UK Gambling Commission Consults on Redirecting Regulatory Settlement Payments to Consolidated Fund

The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) has launched a consultation on whether the destination of regulatory settlement payments made by licensed betting operators should be revised, potentially marking a significant shift in how such funds are handled.

The consultation, which is open until 2 April, focuses on a proposed amendment to section 2.39 of the UKGC’s Statement of principles for determining financial penalties. At present, money paid by operators as part of regulatory settlements is not required to be transferred into the government’s Consolidated Fund.

The Consolidated Fund serves as the central account for government revenues, collecting income from sources such as taxation. These funds are then allocated to support public spending initiatives. Compulsory financial penalties imposed by the UKGC for regulatory breaches under section 121 of the Gambling Act 2005 are already paid into this fund.

However, negotiated regulatory settlements have historically sat outside this framework.

That distinction is now under review. The UKGC is considering changing the rules so that regulatory settlements, despite being agreed outcomes rather than imposed penalties, would also be paid directly into the Consolidated Fund.

“This would ensure that any future regulatory settlements, which are an important option in the Commission’s regulatory toolkit, are paid quickly to the Consolidated Fund and the Government could decide on its use as it does with financial penalties,” the regulator said.

The Commission added that, “This proposal takes account of the new levy commissioning structures and avoids a dual system or any duplication of work funded by the statutory levy.”

Regulatory settlements can involve substantial sums. Among the largest in recent years were a record £17m settlement paid by Entain in 2022, followed by a £19m payment from William Hill in 2023.

The consultation is closely tied to wider structural changes in how gambling harm prevention is funded and administered in Great Britain. The UKGC’s reference to new levy commissioning structures relates to the imminent closure of GambleAware, which has until now acted as the primary commissioner of research, education and treatment initiatives aimed at reducing gambling-related harm.

GambleAware is set to close in March. Its responsibilities will be redistributed under the new statutory levy system introduced following the 2023 Gambling Review White Paper. Under the revised framework, the NHS will become the main commissioner of treatment services, the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) will oversee prevention work, and UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) will assume responsibility for research funding across England, Scotland and Wales.

With GambleAware no longer operating, the UKGC will lose what had previously been a clear destination for regulatory settlement funds. GambleAware had served as the designated body to commission gambling harm programmes and services, while also monitoring how those services were delivered.

The Commission said the proposed change is intended to prevent fragmented or inefficient use of funds. In particular, it highlighted the need to avoid “uncoordinated activity, gaps and duplications,” especially given the unpredictable nature of regulatory settlements, where both the amounts involved and the timing of payments can vary significantly.

Another factor behind the proposal is reputational risk. The UKGC acknowledged that maintaining the current system could expose it to criticism in the future, including accusations that enforcement action is being used as a mechanism to raise money for research or other initiatives.

In light of the new statutory levy landscape, the regulator concluded that directing regulatory settlement payments straight to central government represents the most appropriate and sustainable solution.

The UKGC said that paying enforcement settlements into the Consolidated Fund would ultimately provide clarity, consistency and independence in how such funds are managed, while allowing the government to determine their final use in line with broader public spending priorities.

By fLEXI tEAM