours produced by Netflix and Amazon Prime combined. If some channels ceased to be PSBs, it would inevitably lead to a reduction in home-grown content and increased reliance on US-made programmes. As the Select Committee said three years ago:

“Our evidence overwhelmingly indicated that public service broadcasting is as important as ever to our democracy and culture, as well as to the UK’s image on the world stage.”


So we must urgently address the challenges.

The April White Paper, Up Next: The Government’s Vision for the Broadcasting Sector, also recognises the challenges and proposes a range of solutions. I agree with some and disagree with others, such as the plans for Channel 4. But, given the urgent need for action, it is disturbing that there is no sign of the media Bill. On Tuesday, DCMS Minister Julia Lopez said that her department was keen to bring it forward, so can the Minister explain who is blocking it? We urgently need the opportunity to agree measures to ensure that we continue to reap the democratic, cultural and economic benefits of PSBs.

I turn to some of the measures that I believe are needed. The first is really easy and requires no money or legislation: simply stop putting the BBC down. It makes an enormous contribution to our culture and democracy, it is held in great affection at home and it is admired the world over. We should be immensely proud of that achievement. Of course, we cannot be complacent and must exercise vigilance over the spending of the public’s money. But let us not confuse accountability with the kind of full-throated attacks frequently heard in the right-wing press and occasionally, dare I say, from the Benches opposite. We should be more willing to celebrate than condemn.

Secondly, we should think creatively about alternative methods of funding the BBC, while ensuring that it continues to be universally available, free at the point of use and the benchmark for quality, range, innovation and training. I serve on the Communications and Digital Committee, the current and past chairs of which I am pleased to see in their places. The committee’s recent report on BBC funding outlined the options that we felt were plausible substitutes for the licence fee and those that we felt should be dismissed. I will not rehearse those arguments here—others may well do so—but we need careful cross-party consideration of those options to ensure that the BBC continues to be an integral part of British life well into the 21st century.

Incidentally, while the Government may wish to explore a contestable fund for additional high-quality UK-produced material, such as the trial carried out on the young audiences content fund, this should be totally separate from financing the BBC. That financing process should be independent and transparent, whether for the licence fee or for whatever succeeds it. In 2019, the Select Committee said that

“the integrity of the licence fee has been undermined by a succession of settlements which were carried out in secret and which have tended to disadvantage the BBC.”

It is time to end those clandestine negotiations, which are bad for the BBC and the country.

Thirdly, our public service broadcasters play a vital role in bringing international stories to UK audiences, informing them about urgent global issues and connecting them with people, places, events and concerns far beyond our national borders. Such a role is especially crucial given the danger of a post-Brexit Britain becoming ever more inward-looking and insular and so must continue to be enshrined in the remits of all PSBs.

Fourthly, we need to end the nonsense of Channel 4 privatisation. This was a particular obsession of Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries, with virtually no support from the industry or from audiences. Your Lordships’ committee was clear that launching consultation on privatisation and stating that privatisation was the Government’s preferred option was “not the right approach”. It went on:

“The Government should have set out its vision for the future of public service broadcasting as a whole before examining what place Channel 4 should have in that ecosystem, and which business model it needs to realise that role.”


Yet the current Secretary of State is apparently reviewing the business case for privatisation as we speak, without any of the key decisions about the future of PSB having been made. I hope the Minister can explain why that is.

On these Benches, we are clear that a privately owned Channel 4 would mean a corporate owner maximising its return to shareholders rather than investing in programmes; it would mean less innovation, an inevitable reduction in serious peak-time news, fewer commissions to small, independent producers, and less investment in the nations and regions. Pulling the rug from under Channel 4 will not just impact one broadcaster; it will harm the whole sector. Privatisation was always a solution in search of a problem; it should go the same way as its initial sponsors.

Fifthly, as both BBC and ITV have warned, there is a risk that, soon, “crown jewel” sporting events will be available only on subscription services. I share their view that urgent changes are required to the listed events regime to avoid this happening.

