King’s Speech 2023: Culture, media and sport

1. Proposed media and broadcasting legislation

1.1 Draft Media Bill

A Draft Media Bill was published by the government in March 2023. Although a final version of the bill has not yet been introduced in Parliament, the government indicated in September 2023 that it was still committed to the bill and would introduce it “when parliamentary time allows”.^[1]

The explanatory notes for the draft legislation stressed that the bill’s primary purpose would be to “refresh” the regime relating to public service broadcasting (PSB) in light of changing technology, changing consumer habits and increased competition.^[2] It explained that the PSB regime generally refers to:

[t]he provision of television programmes for the public benefit. In order to meet their public service obligations, public service broadcasters must provide a range of high-quality and diverse TV programming which meets the needs of audiences across the UK. The current PSBs [public service broadcasters] are the BBC, S4C and the Channel 3, 4 and 5 licence holders.^[3]

The explanatory notes stated that public service content is intended to be universally available and “socially valuable”, including acting as a “trusted source of accurate and impartial news and current affairs”. It noted that the legislative framework for PSB had evolved over time, but that audiences were now increasingly moving away from watching “linear television on a traditional TV set”.

The draft bill is made up of seven parts. In brief, these cover:^[4]

• Updating and simplifying the public service remit for television. For example, it would provide that public service content on a wide range of audiovisual services, including video on demand, can contribute towards fulfilment of the remit.
• Prominence on television selection services. The explanatory notes explained that “the existing regulatory framework for ensuring carriage and prominence of PSB channels, set out in the Communications Act 2003, does not extend to the public service broadcasters’ online services, including on-demand and livestreamed programme services, nor services that enable viewers to navigate and select TV programmes beyond the TV guide (electronic programme guide), such as the user interfaces (‘UIs’) on smart TVs, set-top boxes and streaming sticks”. The bill would seek to change this to give designated PSB services prominence on major TV services.
• Adaptations for Channel 4 and S4C. Following the government’s announcement in January 2023 that Channel 4 would remain in public ownership,^[5] the draft media bill would instead set the channel’s management certain long-term sustainability duties. In addition, the bill would update the public service remit, commercial financial arrangements and support for S4C (the UK’s only dedicated Welsh language broadcaster).
• A broadcasting code for video-on-demand (VoD) services. The bill would allow Ofcom to enforce a new VoD code, similar to the broadcasting code, to ensure TV-like content will be subject to similar standards to traditional TV. It will be aimed at the “largest, most TV-like VoD services”. Currently, the majority of these are not subject to the broadcasting code, which sets out standards on “harmful or offensive material, due accuracy in news, fairness and privacy”.
• Regulation of radio services and radio selection services. The bill would remove and amend certain regulatory burdens for analogue (AM/FM) commercial radio services in the UK. For example, it would remove requirements for stations to provide specific genres of content and amend Ofcom’s duties around “localness”. It would also allow for the UK licensing regime to be extended to “radio stations based overseas but seeking to provide a service to UK listeners”. In addition, to address the growth in listening to radio via certain voice-activated connected audio devices (for example, Amazon’s Alexa), it would ensure these platforms make UK radio stations reliably accessible and that they do not charge UK radio stations for provision on their service.

The proposed legislation was announced in the previous Queen’s Speech of 10 May 2022. It was preceded by a white paper on broadcasting: ‘Up next: The government’s vision for the broadcasting sector’ (updated 29 April 2022). Further information on the background of the legislation can be found in the House of Commons Library briefing ‘Media Bill: Policy background’ (10 October 2023).

