Gambling Harms

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate you on your elevated position, and I will heed your comments on the time. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on securing this important debate on gambling harm. It is a real pleasure to welcome him in leading what I believe is his first Westminster Hall debate. I also refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which states that I took part in a charity bet last April.

My hon. Friend spoke movingly, as did Members from across the House, about those who have suffered from gambling-related harm and suicide and those who have sadly lost their lives. I extend my sympathies and those of the Government to all those who are affected by these issues.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

Organisations such as Gordon Moody in my constituency provide essential and invaluable residential treatment for individuals suffering from severe gambling addiction, as well as mental health services and advice about how to detangle addiction. How are the Government supporting those organisations in their efforts to prevent gambling-related suicide, and does the Minister agree that an expansion of Government-backed rehabilitation services, especially those focused on children, is essential?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I have seen at first hand the impact of gambling-related harms. As shadow Minister for gambling, I spoke to individuals and families who have been directly impacted by such harm. I visited a Gordon Moody treatment centre, which I believe is in her constituency, spoke to families in Parliament and hosted roundtables with the prevention sector. The Minister for Gambling regularly engages with those who have lived experience of gambling harm.

Today, I will set out the Government’s position on gambling-related harm and the important action we are taking to reduce it. This debate is framed by the 2023 Gambling White Paper. Published by the last Government, it laid the foundations for once in a generation gambling reform. We are working with the industry to modernise regulation, as well as to implement meaningful changes to protect people from gambling-related harm.

Before I do that, I will respond to points made during the debate. If I do not cover them all now, I will during the course of my speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and others asked when the statutory levy would be reviewed. That will happen within five years. Affordability checks are being piloted. The voluntary ombudsman was in the White Paper and the Minister for Gambling will update shortly. I would argue that the Government are acting to protect people from harm, implementing the White Paper and fulfilling our manifesto commitment to reduce harm.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised a really important question about Northern Ireland. I am always keen to meet my counterparts. I would be very pleased to write to him, and the DCMS stands ready to work with the Northern Ireland Executive to strengthen regulation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) raised the important issue of horseracing, of which he is a strong champion, as did the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and others. I will relay their points to the Minister for Gambling. The Government’s position is that the horseracing and gambling industries should get round the table and come to a voluntary deal.

I will briefly respond to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), who said that the levy was in jeopardy. I say gently to him that the only thing putting it in jeopardy is him voting against it, as he did last week, which is rather curious given that it was his Conservative Government that published the measure.

[Mr French]

The Minister will be well aware that the reason that we voted against the levy was not the principle of it—as she just acknowledged, it was designed by the previous Government—but how it has been changed by the new Government and the risks that I outlined in both my questions today.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I will come on to answer some of those points, but in the interests of time, I will endeavour to get the Minister for Gambling to write to the hon. Member with a full response.

The shadow Minister also asked about operators paying more in the first year. That is simply not correct. The levy is charged at a flat rate based on previous years’ profits. We believe that is the fairest and most sustainable way forward. Operators’ first levy payment will be based on profits reported to the Gambling Commission via regulatory returns. The commission changed the returns process for non-lottery licences last July. As such, operators’ first levy payment is based on three quarters’ worth of data multiplied by 1.33 to get the full year.

On the assessment the Government have made about anyone losing out on treatment in the transition period, we are clear that operators must maintain the level of contributions to the National Gambling Support Network to ensure that it has the funding it needs. We have received reassurances from the industry that that will happen. As I have just said, I or the Minister for Gambling will write to the shadow Minister. In the interests of time, I will move on to make some progress on the question before us.

We know that the vast majority of people who gamble do so safely—indeed, half of adults gamble each month. The shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) spoke about the contribution the industry makes economically and in terms of jobs, and I will not repeat those comments. However, 300,000 people in Great Britain are estimated to be experiencing problem gambling. It is clear from today’s debate that many of us share the commitment to do more to protect people who are suffering that harm, especially given the significant changes that we have seen in the sector in recent years.

In that context, the Government are committed to taking forward White Paper measures such as new protections on marketing and bonuses, financial risk checks to prevent unaffordable gambling, and allowing consumers to seek redress from gambling operators via an ombudsman, which has been discussed today. We will continue to work with the industry, the third sector and the Gambling Commission to ensure that the reforms are proportionate, targeted and effective.

[Dan Carden]

Reflecting some of the points made early on in the debate, will the Department look at lotteries, pools and sports betting differently from addictive online forms of gambling, which we know are some of the most harmful? There is an opportunity to shape how gambling goes forward in this country.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I will be happy to discuss that with my hon. Friend. He knows that the levy is proportionate to the type of product, so it is different for different products, but I or the Minister for Gambling will be happy to discuss it with him.

The work on reform has already begun, with regulations on stake limits for online slots and a statutory gambling levy, which was debated last week and has been discussed today. I am pleased to report that the House approved both those statutory instruments, and they will be considered in the other place next week.

I will talk briefly about the first of those statutory instruments, on stake limits for online slots, which provides an important and proportionate intervention aimed at better protecting those who are most at risk of gambling-related harm. Online slots are the highest-risk and fastest-growing gambling product, but there are currently no statutory stake limits for online slot games, unlike their land-based counterparts. As the popularity of slots grows, so does the risk for vulnerable people. The limit builds on previous protections introduced by the Gambling Commission. The new regulation introduces statutory maximum stake limits in online slots games of £5 per game cycle for adults aged 25 and over and £2 per game cycle for young adults aged 18 to 24. Those limits will bolster existing safer game design requirements to ensure that online slots games are safer to play than ever.

I have heard what some Members have said about £5 being too high. The average stake in online slots is 60p, and the evidence shows that people staking high amounts are more likely to be experiencing gambling harm. The £5 stake limit is a targeted intervention to protect those who are most at risk of gambling harm and unaffordable losses.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am not quite sure how the logic works on that. We introduced a £2 limit in the betting shops, but for some reason we have introduced a higher limit where we think the harms are greatest. Which one is wrong?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I had made a note of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, and I was just coming on to address some of the points he made, although he may not agree with my response. Before I do so, I pay tribute to the work he has done. He is an experienced Member on this issue and was instrumental in forming the White Paper.

Play on land-based gaming machines is often anonymous. Online gambling is more accessible to many, and there are extra protections that can be afforded to account-based online play, such as monitoring data for signs of harm, safer gambling checks and checks for financial risks. None the less, I will relay the right hon. Gentleman’s comments to the Minister for Gambling.

The Government are also introducing for the first time a statutory gambling levy to fund research, prevention and treatment of gambling-related harm. The levy represents a watershed moment and a significant uplift in the investment dedicated to this area, along with greater Government oversight and a renewed commitment to better understanding, tackling and treating gambling harms. The statutory levy will be charged to all licensed gambling operators, replacing and building on the successes of the current system, which is based on voluntary donations. The existing system for support and treatment would not have been possible without the financial support of the industry, but the time is now right to improve and expand the system, and to put funding on a more sustainable footing and trust in the system beyond doubt.

We have designed the levy to be charged in a way that recognises the higher levels of harm associated with some online products and the higher operating costs in the land-based sector. It will guarantee that all operators pay their fair share while ensuring that any impacts are proportionate. We expect the levy to raise around £100 million every year for research, prevention and treatment of gambling-related harm. Twenty per cent. of the funding will be directed to research, which will be overseen by UK Research and Innovation to deliver a bespoke research programme on gambling; 30% will be allocated to developing a comprehensive approach to prevention and early intervention, and the remaining 50% will be allocated to treatment overseen by NHS England and the appropriate bodies in Scotland and Wales. A full treatment pathway, from referral and triage through to aftercare, will be commissioned. Not only will the levy deliver a significant uplift in investment in areas relating to research, prevention and treatment of gambling-related harm, but it will also provide robust Government oversight and mobilise world-leading expertise among our public bodies.

Many Members are keen to know more about who will lead on prevention—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen asked this question. This is a very complex but important area, and we want to take the time needed to get it right. We are grateful for the funding provided by the gambling sector while the statutory levy was not in place, but we have taken note of Members’ desire to know what comes next and we intend to dedicate greater investment to prevention. I know the Minister for Gambling will announce her decision on prevention very soon. The levy represents the beginning of a new phase for gambling harm reduction where people in our country are better protected from and aware of the risks of harmful gambling, and it has wide support across the sector.

I acknowledge Members’ comments regarding gambling-related suicide. I am aware of the devastating impact that harmful gambling can have, including some instances of suicide. A single instance of this is one too many. We are absolutely committed to working across Government on this issue, as some Members have asked, including working with the Department of Health and Social Care as part of its work to take forward the suicide prevention strategy. We will continue to work with the Gambling Commission to develop the evidence base on gambling-related suicide through its gambling survey of Great Britain.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) and others spoke about the role of coroners. I recognise the important role that coroners play in assessing the facts behind instances of suicide. They are already required to make a report to a person or organisation where they think action could be taken to prevent future deaths. It is beyond the coroner’s power to investigate why a death occurred, and requiring coroners to do so would turn a fact-finding process into a subjective judgment, which would be inappropriate and potentially inconsistent. However, we will continue to explore possible options in this area, alongside introducing landmark reforms to prevent harm before it occurs and establish a comprehensive treatment system for those who need it.

