igamingbusiness. com
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
guidelines to which the government, the Levy Board, the commissioners and its recipients must adhere.
When I founded Better Change in 2021, it was due to a frustration that good projects aimed at improving the standards of safer gambling within the gambling industry would never see the light of day. This was because of other budget commitments or a perceived lack of business benefit.
“ Sadly, in terms of poor governance there is a real threat of history repeating itself as we move to the statutory levy scheme”
HOW WAS THE PREVIOUS VOLUNTARY FUND SPENT?
At the same time, I was witnessing the organisations I worked for signing off huge sums as part of their annual voluntary commitment. Under the rules of the voluntary Research, Education and Treatment( RET) scheme, gambling operators were forbidden from having any influence on how this money should be spent and therefore the use of these funds was decided by organisations authorised by the Gambling Commission to receive RET donations.
This was overseen in some cases by GambleAware, which used RET funding to commission services in line with their own governance framework, and the Gambling Commission, which had issued guidance to both operators and providers of services as to how RET funding should be distributed and used. Two examples of the conditions set were operators contributed an amount to each aspect of the voluntary scheme, and funds should be used for the benefit of the public as opposed to the benefit of industry operators.
The majority of RET funding did indeed go to good use, creating new treatment services, specialist support for under-represented groups such as women, the military and ethnic minorities, as well as awareness campaigns, helplines and peer support services.
Unfortunately, RET funding, as well as funds generated through Gambling Commission regulatory settlements, had also been used to fund lobbying groups and anti-gambling campaigners. This was despite it being in conflict with the Gambling Commission’ s guidance.
In recent years RET funding has also been used to plug financial holes caused by the financial mismanagement of some charities, as well as the uncertainty that had been caused by the proposed move to a statutory levy.
This was also against the Gambling Commission’ s
Victoria Reed, guidance. Its failure
Better Change to enforce its own rules was extremely frustrating for us at Better Change; we just wanted to get on with the job that we had set out to do, which was to effectively prevent the early stages of gambling harm.
HISTORY THREATENING TO REPEAT ITSELF?
Sadly, in terms of poor governance there is a real threat of history repeating itself as we move to the statutory levy scheme. In a recent parliamentary select committee consisting of public health bodies and researchers, the narrative used continued to discredit the efforts of those on the
RET scheme. One panel of researchers accused
66 • ISSUE 138 • iGB L! VE 2025