FOI: UKGC Confirms No Stonewall Funding

Article Content

UKGC Has No Financial Ties to Stonewall, FOI Reveals

The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) provided no funding to the LGBTQ+ rights charity Stonewall during the 2022/23 and 2023/24 financial years. This was confirmed in a response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request published by the regulator.

Context: Transparency in Public Spending

The funding of advocacy groups by public bodies has become a subject of increased public scrutiny. This FOI request sought to clarify whether the UKGC, the organisation responsible for regulating the British gambling industry, had any financial relationship with Stonewall.

For consumers, understanding how the regulator allocates its funds is a key aspect of transparency. The UKGC is funded primarily through licence fees paid by gambling operators. Knowing where this money is directed helps build a clearer picture of the Commission's priorities and external partnerships.

Details of the Request and Response

The request, dated 2 February 2024, asked the Commission to disclose:

• The total amount of any funding provided to Stonewall or its subsidiaries in the 2022/23 and 2023/24 financial years.
• The dates and specific nature of any payments, such as direct grants or payments for goods and services.

In its official response, the UKGC stated: "The Gambling Commission can confirm that we hold no information in relation to your request."

This formal outcome, categorised as "Information not held," is a definitive confirmation that no records of any payments, grants, or service agreements with Stonewall exist for the specified period. It is not a refusal to provide information, but rather a statement that no such information exists to be shared because no transactions occurred.

Significance for the Industry

This disclosure provides a clear and factual answer to questions about the UKGC's financial relationship with Stonewall. It confirms that the regulator has not used its budget to fund the organisation or procure its services in the recent past.

For consumers and industry observers, the response serves as a data point on the regulator's spending and external associations. It demonstrates a commitment to transparency by responding directly to public inquiries about its financial activities, even when the result is a confirmation of no activity. This clarity helps ensure that discussions about the regulator's focus and impartiality are based on established facts.