Many Members have raised the issue of advertising, and I acknowledge their concerns. Advertising can have a disproportionate impact on those who are already suffering from gambling-related harm, and we know that Members are particularly concerned about the potential impact on children and young people. Key sports bodies are raising standards in this area, and the gambling sponsorship codes of conduct brought in voluntarily by sporting bodies last year are a positive step forward. The Premier League’s decision to ban front-of-shirt gambling sponsors from the end of next season was also a welcome step. We will be monitoring these reforms to assess what impact they are having on the ground.

I understand that gambling operators may feel that their own messaging and volume of ads are appropriate. The independent Advertising Standards Authority has existing robust rules in place to ensure that gambling adverts, wherever they appear, are socially responsible and that advertising is an advantage that regulated operators have over the unlicensed sector. However—

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Stephanie Peacock]

In the interests of time, I will not give way.

However, the question of “appropriate volume” needs to be looked at in aggregate, and thought about from the perspective of the public, especially children. We expect the industry to take the initiative on this by working across industry with sporting bodies and academics on harm prevention. In addition, the Government are eager to see improvements made to safer gambling messages. It is clear that industry ownership of safer gambling messages is not sustainable in the long term, and we are working with the Department of Health and Social Care and the Gambling Commission to develop a new approach to messaging. In the meantime, we expect the industry to make improvements in this space; we will be monitoring the impact of the sector’s work, and will step in if necessary.

This Government are committed to protecting the most vulnerable in society from gambling harm. Together with the Gambling Commission, we have made good progress on implementing the measures in the gambling White Paper. We have taken action on online slots and the levy, and we will continue to implement other measures. I am grateful for the important contributions made by Members today. I thank them for sharing their stories, illustrating why the issue is so important, and for the constructive discussion. It is a pleasure to respond to the debate.

Six Nations Rugby Championship: Viewing Access

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I am pleased to respond to this debate; I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) on securing it and on making such a good speech.

Rugby union has a vital role to play in our national identity around the United Kingdom. The Six Nations is a jewel in the crown of international rugby union. Each year, the competition manages to deliver unpredictable and compelling storylines that captivate audiences across the globe. There are few events with the same level of anticipation. It brings the parts of our country together in fierce but fair rivalry, as the hon. Member concluded.

Through comprehensive broadcast coverage spanning 209 international territories, the 2023 championship reached more than 121 million viewers, who tuned in to watch the action unfold. I will make only brief mention of the weekend to congratulate Scotland and Ireland on their impressive wins; I very much hope that England and Wales can bounce back next weekend.

As well as the success of the men’s Six Nations in recent years, the women’s Six Nations has risen to prominence and has inspired young girls and women across the country. I am delighted that England will be hosting the 10th edition of the women’s rugby world cup this year in August and September. The opening game will take place at the Stadium of Light and the final is scheduled to be held at Twickenham. I look forward to cheering on the Red Roses and the other home countries.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

The women’s Six Nations and the rugby world cup are absolutely tremendous. Rugby union goes from this exciting time of year in February, with the men’s Six Nations, through to the women’s Six Nations; then we have the Lions and then the women’s world cup. It is so exciting. There is such a tension around this: that is why this deal on a paywall or no paywall is so important at this time of year. I urge the Minister to have as many conversations as possible for a positive outcome for everybody.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend for her contribution, and I pay tribute to her for her work. We have talked about this issue many times. She is absolutely right about the span of rugby throughout the year. I was really lucky to be cheering on the Red Roses at Twickenham a few months ago with my former boss Sylvia Heal, a former Member of this House; I look forward to doing so again in the coming months. I will come on in a moment to some of the points that my hon. Friend raised.

I am aware of reports relating to the broadcasting of the Six Nations from 2026 onwards, which is obviously why the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds secured this timely debate. It should be emphasised that this is a live issue, and it would not be appropriate to comment on every single stage of ongoing commercial negotiations, as I am sure Members will appreciate. However, I recently met Six Nations Rugby to discuss the issue further. It was clear to me that Six Nations Rugby understands the strength of feeling among rugby fans on this issue and appreciates the significant cultural and financial contribution that the Six Nations makes to each nation’s rugby union’s governing body, including the RFU. The Government recognise the importance of broadcasting sporting events such as the Six Nations to attract significant audience interest.

The hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds proposed changes to the so-called listed events regime that, in his view, would protect free-to-air coverage of the Six Nations. As he outlined, the Broadcasting Act 1996 gives the Secretary of State the power to draw up a list of sporting events of national interest. The broadcast rights to such events must be offered to the main free-to-air terrestrial broadcasters on “fair and reasonable terms”. The current listed events regime is designed to ensure that sporting events of national significance are available to as wide an audience as possible, by prohibiting the exclusive broadcasting of the event without the prior consent of Ofcom.

As colleagues will know, the Six Nations is listed under the Act as a group B protected event, which means that although highlights must be offered to free-to-air broadcasters, full live coverage does not need to be made available to them. Listing does not guarantee that an event will be broadcast live or on a free-to-air channel. Rights holders are not required to sell rights for listed events, and free-to-air broadcasters are not obliged to purchase them. Conversely, the example of the Six Nations demonstrates that putting an event in group B does not prevent a rights holder from selling full live coverage rights to a free-to-air broadcaster or broadcasters.

The Government believe that the current list of events works well and strikes an appropriate balance between access to sporting events and allowing sports to maximise broadcasting revenue. We therefore have no plans to review the list at this time. When discussing the Six Nations, it is important to consider that broadcasting income is a significant revenue stream for rugby union and is important to the financial sustainability of all home nations unions. The current Six Nations broadcasting rights are said to be worth £90 million a year—a significant revenue stream for the six rugby governing bodies.

The previous Government loaned premiership clubs £124 million as part of the sport survival package to keep elite-level rugby union alive during the pandemic, and championship clubs were loaned £5 million. We are supporting rugby union authorities to improve the financial sustainability of the sport. Indeed, I recently met the RFU to discuss the future of rugby union.

[Edward Morello]

The Minister makes valid points about the contribution that the Government have made. However, the RFU has lost £30 million and overseen three premiership clubs going bust, so I question whether the Government are doing enough to scrutinise the governing bodies of the game in England.

[Stephanie Peacock]

That is, of course, a matter for the RFU. I took note of the hon. Gentleman’s earlier intervention; if it is helpful, I am happy to write to him about the specific points that he raised.

I welcome the recent progress that the game has made on funding distribution and other issues. We will continue to work with the RFU, with representatives of premiership and championship clubs and with the wider sport sector to support the ongoing sustainability of elite and community-level rugby. More broadly, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport provides the majority of direct support for grassroots sport through our arm’s length body Sport England, which invests over £250 million of national lottery and Government money annually. Sport England has awarded £30,859,000 to the RFU—one of its long-term system partners—for the 2022-2027 period, to support men’s and women’s grassroots rugby union. DCMS has also provided over £28 million of investment to support England’s hosting of the 2025 women’s rugby world cup, including £14.5 million to support the legacy of that tournament through improvements to facilities and greater opportunities for women and girls at all levels.

Despite that support, the RFU is independent of Government and is responsible for the regulation of rugby union at all levels. Given the financial difficulties facing rugby union, it is right that the RFU and the Six Nations consider the trade-offs between visibility, access to games, maximising revenue and protecting our cultural heritage.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I appreciate the Minister’s generosity with her time. Does she agree that it is vital that Six Nations coverage be available in the Welsh language for those watching in Wales? As the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) mentioned, rugby is different in Wales: the viewing figures are higher, and it is such a huge part of our culture. Will the Minister meet BBC Wales, ITV Wales and S4C to ensure that those conversations about the Welsh language are heard?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I know that 80% of the population in Wales watches the Six Nations. I think Six Nations Rugby is very conscious of that and is taking many steps to protect the Welsh-language broadcast; I know that it is looking at options going forward. I would be happy to meet those organisations—indeed, I do so in my role as media Minister—and to take that forward with my hon. Friend.

It is understandable that the potential for the Six Nations to move away from free-to-air television attracts a great deal of scrutiny and concern from fans. The Government are very aware of that. It is right that the RFU and Six Nations Rugby take a considered and balanced approach, recognising the need to achieve reach to existing and new fans and the importance that the Six Nations has for the cultural pride of every home nation, all while maximising much-needed broadcasting revenue.

This debate has been a brilliant opportunity to discuss the continued success of the Six Nations. I thank the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds once again for securing the debate, and I thank all Members who have attended and taken part.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 Draft Gambling Levy Regulations 2025

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 General Committees

[Hon. Members]

No.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I begin by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, having taken part in a charity bet in April 2024.