1.2 Commentary on the proposed bill

Pre-legislative scrutiny of the bill has been carried out by the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee. It has published two reports, one specifically covering radio and one final report on all other aspects of the bill:

• ‘Draft Media Bill: Final report’, 22 September 2023, HC 1807 of session 2022–23
• ‘Draft Media Bill: Radio measures’, 21 July 2023, HC 1287 of session 2022–23

In a press release summarising its findings, the committee suggested several changes to the legislation, including:^[6]

• public service broadcasters to be given ‘significant’ rather than ‘appropriate’ prominence in listings, so that content is more easily accessible
• retaining the public service broadcasters’ obligations to provide specific genres of content; it noted that the bill’s current drafting would keep a requirement to provide news and current affairs, but would remove genres such as religion, international matters and science; it feared this would lead to a decreased provision of “less commercially successful content”
• ensuring the new VoD code applies to all platforms and not just those with large UK audiences
• closing a “loophole” that allows unregulated streaming services to buy the rights for listed events and put them behind a paywall

The chair of the committee, Dame Caroline Dinenage (Conservative MP for Gosport), stressed the legislation’s importance and the need for it to be progressed in the new session:

Our public service broadcasters play a central role in enriching our culture, society and democracy and this bill is critical to ensuring they continue to thrive. With significant legislation like this coming along only once in a generation, it is vital the government gets it right. Our proposed changes to the bill will ensure it is proportionate, future-proofed in a world of shifting viewing habits and rapid technological change, and most importantly in the very best interests of viewers and listeners. It is vital that the government prioritises the legislation in the upcoming fourth session of this Parliament.^[7]

A similar view has been expressed by Channel 4^[8] and by the BBC Director-General Tim Davie, who described the legislation as welcome and “urgently needed”.^[9]

Also commenting on the draft bill, the Writer’s Guild of Great Britain welcomed the decision not to privatise Channel 4. It said it would continue to monitor the additional requirements that may be introduced through the legislation to ensure they are “not to the detriment of the channel, its audiences and the creative industries as a whole”.^[10] It argued that public service broadcasters were the “jewel in the crown of our world-leading creative industries” and therefore backed plans to make their services more accessible. However, it said that plans to regulate ‘misinformation’ or ‘harmful content’ through a new VoD code would require “careful wording” and that the proposed targets for streaming services to improve their accessibility options (such as subtitles and audio descriptions) “may not be bold enough”. In addition, it said it would be “seeking reassurances that the new provision for public service broadcasters to satisfy their remits via online as well as via linear content won’t result in a loss of service for those without reliable broadband or a reduction of broadcast content for those communities who are already under-served”.

1.3 Read more

• House of Commons Library, ‘Draft Media Bill: A reading list’, 19 April 2023; and ‘Media Bill: Policy background’, 10 October 2023
• Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre, ‘The Media Bill and the future of public service broadcasting policy’, 11 July 2023

2. Gambling reforms

2.1 Proposals for reform

Following a gambling regulation review, which was first launched in December 2020, the government published a white paper in April 2023 setting out proposals to reform gambling rules and regulations. The government had said reform was necessary due to increasing issues with ‘problem gambling’ and the amount the industry had changed since the passing of the Gambling Act 2005, which provides for the current regulation of the sector.^[11]

The white paper, entitled ‘High stakes: Gambling reform for the digital age’, summarised the issues caused by ‘problem gambling’ and the focus of the proposed new regime:

[A]round 300,000 people in Great Britain are estimated to be experiencing ‘problem gambling’, defined as gambling to a degree which compromises, disrupts, or damages family, personal or recreational pursuits, and a further 1.8 million are identified as gambling at elevated levels of risk. Gambling harms can wreck lives, impact families and communities, and even lead to suicide in extreme cases. The package of measures outlined in this white paper will significantly increase protections with the aim of preventing harm.

Our aim in the review has been to assess the best available evidence to ensure that our goals can be delivered in the digital age, and that we have the balance of regulation right between protecting people from the potentially life-ruining effects of gambling-related harm while respecting the freedom of adults to engage in a legitimate leisure activity. We need to ensure that our regulatory and legislative frameworks continue to deliver on the three foundational principles of the 2005 act: children and vulnerable people should be protected, the sector should be fair and open, and gambling should be crime free.^[12]

The paper set out a number of proposals for changing gambling regulation, which it said could be achieved through primary legislation, secondary legislation and through the Gambling Commission’s existing powers, the industry’s regulator.

