Gambling Act 2005 (Monetary Limits for Lotteries) Bill

Olly Glover Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain]

This is a small and, on the surface, technical looking Bill, but one that would revolutionise charity fundraising in constituencies up and down the country. The key clause is 1(2), which would omit subsection (3) from section 99 of the Gambling Act 2005. The law that would be changed is a requirement placed on charity lotteries alone that caps the proceeds of their sales in any given year. Put another way, if someone is running a purely profit-driven lottery with no societal benefit, there are no caps on the number of tickets they can sell, but for charity lotteries—the most well-known being the People’s Postcode Lottery—there is a cap of £5 million per draw and £50 million over the course of a calendar year.

What clause 1(2) would do—indeed, this is the purpose of the whole Bill—is remove that cap and allow unlimited charitable fundraising from licensed lottery sales, because, of course, it is important that the proceeds of the lottery go to charities, rather than just creating bigger and bigger prize pots. As things stand, there is a limit on prizes of £25,000 or, if it is more, 10% of the proceeds of the lottery. The limit is therefore £500,000 with the current cap. All the stakeholders agree that we ought to amend section 99(4) of the 2005 Act so that it reads £500,000, to maintain the current prize levels. My Bill seeks the Government’s agreement to that and asks them to exercise their powers under clause 3 to make the relevant consequential provisions. That is the extent of the Bill—two small legislative changes with a huge consequence for charities across the UK.

There are approximately 500 charity lottery operators generating more than £450 million for good causes every year. As I have mentioned, the largest of these is the People’s Postcode Lottery; indeed, it is the one with the largest reach in every constituency. To date, the People’s Postcode Lottery has coped with the fact that demand exceeds the cap by establishing different postcode trusts that each operate on a thematic or geographical basis, but I would argue that there are three fundamental problems with that.

First, it is incredibly bureaucratic, with each trust having to have its own licences, monthly returns, registrations under Scottish, English and Welsh law, trustees, audit and risk committees, monthly and annual accounts, financial audits, websites and so on. That bureaucracy increases costs that could otherwise be used for good causes. Secondly, it is deeply inflexible, with the funds raised under each trust being required to be directed to the trust theme or geographical designation. Right now, we see Storm Éowyn causing destruction over Northern Ireland and Scotland. If there is damage or some sort of major accident causing loss of life, charities, as they always do, will step in to urgently provide support. However, the People’s Postcode Lottery, for example, would not be able to divert funds to assist with such efforts because of the current rules on trusts, as a result of the cap.

Thirdly, even if we accept the additional bureaucracy and the restrictions on where funds are deployed, at the end of the day, all the evidence still shows that fundraising is being limited by the caps, and in any case, their value is eroded by inflation. It is estimated that if we do nothing and keep the caps today, the charities supported by the People’s Postcode Lottery will lose out on £175 million over the next five years. I challenge anyone in the House to argue that the charities in their constituency would not benefit from that funding.

We already benefit from funding in North East Fife, and I would love to see more support for fantastic local initiatives. I will list some of the individual projects that have been supported in the last two years alone. St Agatha’s and St Andrews nurseries received funds for the cost of outdoor education equipment and training. There has been support for Scotland’s international poetry festival, StAnza, which takes place in St Andrews every year—I am looking forward to March’s programme. The Newburgh wellbeing choir, which provides support for people living with dementia, was able to hire professional singers trained in dementia inclusion to lead the group. Nurture Steps had a project funded to run support sessions for parents of young children with disabilities, and Veterans Tribe Scotland was supported on a significant project to reduce isolation, loneliness and anxiety among those who have served our country. There were funds allocated to maintain a community playing field at Dunbog community hall. In the late summer, I hope to go to the Cupar big weekend, which has also been supported by charity lotteries.

I could go on; there are countless projects. For example, the Cupar food bank and local brownie units receive funding from their central bodies, the Trussell Trust and Girlguiding, that also comes from charity lotteries.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

I commend my hon. Friend for bringing the Bill before the House and for all her work to promote charity lotteries. Does she agree that, in addition to all the organisations she has listed in her constituency, the MS Therapy Centre in Milton Park, Chilton county primary school and the Letcombe Brook Project in my Oxfordshire constituency would benefit further if the Bill progresses?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

My hon. Friend has just exemplified what I said earlier. Every single one of us has probably attended drop-ins in Parliament and seen the benefit of charity lotteries in our local communities.

