As part of RET Levy policies, the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) has stated that awardees should avoid ‘industry funding, sponsorship or influences’.
However, this policy goes a step further by also telling recipients to avoid ‘attendance or participation in industry-funded events’, a move that has raised eyebrows amongst stakeholders, fearful that the third sector could be exiled from key conversations and developments.
Initial awareness of this situation was escalated following a LinkedIn post from BetBlocker Founder Duncan Garvie, which called into question the organisation’s attendance at future industry events in the UK due to the wording of OHID’s guidance for awardees of statutory levy funding, of which BetBlocker was given £1.12m.
He has now called for a rethink of the OHID’s attitude to industry interactions.
Though the policy has been put into place due to the perceived historic influence of the gambling industry on problem gambling treatment, the mandate risks severing essential dialogue between harm prevention organisations and the industry, according to Garvie.
He told iGaming Expert: “There were systemic problems with the RET system that needed to be addressed, and decoupling the industry from deciding which support/research gets funded was an important step forward.
“But the general concept has been extended to the point where it now appears that any contact whatsoever, in any circumstance, is being considered high risk of corrupting awardees.
In particular, he stressed that organisations must be able to communicate with gambling companies to make the case for them to ‘proactively advocate’ for safer gambling support such as BetBlocker.
“How do we expect the culture of practices of the industry to improve if all the subject experts are banned from talking to them?” he added.
“The most effective way to reduce harm would be for the industry to do a better job of identifying it earlier and intervening effectively. However, this policy effectively prohibits the vast majority of experts in the area of harm prevention from speaking to the industry.”
The statutory levy came into effect on 1 April and handed control of the research, education and treatment of problem gambling to the NHS.
Operators contribute a percentage of their gross gambling yield to the fund, a portion of which is allocated to third sector organisations such as BetBlocker.
However, in the build-up to the first section of funding being allocated, gambling reform advocates had warned that some organisations were ‘tarnished’ by taking money from the industry in the past.
Garvie has now called for new guidelines to facilitate safe engagement with the industry.
He said: “We need robust conflict of interest policies agreed between OHID and awardees. Awardees shouldn’t be accepting any form of gifts. They shouldn’t be getting taken to dinner, bought drinks, having the accommodation or travel paid for, etc. They shouldn’t be attending the parties.”
“[However], I don’t think that accepting a free stand/booth represents a risk. Its value is solely in raising the profile of the organisation and is of no personal worth to any stakeholder. But we’d even agree to forego that if it improved confidence that these events were being used in an appropriate and safe way for the betterment of the people who need our support.”
