THE IMP ACT OF THE N ATIONAL LOTTER Y ON THE HORSE RACE BETTING LEVY : SECOND REPOR T Simon Field and James Dunmore
THE IMPACT OF THE NATIONAL LOTTERY ON THE HORSERACE BETTING LEVY: SECOND REPORT by Simon Field and James Dunmore Economics Unit Research and Statistics Directorate HOME OFFICE 50 Queen Anne s Gate London SW1H 9AT
Additional copies of this report can be purchased ( 7.50 plus P&P) from the Home Offi c e Publications Unit, 50 Queen Anne s Gate, London SW1H 9AT. Telephone 0171-273 4169 Crown copyright 1997 ISBN 1 85893 916 X
THE IMPACT OF THE NATIONAL LOTTERY ON THE HORSERACE BETTING LEVY: SECOND REPORT This is the second annual report on the impact of the National Lottery on the Horserace Betting Levy. It fulfils an undertaking to monitor this issue which was made by the Home Office during the passage of the National Lottery Bill. The first report on this subject, published in 1996, described the impact of the Lottery during the first full year of its operation in 1995. The report examined past trends in off-course betting expenditure (on which the Levy is closely dependent), and described a statistical model designed to explain fluctuations in betting expenditure. On this basis, the impact of the National Lottery on off-course betting expenditure was assessed. The report drew the conclusion that the Lottery had reduced spending on off-course betting, although the size of the effect was uncertain. As a result the Horserace Betting Levy would have been affected through the horserace component of off-course betting expenditure. This report updates this exercise, covering patterns of expenditure in 1996 as well as 1995. The main effect of the additional data is to fill out the picture of the impact of the Lottery, provided by the earlier data. Further details of data sources and the statistical approach adopted are given in the first report. The Horserace Betting Levy and its relation to betting expenditure Bookmakers are required to pay a levy on their horserace betting turnover through the Horserace Betting Levy Board, which has a statutory duty to make funds ava i l a ble for the benefit of horseracing. The levy is in the form of a fi xed fee per betting office plus a percentage charg e applied to the shop s cash turnover above a prescribed fixed band, or a percentage charge applied to a bookmaker s total cash turnover, plus, in both cases, a different percentage charge applied to total credit turn ove r. (The relevant percentages for 1996/97 were 2.2%, 1.37% and 1%.) To t a l payments therefore rise and fall in line with horserace betting expenditure. 1
Financial Year Total horserace betting levy payments (Levy Yield) 1991/2 36m 1992/3 47m 1993/4 51m 1994/5 51m 1995/6 48m 1996/7 49m (estimated) plus 5m addition 1, 54m in total. Betting Expenditure HM Customs and Excise collect monthly figures on the duty collected from off-course betting expenditure. Duty is paid one month in arrears, so that each month s figures for duty relate to expenditure in the previous month. These figures provide an accurate basis for estimating off - course betting expenditure. Gross expenditure on off-course betting was 6.5 billion in 1996, little changed from the 1995 total of 6.4 billion. Of this total, about 70 per cent 2 relates to horserace betting. Some fluctuations in overall betting expenditure might be the result of trends in the non-horseracing component, and recognition of this must qualify conclusions drawn from betting expenditure overall. As explained in the previous report, betting expenditure is dependent on the state of the economy. It has a positive relationship with Gross Domestic Product (GDP), although as overall income grows, a smaller proportion is devoted to off-course betting. Independently of overall changes in the level of GDP, unemployment appears to reduce the level of betting expenditure. In addition the average temperature during the first (winter) quarter of each year affects betting, probably because frozen racecourses result in cancelled races and fewer opportunities for betting. From March 1996, the rate of duty on off-course betting was reduced from 7.75 per cent to 6.75 per cent. Other things being equal this might have been expected to result in a modest increase in expenditure on off-course betting. 1 Special arrangements linked to the 1% reduction in General Betting Duty on 1 March 1996 will involve the collection of an additional 5m in 1996/97. This figure will be based upon horserace betting turnover in 1996/7, but will be collected under the 1997/8 scheme for legal reasons. 2 Estimate by Horserace Betting Levy Board. 2
The National Lottery The National Lottery has been in place since November 1994. It has two main elements: a weekly game started in November 1994 whereby players bet on the outcome of a random selection of numbers undertaken each Saturday night (A mid-week draw was introduced in February 1997, outside the scope of this report.) scratchcards, involving an instant game. These were available from March 1995. During 1996 gross expenditure on the National Lottery including both the we e k ly game and scratchcards was 4.7 billion, unchanged from the 1995 outturn. However, between the second quarter of 1995 (when scratchcards were first introduced) and the end of 1996, expenditure fell by 8 per cent, largely because of declining expenditure on scratchcards. Assessment of the impact of the National Lottery Since 1994, when the National Lottery was introduced, GDP has been increasing and unemployment falling. Taken in isolation, these factors would have caused a significant rise in offcourse betting expenditure. In fact, off-course betting expenditure has fallen slightly in real terms. This gap between actual expenditure and that expected on the basis of these backgr o u n d economic factors is illustrated below. Figure 1 Real seasonally adjusted off-course betting expenditure compared with the level expected in the absence of the National Lottery (1994 Q3 = 100) 3
The statistical model shows that in 1996 expenditure was 11 per cent below the level expected in that year. As the first report indicated, in the absence of other possible new factors operating since that date, the Lottery itself is likely to have been responsible. The data for 1996 help to clarify picture, since, taken together with earlier data they show that there is a direct statistical relationship between the Lottery and off-course betting expenditure. This relationship suggests that, in 1996, off-course betting expenditure is about 10 per cent below the level it would have reached in the absence of the Lottery. In other words, the Lottery can explain nearly all the gap b e t ween actual and expected expenditure illustrated above. This can only be an approx i m a t e figure, and the effect of the Lottery may vary over time. The effects on the Levy depend on the horseracing component of betting. Since that represents a large proportion of all off-course betting expenditure, horserace betting, and therefore the Levy yield, is likely to have been similarly affected. Economics Unit Research and Statistics Directorate Home Office Queen Anne s Gate 4