Sixthly, there needs to be a proper inquiry, perhaps led by Ofcom, into which platforms PSBs should be obliged to provide their content to and whether they are getting fair value for it.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we urgently need to update the prominence regime so that content from PSBs is easily discoverable in the digital age. There is little point in placing content obligations on broadcasters if audiences are unable to find that content. It is three years since Ofcom called for new legislation to keep PSB content prominent on both linear and on-demand television. Three years on, at last we have the promised new prominence framework in the long-awaited media Bill—yet another reason why it should be introduced as a matter of urgency.

Our PSBs, not least the BBC, are the envy of the world, but they are operating in a rapidly changing landscape. If their reputation is to be maintained, urgent changes must be made to the way we support and regulate them. The proposed media Bill is long awaited. Let us hope the wait will be soon over so we can debate it and then agree measures to ensure a PSB sector fit for the new broadcasting age. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am almost surprised that he did not lead us in a rendition of “Happy Birthday” for the BBC and Channel 4. I also have to ponder what his speech might have been like had he delivered it, as originally intended, from the Back Benches rather than the Front Bench. I am almost certain—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the history lesson about the Liberal role in the BBC’s establishment would not have been included in a Back-Bench speech, but I am grateful to him for it.

The Minister will have heard that there is a great deal of support for public service broadcasting all around the Chamber. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, particularly those who emphasised important reasons for supporting it that I did not mention. There were references, for example, to science, children, sport and even the importance of trusted news in conflict areas.

I am also conscious that, in the back of our minds, many of us support the public service broadcasters, including the BBC, because of what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds called the “nightmare alternative” of having a broadcasting landscape like that in the United States—or, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, put it, “Heaven preserve us from Fox News”.

So the Minister will take away that there is a great deal of support for the BBC. He in turn supported the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, about the need for the public service broadcasters, including the BBC, to address some of the issues that need addressing. Reference was made to former chairs of the Select Committee and the way in which some people in society feel that they are not represented by our public service broadcasters—they have to address that. It is equally true that, as my noble friend Lord McNally said, public service broadcasters need to be a bit more up front about their own proposals and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said, less timid.

I end by repeating my thanks to everybody. I hope that the Minister will take away the very clear message from the whole of your Lordships’ House that there are issues that need fixing and that can be fixed only through legislation, which we need as soon as possible—including legislation in relation to the important digital markets issue. I was present when the Secretary of State spoke, and she said “soon”, not “shortly”. I have had the chance to stand at the Dispatch Box and use all those phrases—“when parliamentary time allows”, “in due course”, “soon”, “shortly”, “in a few weeks’ time” and so on—and I have never understood the subtle distinctions between them. But, if the Minister knows the answer to this, could he intervene? It would help us to answer the question of how likely it is that we will get this soon. Does he know whether a media Bill has been approved by the Cabinet? If he does not, perhaps he could find out, because that would be helpful information for the House. If it has not been, could he do everything in his power to urge the Cabinet to address this issue very quickly?

Motion agreed.

Loot Boxes

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Foster of Bath]

That this House takes note of the response by His Majesty’s Government to the consultation on loot boxes.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I begin by welcoming the Minister to his new post. I know from experience that DCMS is an exciting department in which to be involved, although one that is sadly undervalued by Governments of all persuasions. I refer to my interest as the chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform, an organisation whose 150 members—Peers from all sides of this House—have been pressing for the implementation of the recommendations from your Lordships’ Select Committee on gambling, on which I had the opportunity to serve. Sadly, much time has passed since the publication of its report and since the Government’s own consultation on gambling legislation was concluded. A much-anticipated White Paper was approved twice by the previous Cabinet, yet has still not seen the light of day. With at least one gambling-related suicide every single day, we simply cannot wait any longer. Could the Minister tell us when the White Paper will be published, and will he agree to meet with members of PGR as soon as possible?

Noble Lords may wonder why I have begun with reference to gambling reform when this debate is actually about loot boxes. I believe there is a very clear link and, as I will argue, that loot boxes should be treated as gambling and regulated accordingly, with a change to the current legal definition of gambling. Your Lordships’ committee recommended this, as did the House of Commons DCMS Committee. The Conservative manifesto for the 2019 election also made a link between gambling and loot boxes. It made a commitment to undertake a review of the Gambling Act 2005,

“with a particular focus on tackling issues around loot boxes”.

