Skip to main content

On-Line Lotteries: Legislative Control

Volume 592: debated on Thursday 30 July 1998

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What was the outcome of consultation on the draft Bill to restrict the operation of on-line lotteries. [HL3212]

We published the draft Lotteries (Frequent Draws) Bill on 7 January for comments. We received responses on behalf of 127 organisations and individuals.Among those we consulted, 46 respondents supported legislation. These included other gambling sectors, churches, regulators and organisations concerned with problem gambling. Seventy-four respondents opposed legislation, predominantly charitable organisations which had hoped for an additional source of finance for their sector. The remaining 7 respondents were neutral or expressed no overall view.Most of those in favour of legislation supported or accepted the draft Bill's proposal for a limit of one draw a day in all premises. Most of those against it suggested that we should await research on the effect of rapid on-line lottery draws or a general review of gambling legislation.We have concluded that on-line lotteries do need to be brought under proper statutory controls. We intend to legislate when the legislative programme allows.As previously proposed, the legislation will be used to limit on-line lottery draws to one a day in any particular premises, with the detailed provisions being amended in the light of points made in consultation.We also consulted on possible increases to stake and proceeds limits. As previously indicated, it will not be appropriate to proceed with that matter until legislation restricting the frequency of on-line lotteries is in place. In the light of the consultation, we will further consider whether such increases are desirable in due course.We are making available an analysis of the responses to the consultation and a paper setting out the Government's views on the main points raised. I have placed copies of these documents in the Library, together with the responses.

Contributions to and receipts from the EC budget in 1996
Gross contribution (mecu)Receipts (mecu)Net contribution/receipt1 (mecu)Population (millions)Number of households (millions)Grass contribution per head (ecu)Grass contribution per household (ecu)Receipts per head (ecu)Receipts per household (ecu)Net contribution per head (ecu)Net contribution per household (ecu)
1 (-) denotes net recipient.


(1) Sources: Contributions and receipts data taken from Court of Auditors' Report on 1996 Community Budget. Population data, relating to 1996, taken from the European Commission's document European Economy. Information on number of households relates to 1991, the latest available, and is taken from the Eurostat yearbook 1997.

(2) The Court of Auditors uses ecu figures, the unit of account for the EC Budget.

(3) Gross contribution figures are after account has been taken of the UK's abatement (including corrections, in respect of earlier years) and for adjustments to VAT and GNP-based contributions in respect of earlier years.

(4) Receipts figures include European Commission payments made direct to the member state's private sector.

(5) The Court of Auditors' Report does not allocate all Community spending to the member states so that the receipts figures in the table may not represent the full amount of expenditure by the Commission in each member state. Consequently the figures for net contributions/net benefits in the table are likely only to be indicative of the amount of member states' net positions. For example, if all administrative expenditure were allocated to the country in which it is paid, the net position of Belgium and Luxembourg would be substantially improved.