Draft Gambling Act 2005 (Variation of Monetary Limits) Order 2020

Catherine West Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2020 General Committees

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms McDonagh. I am pleased to speak for the Opposition on this important statutory instrument, which has the potential to be beneficial for good causes and the UK charity sector. I welcome the Select Committee’s report, which laid the ground for this important change.

On the face of it, the SI is not controversial, but we will abstain because of some points of concern, which I will lay out. The limits on proceeds for society lotteries were set more than a decade ago and it is only natural for there to be an update on guidance and regulations after such a long period, to enable society lotteries to continue their good work in the community and in benefiting good causes.

No one can deny that society lotteries have had a significant impact on good causes in the UK; the £330 million that they raised last year alone has helped to transform lives and communities in Britain and beyond. Members on both sides of the Committee will be aware of specific local funding that has been made available in their constituencies, which we all welcome. In a decade of austerity, the philanthropic urges of the local community have often been what has kept us all alive. In the past few years, society lotteries have grown significantly; the postcode lottery, to name but one, has seen a sales growth of a staggering 1,560% in the past decade. Clearly, that growth feeds into good causes and should be welcomed.

It is vital that any eventual Government review into gambling should include the requirement for large-scale society lotteries to publish a full breakdown of their operating costs and proceeds, so that they are held to the same standards as the national lottery. Stakeholders have some concerns about, for example, a lack of transparency and the payment of executive salaries in smaller charities that make the leap towards becoming bigger—due diligence is required there. On occasion, the Gambling Commission has not had the best reputation for sharp teeth, so we will watch carefully to see how the 12-month review period goes.

Transparency is needed on the level of advertising within some of the charities. When each of us places a bet or gets involved in one of the smaller lotteries, we all hope that that a big proportion of that money goes to a good cause rather than to an overblown executive salary or the advertising section of the charity.

Although I am keen to see charities receive increased funding, particularly after a decade of austerity, we need more protections and an even playing field between the larger players, such as the national lottery, and the smaller ones. I am yet to be convinced that the Gambling Commission is as robust as it needs to be, as has been demonstrated in a number of areas. The Government must redouble their efforts to protect the charity sector, smaller groups and, importantly, the general public who play the national lottery or smaller lotteries, so that there is an even playing field and transparency, and so we know broadly how much of the money placed into the lottery actually goes to the good cause and how much goes back to the charity.

In conclusion, I welcome the 12-month Government review, but we cannot fully vote for the statutory instrument due to our concerns about the big step that the Government are taking by increasing the amount that the charity sector can go up to without the necessary regulatory environment and protections.