While we await the gambling White Paper, we at least now have the response to the separate consultation on loot boxes. I was, frankly, shocked by its contents. It said that the evidence submitted to the consultation showed a link between loot boxes and gambling harms and to wider mental health and financial harms. But it went on to say that the Government do not intend to amend gambling regulation or to introduce any other statutory consumer protections to cover loot boxes. Frankly, that makes no sense. How can a Government that have stressed that they would take an evidence-based approach accept there is a link between loot boxes and harm and yet not legislate to protect people from this harm?

A report commissioned last year by GambleAware stated that links between loot box purchasing and problem gambling

“have been robustly verified in around a dozen studies”,

and argued that loot boxes were “psychologically akin to gambling”. The Select Committee heard similarly overwhelming evidence. Dr David Zendle, of the University of York, for example, has done extensive research in this field. His findings, presented to the committee, found that in every one of his studies spending money on loot boxes is linked to problem gambling, and that the more money individuals spend on loot boxes, the more severe their problem gambling. He told the committee that the link between problem gambling and loot boxes is extraordinarily robust. We also heard that research around the world, from Canada to Finland, has replicated those findings.

Perhaps the most worrying findings were in relation to young people. In the UK, we currently have around 60,000 young people aged 11 to 16 who are deemed to be gambling addicts, with a further 85,000 deemed to be at risk of becoming so. Rates of harmful gambling among 17 to 20 year-olds are increasing threefold. We should be particularly concerned that the research by Dr Zendle and others shows that the observed links between loot box spending and problem gambling were much stronger in adolescents than in adults. According to some research, young people who spend money on loot boxes are more than 10 times as likely to be problem gamblers than those who do not.

Three years ago, the Children’s Commissioner’s report, Gaming the System, also expressed concern about the impact of loot boxes on young people and, like the Select Committees in both Houses, recommended the regulation of loot boxes as gambling. More recently, GambleAware pointed out that, without action, loot boxes—used by 40% of children who play video games—will continue to normalise gambling-like activities with all the well-established consequences.

I have been careful to refer to a link between loot boxes and problem gambling rather than a causal relationship between them. The more money an individual spends on loot boxes, the more likely they are to suffer gambling harm, but I acknowledge that establishing a causative relationship is much harder. However, this effect shows very clearly that one of two things is happening: in one situation, loot boxes are causing gambling problems; in the other, the companies that sell loot boxes are profiting inordinately from children and vulnerable individuals who suffer gambling harms. Such individuals commonly spend thousands of pounds on loot boxes. Either outcome is a cause for concern. So I do not believe that the absence of definitive proof of a causative link justifies the Government’s response, which is, in essence, to do nothing except encourage further research and hope that the industry will do something.

Of course I welcome further research, so can the Minister provide an update on the video games research framework? I am a fan of the UK’s games industry. It contributes significantly to the success of our creative industries, and with developments in virtual and augmented reality will be even more important. It is a responsible industry but, with significant earnings to be made from loot boxes, asking it to take significant steps to reduce their well-documented harms is asking too much of it.

Waiting for enhanced industry-led protections was exactly the same argument that allowed the worst practices of the gambling industry to go unchecked for many years. We were told that the Government did not need to regulate fixed-odds betting terminals because the industry would self-regulate. It did not. We were told that there was no need to bring in a statutory levy to fund research, education and treatment because the industry would provide sufficient through the voluntary levy. It has not. We were told that the industry would cut down on the advertising that is constantly marketed to young people and recovering gamblers. Instead it introduced, for football, a measly whistle-to-whistle ban that does not even begin to deal with advertising hoardings, front-of-shirt sponsorship or programme ads. There has been no let-up in non-football-linked TV ads, nor the constant bombardment of online marketing.

To be told once again that we can once trust the industry to self-regulate a product that directly funds those companies is surely not the right approach to take. A business model that relies on the fiscal success of harmful products must be regulated by the Government, not by the companies themselves. If the Government will not change, can the Minister at least provide details on progress made by the technical working group set up to develop those industry-led solutions?