Some of the proposals the government said may involve primary or secondary legislation included:^[13]

• a stake limit for online slots games (which it found to be the highest risk product) bringing them more in line with the land-based sector
• a statutory levy to be paid by certain operators directly to the Gambling Commission to fund research, education and treatment of gambling harms
• a new ombudsman to “deal with disputes and provide appropriate redress where a customer suffers losses due to operators’ social responsibility failure”
• working with the sector and “closing remaining gaps” so that under 18s can do no forms of gambling either online or via “widely accessible” scratchcards
• helping the casino sector by making the rules on machines more consistent
• reviewing the premises licence fees cap for local authorities and, “when parliamentary time allows”, aligning the gambling licensing system with that for alcohol by introducing powers to conduct “cumulative impact assessments”

Other proposed measures included reviews of how gambling is marketed (including free bet offers) and requirements to check customers’ financial circumstances for signs of potentially harmful losses; for example, it suggested the latter measure could operate as follows:

Start[ing] with light touch checks at moderate spend levels (we propose £125 net loss within a month or £500 net loss within a year) and escalate to more detailed checks for the highest spenders (we propose £1,000 net loss within a day or £2,000 net loss within 90 days).^[14]

The paper said that these measures could be achieved with the Gambling Commission’s existing powers.

The government said that many of the measures in the paper, including the proposed requirement to check financial circumstances and many of the other measures listed above, would be subject to further consultation. Since then, the government has already run consultations on maximum stake limits for online slots games and on some of the measures relating to land-based gambling (such as casinos and physical machines) and it launched a consultation on the proposed statutory levy on 17 October 2023. ^[15]

The Gambling Commission also ran a consultation in 2023 on some of the changes to its regulations and requirements.^[16]

2.2 Commentary on proposed reforms

Reacting to the white paper in April 2023, the then acting chair of the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Damian Green, welcomed its publication but raised concerns over how long action on reform was taking.^[17] He also stressed the importance of scrutinising the protection of children from gambling harm, stating:

In particular I want the select committee to probe the protections being introduced for children who are problem gamblers. Of all groups they need and deserve protection, and we need assurance that the white paper will lead to this.

The committee is currently running an inquiry into gambling regulation, for which it has held oral evidence sessions with industry representatives and the minister for sport, gambling and civil society, Stuart Andrew.^[18]

Responding to the publication of the white paper in a Lords debate, Labour’s shadow spokesperson for culture, media and sport, Lord Bassam of Brighton, indicated Labour’s support for the changes but also hoped action would be taken more quickly.^[19] In particular, Lord Bassam welcomed the paper’s focus on the problems caused by online gambling. Similarly, Liberal Democrat peer and chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform, Lord Foster of Bath, welcomed the paper but said that his “biggest concern is the delay in implementation”.^[20] He said that delays in gambling reforms ruin people’s lives, including problem gamblers and those around them.

The gambling harm education charity, GambleAware, called the white paper a “welcome step in the right direction” and said it was encouraging to see “commitments for a sustainable and transparent funding model as well as greater consumer protections, particularly in the online space”.^[21] In particular, it welcomed the proposed statutory levy which would be put towards research, education and treatment on gambling harms. However, as with others, it called on the government to make the changes with greater urgency, stressing the harm that gambling can cause. In addition, it said the white paper should have set out greater regulation of gambling advertising and marketing, calling this a “missed opportunity”. It reasoned:

Almost half (45%) of 11–17-year-olds are exposed to gambling marketing on social media each week. Our research shows that increased exposure to gambling can influence attitudes towards gambling and the likelihood of gambling participation in the future, which in turn comes with an increased risk of harm.

Industry body, the Betting and Gaming Council, welcomed the paper and said that it would continue working with the government to ensure reforms were proportionate.^[22] It stressed the contribution of the gambling industry to the UK economy but also the importance of gambling safety:

Our members generate £7.1bn for the economy and raise £4.2bn in tax every year, and the measures announced today should protect jobs and sustain that vital contribution, while also building on our own work to drive world-leading standards in safer gambling.