Two decades have passed since the Gambling Act 2005 was introduced. Leading gambling firms operating in this country are now some of the world’s most successful companies, with cutting-edge technological capabilities and deep insight into customer behaviour. The gambling industry and gambling behaviour have since undergone monumental change, from the smartphone to the huge increases in online gambling.

The 2023 gambling White Paper laid the foundations for what is before us today, as we introduce draft regulations on stake limits on online slots. We will later discuss the statutory gambling levy, which will fund research, prevention and treatment. The Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 will introduce statutory maximum stake limits on online slot games of £5 per game cycle for adults aged 25 and over, and £2 per game cycle for young adults aged 18 to 24. Online slots are the highest-risk gambling product. They have the highest rate of binge play and the highest average losses of any online product. They are associated with long playing sessions and high levels of use by people experiencing gambling harm. Online slots are also the fastest growing gambling product. The online gambling market is worth around £6.9 billion in gross gambling yield, £3.6 billion of which comes from slots.

In the past five years, that yield has grown by 61% and growth is not slowing down. However, there are currently no statutory stake limits for online slot games, unlike their land-based counterparts. As slots’ popularity grows, so does the risk for vulnerable people. Now is the time to act and stem the growing tide of unaffordable losses for people most at risk of gambling harm. We have designed these stake limits to target those most at risk of harm, while ensuring that the impact on operators is proportionate.

The lower stake limit for younger adults is an important intervention, as our research has shown that younger people may be at elevated risk of gambling harm. Young adults aged 18 to 24 have the highest problem gambling rates of any age group. This elevated risk of harm is compounded by the lower average disposable income of that group.

The industry trade body, the Betting and Gaming Council, welcomed the decision to introduce stake limits. If the regulations are agreed, there will be a transitional period to ensure that gambling operators have sufficient time to implement the changes. Operators will have six weeks from the day that the instrument is made to implement a £5 stake limit. They will then have a further six weeks to implement the £2 stake limit for younger adults. During that time, the £5 limit will apply to all adults.

These stake limits build on other rules introduced by the Gambling Commission in 2021 that make online slots safer to play. These requirements slowed the speed of play to a minimum of 2.5 seconds per spin. A raft of rules will reduce play intensity. These include a ban on autoplay features and features that speed up the display of results or that can give the illusion of control, such as turbo or slam stops. The evidence shows that such features increase the risk of harm to customers. That concludes my comments on the first set of regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to all Members who have contributed to the debate, and of course I began by acknowledging that the 2023 White Paper, introduced under the previous Government, lays the foundations for what we are discussing.

I will briefly respond to the points that have been made. The shadow Minister raised some questions about casinos and I am very aware of the relatively modest changes being asked for by the casino sector. The Government support the measures outlined in the White Paper, and we will provide an update as soon as possible. I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his questions.

I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, who has been a doughty campaigner and done a lot of work on this issue. I appreciate his points, and he obviously believes that £5 is too high. It is worth considering that the average stake is 60p and that very few people actually bet £5. However, we know that those who do reach that higher limit are at higher risk. This statutory instrument, and indeed the White Paper as a whole, aim to balance tackling gambling harms with supporting industry. That is why we have gone for £2 and £5.

I acknowledge the comments from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), about advertising. We have voluntary sports codes on advertising, which we can perhaps touch on in discussing the second set of regulations, when we can talk about prevention and research. With everything in gambling, there is the risk that people will go to the black market, and we do not want that to happen. That is why this is a proportionate and balanced SI.

I am familiar with loot boxes. I believe it was Sky News that did an investigation back in December, and I stand to be corrected if I have got my media organisation wrong. However, I am aware of the concerns around loot boxes. Some research has been commissioned, and we will provide an update in due course. We are aware of these new novel products and we take them into consideration.

I thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim for his questions and comments. We recognise our shared interest in and commitment to reducing gambling harm across the whole United Kingdom and we engage with the Northern Ireland Executive where necessary. If it would be helpful, I will ask the Minister for Gambling to write to him on his specific points. That might be useful on some of the points that he raised.

As I outlined in my opening remarks, we believe that online slot stake limits are an important and proportionate intervention aimed at the people most at risk of gambling-related harm. We think this is timely regulation, as online slot games continue to grow in popularity and gross gambling yield. The limits will bolster safer gaming design requirements to ensure that online slot games are safer to play than ever. Online slot stakes limits should serve as a maximum stake that customers can choose to stake up to, rather than as a new default that operators can drive customers towards. Operators currently offer stakes from as little as 1p a spin, and we would expect a range of staking options far below the maximum to remain available.

Finally, a number of questions were asked about when the limits will be reviewed. The Secretary of State will review these limits within five years.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Gambling Levy Regulations 2025

[Stephanie Peacock]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Gambling Levy Regulations 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mr Twigg. We move on to discuss the proposed draft regulations for a statutory gambling levy. From April this year, all licensed operators will be required to pay an annual levy to the Gambling Commission. The rates at which licensed operators pay the levy are set down in legislation, and licensees are at risk of losing their licence if they do not pay. We are clear that the statutory levy is a key part of our agenda for change. It is crucial to making our vision for the future of research, prevention and treatment of gambling harm a reality.

I recognise that the statutory instrument is narrowly focused on the payment of the levy, and that is why our response to the statutory levy consultation, published last November, presented a fuller picture of the future system and a sense of our ambition. The levy represents a watershed moment as well as a significant uplift in the investment dedicated to this area, greater Government oversight and a renewed commitment to further understanding, tackling and treating gambling harm.

The levy is not about change for change’s sake, and we want to build on the successes of the current system. The significant contribution that the gambling industry has made to supporting research, prevention and treatment since the introduction of the Gambling Act 2005 has been crucial and has allowed an expansion of the support and treatment options available for those in need. However, we now need a sustainable and equitable funding system so that all licensed gambling operators pay a fair share.

The levy provides us with an opportunity and the resources to put in place the right projects and services, with clear objectives and robust governance. We want a world-leading funding and commissioning system to reduce gambling-related harm. For that, we are mobilising existing expertise and infrastructure to move at pace, working with UK Research and Innovation, NHS England, appropriate bodies for Scotland and Wales, the Gambling Commission and the third sector. We are transforming the current system to deliver better access, outcomes and services for people across our country.

As Members will know, the Government’s next steps on prevention were not included in our recent publication. Prevention is crucial for future efforts to reduce gambling harm, but it is also a complex area and it is right we have taken the time to get the decision right. Developing a comprehensive approach to prevention with the right mix of projects and services is, as I have said, complex, but we expect to publish our decision soon, and I am confident that the Government will confirm their decision ahead of the debate on these regulations in the other House.

For the first time, sustainable ringfenced funding will be used across Great Britain for vital treatment, as well as to better understand the causes of harm and early intervention to support greater awareness and reduce stigma. Robust Government oversight will also ensure that the levy funding has an impact on the ground. The regulations represent the beginning of a new phase for gambling harm reduction, where people in our country are better protected and aware of the risks of harmful gambling. The levy is a crucial first step to delivering that, and I look forward to discussing this further. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

This has been a useful debate. The statutory levy has previously had cross-party support. I will respond to some of the shadow Minister’s questions, and then I will respond to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. In response to the shadow Minister’s opening point about the Minister for Gambling sitting in the other place, I think it was unkind to refer to her as working part time; she merely sits in the other place, and I gently remind him that the previous Government’s Foreign Secretary did the same. Perhaps we could put the political point scoring to one side.

[Mr French]

I was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the former Foreign Secretary, so I understand what the Minister is trying to say. I am not questioning the motives of the Minister for Gambling; the point is that she is tied up, as we all know, on the Football Governance Bill, because the Government have decided to put the Bill through the other place first. Hence, she can only work part time on the gambling reforms. That is the feedback we are getting consistently, and that is the challenge I am trying to make.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I do not recognise the logic of that argument. I do not believe the hon. Gentleman served as a Minister. He perhaps does not know that a Minister has to juggle a number of pieces of legislation, and a number of different issues. The Baroness is committed to being the Minister for Gambling, and she engages with a range of the sector, and as indeed did I when I was the shadow Minister, and I continue to speak to the sector when appropriate.

As for the economic picture, I will take no lessons from the official Opposition, given the state they left the economy in. Now I want to move on to discuss the actual statutory instrument.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

In her first sentence the Minister says we should move on from these political points, then in the second sentence says she will take no lessons from us on how we managed to wreck the economy. I would like it if she could reflect on those two sentences, to see whether they are mutually compatible.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I will certainly do that.

I would now like to move on to discuss the matter before us, and to deal with some of the points that the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup made. He mentioned more than once the desire to bash the sector. I certainly do not want to do that. I enjoy a trip to the races as much as anyone. I recognise the contribution that the betting and gambling industry makes to my constituency in Barnsley South, and I have visited a number of those outlets. The regulations are about getting that balance and acknowledging that millions of people like to gamble regularly but that there is a significant issue and challenge in this country with gambling-related harm. As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green pointed out, this has been a long-standing, cross-party piece of work and a number of hon. Members have done a huge amount of work on it—more than I have—to bring it together over a number of years. Obviously, we had the 2023 White Paper and we now have the statutory instrument that will introduce the levy.