Even the type of industry measures that the Government are suggesting seem likely to have little effect—for example, enhanced parental controls. As one commentator pointed out, that is like allowing children to gamble in a betting shop as long as a parent is present. More worryingly, as GambleAware-commissioned research points out, advocating enhanced parental controls as a key part of the solution shows how little the Government appreciate how difficult it now is for parents to understand and adequately protect their children from gambling harms, and, given the rapid changes to online activities, how lacking in confidence parents are even about talking to their children about these issues. Surely, given all the evidence, we should expect the Government to adopt a public health approach based on prevention.

In his previous role as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Health and Social Care, where I believe he did an excellent job, the Minister was a powerful advocate of such a public health approach. I am grateful to the Library for providing numerous quotes from him showing how on several occasions he praised

“public health interventions and a strong regulatory framework”—[Official Report, 3/12/21; col. 1610.]

in relation to other harms such as smoking, obesity and mental health conditions. I remind him that when in March this year, during an Oral Question, I asked him about adopting a public health approach towards gambling he said:

“I know we take very seriously that this is a public health issue that we must tackle in a holistic way. We are looking at how we can allocate funding in the NHS long-term plan to tackle gambling addiction and to ensure that we focus more on prevention rather than simply dealing with people once they have a problem.”—[Official Report, 28/3/2022; col. 1262.)


Does the Minister really believe that the Government’s response to their own inquiry into loot boxes is evidence of the adoption of a public health approach? I certainly do not.

I remind him that as part of the review his own department commissioned Loot Boxes and Digital Gaming: A Rapid Evidence Assessment, a report whose results it sat on for ages. I suspect that was because it showed a

“stable and consistent association between loot box use and problem gambling”.

Despite that, there has been no action by the Government. Leave it to the industry and to parents, and encourage more research, but do not expect the Government to act.

In moving that the House takes note of the response by His Majesty’s Government to the consultation on loot boxes, I simply say that I was dismayed by it. I hope the Government will think again and instead take note of the recommendations of the Select Committees in both Houses, the Children’s Commissioner, GambleAware, numerous academics and many others who believe that loot boxes should be regulated as gambling. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply to the debate and his clarity about being willing to meet, and I hope he will meet with Peers for Gambling Reform in the near future. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in what I believe is a very important debate, not least because of the issues that have been raised about harm currently being done to children and vulnerable people. I believe that further action that is way beyond the sort of promises we heard from the Minister must be taken, although I welcome the work that is being done. I believe—and I think the Minister has heard this—that far more needs to be done.

I think we have been clear, and I hope the Minister will understand, that we are huge fans of the games industry in this country. Before this debate, I was in a meeting of the Communications and Digital Committee, hearing from one of the leading experts in the world of digital games industry, who rightly pointed out that they are leading the way in new developments in VR and AR that are not only going to help their industry but areas such as health and education also—these are very important. As I hope the Minister has heard, we are clear that where they have a significant financial vested interest in the issue of loot boxes, it is wrong to expect them to take responsibility for dealing with the concerns that we have.

While we have been debating, reports have come out that No. 10 is debating a major U-turn on the mini-Budget. I had hoped that this debate would have led to a smaller U-turn on the issue of loot boxes. Sadly, we have not had that, but I am grateful for what the Minister said and the offers that he made. We look forward to further discussions on these issues. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Channel 4: Annual Report

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My noble friend is correct. The chief executive of Channel 4 received a 20% pay rise last year, taking her total salary to £1.2 million. That is twice the salary of the director-general of the BBC and more than the chief executive of ITV. Salaries are a matter for Channel 4 but I think this shows that the company is in rude health, one of the many things that make it an attractive asset to a potential buyer.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister says that the Government are happy with the Channel 4 report, which he will know shows that Channel 4 has significantly exceeded the quotas set for it. In the unnecessary privatisation plans, the Government say they want the new owner to

“deliver outcomes in line with those we see today”.

Can the Minister explain whether those are the outcomes that the channel is actually achieving, the ones we see today, or the much less ambitious outcomes laid out in the remit?