It said it would work with the government on ensuring the proposed enhanced spending checks were “frictionless”, setting up the new ombudsman to improve consumer redress, and the “overdue” plans to modernise casino regulation. It said it had already been championing these issues. It also welcomed the consultation on new stake limits for online slots, the measures proposed to protect young people, and the statutory levy to fund research, education and treatment services. Indeed, it stated that its “biggest members” had committed £110mn between 2019 and 2024 to fund such services and said that it had previously called for these enhanced contributions to be mandatory.

In contrast, it was pleased the report did not include measures proposing lower-level affordability checks and greater marketing restrictions:

We welcome the decision to reject proposals from anti-gambling prohibitionists for blanket, low level and intrusive affordability checks, as well as their calls for bans on advertising, sports sponsorship and consumer promotions, which would harm our best-loved sports like horseracing and football, threaten jobs and drive customers to the growing unsafe, unregulated gambling black market online.

It finished by describing the paper as a “once in a generation moment for change” and hoped the reforms would “draw a line” under the protracted debates over gambling.

2.3 Read more

• House of Commons Library, ‘Gambling white paper: A reading list’, 2 June 2023
• House of Lords Library, ‘Gambling advertising and harm caused by gambling’, 2 February 2022

3. Football governance changes

3.1 Background

The government has committed to measures to reform football governance “when parliamentary time allows”.^[23] The current proposed reforms, which include a new regulator, are set out in the government’s white paper, ‘A sustainable future: Reforming club football governance’, CP 799, 23 February 2023 (see section 3.2 of this briefing for further details).

The proposed reforms follow a ‘fan-led review of football’, which the Conservative Party’s 2019 election manifesto committed to and which then ran in 2021.^[24] The review focused on three points of “crisis” in football: the financial pressures and governance in the sport that had led to the collapse (or near collapse) of a number of clubs (such as Bury FC); the impact of the coronavirus pandemic; and concerns over the attempts of some clubs to join a new European Super League.

The review’s final report, ‘Fan-led review of football governance: Securing the game’s future’, was published in November 2021. It made 47 recommendations, which covered matters including:

• a new independent regulator for football
• more supporter engagement on clubs’ key decisions
• facilitating support from the Premier League to the rest of the football pyramid
• new owners’ and directors’ tests to ensure they are “good custodians” for running clubs
• women’s football to be treated with parity and to receive its own review

In its response to the review, the government stated that it agreed with the need for reform, believing there was a significant risk of further financial failures and that these could cause significant economic and social costs.^[25] It also recognised the community and cultural benefits of football clubs and the emotional and social links enjoyed by fans. The government agreed that there were three root causes for many of the problems being faced:

• The structure and dynamics of the market create incentives for financial overreach.
• Inadequate corporate governance often affords unchecked decision-making power.
• Existing regulation is ineffective at addressing the problems.

Based on this, the government stated that it endorsed all the strategic recommendations put forward by the review.

3.2 Football governance reforms

The government published its white paper on reforming football governance, ‘A sustainable future: Reforming club football governance’, on 23 February 2023. It agreed that government intervention was needed, reasoning that the “free market does not properly account for the importance of clubs to their fans and communities, and industry self-regulation has remained inadequate—seeing clubs collapse and fans harmed”.^[26]

The paper principally focused on the proposed introduction of an independent football regulator, which it said would have three primary and three secondary duties. The primary duties would be focused on club sustainability (including club finances), systemic stability (protecting the stability of the football pyramid) and the cultural heritage of clubs.^[27] Secondary duties would be to have regard to domestic competition, international competitiveness and investment.

