Betting and Gaming Council Chair Brigid Simmonds has stated that third-sector gambling harm support services must be protected in reaction to the UK DCMS’ consultation for the upcoming statutory levy for research, education and treatment of gambling addiction.
Earlier this week, the UK government opened an eight-week consultation period to collect gambling stakeholders’ opinions on how the levy should be conducted, including views from the industry, clinicians, practitioners, academics, those who have experienced gambling harm and the general public.
As part of the gambling review white paper, the new RET levy proposes a one per cent fee on gross gambling yield for online operators, while traditional betting shops and casinos will pay a proposed fee of around 0.4 per cent.
It is estimated that the new levy will raise £100m for gambling research, prevention and treatment across England, Scotland and Wales, developing “a truly national approach to prevention and fund independent, high-quality research to inform policy and practice”.
The UK Gambling Commission will distribute funding to the NHS, which will take the principal role of ‘main commissioner of treatment’ with the support of UK Research and Innovation, coordinating research and innovation funding under the strategic direction of the government.
“Around 85 per cent of all problem gamblers receiving treatment in Great Britain are treated by the third sector.”
Brigid Simmonds, Chair of the Betting and Gaming Council
In response to the DCMS’ announcement, Simmonds made it clear in a statement on the BGC’s website that third sector gambling-harm support services must not be put at risk when it comes to the allocation of funding.
The BGC Chair stated: “Rates of problem gambling remain low and stable, at approximately 0.4 per cent of England’s adult population according to the most recent NHS Health Survey. But when people do struggle, it is often this network which comes to their aid.
“Indeed, around 85 per cent of all problem gamblers receiving treatment in Great Britain are treated by the third sector.”
Simmonds added that the BGC is in favour of a mandatory levy, but it does not want a “blanket approach” which ignores operators that have disproportionately higher costs like betting shops and casinos, as this will “likely result in staff losses and could see some independent bookies close”.
The Chair also believes the National Lottery should contribute towards the levy, stating: “The National Lottery’s contribution to GambleAware over the last three years has been approximately 0.01 per cent of their annual gross gambling yield. This equates to an average donation of around £440,000 each year on GGY of around £3.5bn.
“While our members contributed in excess of £50m between 2022/23, it seems absurd they should get a free pass when it comes to funding RET.”
“This new funding model must protect the third sector, these are the experts, they should have the sustainable funding for their long-term future, or the levy will no longer be fit for purpose.”
Brigid Simmonds, Chair of the Betting and Gaming Council
Regarding the levy’s current distribution model, Simmonds noted that over 120 third-sector problem gambling treatment centres and many educational programmes “could be put at risk” due to the proposals.
“Under the consultation, the vast majority of funding, between 40-60 per cent, will go to the NHS, which is currently treating less problem gamblers than the third sector. Meanwhile, 10-20 per cent will go to research and 15-30 per cent on prevention and education.
“This new funding model must protect the third sector, these are the experts, they should have the sustainable funding for their long-term future, or the levy will no longer be fit for purpose. Instead, it will be a hypothecated tax to raise funds for the NHS at a time when many Conservative MPs have said they would oppose new taxes.”
Simmonds concluded: “Our mission to raise standards and tackle problem gambling and gambling-related harm endures and is backed by significant financial contributions. Any new levy which replaces the current set-up must sustain this vital work, not undo it.
“As we move to a new model for funding for RET, we cannot risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater. That’s the message we will take to government.”
