Is a conflict over OHID levy funding about to erupt?

(AsiaGameHub) –   As the destiny of the funds from the UK’s new Statutory Gambling Levy is finalized, disagreements over the new funding structure and its results are bound to grow more intense. 

Charities must now submit formal requests for funds from the Levy, yet many are dissatisfied with how the government’s Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) has managed its key role in the process and its seeming stance on gambling operators. 

“Treatment providers must be able to collaborate with the industry fairly, without bias,” stressed Jordan Lea, founder of DealMeOut, at the recent Illegal Gambling Prevention Summit in Manchester. He also cautioned that the push for funding could overshadow the real goal: aiding individuals in need of gambling prevention, education, and treatment services.

The possible absence of industry collaboration is a major worry, especially as the growing black market threat in the UK makes stronger player protection and support more critical than ever. 

Yet doubts persist about whether an effective harm reduction strategy can exist without meaningful industry input, particularly since some groups are pushing to move safeguards in that direction. 

Independence or ideological purity? 

Duncan Garvie, founder of BetBlocker, recently shared on LinkedIn that he’s been questioned by The Guardian regarding OHID’s decision to fund BetBlocker. While scrutiny is healthy, the questions seemed to criticize any industry involvement in developing the best player protection approaches. 

Garvie said Rob Davies from The Guardian queried if OHID’s conflict of interest policy was at risk because two of BetBlocker’s trustees—Garvie and John Wright—have gambling industry backgrounds. 

He replied, “Independence from industry influence was a key OHID requirement, and we fully addressed it in our application.”

Garvie then highlighted Wright’s essential role in developing BetBlocker: as an experienced web/app developer, Wright provided “crucial insight to tackle many of the technical challenges in building the vital service BetBlocker offers”.

He also shared, “As part of the OHID application, John agreed to leave the charity’s Board of Trustees to demonstrate our impartiality to OHID. This is a loss of a key asset, but necessary to maintain public trust in our service.

“Regarding my role at Blexr, I’ve worked as an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Official. This role needs formal approval from the UK Gambling Commission and Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority—processes that demand proven independence and impartiality. My role has built-in regulatory checks for industry influence that predate the UK’s harm prevention funding requirements.”

Winners, perhaps. Losers, definitely 

At the Illegal Gambling Prevention Summit, many called on OHID to boost collaboration, warning that a coherent harm reduction education program can’t exist without industry support and expertise.

Garvie voiced his strong concern that OHID shows no signs of effectively engaging with the industry—a fear that, it’s worth noting, was shared by many at Tuesday’s Manchester conference. 

Yet he was one of the few at the event to offer a more positive view of future funding for the safer gambling sector. 

Stressing the need for caution and patience, Garvie noted the next two years are a transitional phase, with major disruption inevitable as the system undergoes such a complete overhaul. He commended OHID for softening its stance over the past 18 months and expressed hope this trend can continue from both sides.

Ultimately, the hope is to reach a point where all stakeholders join the conversation, united in improving player protection. 

Also at the summit, Graham England, CEO of Ara Recovery For All, highlighted the urgent need for OHID to further soften its industry stance—something he feels hasn’t happened enough yet. He warned this could lead to long-standing, effective organizations shutting down in the coming weeks. 

Garvie shared his view that as the process enters a new era, “there were always going to be winners and losers”.

Amid widespread warnings about funding gaps during the transition, the government launched a Gambling Levy Transition Fund (GLTF) to support charities that didn’t get Statutory Levy funds.

But many have already withdrawn from the process. Lea even said he’s been “a huge opponent of the levy” since the start. 

Lea disclosed that Deal Me Out chose not to apply for new levy funding through OHID. He sharply criticized the process, expressing concern about the rapid shift from a small, powerful group to a far more aggressive and militant public health narrative. 

He mourned that his early fears about the process are now reality, leading to significant job losses and the closure of many vital charities. This includes GambleAware’s exit—something Lea said was a top priority for many campaigners at the start, along with a push to remove anyone with industry funding ties. 

Despite many efforts, the OHID funding dispute will likely grow more intense in the coming weeks. While unity is currently a distant goal, breaking down silos and fostering collaboration is key to effective player safety—especially as threats are more severe than ever.