Skip to main content

UK Gambling Levy Board Introduced to Tackle Conflicts of Interest

Share on Social

The UK recently introduced a mandatory gambling levy aimed at addressing gambling-related harms, replacing the previous system based on voluntary donations to GambleAware. This new levy, active since April, seeks to accumulate £100 million annually, which will be directed towards research, prevention, and treatment initiatives managed by the NHS and the Gambling Commission. A significant portion of this funding, specifically one-fifth, is designated for research through UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) alongside the Arts and Humanities Research Council.

This change in funding strategy marks a departure from the earlier reliance on voluntary contributions, which some experts had criticized for potential conflicts of interest due to industry involvement. In June, UKRI issued a call for researchers to join its Gambling Harms Research Coordination Centre, inviting various stakeholders to participate. However, this move has sparked concerns among certain experts, who argue that industry involvement could compromise the integrity of the research.

Baroness Twycross, the UK gambling minister, addressed these concerns at the Peers for Gambling Reform Gambling Summit at St Ermin’s Hotel in Westminster. During the summit, Sam Chamberlain, a psychiatry professor at the University of Southampton, highlighted the historical lack of funding from trusted bodies, pointing out the previous system where industry donations were funneled through a large charity that distributed the funds to multiple organizations.

In response, Twycross emphasized her commitment to maintaining independence in the research funding process. She assured attendees that robust mechanisms would be implemented to manage and identify any potential conflicts of interest. “Independence is as important to me as it is to you,” she remarked, recognizing the critical need for unbiased research in combating gambling harms.

Furthermore, the summit also featured input from Tim Miller, executive director of the Gambling Commission. He expressed concerns regarding the expectations placed on the Commission to oversee the inspection of physical gambling venues, a duty traditionally assigned to local authorities under the 2005 Gambling Act. His comments coincided with a pledge from UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer to enhance local authorities’ control over gambling venue applications, signifying a potential shift in regulatory responsibilities.

In a related development, the British Gambling Commission has made the first invoices for the new statutory gambling levy available online via eServices. Licensed operators are required to settle these invoices by October 1, covering the financial year from April 2025 to April 2026. The levy rates vary: remote and non-remote pool betting operations, gambling machine operations, and family entertainment centers face a 0.1 per cent charge on gross gambling revenue (GGR), while online gambling, betting, bingo, and software licensees are subject to a 1.1 per cent rate. Meanwhile, land-based casino and retail betting licensees will pay a 0.5 per cent rate, and both remote and non-remote society lottery operating license holders, along with external lottery manager license holders, also face a 0.1 per cent levy.

The introduction of this statutory levy is designed to ensure a more structured and transparent approach to funding initiatives aimed at reducing gambling-related harms. However, this change is not without its challenges. Critics argue that the new system must maintain a careful balance between industry collaboration and the independence of research to preserve its credibility.

While some view the mandatory levy as a necessary step to secure consistent funding for addressing gambling harms, others caution against potential industry influence. The question remains whether the new framework can successfully mitigate conflicts of interest while fostering impactful research and prevention strategies.

As the UK gambling landscape continues to evolve, stakeholders must navigate these complexities carefully, ensuring that the interests of those affected by gambling harms are prioritized. The coming months will be crucial in assessing the effectiveness of the levy and the mechanisms put in place to safeguard the independence and integrity of the funded research.