“ There needs to be a process to ensure that decisions are made without bias or prejudice – a level playing field. Without this we run the risk of misusing public funds through a lack of impartiality” charities that had provided education and awareness aimed at young people of sending“ industry agents” into schools.
This has to stop. With this sort of behaviour – and the fact that as treatment commissioners it is likely that the NHS will be funding their own treatment services – how can we be assured of a fair and transparent process which upholds the highest standards of governance?
For many charities, support services, researchers and education providers, the RET scheme was the only way they could be funded to carry out their work. Therefore, previous involvement in the RET scheme should not count against, or even disqualify, organisations from seeking to access the levy.
There needs to be a process to ensure that decisions are made without bias or prejudice – a level playing field. Without this we run the risk of not only misusing public funds through a lack of impartiality, but also through prejudice and ignorance we risk losing the valuable experience and knowledge of thousands of professionals who work for support services and in the industry itself to collectively tackle gambling harm. We also risk taking a significant backwards step from the progress made through decades of work to prevent harm.
GAMBLING HARM’ S IMPACT ON THE POPULATION
Gambling harm affects only a small minority of the population but it is a huge issue for the individual impacted and their families. Therefore it should be taken very seriously. Recent statistics from the Gambling Commission and from a 2018 Public Health England report show that problem gambling affects about 0.4 % of the population. This figure has been as low as 0.2 % but over the course of several years it has trended downwards from 0.7 %.
New statistics from the Gambling Commission through its Gambling Survey for Great Britain( GSGB) show that rates of harm may be higher as a percentage of the population than we once thought, but the Gambling Commission has been clear the figures from the GSGB should not be used in direct comparison with the previous survey method.
Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that year-on-year gambling harm is on the rise. This is supported at the sharp end by treatment data from GambleAware that shows a 25 % drop in treatment referrals annually compared to 2019.
There will probably be little sympathy for the gambling industry having to pay this enormous amount of money into the levy, but we must remember this money is public money and we have a duty to ensure that it is well spent. It is deeply concerning that we are about to throw more than £ 100 million($ 132.8 million) at something without robust governance or even a justification as to why so much money is required.
iGB L! VE 2025 • ISSUE 138 • 67