I will now turn to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. We have listened carefully to the arguments made by the land-based sector, and we understand its higher operating costs. We are keen to work with it, and we are confident that this is evidence-led and that it gets the balance right. It is not our intention for there to be double payments, and I believe officials are working to clarify that. I will certainly write to hon. Gentleman. He asked for the breakdown: 20% will go to research, 30% to prevention and 50% to treatment. We of course recognise the role that the third sector has played over many years.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned society lotteries. We had a debate in this place on Friday last week. I only had four minutes left to speak, but I briefly outlined the Government’s position. We have committed to come back to this place on that by the summer. We have commissioned independent research on society lotteries, which is due to report by next month, and we will be reporting to the House on that.

I will now move on to the points made by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. I once again acknowledge his contribution to the debate and to the work in front of us. We want to make sure that this is the most effective and efficient levy, so he is absolutely right that, if there are questions, we want to work with the sector and with relevant charities to get it right. As with anything new, that may take some time. We do not believe that those challenges are a reason to oppose these regulations. I appreciate his support, and I acknowledge the contribution he has made. On his specific questions about GambleAware, we acknowledge the role that industry funding has played in raising awareness previously. We are aiming to build a comprehensive approach to prevention for the first time, and it is a priority to ensure that funding is directed to where it is needed most. I will write to the right hon. Gentleman with a more specific answer, and I appreciate his contribution.

Question put.

Gambling Act 2005 (Monetary Limits for Lotteries) Bill

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for bringing forward this motion. Society lotteries provide vital funding for hundreds of charities, community groups and sports clubs. Indeed, I have seen the impact of that in my own constituency of Barnsley South, where society lotteries such as the People’s Postcode Lottery are benefiting great local causes, from DIAL, which supports disabled people, to Magic Breakfast, which provides kids with a meal to start the school day. In that context, the Government have a clear message: we want society lotteries to thrive.

In the interests of time, I want to be clear from the outset that the Government have a clear commitment to update the House on our position with regard to society lotteries by the summer recess, once we are in receipt of the independent research, which I will come to discuss if there is time. We are not yet in receipt of the final research, but we understand that that will be here by the end of next month. I make that clear commitment to update the House by the summer recess—we have had discussions to that effect.

As hon. Members will know, there have long been mandatory conditions and limits on sales and prizes for society lotteries. Those have been reviewed and adjusted before, most recently by the previous Government, who introduced new sales limits for society lotteries, increasing the annual ticket sales limit fivefold, from £10 million to £50 million. Of course, umbrella lottery organisations may also operate with multiple licences: for example, the People’s Postcode Lottery currently holds 20 operator licences and is therefore able to sell a combined total of £1 billion-worth of tickets each year.

I acknowledge the strength of feeling behind the proposal in the Bill to remove the annual sales limits for society lotteries. I would like to speak briefly about some of the factors that the Government will consider for potential reform. Of course, we must reflect on where the sector is now and where it may be in future. The current picture is broadly positive, with recent evidence showing that society lotteries have continued to grow in popularity since the limits were changed in 2020. The vast majority of society lotteries are also currently operating well within existing limits.

However, the Government do recognise the challenge for large-scale umbrella lotteries, some of which have multiple licences for multiple trusts, and we know that a small number of those may reach a limit within the following year and that there are costs associated with operating in that way. We do not take this lightly, but it is worth noting that the current system does not hinder overall sales of society lottery tickets for those organisations.

Further to that, our support for lotteries raising as much money as possible is unwavering. We are also keen to better understand how the growth in sales is translating into the investment in good causes. The current picture suggests that higher sales have not led to an equivalent increase in funding for good causes, and there may be room to improve that.

A second element is the research that I referenced. The current evidence and data show that society lotteries are growing in popularity and revenue. The Government have commissioned independent research into the lotteries market as a whole to help us strengthen that evidence base ahead of any further review of limits. This research—

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

2. What assessment she has made of the contribution of community spaces to civil society.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

The Government are committed to creating thriving community spaces, including community centres, youth clubs and sports facilities, that offer vital resources for communities across the country. My Department is allocating over £85 million of funding in 2025-26 to create fit-for-purpose, welcoming spaces for young people. That includes launching the better youth spaces fund.

[Jim Dickson]

I thank the Minister for her reply. Swanscombe pavilion in my constituency is at the heart of the Swanscombe community. It hosted dedicated lunch clubs for older people, provided a hub for local sports teams, and was a venue that local people could hire for parties. The building has fallen into disrepair, and the town council is searching desperately for the funds to rebuild or refurbish it, having been unable to obtain funding from the youth investment fund or the community ownership fund. What guidance could the Minister offer on bringing this crucial building back into community use?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend was able to meet the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), on Monday to discuss this issue, which falls under his remit. As a local MP, I know from my constituency the important role that community spaces play in supporting local groups; they bring a huge benefit locally. The Government encourage community groups seeking funding to use the tools available on the My Community website, which suggests funding sources. I hope this information will help the council to work out its next steps, alongside the feedback that it should have received on its unsuccessful application to the community ownership fund.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Community spaces are crucial hubs for so many people, and our churches play a key role in providing such spaces. All Saints parish church in Hertford in my constituency has been in its beautiful riverside location for almost 1,000 years. Over the past six years, it has been able to reclaim £50,000 of VAT using the listed places of worship grant scheme, including for repairs to the tower, refurbishment of the bells and rebuilding the church organ. Will the Government extend the scheme beyond 2025, and if so, what will the allocation be?

[Stephanie Peacock]

This issue falls within the remit of the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism. He will answer a question on this later, but the Government are working on it.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

3. What plans her Department has for the regulation of short-term lets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

6. What steps her Department is taking with the gambling and gaming industries to support responsible gambling.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

The Government are committed to reducing gambling-related harm and its impact. That is why we are introducing a range of reforms to ensure that people can gamble safely, including a stake limit for online slot games, financial vulnerability checks and tougher regulations on direct marketing. We are also aware of the concerns around the blurring of boundaries between gambling and video games, and we are paying close attention to novel and emerging gambling and gambling-like products.

[Catherine Fookes]

I thank the Minister for her response. We all know that 2.5% of the population are considered to be problem gamblers, and 44% of that population is at high risk of suicidal behaviour, according to the excellent charity Gambling with Lives. Of course, the loss of any life to gambling addiction is deeply saddening, and I give my condolences to all the affected families. The impact of problem gambling stretches far and wide across the UK, including in my constituency of Monmouthshire, and it should be considered a public health issue. What cross-departmental work is being done to tackle the concerning issue of suicide due to gambling?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important question. Of course, any life lost is an absolute tragedy. When I was the shadow gambling Minister, I visited the Gordon Moody residential treatment centre, which supports people with gambling-related harm. On that visit and at other meetings, I heard at first hand about the devastating impact that gambling can have. We are committed to working across Government on this issue, particularly with the Department of Health and Social Care, including by establishing a comprehensive support and treatment system, funded by the statutory levy, and by strengthening messages in order to raise awareness of the risks of harmful gambling.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

The Minister will not be surprised to hear me raise the issue of the disproportionality of affordability checks on those betting on racing, and the reform of the betting levy. I am grateful for the positive tone taken so far, and the constructive engagement from her and the Secretary of State. Talks between the gambling industry and the racing industry about the betting levy continue, but I think ultimately Ministers will be required to make a decision. We need the betting levy to be increased overall, and applied to races held overseas that people are betting on here. We think there will be not just a fiscal forecast but a mini-Budget in March. Can those industries start working with the Treasury now to make sure that there are plans to reform the betting levy in the Finance Bill?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. He is a huge champion for the horseracing industry. Of course, the Government and I recognise the significant contribution that racing makes to British sporting culture and the rural economy in particular. We are disappointed that talks have not been successful. The Government have heard racing’s concerns about the financial checks, and about the fact that there has not been an agreement. The Minister with responsibility for gambling and the Secretary of State continue to work on this issue.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

7. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on supporting creative education.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

Grassroots sports clubs are the beating heart of communities up and down the country. The Government are acting to support grassroots sports through our ongoing investment in Sport England and the delivery of our £123 million multi-sport grassroots facilities programme.

[Paul Davies]

I recently met the Football Foundation, which is dedicated to transforming grassroots football in England by funding and developing community facilities. Its work includes building and refurbishing pitches, clubhouses and changing rooms, ensuring that everybody has access to quality football environments. By investing in grassroots football, it aims to improve participation, improve health and strengthen communities. What assessment has the Department made of the impact of biodiversity net gain requirements on investment in community sports facilities?

[Stephanie Peacock]

Biodiversity net gain is a legal requirement for all new developments and is not specific to sports facilities. The Government are working with Sport England, the Football Foundation and wider grassroots sport to help reduce the sector’s impact on the environment. That of course includes supporting these organisations in meeting their obligations regarding biodiversity net gain. I understand that the Football Foundation will meet officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which oversees the implementation of biodiversity net gain, to discuss this issue further.