Gambling White Paper

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Foster of Bath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will publish the Gambling White Paper.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

In asking my question on the Order Paper, I declare my interest as the chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)]

My Lords, Ministers and officials have worked tirelessly on the Gambling Act review for 18 months. We remain committed to delivering our manifesto commitment and will publish the White Paper as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, sadly, the Minister is back-tracking on his usual reply, which is “within weeks”. He will know that there are already one or more gambling-related suicides every single day, and that 60,000 children are already classified as gambling addicts. The consultation on measures to reduce those figures began over two and a half years ago. The resulting White Paper has been delayed five times; it has already been approved by the Cabinet on two separate occasions. Does the Minister accept that each delay is costing lives and sets more young people on the road to becoming addicts? Will he press for the rapid delivery of the White Paper, full and undiluted, as the former Gambling Minister, Chris Philp, intended?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I take the opportunity to pay tribute to my honourable friend Chris Philp, who led a lot of the work on the preparation for this White Paper. There will be a new Prime Minister in place in a matter of weeks, and we want to ensure that the hard work that has gone into the review sees its speedy publication. We have not waited for the review to take action where it is needed to address the sorts of harms that the noble Lord points to. For instance, we have banned gambling on credit cards; tightened restrictions on VIP schemes; strengthened the rules for how online operators identify and interact with people at risk of harm; and updated the advertising codes of practice to make sure that content that has a strong appeal to children is banned.

Gambling: Loot Boxes

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Foster of Bath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to regulate loot boxes as a form of online gambling.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s response to the call for evidence on loot boxes is being developed alongside our review of the Gambling Act. We received over 30,000 responses to our call for evidence and will publish the Government’s response in the coming months. It will consider a range of issues, including in relation to gambling. The gambling White Paper will be published in the coming weeks.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware that, two years ago, the Government responded to a DCMS Committee report saying that the Gambling Act review would have

“a particular focus on tackling issues around loot boxes.”

The link between loot boxes and problem gambling has now been verified by many empirical studies. Given that 60,000 children are considered to be problem gamblers, will the Minister confirm that the much-delayed White Paper will make specific proposals, going beyond the steps recently taken by the games industry, to protect young people from the harm caused by loot boxes and other gambling-like products?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot anticipate the much-anticipated White Paper, but we have certainly looked at the potential for harm to children and other vulnerable people through gambling. We looked at the issue of loot boxes separately because it is a technical and distinct area. We are very glad to have had 30,000 responses to our call for evidence. These have been considered alongside 50 submissions from academics and businesses and an independent evidence assessment of academic literature. So, we are looking at this in the detail that it deserves.

Gambling Industry: Gambling Reforms

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Foster of Bath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of claims by the gambling industry that their proposed gambling reforms will reduce tax revenues.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)]

My Lords, without speculating on our ongoing review, gambling duties are based on gross gambling yield. Any changes which reduced industry revenue would lower tax receipts. Conversely, changes which reduce harm could cut costs to the Government and some displaced spending would likely go to other sectors that pay tax. We will publish our White Paper in the coming weeks.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am sure he will be aware that some £5 billion of gambling companies’ annual profits tends to come from people with gambling problems or those who are in danger of having them, costing lives and increasing the cost to the NHS. Reducing gambling harm would reduce NHS costs and, with spending displaced from gambling to more labour-intensive sectors, create up to 30,000 additional jobs and increase the funding going into the Treasury coffers, as demonstrated by the NERA report. Does the Minister accept that it is possible to reduce gambling harm and have a stronger economy by doing so?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The noble Lord is right that tackling problem gambling is good not just for the people affected by it but for the services which treat it. We are also aware that there is a black market in gambling and that problem gamblers may be liable to continue their problem gambling in that area. We are considering both these things as part of our review of the 2005 Act.

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

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I would normally begin by saying how much I enjoyed the speech of the previous speaker, but I have to say that I fundamentally disagree with quite a lot of what the noble Baroness said—I will touch on that in a few moments.

I declare my interest as the chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform, which has over 150 Members of your Lordships’ House and was established to press for the implementation of the recommendations contained in the report of the Select Committee so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Grade, on which I served. I too pay tribute to the excellent clerk, Michael Collon, and his staff. The committee was concerned by some of the information that we were given very early on in our deliberations, when we heard about gambling companies making billions of pounds in profits—and about the CEO of one company getting a pay cheque of nearly £500 million, for example. At the same time, there were over one-third of a million problem gamblers —probably far more, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said—with, staggeringly, 60,000 children also being problem gamblers, 2 million people affected by it and, most tragically of all, more than one gambling-related suicide every day, as the noble Lord, Lord Grade, said.

