§ Lord Mancroftasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have decided to restrict the frequency of draws in society lotteries to "no greater than one a day" (paragraph 4.43 of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's report A safe Bet for Success) when such a limit does not exist for the National Lottery, which currently has three draws each Saturday; and [HL4277]
What information or research data they have which shows that society lotteries with frequent draws encourage players to gamble to excess; and [HL4278]
What they consider to be "excessive" gambling, in monetary terms, in respect of (i) society lotteries, (ii) amusement-with-prizes and (iii) the National Lottery by individual players and by outlet; and [HL4279]
In relation to Sir Alan Budd's review (Cm 5207) (a) how many of the 300 submissions raised concerns 72WA about the frequency of draws in society lotteries; (b) from where Sir Alan Budd obtained the information contained in paragraphs 28.38 to 28.41 of his Report; (c) what information officials gave to Sir Alan Budd in connection with the frequency of draws in society lotteries; and (d) why officials withheld from Sir Alan Budd the results of society lotteries with frequent draws in the possession of the Home Office demonstrating that no excessive play took place; and [HL4280]
Whether they have calculated the potential loss to charities if draws in society lotteries are restricted to one a day; and, if not, whether they will now do so. [HL4281]
§ Baroness BlackstoneThe Government's decision that the frequency of on-line draws for society lotteries should be restricted to one a day in any particular premises reflected the conclusions of the Gambling Review Body that without such a limit there would be opportunities for uncontrolled and excessive play carrying risks encouraging problem gambling.
The available research evidence is as set out in Chapter 17 of the review body's report. It is not specific to lotteries but relates generally to frequency of play and opportunities for re-staking.
Excessive gambling is not necessarily simply a question of the money which the gambler spends or even of the relationship of such expenditure to the gambler's income. It is a matter also of the gamblers' ability to control his or her gambling.
Four submissions last autumn to the Government about the report of the Gambling Review Body expressed concern about frequent draw lotteries. The review body was independent of government. The sources of evidence given to it were listed in its report. The Home Office did not give evidence about lotteries or other subjects. The only information about the results of society lotteries with frequent draws which was available to the Home Office was supplied by Interlotto. This information related to ticket sales and not to the extent of play by individual participants. It was open to Interlotto to provide this, or such other material as it wished, to the review body in response to the review body's general invitation to submit evidence.
We have made no estimate of the potential loss to charities from controlling the frequency of online lottery draws and do not think that this would serve a useful purpose. The Government have made clear in A safe bet for success that we are committed to the success of the charity lottery sector and we shall be introducing legislation very shortly to increase their maximum ticket sales, prizes and ticket prices.