Vol. 462 No. 8
14 Kathleen Lynch asked the Minister for Finance the plans, if any, he has to review our gaming and lotteries legislation with a view to increasing the £10,000 ceiling for charity lottery prize funds, providing for unclaimed prize moneys resulting from the national lottery to be placed in a reserve fund for specific charitable purposes and reviewing the general operation of the national lottery; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5589/96]
The prize limits for private and charitable lotteries are set under the provisions of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956. In accordance with the provisions of that legislation, any changes in those limits would be a matter not for me but for the Minister for Justice. The impact of the national lottery, for which I have statutory responsibility, would be only one of many factors across the charities spectrum which would have to be taken into account by the Minister for Justice in any review of those limits.
As regards unclaimed national lottery prizes, the rules of the lottery, as approved by me, state that prizes must be claimed within 90 days of a lotto draw or of the announcement of the termination of an instant game and that these unclaimed prizes stay within the pool for allocation to future prizes pools. Accordingly, it would not be open to me to appropriate the unclaimed prizes which have accumulated to date. Any attempt to do so could possibly be open to legal challenge. Nor do I propose to change the rules for future games as it is considered there could be strong negative reaction from players resulting in reduced sales, to the ultimate detriment of the lottery surplus and the good causes it supports.
The overall operations of the national lottery, the purpose of which is to provide surplus revenue which can be allocated to the beneficiary fund, are kept under constant review.
I am disappointed with the Minister's response. I am sure he, like every other Member of the House, is conscious of the constant uphill struggle by various charities to accumulate sufficient funds to sustain their operations. I understand the £10,000 ceiling was set under the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956. Would the Minister not agree that raising the ceiling to £25,000 would not impinge on the viability or otherwise of the national lottery? On occasions when prize money reaches £2.5 million, the national lottery adds an extra £1 million. People feel uneasy that £1 million, which could be used to help struggling charities, is being wasted in this way.
The question of raising the threshold from £10,000 to £25,000 is, as I said in my reply, a matter for the Minister for Justice. I invite the Deputy to table a question to her on this matter. As regards the claims he made about the national lottery, that is a matter for it. The national lottery, which is accountable to the Department of Finance, is a well run and successful company. As regards his query about large jackpots which are introduced from time to time, I am reliably told by the chairman and chief executive of the national lottery that because lotteries are jackpot driven there is a necessity to enhance the jackpot in order to maintain sales.
Would the Minister not agree it was the National Lottery Act, 1986, which increased the prize fund for non-national lottery charities to £10,000? Would he not also agree that £10,000 would have bought a fair motor car at that time, but it would not buy a good car today? I do not know how many cars cost less than £10,000 today——
Very few.
——when the Trabant and Skoda are no longer available.
Skodas are good cars.
Would the Minister agree that although the prize limit of £10,000 in the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956, is fixed by the Department of Justice, the time has come to establish fair play between the charitable lotteries and the national lottery? It is unfair to have a fixed ceiling which has diminished substantially since 1986. Surely the Department of Finance could have no objection to the Minister for Justice increasing the total prize money?
I agree with Deputy Michael McDowell. His observations are not unreasonable and I will bring them to the attention of the Minister for Justice. I confirm that the Department of Finance would not have such an objection.
Could the Minister state to what extent national lottery funds are used as a replacement for ordinary Exchequer funds as distinct from extra funding for arts, culture and other such areas?
I do not have that information with me but some money has been used as a replacement with the agreement of successive parties in Government. I do not have the exact amount, but I can get it for the Deputy.
Would the Minister not accept that replacing Exchequer funds with lottery funds is not within the spirit of the Act or the concept of the lottery as first introduced?
One of the Deputy's colleagues, whose son is now a Deputy, brought forward this legislation.
I was also involved, as was the Minister.
Mr. Donal Creed, Minister of State at the Department of Education with responsibility for sport, first conceived the idea for the sporting area. Deputy Nealon was the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach with responsibility for arts and culture at that time. It was estimated that between £20 million and £30 million additional funds would be generated by the lottery each year. The real figure was close to £100 million. The view taken by different Administrations, which I support, was that some of those proceeds should be used for essential services and to lower the burden of taxation.
Would the Minister not accept that only for the public's belief that the lottery would be used for sports, arts and culture we would not have a national lottery? It is wrong and it is not within the concept of the lottery to use it as a replacement for Exchequer spending.
Every country which runs a national lottery uses a percentage of the net proceeds to supplement expenditure as an alternative to increasing indirect taxation.
