Public want restrictions on society lotteries to end

463788405

Legislation is stifling lotteries survey finds 

4th March 2015 by Robert Armour 0 Comments

Charity lotteries should be free to raise as much money as the National Lottery, new research shows.

Three in four people surveyed for research consultancy nfpSynergy said they believed society lotteries should have restrictions on their fundraising relaxed.

Titled Just the Ticket, the study also reveals that most people feel lotteries run by good causes should not be capped as they don’t affect other donations. 

By deregulating charity lotteries and allowing them to thrive, we can give charities a vital revenue stream

It was based on a survey of 1,000 adults with 74% of people saying there should be no laws to stop charity lotteries raising as much money as the National Lottery.

Several were unsure, leaving just 8% in favour. 63% were also opposed to any regulations that made it difficult for charity lotteries to compete with the National Lottery.

Currently society lotteries are restricted by legislation governing how much a percentage of their takings can be put up for prize money.

It means prizes are significantly less than the National Lottery.

It comes as Westminster’s Department of Culture, Media and Sport concluded its consultation on society lotteries.  

Joe Saxton, driver of Ideas at nfpSynergy, said:“We have long believed that charity lotteries do not need regulating in order to protect the National Lottery and it seems the public agree. This is good news for charity lotteries and good news for good causes.

“The National Lottery does a great job of supporting good causes, but the money is aimed at particular projects. By deregulating charity lotteries and allowing them to thrive, we can give charities a vital revenue stream and increase their financial independence. This can only be good for the people they help and the great work they do.”

The report also criticises the existence of regulations as they should be reserved “to support the weak and the vulnerable, not those too strong and dominant to need it.”