🎗️ Gambling Act 2005 (Monetary Limits for Lotteries) Bill

Commons Chamber

🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️

A proposed bill aims to revolutionize charity fundraising by removing caps on lottery ticket sales for charities, currently limited to £5 million per draw and £50 million annually. Wendy Chamberlain, the bill’s proponent, highlighted the bureaucratic challenges and inflexibility faced by charity lotteries like the People’s Postcode Lottery due to these restrictions. The bill seeks to increase funds available to charities amidst rising operational costs, with endorsements from over 100 charity leaders. The government is considering the proposal but awaits further research before making a decision, promising an update by the summer recess.

Summary

  • Purpose of the Bill: The Gambling Act 2005 (Monetary Limits for Lotteries) Bill, introduced by Wendy Chamberlain (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife), aims to remove the sales cap on charity lotteries. This would allow these lotteries, like the People’s Postcode Lottery, to raise unlimited funds for charities.

  • Current Law and Proposed Changes: Under existing law, charity lotteries are limited to ÂŁ5 million per draw and ÂŁ50 million annually, while for-profit lotteries have no such limits. The Bill seeks to remove these restrictions to boost charitable fundraising without increasing the prize cap, which would remain at ÂŁ500,000.

  • Impact on Charities: The change could significantly increase funds available to charities, which currently face challenges due to bureaucratic and inflexible fund distribution systems, as well as inflation. Over 500 charity lottery operators could potentially increase their annual contributions to good causes, which currently total more than ÂŁ450 million.

  • Local Benefits: Examples from North East Fife include funding for nurseries, a poetry festival, a dementia support choir, a veterans project, and community playing fields, demonstrating the local impact of charity lotteries. Other MPs highlighted similar benefits in their constituencies.

  • Support and Concerns: The Bill has strong support from the charity sector, with over 100 charity leaders endorsing it. However, there are concerns about potential competition with the National Lottery. Research by the Gambling Commission and others suggests no significant impact on National Lottery sales from charity lotteries.

  • Gambling Harms: The discussion included recognition of the need to address gambling addiction. Charity lotteries are seen as lower risk due to their format, with measures in place to prevent problem gambling.

  • Government’s Position: The Minister, Stephanie Peacock, acknowledged the importance of society lotteries and indicated the Government’s commitment to review the situation once new research is received. The Government aims to update the House by summer recess.

  • Next Steps: The debate was adjourned and will resume on 11 July, with ongoing discussions expected to focus on the research findings and their implications for the Bill.

Divisiveness

The session demonstrates limited disagreement, with most speakers broadly supportive of the Bill’s intent to remove caps on charity lotteries. However, procedural and evidence-based reservations from the Government and Opposition slightly elevate the disagreement level.

  • Cross-party support: The Liberal Democrat sponsor, Conservative shadow Minister, and Labour/Co-op backbencher all emphasized the importance of charity funding and the need for reform, aligning on the Bill’s core goals.
  • Procedural reservations: The Government acknowledged the Bill’s merits but emphasized awaiting independent research before committing to legislative changes, citing concerns about balancing charity lotteries’ growth with the National Lottery’s interests.
  • Policy caution: The shadow Minister echoed support but pressed the Government to clarify its position on evidence and compensation for charities affected by national insurance increases, introducing mild tension.
  • No overt polarization: While differing on timing and process, all parties agreed on the societal value of charity lotteries and the need to reduce bureaucratic burdens. Criticisms were constructive rather than adversarial.