| 1. | The primary aim of DCMS is to increase the total resources available to the good causes. We support this objective. (Paragraph 32)
|
| | |
| 2. | Although consultation appeared to rule out three of the proposed changes suggested by the Department, we conclude that this does not amount to overwhelming support for the third option which has now been put forward for implementation, namely, the break-up of the single operating licence. (Paragraph 35)
|
| | |
| 3. | We believe that due to the unique and proper responsibility of the National Lottery Commission (NLC) to maximise returns to good causes, the regulation of the National Lottery should remain the responsibility of the NLC. (Paragraph 62)
|
| | |
| 4. | We agree that a representative from the NLC should have a seat on the proposed Gambling Commission proposed within the draft Gambling Bill. (Paragraph 63)
|
| | |
| 5. | We agree that public resources should be used to gather relevant and timely information but we think that it is critical, at this time, for the Department and the NLC to have a clearer idea of how the proposals to establish a multiple licence system will affect the amount of competition for the licence and the role of the NLC. We therefore recommend that resources are made available for research to be carried out into the effects of the proposals so that the Department can judge adequately the likely effects of its decisions. The Department and the NLC must also consider examples of use of the multiple licence system by overseas lotteries and aim to learn from the experiences abroad. (Paragraph 82)
|
| | |
| 6. | We therefore urge the Department to consider fully all of the implications of introducing (or giving the NLC the flexibility to introduce) a multiple licence system, at the same time weighing up the multiple licence system against alternative solutions available . (Paragraph 84)
|
| | |
| 7. | We recognise that there is a need to stimulate more competition for the third National Lottery licence. However we note that the proposed reforms, as they stand, do not have the support of obvious potential bidders and we believe the Department must look again at how it can attract more competition for the third licence. (Paragraph 85)
|
| | |
| 8. | When considering the advantages and disadvantages involved with the retention of the present system or evolution to a multiple licence system, Mr Simon Burridge representing TPL made a clear and bold statement to the Committee that "faced between the choice of Camelot in perpetuity and the Government's new proposals, with the greatest reluctance I think I would volunteer for Camelot in perpetuity as the lesser of two evils." Looking at the evidence presented to us in this inquiry, including on the limitations of the NLC, we have to agree. (Paragraph 88)
|
| | |
| 9. | We feel that competitive tendering would effectively introduce the attractive elements of competition to the National Lottery but would also encourage bids for the overall licence because a better package would be offered to potential operators containing significantly less uncertainty than is associated with the multiple licence system. (Paragraph 93)
|
| | |
| 10. | Proactivity in tackling the causes of the variation in funding levels across the UK is one of the key responsibilities of the new distributor once it is properly established. We hope that the new distributor will carry out this role with vigour, increasing accessibility to funding throughout the UK. (Paragraph 110)
|
| | |
| 11. | We welcome the DCMS proposals to increase accessibility to Lottery funding for all and hope that the measures taken will stimulate increased levels of application, especially from 'coldspots' and areas of great need. (Paragraph 111)
|
| | |
| 12. | We believe that the new body could usefully take on an overarching role, coordinating efforts in cross-cutting projects, but should also allow those distributors with established skills, experience and relationships to take the lead on projects whenever appropriate. The Department must take steps to allay the fears of some of the specialist distributors over the role of the new body as a 'centre of excellence', making clear to everyone the exact role that the merged body will take on and how this will combine with the work already undertaken by others. (Paragraph 118)
|
| | |
| 13. | We agree that the extra services provided under the merged body will enhance the distribution process but very much hope the cost of these will not erode the grants given by the new body. DCMS must ensure the merger of the New Opportunities Fund and the Community Fund is properly managed so that expertise is not lost and maximum savings are achieved. (Paragraph 119)
|
| | |
| 14. | We believe that long term or future projects should not suffer from this policy change and that NLDF balances should not be reduced just for the sake of it. If money is found not to be flowing effectively to worthy projects through the distributors then this must be dealt with. However, if funds need to be held for legitimate reasons then they should certainly be held in the NLDF where they earn higher interest, tax free, than in the accounts of individual distributors or projects. There are, presumably, significantly fewer risks associated with money being held centrally in the NLDF rather than dissipated amongst the many bank accounts of projects with variable degrees of governance and experience. (Paragraph 123)
|
| | |
| 15. | We agree that funding decisions should be made, wherever possible, at the most appropriate level, whether national, regional or local, so that the needs of the area are known and met. (Paragraph 124)
|
| | |
| 16. | We believe that it is important for the public to be able clearly to identify projects that have received Lottery funding, but we urge the Department, to monitor the costs and benefits of schemes set up to do this so that value for money is achieved. (Paragraph 125)
|
| | |
| 17. | DCMS must specifically carry out a full cost and benefit analysis of the proposed National Lottery Day before the event to ensure that it actually adds value to the work of distributors and does not bring about a significant diversion of costs away from grant giving (Paragraph 126)
|
| | |
| 18. | We welcome the creation of the NLPU and believe that promoting the benefits to good causes of the Lottery is positive. However, we note that Camelot has both a responsibility and an incentive to promote National Lottery sales and suggest that the operator of the National Lottery should fully fund the work of the NLPU, as it will benefit from any increased sales. (Paragraph 127)
|
| | |
| 19. | We agree with the NCVO and believe that whilst the National Lottery and the benefits it gives to good causes should be publicised, it should not be promoted as an effective way of giving to charity. The percentage of the amount spent on a Lottery ticket that actually goes to good causes should be made clear to players. (Paragraph 128)
|
| | |
| 20. | We believe that creating a further lottery distributor to manage the £750 million to be raised via the Olympic Lottery is unnecessary, wasteful of resources and against the thrust of the Government's own strategy for sport. The proposal has the potential to fragment the required investment in facilities to the detriment of the long-lasting and sustainable legacy that is an extremely significant factor in wishing to host the Olympics in the first place. We strongly endorse the Chairman of Sport England's argument that the lessons and experience of the recent past — in relation to Picketts Lock, Wembley National Stadium and the Manchester Commonwealth Games — must be built ineluctably into the arrangements that are eventually agreed. (Paragraph 143)
|
| | |
| 21. | The Exchequer has received nearly £5 billion in Lottery Duty since 1994/95 - about a third of the funds raised for good causes. We believe that this enormous sum, taken in conjunction with Lottery spending in line with Government priorities, represents a double hit on the money paid out for tickets by the public. (Paragraph 153)
|
| | |
| 22. | However, we can think of no better way of achieving a palpable hit with the Lottery-ticket-buying public than for the Government to eschew Lottery Duty entirely with the aim of dividing the funds thereby released between prizes (thus enforcing the principal driver of sales) and good causes (a significant factor in keeping players playing over the longer term). (Paragraph 156)
|
| | |
| 23. | We believe that the additionality principle is being eroded, especially with the establishment of the Olympic Lottery. This Committee deplores this erosion. Therefore, we shall consider returning to the additionality principle before the end of this Parliament. In the meantime, we call on the Secretary of State to make an annual report to Parliament on how the additionality principle has been applied. (Paragraph 165)
|