Fundraising is not a one-off thing. There will be other projects that were not successful in getting funding, or all the funding they needed, because it has not been available under the current system. I would like to bring in some of those charities’ voices directly. I hope the Minister is aware that before Christmas, over 100 charity leaders wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to support my Bill. They pointed to the absurdity of charity fundraising being restricted. They noted, and I have to agree, that

“supporting this vital reform would send a strong message on the Labour Government’s backing for, and belief in the third sector and a vibrant, well-funded society.”

I spoke with one the signatories of the letter, Children First, earlier this week. It said:

“In a financial climate that is more challenging than ever, we rely on charitable fundraising to deliver the essential services we provide to children and families across the country. Importantly,”—

and I think this is a very important point—

“the unrestricted nature of the funding means we are more able to use the money in the most effective way for children and families, bridging gaps in the ever-complex funding environment. Many of our services rely on a jigsaw of income, sometimes stretching to 20 different sources all with conditions, data gathering and reporting requirements. This, in turn, has an impact on how much we can do for the children and families we support as time and energy is locked into sustaining funding as opposed to supporting families.”

BBC: Funding

Olly Glover Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I commend the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this important debate. It was good to hear his support for public service broadcasting and his recognition that the licence fee is there not just for live television, but for many of the services that hon. Members have mentioned.

I will start by saying why I feel strongly that we need the BBC, and why it delivers such great value. It still does so many things that the proliferation of streaming platforms do not. From the perspective of UK cultural and economic benefit, the BBC provides a critical role in education, not just through children’s programming, but through ever-informative and breathtaking nature documentaries from David Attenborough and others. Even in this age of streaming, “Line of Duty” managed to secure 13 million viewers a night; many of us were gripped and looked forward to the next episode. The BBC has brought fantastic foreign-language content to BBC 4, including the iconic “The Killing”, which astonished people by hitting 1 million viewers a week as a subtitled programme. Those of us who were alive, albeit somewhat younger, in the 1990s could always look forward to the thrill of “Star Trek: The Next Generation” at 6 pm every Wednesday. For all those reasons, a KPMG report estimates that for every £1 of economic activity generated by the BBC, £2.63 of wider economic value is created.

The BBC is so much more than entertainment. Fact-based and impartial reporting, analysis and investigations are essential, particularly in this age of social media misinformation when we are all trapped in our thought bubbles. We need the forensic interviews on Radio 4’s “Today” programme, we desperately need the local political reporting and scrutiny of services such as BBC Oxford and BBC South, and we need the investigative journalism, domestic and international, that can be found across Radio 4. As the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) said, the BBC World Service plays a key role in maintaining access to free and accurate sources of information in many repressive countries around the world or in countries facing humanitarian challenges, such as Syria, which he mentioned.

Of course, we should recognise that the BBC is not perfect. The salaries of top presenters can be very high indeed, and scandals and crises have not always been prevented or well managed. But what other organisation would create and broadcast a documentary that looks critically at its own failings and weaknesses, as “Days That Shook the BBC” with David Dimbleby did?

Value for money from current funding and potential future reforms are important, but 95% of adults still use the BBC at least once a month. The alternative funding models that have been explored to date would not necessarily create a fairer system without disadvantages, so it is important for the Government to be very clear about our desired outcomes from the BBC and public service broadcasting, and then to work out from that how we fund them. We should consider ways to spread the TV licence cost more equitably, taking people on low incomes into account.

We need the quality, independence and breadth of the BBC now more than ever. It is too important to risk losing through sub-optimal or over-complex funding routes. I am pleased to see that the Government are looking hard at how to sustain the BBC’s future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Olly Glover Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

You can see how eager we are, Mr Speaker. We are champing at the bit to support the creative industries. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) will know, we have announced a series of measures over the last few months to support these industries, including tax credits for independent film and special effects. We are broadening the curriculum to ensure that there is a pathway enabling young people to work in the creative industries, and we have held an international investment summit, to which the industries were central. We will be announcing more in due course.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

T4.   Council-owned arts centres in my Oxfordshire constituency, such as Cornerstone in Didcot and the Beacon in Wantage, face rising energy and staffing costs. Given that most external funding sources do not support operating costs, will the Secretary of State press her Cabinet colleagues to back multi-year funding settlements for local government, to help art and culture to thrive?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes!