The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities has confirmed that guidelines governing statutory levy recipients are still being reviewed and refined.
OHID serves as one of three commissioners responsible for distributing statutory levy funds, with a specific remit covering harm prevention organisations.
Earlier this month, reports emerged that charities approved for levy grants had been advised to avoid appearing at industry-funded events.
A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care, within which OHID sits, confirmed that these arrangements remain in flux.
The spokesperson stated: “We will continue to keep these arrangements under review and work closely with partners to ensure the levy supports an effective and trusted system to reduce gambling-related harm.”
A central aim of the statutory levy was to create a funding framework for gambling harms that operates entirely free from industry influence.
The government spokesperson reinforced this objective, adding: “We’ve put safeguards in place to manage conflicts of interest and ensure that levy-funded activity is fully independent of gambling industry influence.”
The guidance to avoid industry-funded events was presented alongside stricter rules on industry independence, though the boundaries between guidance and firm policy remain somewhat unclear.
Duncan Garvie, Founder of BetBlocker, has publicly aired “significant concerns” about the policy, warning it could negatively impact outcomes for service users.
BetBlocker is a recipient of levy funding, though the guidance arrived too late for the self-exclusion service to withdraw from its appearance at iGB Live earlier this month.
Garvie made a pointed case for continued engagement with the industry, commenting: “If we explicitly prevent all of the experts in the field of harm reduction from interacting with the industry, how can we expect industry practices to improve?”
As a constructive alternative, Garvie suggested that OHID and levy-funded organisations should agree on conflict of interest policies that “allow harm minimisation projects to be represented at industry events in an appropriate and transparent manner.”
Levy-approved organisations have reportedly been invited to meetings focused on industry engagement, with OHID’s position understood to be not yet fully defined or finalised.
Not all levy recipients share Garvie’s concerns, however, with Gambling Harm UK expressing clear support for OHID’s current direction.
Gambling Harm UK has been granted the seventh largest provisional allocation under the levy system, receiving £1,248,620 across the first two years of funding.
BetBlocker holds the eighth largest share, having been allocated £1,120,000 over the same period.
Gambling Harm UK does not believe conflicts of interest arising from appearances at industry events are manageable, with a spokesperson describing the issue as “fundamental.”
The organisation’s spokesperson added: “Genuine independence is not a bureaucratic nicety. It is the only workable foundation for prevention work, and this guideline moves us in the right direction.”
Several other major levy-funded organisations were contacted for comment but all declined to respond, leaving the full picture of sector opinion unclear.
