Memorandum from Gamingking Plc (DGB 63)
Gamingking plc is listed on the alternative
investment market of the London Stock Exchange and specialises
in the operation of lotteries originally within private members
clubs and now also in the Society Lotteries sector as an External
Lotteries Manger certified by the Gaming Board.
We have a number of concerns relating to the
draft Bill although we are also conscious that we have been afforded
very little time to formulate a considered response. Nevertheless
we would wish to offer the following, hopefully succinct, observations:
Clause 76(6) indicates grant of a lottery operators
licence may be subject to restrictions on use of a rollover. This
seems unnecessary since there are already limits imposed on what
the maximum size of rollover prizes can be—why is it sought
to provide the Gambling Commission with this discretion which
takes them into the arena of making determinations about proposed
marketing strategies relating to raising money for good causes.
Clause 77—raises the following queries:
77(2)—What is the magic of 24 hours? If
the objective is to prevent rapid draw games then a much smaller
period of time such as two hours would be more than sufficient.
Note that Secretary of State can change (77(11)) but comment per
77 (5) below applies.
77 (5)—Why are these limits enshrined
in the Act when it is clear that they are likely to move over
time. Why not simply stipulate that they will be what the Secretary
of State determines by Regulation from time to time. Even better
why not adopt the Budd recommendations and remove the limits since
the perceived need to protect the National Lottery is illusory
given the scale of its operations.
77(7) (a) Why must each ticket be a
document—is an electronic version a document?
Clause 82, 85 and 147 offences re failure to
produce premises/operating licences are a concern because on the
face of it they serve no useful purpose. The key here is that
the Gambling Commission and its inspectors are being given very
wide powers re enforcement and it is therefore important that
they be provided only where necessary and that they not be given
unnecessary opportunities to initiate prosecutions. In this instance
it is hard to see why a system is being established in the 21st
century which relies on production of bits of paper. This is understandable
for personal licenses for ID purposes but not for premises and
operating licences. It is assumed that the Gambling Commission
will maintain a computerised record of licences issued and that
this will be publicly available since these will presumably be
available for scrutiny by any interested party. It is therefore
hard to see what value the production of a piece of paper adds
to this process and it would seem unnecessary to create a criminal
offence in respect thereof.
Clause 96—noted that an annual levy is
likely to be applied and also noted what the indicative cost in
the Regulatory Impact Assessment (option three paragraph 7.35)
is shown as being £1.334 million to £1.784 million which
represents 2.6% of the monies currently being raised for beneficiaries.
This seems an inappropriately large sum to be removed from the
pool of beneficiary funds and underlines the importance of minimising
unnecessary admin costs eg re production of paper licences.
Schedule 8 Part 2
Reg 13 requires each ticket in a private lottery
to be a document—why is this and is this intended to prevent
e versions of private lotteries which are in every other respect
identical to the paper alternative?
Reg 17 prohibits rollovers in private lotteries.
What is the justification for this and why not instead apply maximum
limits on value of rollover prizes which are lower than those
for society lotteries? These lotteries are being used as fund
raisers for the clubs etc and they require as much flexibility
as possible to optimise the effectiveness of this as a fund raising
mechanism. Note also that small society lotteries may have rollovers
so difficult to see why the same principle should not be applied.
We would appreciate the committee giving consideration
to these points and would be happy to provide any additional input
the committee might find useful
December 2003
| 
