It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate. I thank Kenneth Gibson for securing the debate and for his opening speech, which set out in detail many views that we would all share, across the chamber, about why the cap feels arbitrary and unfair, and why reform is so necessary. Mr Gibson got to the heart of the difference that charity lotteries can make in communities such as Cunninghame North or, more widely, across West Scotland, which I represent.

I declare an interest in that, in a previous life, I had the job of setting up a charity lottery for Enable Scotland when I worked there. I know the difference that that lottery has made, even in its infancy, although it is probably not reaching the cap at this stage. It certainly makes a difference in the funding for charitable projects for people who have a learning disability. We see that in the variety of organisations that are supported, including our hospice movement across West Scotland, which relies on charity lotteries to support its work.

We have heard about the important work that has been done by the People’s Postcode Lottery and the limitations that have perhaps been placed on it due to the cap. In my local community in East Renfrewshire, I have seen funding from the People’s Postcode Lottery make a real difference, whether that is community organisations supporting older people and reducing isolation or organisations such as Back to SchoolBank in East Renfrewshire, which provides new uniforms and school equipment to children. Those organisations have benefited from funding from the People’s Postcode Lottery. It is a real shame that that is limited by the effects of the cap.

In the context of higher and higher demands on our third sector, and at a time when we see funds being stretched further and further, it does not make any sense to cap the ability to generate funds and, in turn, share funds with organisations that need them. Analysis carried out by the People’s Postcode Lottery has demonstrated that the annual sales cap on the sector restricts funding that can be provided to its 40 large charity partners. As we have heard, that is millions of pounds annually that could be doing more good in our communities and is currently being restricted from being raised in the first place. We have heard from colleagues across the chamber that a variety of organisations would share that view, including, not least, the Gambling Commission, the Charity Commission in England and Wales and, I am sure, Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator.

It is clear that there is consensus across the chamber and in the House of Commons on lifting the cap. Indeed, I was reading the

Hansard of the Westminster Hall debate that was held in July, to which Patricia Gibson MP and others contributed. I was pleased to see the efforts of Opposition parties in coming together to say that the cap needs to change, that it will not cost the taxpayer money and that it will improve charities. In responding for Labour, my colleague Alex Davies-Jones called on the minister to take action, take a step forward, get a move on with removing the cap through consulting the charities and organisations that are most directly impacted and find a way to do that. If the current UK Government is not willing to do it, it can get out of the way and let another party come in and take the issue forward, because it is important and it commands consensus.

I am conscious of time, so I will leave it there. The strength of feeling in the Scottish Parliament and at UK level shows that it is time to do the right thing and remove the cap.