We concluded that we simply cannot continue as we are with the outdated legislation from 2005, introduced long before the advent of the smartphone. Of course, we reflect that we are no longer just talking about trips to the casino or the betting shop for a flutter on the horses because, with smartphones, everyone has a mini-casino in their pocket. The gambling on offer is largely unrestricted, with no limits on stakes or prizes and with VIP deals from gambling companies offering huge incentives for gamblers to chase their losses and ever more new gambling opportunities regularly coming online. We are bombarded by gambling adverts on TV, around football pitches, on shirts, online and often directly sent to us in emails, pop-ups and so on. This means that we and our children are constantly being exposed to advertisements and incentivised to gamble. No wonder that the noble Lord, Lord True, speaking from the Dispatch Box—although perhaps in a personal capacity—recently said that, as a sports fan, he was

“sick and tired of gambling advertising being thrust down viewers’ throats.”—[Official Report, 27/1/22; col. 446.]

As we have heard, the recommendations of the committee were wide-ranging. But central to all of them was the need to adopt a public health approach to gambling, just as we already do for policies in respect of tobacco, drugs and alcohol, as the noble Lord, Lord Layard, pointed out. This is where I fundamentally disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. For far too long there has been an assumption—which she expressed—that, if only we could identify and protect those relatively few people who are supposedly vulnerable to gambling, we need not worry about the rest. But, as illustrated and demonstrated by the excellent video made by Gambling with Lives, which supports family members of those who have committed suicide because of gambling, anyone can become addicted. The gambling companies, which, as we have heard, make a high percentage of their profits from problem gamblers, design their offerings and marketing strategies to persuade as many of us as possible to start down that road and, once on it, to continue.

Last month, in a debate on gambling advertising in your Lordships’ House, I referred to Annie Ashton’s description in the Guardian of the predatory actions of gambling companies and of how her husband Luke committed suicide after relapsing into his gambling addiction. She said:

“the pattern of his gambling was obviously harmful. He took advantage of a free bet offer, deposited money, lost money, was immediately advertised another free bet offer, and the cycle would begin again.”

Luke found that being “bombarded with ads” on his mobile

“made it a problem that became impossible to escape.”

Such examples, and there are many more, illustrate the need for a public health approach.

I am delighted that the gambling Minister Chris Philp says that he agrees, but it requires, as the noble Lord, Lord Layard, said, a co-ordinated effort between several government departments and policymakers from education to health, to DCMS and beyond, but from what I have been able to ascertain there seems to have been little involvement of the Department for Health and Social Care in developing the anticipated White Paper. When he winds up, can the Minister confirm whether that is correct and, if so, why?

The public health approach informed the committee’s recommendations. They include, as we have heard, the establishment of a gambling ombudsman and the introduction of affordability checks, to which many noble Lords have already referred. Incidentally, the Gambling Commission just announced that it is going to look at them. I am surprised that the proposals supported by Peers for Gambling Reform have attracted so much criticism from the gambling industry and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. After all, the majority of gambling companies already do affordability checks, in one form or another. We are arguing for one that is standardised across all gambling companies and independently monitored.

We are not seeking a hard limit on what people can spend, merely a soft check to ensure that they know what they are doing, that they can afford to do it and have decided to do it. Since this is for online gambling only, it would not, as some are concerned it would, apply to on-course betting. So the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, need not fear. I point out to him and to others that there is a huge difference between horseracing and online gambling. If you bet at a racecourse—he does not have one, but other people do—there is a huge time gap between placing a bet on one race and on another. In modern online gambling, the rate of play is so frenetic that you can go on and on, chasing your losses. There is a significant difference between the two.

We want a change from the current voluntary levy to a statutory one. I note, as the noble Viscount did, that the statutory levy for horseracing brings in about £80 million. It is worth reflecting that the voluntary levy for other forms of gambling on two-legged animals brings in only £20 million or less. It seems at least reasonable to get the two to be comparable. The report makes clear that this can be done immediately. We have not specified precisely how—a formula could be based on profits, fees or something else—and the point made earlier was that it could be done in such a way that it is less for land-based businesses, which often have products that are less addictive, than for online gambling.