[Kevin Bonavia]

I thank the Minister for her response. Last year, in my constituency, the Stevenage Football Club Foundation delivered more than 9,000 hours of activity in grassroots sports and engaged over 15,000 participants, generating nearly £10.7 million-worth of social value. This did not happen only in my constituency. Last year, the 72 English Football League community club organisations delivered more than £1.2 billion-worth of social value across this country. Will the Minister commit to supporting local community club organisations, such as the Stevenage FC Foundation, in engaging local people and directly supporting communities?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I pay tribute to the Stevenage FC Foundation and the many other community organisations up and down the country for their important work. Local community club organisations use the power of sport to change lives through charitable and community activities, often through delivery across a range of areas, from health to wellbeing and employment. I have seen it in my own area of Barnsley, with Reds in the Community, which does brilliant work across my town.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

There are growing storm clouds in rugby union. At the grassroots, clubs are up in arms about what is going on in the leadership. They called for a general meeting, which was denied. One has now been agreed and will happen in March. When asked in writing whether there will be a review of the finances or governance of the Rugby Football Union, the Government said that there are no plans for one. In the light of what I have set out, will they reconsider whether there should be a review of the governance, and do they have confidence that the RFU will be able to solve this issue?

[Mr Speaker]

There is also rugby league.

[Stephanie Peacock]

Of course, Mr Speaker; we would not forget that. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that incredibly important point. National governing bodies are of course independent of Government, and it is for the RFU to answer for its approach. The DCMS notes that the chair of the RFU stood down recently. The Secretary of State and I meet regularly with rugby stakeholders, and will continue to do so.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

My eldest granddaughter loves football. She is 15 years old and plays in goal. The interest in girls and ladies’ football in Northern Ireland is exceptional, as it is here on the mainland. I know that the Minister is committed to it. What has been done to ensure that girls and women’s football is promoted across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to their advantage?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. A few years ago, I raised some eyebrows by having a photograph taken in this Chamber as part of the women’s parliamentary football team. That certainly gained a bit of attention for women’s football. As Minister for sport, I recently held a meeting with Karen Carney regarding the women’s football review implementation group. We are keen to promote women’s football and do everything that we can to encourage girls and women to get involved.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

The previous Conservative Government invested over £400 million to support grassroots sport, recognising the vital contribution of sport to our communities across the country. The Minister will already be aware of our concerns about the impact of Labour’s national insurance hike, and the impact that the schools tax will have on community access to sporting facilities. Equally concerning is Labour’s decision to quietly cut the £57 million opening school facilities programme from March. Does she understand why grassroots sport organisations are so concerned about access to school facilities, and schools potentially having to close them to the community? Has she raised those concerns with Cabinet colleagues, and what measures are her Department taking to support access to grassroots sport for the more than 200,000 people who previously benefited from Conservative programmes?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I think that was six questions rather than one. I will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman on the state of the economy and the inheritance that we received. The Government are a huge champion of grassroots sport, and will continue to be one.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Sport and physical activity must play a bigger part in the debate on our nation’s collective health and the future of health services. Sport England reports that almost one in three children are classed as inactive. More than a third of adults do not meet the chief medical officer’s recommendations for physical activity. Sedentary lifestyles are associated with one in six deaths, and obesity costs the economy £58 billion per year. Those are truly shocking statistics that we should all be ashamed of. What conversations are Ministers in the Department having with colleagues in other Departments, most notably Health, to ensure an increased focus on physical activity to improve our nation’s physical and mental health?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that important question. Through our health missions, and the health mission board, we work really closely across Government. This is a pivotal issue. Sport plays a huge part in getting people more active. I know that from my own area: over 30% of people in Barnsley are inactive. Just yesterday, I met with the Richmond group of charities, which works on this sort of issue, and I continue to have both Government meetings and meetings with stakeholders. We really want to make progress in this area.

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

9. What steps her Department has taken to support public trust in reliable sources of news and information.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

T3. The national youth strategy is a crucial step forward, and I welcome its progress. Will the Secretary of State outline how new youth programmes, such as the better youth spaces initiative, will help to rebuild facilities in Southampton Itchen, where years of Conservative cuts have impacted opportunities for our young people?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

We fully acknowledge the challenges faced by the sector and the challenging needs of young people. The strategy will help us move forward from a one-size-fits-all approach from central Government, bringing power back to young people and their communities and rebuilding a thriving and sustainable youth sector.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

Kirkcaldy Community Football Partnership does an amazing job in my constituency, supporting a number of local football clubs including Kirkcaldy and Dysart football club and Templehall United. It also runs an over-35s walking football team, which is of particular interest to me. It badly needs funding for a new synthetic all-weather pitch; does the Minister agree that this is an important cause, and one that deserves support?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The issue she has raised is incredibly important, and I suggest that she reaches out to the Football Foundation. I would be happy to set up that meeting for her.

The hon. Member for Battersea, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Culture, Media and Sport

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Written Corrections

[Stephanie Peacock]

I did not catch all of that intervention, but I said that half of charities would either stay the same or gain from the changes. I am happy to discuss that with the hon. Member after the debate, or write to him if I have misunderstood his point.

[Official Report, 7 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 314WH.]

Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock):

[Stephanie Peacock]

I did not catch all of that intervention, but I said that half of employers, including charities with national insurance liabilities, would either stay the same or gain from the changes. I am happy to discuss that with the hon. Member after the debate, or write to him if I have misunderstood his point.

Employer National Insurance Contributions: Charities

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on securing this debate, and I thank Members from across the House for their contributions. As the Minister for Civil Society, I have seen at first hand the huge contribution that charities and voluntary groups make to our country; and as the MP for Barnsley South, by working directly with local groups, I have seen the impact that they have in my area.

As part of the autumn Budget, the Government took a number of difficult decisions on tax, welfare and spending to fix the public finances, fund public services and restore economic stability. In an open letter to the voluntary sector on this issue, the Chancellor stated that raising the rate of employer national insurance contributions was one of the most difficult decisions in the Budget. I will address the specific point around the change to national insurance alongside some of the questions and issues raised in the debate, before discussing the wider support that the Government provide to the sector.

The Government recognise the need to protect the smallest businesses and charities, which is why we have more than doubled the employment allowance, from £5,000 to £10,500. That means that more than half of employers, including charities with NI liabilities, will either gain or see no change next year. In addition, we are expanding the eligibility of the employment allowance by removing the £100,000 eligibility threshold to simplify and reform employer NI, so that all eligible employers now benefit. Almost all charities are eligible for the employment allowance, as outlined in the HMT guidance. The changes will mean that a small to medium-sized charity could employ up to four full-time workers on the national living wage and pay no employer NI, to give one example.

[Graham Stuart]

Does the Minister agree that if it turns out that it will cost the NHS more to bring in the changes than it will gain, as colleagues from across the House fear, then it would be worth reviewing them? I know that she is not personally responsible for the initiative.

[Stephanie Peacock]

As the right hon. Gentleman makes clear, I am not personally responsible for the specific policy, but I will reflect his point to the Treasury.

Employers, including charities, will still continue to benefit from employer NI reliefs, including for hiring those under 21 and apprentices under 25 where eligible. I am aware, however, of the concerns of the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector about the impact that the changes will have on their organisations. I acknowledge that the last few years have been difficult for voluntary and community sector organisations, many of which have seen a rise in demand for their services while dealing with increased financial pressures. After the last 14 years, where the state at every level has been cut back, more demand has been placed on charities. Indeed, my local authority saw some of the worst cuts in the country, despite being one of the areas of greatest need, so I completely appreciate the role that charities have played during that time.

The simple reality is that the situation cannot be reversed overnight. To grow our economy and our country, tough decisions have to be taken, and I appreciate that that is difficult.

[Seamus Logan]

The Minister mentioned a number of mitigations for charities, and she said that she thinks that virtually all charities will benefit from those, so where are the Government actually obtaining the resources to fill the hole in the public finances?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I did not catch all of that intervention, but I said that half of charities would either stay the same or gain from the changes. I am happy to discuss that with the hon. Member after the debate, or write to him if I have misunderstood his point.

I have met representatives from the sector to specifically discuss the NI changes on more than one occasion. They have put forward many of the same arguments and questions that hon. Members have today, and I have shared those in turn with the Treasury.

A number of specific causes and sectors have been raised during the debate, and I would like to address some of those in the time available. Individual Departments will continue to provide direct funding and support for specific causes and areas. As has been mentioned a number of times, most hospices are charitable, independent organisations. As announced by the Department of Health and Social Care, the sector is set to receive a £100 million boost, alongside a further £26 million for children and young people’s hospices. Clearly, that will help with financial pressures. That sits alongside some of the other actions taken by the Government, including an £880 million increase in the social care grant and an additional £233 million of funding on homelessness, to help prevent rises in the number of families in temporary accommodation and to prevent rough sleeping.