Other proposals made for the regulator in the paper included:^[28]

• It would operate a licensing system and clubs would need to obtain a licence to operate as a professional football club.
• Financial regulation would be the regulator’s core focus. Clubs would need to demonstrate good financial management, including appropriate “buffers” to deal with financial uncertainty, and protect core assets (such as the club stadium).
• It would introduce a compulsory ‘football club corporate governance code’. Clubs would need to show how they applied the code, but this would be applied “proportionally”, bearing in mind the club’s size and complexity.
• It would establish new owner and director tests. These would test integrity and propriety, and—for potential owners—require enhanced due diligence of finances and that financial plans for the club were “robust”.
• It would ensure clubs have a framework to meet a “minimum standard of fan engagement”.
• Clubs would only be able to compete in approved competitions.

The paper also outlined measures to ensure a “smooth transition” to the new model. As part of this, it suggested that a shadow regulator could be established prior to formal establishment by legislation.^[29]

On other issues, such as player welfare and inclusion, the white paper said that the government would continue working with appropriate stakeholders to ensure more progress. It also highlighted the parallel review of women’s football.^[30]

The government then ran a consultation on some of the proposed governance reforms, with a final report published on 7 September 2023 setting out the outcomes.^[31] It included government intentions that:^[32]

• the regulator would primarily focus on financial sustainability; the government believed there should “only be intervention in an area where there is clear evidence of a market failure”
• the independence of the regulator and the new governance structures would be ensured; the legislative framework would build towards this and the government was “minded to set up a new body to house the regulator”
• the regulatory model would ensure bespoke regulation was a “core principle of the regulatory design to ensure a flexible, agile and proportionate approach”; well-run clubs should be less impacted by regulatory requirements
• the regulator would collaborate with other footballing bodies
• the regulator would have targeted powers to intervene where necessary, although the government’s preference was a “football-led” solution to financial distribution across the football pyramid

3.3 Review of women’s football

An independent review of women’s football was commissioned in September 2022, looking at the reach of the sport, its financial health and its structures.^[33] It was chaired by former England footballer, Karen Carney.

The review’s final report, ‘Raising the bar: Reframing the opportunity in women’s football’, was published on 17 July 2023. It said it had considered opportunities across the sport, from young girls starting football, grassroots clubs and the professional game. It made 10 recommendations, covering matters including that:^[34]

• The new company tasked with running the Women’s Super League and Women’s Championship should target world leading standards for players, fans, staff and everybody involved in the women’s game.
• The Women’s Super League and Women’s Championship should become fully professional environments “designed to attract, develop and sustain the best playing talent in the world”. The Football Association (FA) should address disparities between the leagues and improve access to support, training and health provision.
• The FA needed to “fix the talent pathway to create generation after generation of world-beating Lionesses”. This required strategic partnership to invest in domestic talent.
• The FA should “urgently address the lack of diversity across the women’s game”.
• There should be a dedicated time slot for screening women’s football.
• The government must deliver on commitments to equal access to school sports for girls.
• Work should be done on improving funding and investment across the footballing pyramid, including providing women and girls better access to grassroots football. This should include the FA, government and other footballing bodies.

The government said it would respond to the review in the autumn.

3.4 Commentary

In June 2023 the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee published a report on football governance following its consideration of the government’s proposed reforms.^[35] It welcomed the government’s progress on the fan-led review and called for the regulator to be set up in shadow form by the end of the year, and to be placed on a statutory footing by the end of the parliament. It also made recommendations around fan engagement and equality, diversity and inclusion in football clubs. However, the committee called on a quicker resolution to the “deadlock” between the Premier League and the English Football League (EFL) on the redistribution of funds, expressing concerns about the impact on clubs.

The proposals for reform were largely welcomed by football bodies such as the FA and the EFL, although the Premier League’s response was slightly more cautious.^[36] The Premier League said it recognised the need for change and would be working with stakeholders on the reforms to ensure they do not hinder the competitiveness or quality of the league:

We appreciate the government’s commitment to protect the Premier League’s continued success. It is vital that regulation does not damage the game fans love to watch in the deepest professional pyramid in the world, or its ability to attract investment and grow interest in our game.