The object is to raise enough money for research, education and treatment and to raise it compulsorily so that the industry cannot opt out abruptly. It would break the link between giving the money and deciding what should be done with it. We need independence in determining what the research, education and treatment activities should be. I believe that there is lots of support for that from all sorts of communities.

Two other reforms have been referred to: reform of online gambling, not least to introduce stake and prize limits, just as we already have for land-based gambling, and, as we discussed in that earlier debate, limitations that curb gambling marketing. Currently £1.5 billion is spent marketing these products to us, with all sorts of inducements and so on. We believe that there should be a ban on direct marketing, an end to all inducements, such as those free bets, and a phasing out of sports sponsorship. We have suggested—I again suggest that the Minister have a look at the details of this—that there are ways of finding alternative funding for sports clubs, for instance through the introduction of sports rights, which would also begin to address the concerns the noble Viscount expressed in respect of drones.

Many of the recommendations do not need primary legislation, as we have heard, and I am delighted that there has been some movement since the report came out: the banning of credit cards, tighter restrictions in some aspects of gambling advertising and, not least, the establishment of more problem gambling clinics, with more to come.

As we have also heard, some raise the concern that this will have an impact on the Treasury. I am delighted that reference has been made to the NERA report that we commissioned, which demonstrates that not only would there be a reduction in gambling harm but that at the same time there would be huge benefits to the economy, with something like 30,000 additional jobs, more money going into the Treasury and so on, and more money available for research, education and treatment.

I welcome the fact that there has been some movement, but I desperately believe that much more is needed. As has already been said, the report was introduced more than two years ago and it said it was time for action. That action is now long overdue.

Earlier, before I came here, I went to a meeting of GambleAware, which has changed dramatically in the past two or three years. Only today it published a document, and I noticed this paragraph in it:

“The ongoing impact of the pandemic, a growing cost-of-living crisis and shift to online gambling means there is a potential increased risk of people experiencing gambling harms that remains unseen until an individual reaches a crisis point. Without action now, many more people and families could suffer.”


I hope the Government will at last get on with it. Unless they do, there will be more gambling harm and more lives ruined.

British Museum: Ethiopian Sacred Altar Tablets

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The noble Lord touches on the core sensitivity of the matter. Some of these items are considered so sacred and holy that they can be looked at only by Ethiopian Orthodox priests, which would be the case in Ethiopia as in London. That is why the British Museum is in discussion with the Church. There are other items, however, from Maqdala that can be found in the museum’s public galleries or changing displays. Together and individually, they demonstrate some of the great artistic traditions of Ethiopia, showing the breadth and explaining the diversity of the religious traditions in that country, including Christianity, Islam, Judaism and many other faiths.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

My Lords, we have time. It is the turn of the Liberal Democrats and then the Labour Benches—if they could work out which one of them is going to stand up.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, recognising that only a handful of priests of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church live in the UK, that not even the director of the British Museum can view them and that there is, in this case, no legal impediment, would it not help the trustees of the British Museum to come to the right decision if the Government indicated their support for the return of the tabots to Ethiopia? If the Minister agrees, would he instruct the trustees of that view?

Young Audiences Content Fund: Replacement

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, this is a three-year pilot that is about to reach the end of its three years, and it must be evaluated so that we can see whether it has been as beneficial as noble Lords anticipate that it has. The noble Baroness is right that, even with the challenges of the pandemic, the industry has reached new heights of success, seeing record production in 2021, which is testament both to the UK’s status as the best place in the world to produce television and to the hard work of everyone involved in the industry. We want to evaluate the impact of the fund so we can see how best we can support them to continue to reach even greater heights.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, can the Government at least ensure that there is a continuation of funding until such time as the review has been carried out and a government decision is made about what is to happen in future? Will that decision bring to an end the days of the Government raiding the BBC licence fee for projects, however worthy they might be?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, it is important that this trial to test out new ways of contestable funding be evaluated before those decisions are taken.