The Home Office is working to agree decisions on its wider budget in support of the ambition to halve violence against women and girls, and it will communicate that as soon as possible. To answer the point made by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), I have a cross-Government meeting on violence against women tomorrow morning.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I am sorry to intrude on the Minister’s time. As I understand it, the extension of the children’s hospices grant will not meet the costs of national insurance for children’s hospices. Will she ask the Treasury to clarify that, and if necessary, discuss it with the executives of the children’s hospice movement?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I know the huge amount of work that children’s hospices do, and I have done a lot of work with Bluebell Wood children’s hospice in South Yorkshire. I will take away and reflect the right hon. Member’s points, and the relevant Department will write to him after the debate.

[Patrick Hurley]

The Conservative party has been very clear that it wants tax cuts, but less clear on what public services it would cut to pay for them. Perhaps the Minister might wish to reflect on that.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I appreciate that point. The bottom line is that we have been very clear that we want economic stability, and the money does have to come from somewhere—it is tax, borrowing or cuts. That is a very clear choice. Members will appreciate that many of the issues raised in this debate fall outside of my Department, but I will reflect the points made from across the House to the relevant Departments after the debate.

The Government will continue to support the sector in a number of other ways. Through the tax system, the Government also provide support to charities through a range of reliefs and exemptions, including reliefs for charitable giving. The tax reliefs available to charities are a vital element in supporting charitable causes across the UK, with more than £6 billion in charitable reliefs provided to charities, community sports clubs and their donors in 2023-24.

[Vikki Slade]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I have taken a number of interventions, so in the interests of time, I will make some progress.

The biggest individual reliefs provided are gift aid, at £1.6 billion, and business rates relief, at nearly £2.4 billion. My Department also supports the voluntary and community sector, particularly through the delivery of direct grant funding—delivering, among other things, the £26 million voluntary, community and social enterprise energy efficiency scheme, which helps organisations with capital energy efficiency measures. That is still under way, as is the social enterprise boost fund, which delivers grants and peer support for emerging social enterprises, and the Know Your Neighbourhood fund, which is focused on increasing volunteering and tackling loneliness.

Alongside that, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport sponsors the National Lottery Community Fund, which is the largest non-Government funder of voluntary and community organisations across the UK. During 2023-24, the National Lottery Community Fund made grant awards totalling over £900 million, 84% of which were under £10,000, with the majority supporting grassroots organisations.

My Department is also focused on developing other sources of funding support for the sector. That includes establishing a stronger, more ambitious partnership with the impact economy, such as by unlocking the multimillion-pound potential of the dormant assets scheme. This includes making charitable giving as easy and compelling as possible, building on the estimated £13.9 billion that the UK public donated to charity last year. My officials are also working to deliver the VCSE contract readiness programme to help to improve the capability of VCSE organisations when bidding for public contracts.

As we have heard from Members across the House, the voluntary and community sector plays an important role across all areas of public life, up and down the country. As the Minister for Civil Society, I have seen at first hand the work that charities and social enterprises do. Since being appointed, I have held a number of visits, meetings and roundtables with charities and voluntary organisations across the UK—from Leeds to Stoke, from Huntingdon to Brent. I am committed to continuing that engagement with charities and voluntary groups up and down the country, especially as we continue to develop a framework for the new civil society covenant, which will reset the relationship between civil society and Government.

We have heard a number of examples today of the brilliant work that charities and volunteers do. I thank them for their work and I thank hon. Members for their contributions today.

BBC: Funding

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I echo the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), in wishing a merry Christmas to everyone present, and congratulate the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing this important debate. He and I have had a lot of opportunities to debate the BBC together this week.

Let me start by responding to some of the points that the shadow Minister and others made. First, the right hon. Member for Maldon pointed out that it is a good time to have this debate. He opened by talking about the importance of public service broadcasting today. We spent many hours debating the Media Act 2024, which is legislation that goes to the heart of these issues and now falls to this Government to implement.

The shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) pointed out how many people access the BBC—over 90% every month—but also the fact that there are lots of important and challenging issues about BBC funding and the charter review.

It has been a good debate, and Members have rightly shared their own experiences and memories of the BBC. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) spoke about the shared experience we have as a country, and how the BBC brings us together. A week today we will all be watching the King’s speech and, of course, “Gavin and Stacey”—or at least I will be.

Members from all parties, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), spoke about their passion and support for the World Service. The right hon. Member for Maldon serves on the Foreign Affairs Committee, to which I was pleased to give evidence. I am pleased that three Select Committees are taking such an interest in the topic. There are a lot of questions and challenges, but it is important that we put on the record our support for the World Service.

The shadow Minister asked questions about engagement with the BBC; the Secretary of State and I have met with the BBC and will continue to do so. The shadow Minister also asked questions about local radio. It is important to state that the BBC is operationally independent, but when I was in the shadow Minister’s place I made my views very clear, as did the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), who was the Minister at the time.

I will speak more broadly about the BBC before addressing some of the wider funding issues. For over 100 years the BBC has been a cherished British asset, making a vital contribution to our national life. It supports our democracy, brings our communities together and helps to shape and define our nation by telling the stories of people in all parts of the UK. The BBC has an almost unique role as a source of trusted news, both in the UK and to millions of people across the globe, as well as being a provider of cutting-edge programming and educational content for the nation’s children. It is so often the first to invest in the skills, the physical assets and the creativity to boost the creative industries in all corners of the country.

The media environment has of course changed over the BBC’s long history. Even since the start of the current charter period in 2017, when the Government were bringing iPlayer into the scope of the licence fee, the market has significantly evolved—a point that has been discussed. The right hon. Member for Maldon knows all that very well, not least because he served as Secretary of State for DCMS during the previous charter review.

The world is changing and, as the right hon. Member for Maldon outlined in his speech, for the first time half of 16 to 24-year-olds now do not watch broadcast TV on a weekly basis. We are seeing audiences increasingly turn to on-demand content, and more than two thirds of households subscribe to streaming services, compared with about a third at the start of the charter period.

The shadow Minister asked about some of the challenges that go to the heart of this debate. As an institution, the BBC has often needed to adapt, renew and grapple with an ever-increasing pace of change. That is something that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) spoke about in his contribution.

Next year, the Government will formally launch charter review with the need for adaptation in mind. We intend to use charter review to think through the operation of the BBC and how it thrives for not just the next 10 years, but well into the latter half of this century. We know that any reform to the BBC, particularly when it comes to funding, could have a major impact on the whole sector. We will consider that carefully as part of the charter review. We want to have a national conversation to make sure that the BBC truly represents and delivers for every person in this country, wherever they come from and whatever their background. That will include the opportunity for stakeholders and audiences across the country to respond to the charter review public consultation before the new charter comes into effect in 2028.

Our thinking will also be informed by my Department’s wider work. We are undertaking a project on the future of TV distribution to analyse how people receive their television now and through the next decade. That will help us to ensure the continuity of a sustainable TV ecosystem and the best outcome for audiences.

As we address vital questions about the future form of the BBC head on, we must also ensure that there is a sustainable funding model that is fair to those who pay for it. These are undoubtedly complex issues, on which people hold strong opinions, but this Government want to have an open and honest discussion about them in the public’s best interests.

We are fully committed to retaining the licence fee for the rest of this charter period, but we cannot ignore the fact that challenges to this funding model in its current form are increasing, as has been highlighted in the debate. The media market is more competitive than ever, with the emergence of streamers and social media platforms operating on a global scale. That has meant less money for the BBC to invest in our creative industries, in talent and skills, and in telling our stories. It has also resulted in cuts to BBC services, which the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) spoke about.

The Secretary of State has announced that we will take forward work on BBC funding as part of the charter review process to bring together the linked issues of what the BBC does, its future role and how it is funded. The Government are keeping an open mind about the future of the licence fee.

The right hon. Member for Maldon referred to his chairing of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. More recently, the Committee’s 2021 report on the future of public service broadcasting found that there are a range of options for funding the BBC, but none are perfect.

[Julia Lopez]

The Secretary of State has talked about her support for mutualisation, but it has never been clear to me what that actually means. Could the Minister give us more details?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I will happily ask the Secretary of State to write to the hon. Lady. However, in talking about mutualisation, which the Secretary of State made some comments about some years ago, I think it is about having a greater role for the public in BBC accountability and the public feeling more ownership of it. But we will happily write to the hon. Lady with more detail, as I do not want to speak on the Secretary of State’s behalf.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for her response; she is always very positive and very enthusiastic. In last night’s Adjournment debate on the charter review, she referred to complaints and how they will be handled by Ofcom or other organisations. However, the people who come to me with the examples of bias that I referred to are some of those who do not have a BBC licence and will not buy one. If the BBC has a better system, where people who have complaints about bias, whatever they may be, have their complaints handled in a good, honest and transparent way, that might draw back some people who have decided not to renew their licence. Will she assure us that that will happen?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Of course, we spoke about this issue in the debate last night. There is the complaints procedure through BBC First, and complaints can be escalated to the executive complaints unit and then to Ofcom. But I appreciate that some people have simply decided not to buy a TV licence, and we want to explore the issue of trust and confidence in the BBC as part of the charter renewal process and the review. There will be a public consultation, in which his and my constituents, and the constituents of Members across the House, can take part.