We will now work constructively with stakeholders to ensure that the proposed government regulator does not lead to any unintended consequences that could affect the Premier League’s position as the most-watched football league in the world, reduce its competitiveness or put the unrivalled levels of funding we provide at risk.^[37]

Commenting in September 2023, Kevin Miles, chief executive of the Football Supporters’ Association (FSA), again stressed the need for an independent regulator in football, and hoped the government’s commitment would be further set out in the King’s Speech.^[38]

The FSA has also commented on the women’s football review. Although welcoming the review, particularly the proposal of supporter liaison officers, concerns were raised about some of the plans to regulate and support women’s football.^[39] For example, Malcolm Clarke, chair of the FSA, said that it should be linked more closely with the regulation of men’s football to avoid similar issues developing:

[W]ith the future financial viability of many women’s teams so closely bound to men’s teams, the errors and wrongdoing of the past in the men’s game may, without independent regulation, be replicated in the women’s game. To guard against that, the forthcoming legislation following the fan-led review should enable a future government to add the professional part of the women’s game to the remit of the independent football regulator if circumstances make that necessary.^[40]

Similarly, Deborah Dilworth, head of women’s football at the FSA, argued that “football as a whole can afford to support the women’s game, just as solidarity payments are distributed in the men’s game to support the entire pyramid”.

The women’s football review report was welcomed by the FA. It said it looked forward to “working with all stakeholders to address the challenges and opportunities outlined in the report, and to deliver the changes needed to take the women’s professional game to the next level”.^[41]

3.5 Read more

• House of Commons Library, ‘Football governance—time for change?’, 2 March 2023
• Football Association, ‘Inspiring positive change: Strategy update’, November 2022
• Athletic (£), ‘The Premier League’s “new deal for football” and what it means for the EFL’, 16 October 2023

4. Other matters that may be covered in King’s Speech

4.1 Regulatory framework for online advertising

Over the last couple of years the government has been consulting upon and reviewing the regulatory framework for paid-for online advertising through its ‘online advertising programme’.^[42] It said it was doing so to tackle the “evident lack of transparency and accountability across the whole supply chain”.

The government published its response to the consultation on 25 July 2023.^[43] It noted that the online advertising industry was thriving, but summarised its concerns about the sector as follows:

In order for the industry to grow, thrive and innovate, trust and transparency across the whole advertising supply chain is paramount. Key to this is tackling where online advertising may cause harm, inadvertent or otherwise. The call for evidence, external research commissioned by DCMS [Department for Culture, Media and Sport] and significant stakeholder engagement indicated a range of prevailing harms that could be attributed to online advertising, and particularly illegal advertising. The lack of transparency within opaque online advertising supply chains, coupled with the lack of accountability across key areas of the supply chain, also remains a cause for concern.

Based on these concerns, the government decided that legislative reform was needed. It therefore intends to introduce a new regulatory framework for online advertising focused on tackling illegal advertising and increasing the protection of under-18s online. It has summarised its intended next steps as follows:^[44]

• convene a ministerially-led industry taskforce [this is now in operation] to drive forward non-legislative action on illegal harms and the protection of children^[45]
• conduct a further consultation on the details of proposed regulation, to ensure it is “coherent, logical and can be designed and implemented in partnership with industry”
• introduce legislation “when parliamentary time allows” to set up the new regulatory framework

4.2 Other potential topics

Other issues that have come up which may be touched upon in the King’s Speech include:

• Review of BBC funding. The government has said that, although it is committed to the licence fee for the current charter period ending 2027, it is necessary to consider the sustainability of the BBC’s funding model long-term.^[46] This is in part due to the different ways people are now consuming media. The Times has set out potential funding options and claims a review will be launched in the autumn.^[47]
• Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). This refers to the use or threat of legal action by wealthy individuals and companies to prevent the publication of critical stories and to curtail freedom of the press. The government explains that SLAPPs “intimidate and financially exhaust those seeking to expose wrongdoing, threatening them with extreme costs for defending a claim”.^[48] SLAPPs linked to economic crime will be dealt with by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. The government now intends to use a new taskforce and further legislation to clamp down on the use of SLAPPs in other instances.

---

Cover image by Nicolas J Leclercq on Unsplash.