We are not in the business of reform for reform’s sake. We will think in the broadest sense about the options for the BBC’s funding and structure, and nothing is off the table, as the Secretary of State said in evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee last week. It is clear that there are limits to the amount of money that the BBC can raise from commercial sources, particularly given its obligations as a public service broadcaster. We firmly believe that the unique obligations placed on the BBC demand continued and sustainable public funding in support of its vital work.

In the meantime, we must ensure that the BBC is properly and fairly supported for the remainder of this charter. That is why we have announced that we are increasing the annual cost of a TV licence from April 2025 by £5, in line with consumer prices index inflation, which is less than half as much as last year’s increase. For the BBC, that will provide additional and proportionate funding that will allow it to continue to deliver world-class educational and engaging programming. We always take decisions on funding to provide certainty and stability for the BBC while ensuring that those decisions deliver the best outcomes for licence fee payers.

The Government have already noted the ongoing concerns about the impact of TV licensing enforcement action on vulnerable households. I am acutely aware of the financial difficulties faced by some households, and we are committed to supporting them to spread the cost of a TV licence. We recently announced an expansion of the simple payment plan to all unlicensed households facing financial hardship to help more people pay in flexible instalments, rather than them having to find a greater amount of money up front. We will also look at enforcement issues as part of the longer-term funding work we take forward at charter review.

The provision of trustworthy local and national news is vital for democracy and to hold elected representatives to account, especially at a time when misinformation and disinformation are spreading at rapid speeds. Local journalism, in particular, also helps to foster community in areas like mine in Barnsley. By reporting on stories that matter to local people, the BBC helps people to feel connected to the place they call home. In the past few days alone in my area, the BBC has reported on a new sculpture that will be placed on a roundabout in Goldthorpe, a local Christmas tree that had to be taken down due to dangers related to wind and vandalism, and a new specialist care home being built in Barnsley. Those kinds of varied local stories matter to local people, and they enrich their understanding of the issues affecting their neighbourhoods. I know Members from across the House will have similar stories to share.

Ultimately, the BBC has a huge role to play in telling our country’s story, creating great jobs and opportunities and driving growth in the creative economy. We are determined to get the forthcoming charter review right to future-proof the BBC and to ensure that we can all continue to enjoy and benefit from it for decades to come. The right hon. Member for Maldon has made an important contribution, not just today, but through his years of public service, and I thank him for that.

Draft Local Digital Television Programme Services (Amendment) Order 2024

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Local Digital Television Programme Services (Amendment) Order 2024.

It is a pleasure to open the debate under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I am pleased to speak to the order, which was laid before the House in draft on 5 November.

In just over 10 years since the first service launched, local television continues to provide local content, including news and current affairs, to audiences across the UK, and in so doing to complement our national public service broadcasters. From Sheffield Live and Leeds TV, both of which broadcast in areas neighbouring my Barnsley constituency, to London Live, which broadcasts just a few miles up the road in Kensington, and NVTV in Belfast, there are now 34 local TV services broadcasting across the UK.

I was pleased to meet members of the Local TV Network and Comux last month and hear more about their services and the work they do. Both organisations also sit on the Future of TV Distribution stakeholder forum, which I am pleased to chair. These services bring social and economic benefits to the areas they serve through the making and showing of programmes that reflect the interests of their local communities, but more than that, in a television sector that is all too often centred around London and the south-east, local TV provides a training ground for those looking to embark on a career in the sector. One service, KMTV, has developed a partnership with the University of Kent to train journalism students, while another, Notts TV, has seen former trainees build on that experience and go on to work in the national media.

There are 11 services based in the north of England, five based in Scotland, three in Wales and one in Northern Ireland. All 34 of those services are carried on the local TV multiplex, which enables them to be broadcast on digital terrestrial television, also known as Freeview. The multiplex is operated by Comux UK, which is co-owned by the local TV services themselves. The multiplex plays a central role in the local TV ecosystem by providing subsidised carriages for all the local services.

The local TV sector has not been without its challenges. Some services have struggled to maintain consistent audience numbers and to develop stable revenues from advertising. Last year, the TV advertising market in the UK experienced its biggest decline since the 2008-09 financial crisis. Although all commercially funded broadcasters have been affected, local TV services have been particularly impacted as they have smaller audiences than their national counterparts.

The previous Government made a commitment to extend the local TV multiplex until 2034 and to consult on the options for the renewal or relicensing of the licences for the 34 local TV services. That consultation ran from June to September last year and received responses from existing licence holders, media and telecoms companies, and members of the public. In the consultation, the then Government outlined their preferred approach of a light touch renewal process for the multiplex licence, led by Ofcom, and the conditional renewal of the licences for all 34 local TV services, subject to Ofcom’s assessment of their performance to date and their plans for the next licence period.

Respondents to the consultation were broadly supportive of this approach. Some respondents, particularly current licence holders, raised concerns about the burden this approach may have on licensees. They also emphasised the importance of the renewal process being completed swiftly in order to provide certainty to both the sector and its commercial partners. My Department has taken those responses into account in the drafting of this order, and worked closely with the independent regulator, Ofcom, which will administer the renewals process, to refine its provisions.

A previous version of this order was laid in draft before Parliament on 7 May 2024, but was withdrawn due to the general election. The subsequent delay to the order coming into force meant that Ofcom would not have had the time necessary to conclude the renewals process and, in the event that any of the licences were not renewed, to conduct a competitive relicensing process. The updated order therefore includes additional powers for Ofcom to extend local TV licences, with the consent of current licence holders, by a period of 12 months. The extension will ensure that Ofcom is able to complete the renewals process at least 12 months before the extended licences would otherwise expire.

The order has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which raised no concerns. The Government believe that the approach set out at consultation and provided for by the order gives the sector the best chance for long-term success and sustainability by balancing the certainty and stability of a streamlined renewals process with a proportionate degree of regulatory oversight, which will be provided by Ofcom.

The Government recognise the importance of local media, including local TV. Our vision is of a thriving sector that continues to play an invaluable role by reporting on the issues that matter to communities, and keeping communities informed about local issues and decision making that affects them. The renewal of local TV licences is an important step on that journey, and I commend the draft order to the Committee.

[The Chair]

I remind members of the Committee, and other Members, that if they wish to catch my eye they must bob, as we do in the Chamber. I call the Opposition spokesperson, Saqib Bhatti.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

It is a pleasure to conclude the debate. I am grateful for the contributions that all Members have made. It is clear that both sides of the House want to see the local TV sector thrive long into the future, and continue to provide valuable news and current affairs content that meets the needs and interests of those living and working in the communities they serve. A number of issues have been raised in the debate, which I will take in turn.

First, the shadow Minister rightly talked about balance, which the Government and I agree with. In my opening remarks, I acknowledged that the majority of the work was carried out under the previous Government. In terms of the process and timescale, which was raised by a number of Members, we will work with Ofcom on any open competition and any future licences. That is incredibly important.

In response to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East on the 12-month extension, that is the key change from the previous statutory instrument laid on 7 May. TV operators can apply for it if they would like it, and that will make sure there is enough time for the process to take place. We agree on the need for a proportionate process for renewal and will continue to impress this upon Ofcom in discussions.

There were also questions about our wider support for the sector and the local media strategy. The Secretary of State has announced plans to develop a local media strategy in recognition of the importance of this vital sector. We are working across Government as we develop this strategy, because our vision is of a thriving sector that continues to play an invaluable role by reporting on the issues that matter to communities and keeping them informed about the decision making that is relevant to them.

The right hon. Member for Maldon and others asked about the ability of local TV services to make genuinely local content that meets the needs of local audiences. We recognise that sustainable funding of genuinely local content is not without its challenges, but that requirement is central to local TV and the audience it serves, so it is appropriate to consider it as part of the renewal process. Before renewing a licence, Ofcom will need to be satisfied that an applicant can comply with the conditions set out in their licence renewal, which in the case of local TV services will include specific and enforceable local programming commitments.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Guildford, and the right hon. Member for Maldon and others raised concerns about local TV services not receiving prominence for their on-demand apps as part of the new online prominence regime established in the Media Act. I recall spending many happy hours in Committee with the right hon. Gentleman debating the then Media Bill. I am familiar with his, as he describes it, rather unusual amendment. It is a shame that it was not a Government amendment.

At present, local TV services do not have on-demand apps; as a result, and as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it is difficult to have confidence that such an app would provide significant quantities of public service content which would be put front and centre. Those are the two requirements, as Members will know, of the new prominence regime. None the less, we are aware of the concerns raised by the sector that apps that might be developed in future or are currently being developed would not have the potential to be included in the new online prominence regime, and we are committed to keeping that under review. As I outlined in my opening remarks, we are very aware of the changing nature of television distribution. That is why I am chairing a forum to discuss and explore those issues in further detail.

Earlier this year, Ofcom published a statement following a monitoring exercise and set out in further detail about how it will assess whether a service is meeting its commitments. The conditional renewal of the 34 licences provided for by this order will ensure a proportionate level of regulatory oversight that an automatic renewal process would not. An automatic renewal process would lead only to a period of post-renewal uncertainty, so we think we are doing the right thing in the way that the SI has been constructed and laid.

As I said earlier, it will be Ofcom that administers the renewal process. To ensure that licence holders understand what is required of them, Ofcom published a statement last month outlining how it will run the renewal process and what applicants will need to do to have their licences extended and renewed. This has ensured that local licence holders have sufficient time to familiarise themselves with the requirements and can begin preparing their applications before the legislation comes into force.

Renewing the local TV licences will ensure that local TV services receive the same regulatory benefits that they have received since 2013. Services will continue to receive access to and prominence on Freeview as well as on regulated electronic programme guides for simulcast satellite, cable and internet-delivered TV services. It will also mean that local TV is able to continue to make its important contribution by providing pathways for the next generation of journalists and broadcasters to take their first steps in the television industry up and down the country. This is particularly important in a sector where, despite some positive progress in recent years, opportunities are still disproportionately concentrated in London and the south-east.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has made one of her top priorities increasing opportunities in the creative industries across the whole of the UK, including in the TV sector, and we recognise the role that local TV can play in helping to achieve that. I am grateful to Members for their contributions and the interest they have shown in the continued provision of local television across the UK.

Question put and agreed to.

BBC Charter Review

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

I am pleased to respond to this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) on securing it. The debate is a good opportunity to discuss the upcoming charter review, which we intend to launch next year. He has raised a number of important areas related to the BBC, which I will respond to, but I would first like to make a few broad points about the contribution that the BBC makes to the UK.

The BBC supports our democracy, brings our communities together and helps to shape and define our nation through telling stories about the lives of people in all parts of the UK. It also plays an important role in providing trusted news as the UK’s most trusted news brand, reaching around 95% of UK adults each month. It is one of Britain’s biggest cultural exports and an important soft power asset, with the BBC World Service providing essential, trustworthy news through 42 language services to millions of people across the globe. That is a topic I was pleased to discuss today while giving evidence to the joint sitting of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee and the International Development Committee. Indeed, I see one of the Committee members in the Chamber right now.

The BBC has provided some of our most memorable moments across television, representing stories from every part of the UK. It acts as a linchpin in the UK’s flourishing creative economy, investing in the skills, training and creativity that drive growth across all regions of the UK. Last year, it contributed £4.9 billion to the UK economy and supported over 50,000 jobs, with more than half of this impact outside London, and it invests more in original British content than anyone else.

I shall move on to some of the points the hon. Member raised. I note his view on increasing the accountability of the BBC as part of the charter review, and it is important that we get this area right. The charter review will explore BBC accountability, particularly in terms of ensuring that the BBC is accountable to those who fund it: the British people. As a public service broadcaster that is hugely important to public life, the BBC must be responsive to its audience. The BBC has a duty to deliver impartial and accurate news coverage and content under the charter, which specifically sets out that it must observe high standards of openness and seek to maximise transparency and accountability.

Since 2017, Ofcom has regulated the BBC and has taken action to make sure that it is held to account. Ofcom is required to prepare and publish an operating framework for the BBC, which must contain provisions to secure the effective regulation of the BBC’s activities.

Under the BBC’s new operating licence, introduced last year, the BBC is required to report more comprehensively on its performance and its plans for services. The Government welcome Ofcom’s recent report into the BBC’s performance in 2023-24 and note its findings, including where Ofcom has identified areas of improvement for the BBC. It is for Ofcom, as the BBC’s independent regulator, to monitor the BBC’s progress in these areas. The charter also includes provision for the National Audit Office to examine the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the BBC uses its resources in discharging its functions.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about commissioning. A key principle of the BBC’s success is its editorial and operational independence, which must be upheld. That is why decisions on commissioning and programming are for the BBC board, not for the Government. Being operationally and editorially independent, BBC commissioning is rightly a matter for the BBC. It is not within the Government’s scope to intervene in day-to-day commissioning decisions, but the charter requires the BBC to open up content production to allow non-BBC producers to compete for BBC projects. By the end of the current charter in 2027, 100% of BBC television and 60% of BBC radio will be fully open to competition to support a diverse range of stories and views on the BBC.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

The Minister talks about the BBC needing to open up contracts to non-BBC personnel. Does she accept that this needs to be seen to be done on an equitable and fair basis, so that people beyond the reach of the BBC, as well as internals, have an equal opportunity to bid for contracts?

[Stephanie Peacock]

Yes, I do accept that, and it is something we can look at as part of the charter review. Of course, Ofcom, as the BBC’s independent regulator, holds the BBC to account on its performance and its commissioning practices, and on the market impact of those.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned BBC pay, which I appreciate is a matter of debate and controversy. The royal charter requires the BBC, as he rightly said, to publish the salary details of all BBC staff and talent paid over £178,000. Salary disclosures of this kind were made for the first time as part of the 2016-17 annual report. The salaries of BBC staff are also a matter for the BBC and the individuals themselves, not for Government. However, the charter review will look again at the transparency of this issue.

[Jim Shannon]

In my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), I referred to impartiality and BBC bias. Many of my constituents feel that the BBC is not impartial. Under the charter, is it possible for people to express such concerns, and for those concerns to be investigated?

[Stephanie Peacock]

Of course, and there is a complaints procedure right now. A complaint goes to the BBC first, and it can then be escalated. If the hon. Gentleman’s constituents are not happy, they can then go to Ofcom. As part of the charter review, it is absolutely right that all members of the public can have their say. We will be launching a public consultation so that his constituents, and indeed people across the country, can have their say, because we want the BBC to represent the people it serves.

Next year, the Government will launch a charter review with the aim of addressing some of the challenges we are discussing today and delivering a renewed charter by the end of 2027 that will support the BBC not just to survive but to thrive long into the future. This will be the ninth charter review in the BBC’s history. It will be an opportunity to consider what the BBC is for, how it delivers for audiences and how it should be funded, governed and regulated against a rapidly changing media environment. The charter review will also look to uphold the BBC’s independence and ensure that it maintains the public’s trust.

Charter review is a well-established process, and our next step will be to publish the terms of reference next year, setting out the objectives we wish to achieve. We will ensure that we take all relevant views into account as part of the review. With that in mind, next summer we will also launch a public consultation, as part of which we will encourage everyone to share evidence. We need to have a truly national conversation and ensure that the BBC is reflective of the people it serves, wherever they come from and whatever their background. Once we have consulted widely, considered the views of stakeholders and assessed the evidence, we will outline our policy direction for the next BBC charter in a White Paper in 2026.

There will also be an opportunity to place a draft charter before both Houses before the current charter expires in 2027. The devolved Governments will be a key part of the conversation and I look forward to visiting Northern Ireland in the coming months. I have met the Northern Ireland Minister for Communities online, and I welcome further conversations with my devolved counterparts.

As we address vital issues about the future of the BBC, we must ensure that there is a sustainable funding model that is fair to those who pay for it. We will consider that area as part of the upcoming charter review. The media landscape has changed radically since the current charter was introduced in 2017, and the BBC faces key challenges to its sustainability. We cannot ignore the fact that the challenges to the funding model in its current form are increasing, and we are fully committed to retaining the licence fee for the rest of this charter period. However, for the BBC to succeed, it must have sustainable funding to allow it to adapt and thrive in a changing media landscape.

We are clear that what the BBC does and what it can achieve are inextricably tied to how it is funded, and those issues should be considered together. The charter review will be an important part of making sure that the BBC is supported to do that. The Government are keeping an open mind about the best solutions. As my Department’s work progresses, we will be working closely with the BBC and engaging with other broadcasters, stakeholders across the creative industries and the British public to inform our thinking.

While audience trends are changing, there are still millions of households that continue to rely on digital terrestrial television, also known as Freeview. I am glad to say that the continuity of the technology has been secured in legislation until at least 2034. The need to maintain traditional broadcasting platforms, at the same time as there is a shift to online viewing, is resulting in more choice for audiences, but it is creating financial pressures for our broadcasters, including the BBC.

Our project on the future of TV distribution will explore those issues. We will analyse how people receive their television programmes now, and through the next decade. It will help us to ensure the continuity of a sustainable TV ecosystem and the best outcome for audiences. As part of the project, I am glad to be chairing a new stakeholder forum on the future of TV distribution, allowing me to hear from TV stakeholders, including the BBC, infrastructure providers and groups that represent the interests of audiences. I will, of course, raise the issue of TV distribution when I next meet my counterparts in the devolved Governments.

The charter review provides us with an exciting opportunity to engage the widest possible range of voices on the future of the BBC. The Government are committed to having a truly national conversation as part of the charter review. It will be an honest, supportive and respectful debate that can give the public confidence in their BBC. We will provide more details on what that looks like and how stakeholders can contribute their views in due course, when we launch the review next year. The hon. Member for East Londonderry has contributed to that national conversation today, and for that I thank him.

Question put and agreed to.