iGaming Daily

00:00
The Health and Social Care Select Committee hearing on problem gambling held on 2 April has caused deep frustrations among key stakeholders in harm prevention. The opinions and assumptions expressed by the expert panel have been described as problematic in misleading in a letter cosigned by nine individuals directly involved in gambling harm prevention, treatment, research and care. Today, the iGaming Daily will examine the deep divisions brought once more to light by the Select Committee hearings.

00:27
at a time of heightened sensitivity as multiple bodies adapt to the introduction of a new statutory levy framework led by the NHS. I'm Ted Menwear and joining me today we have Steve Hall, editor of the Player Protection Hub and Jordan Lair, chief executive of Deal Me Out. Guys, how are doing? All right, thanks, Ted. Nice to be here. And Jordan? Yeah, I'm all good, thank you. Yeah, it's good to be here as well.

00:56
Okay, so Steve, I'm going to start with you and we return back to a problematic committee hearing. Yeah. And can you please kind of remind the audiences what the select committee was originally about and what were its key focuses and its purpose and what was it trying to bring to light for UK Gambling? Yeah, well, I've written loads of stories on this, I had to refer back to the...

01:25
the committee's website and to actually discover what its original purpose was for. But I'll read you exactly what it says. So the select committee itself, for those of not in the UK or not averse with the politics, is a group of members of parliament who are particularly interested in health and social care and have been appointed to deal with whatever issues come up.

01:55
and this one was supposedly on gambling harm. But the reason, the stated reasons for it was it is a session for MPs to probe what is needed to develop a public health response to gambling related harms. Now, whether we need a public health response to gambling related harms or not is a massively controversial area, but I think we won't go into that just at this moment. And then it's

02:25
secondary purpose was it provides an opportunity for questions on commissioning of effective treatment and prevention services in the context of the new levy for research, education and treatment. So that second area was kind of in a way felt it be a little bit more factual than what it turned out to be, which I would suggest was

02:54
generally quite a lot of opinion rather than fact. But yeah. But we're pumped for that, aren't we? OK. But look, OK, for both of you guys, this isn't your first rodeo, tuning into select committee, and there will be assumptions and opinions given on any particular field. So Jordan, what is driving this polemic and why did nine individuals choose to sign a letter?

03:23
challenging these assumptions brought over by the select committee? Well, there were a number of areas, I think, within the select committee that were problematic. But for me, the thing that came out the most were the comments made by Sam Robinson or Robertson, believe. Chamberlain. Chamberlain. Well, I did well wrong. So, so Sam Chamberlain, his comments, particularly around our sector and the work we do.

03:52
It's a very old narrative and it's something that has been going on since 2019. The gambling industries in your schools telling children how to gamble, that's been going on for some time. There's a reason why it's used and that reason was to try and take the narrative away from our sector and into the more public health led organizations, if you will. So it's been very effective.

04:20
within government and within these sorts of hearings, it's completely not based in fact. We don't go into schools and teach people how to gamble, but if you go into parliament, they would swear we do. So the problems or the biggest problem from it, from my point of view was the comments made by Sam Chamberlain and the attacks that are pretty consistent, to be honest.

04:49
on our sector. We've had it confirmed by MPs and from ministers in fact that this was going to stop, we were going to stop attacking our sector now, but that hasn't come to pass. Yeah, just I mean, I wrote down a quote from Mr Chamberlain, which I thought kind of summed it up. mean, this is not specifically on education. think this was more about research, but it was the subject that they kept...

05:17
coming back to about the industry, either being in your classroom or being at the university influencing the researchers. So anyway, so you see, was talking about, he talked about reputable organisations like Wellcome, who do commission, you know, ethical research, his, going on to basically suggest that, anyway, I'm going to read this quote. The industry has been giving cash

05:46
to one massive charity that has been handing that money out to various organizations. Now that of course is gamble aware, but just listen to the language. He's been handing cash. It's like it's been like stuffing, you know, brown envelopes and handing it over to this massive charity, which, you know, if it's a massive charity, it must be corrupt or something. don't know. I don't know quite what Ysra suggests anyway. And then he goes on to say, I am not saying that

06:15
All of that work is invalid. Well, clearly, but some of it is then, is it? But many good researchers would not have been prepared to take that money for ethical concerns. Now, this is why Gamble Aware wrote their own letter of complaint, because, I mean, that's just outrageous, no matter which way you cut it. And based on no, like,

06:45
factual evidence whatsoever. John? I was just going to say that, of course, a lot of the researchers were funded by GambleAware. mean, there were also organisations that are now refusing to take money from them. The NHS itself was funded by GambleAware for a long time. And this is where I think there is a lot of disparity between the commentary and what goes on within government in that this was the only funding mechanism.

07:14
This was something that was put in place by the gambling commission through the DCMS by virtue. And everyone had to operate within that system. Otherwise there is no service. There are no prevention programs. There are no treatment programs. You don't have Gordon Moody or wire gamble, deal me out or anyone. Everyone was kind of forced into this. I say forced. Everyone had this pot to...

07:44
to deliver the work they do. To punish them for operating within the government's own system is just bar me today. John, I want to ask you a question about the perception of gambling and the perception of gambling RET prior to this new rate levy. Now, do you think that during this select committee, the stakeholders and the the old structure of gambling harm prevention in the UK was represented in a fair manner?

08:14
As in, okay, what's in all, this is how the framework worked and this is how successful it was. No, I see. Yeah. So I don't think it was fairly represented at all, but that is a common theme. I think what we have to look at here is there is a fight over power and money and the NHS and government departments are all vying for that money.

08:43
It creates a pretty horrendous system that puts everyone at odds. We're seeing that play out now. It's been happening for a long time, as I mentioned, but we're seeing it play out now in a pretty significant way. The kind of lobbying side has been going on since about 2019, but the academic side of it is still really, really hammering this home in order to prevent

09:12
our sector from taking part in the future. And that's a really dangerous thing to do. If you take treatment, for example. So if you limit Gordon Mooney's availability to deliver a service in the interim, whilst the NHS isn't spread and set up, there are going to be plenty of service users that fall through the cracks there. So how, and by stigmatizing those services as well.

09:40
will be turning people away from going to them. If I was to say to just a person on the street now, okay, well, oh, do know the gambling industry funds that organization or they'll be teaching you to gamble or handing out free bets in these clinics. I'm not saying they've said that, but just hypothetically. You would be switched off from going there as well. And that's dangerous to service users.

10:06
Steve, did you find any clarity or transparency in how these experts want to an independence to a new framework or a move away, a clear shift away from the old strategy into a new framework for RIT funding? Well, they're generally very supportive of the new system. They don't see any gaps there.

10:35
But it's just, it's this constant hammering home. And the chair of the committee, Leila Moran, sort of spotted this because at one stage she said she was really struck by the constant talk of vested interests and conflicts of interest in almost everything you say. She said, so they really hammered that point home on everything. And I think everyone would agree that that is not

11:05
that the most important issue here at all, the important issue is making sure that people that are harmed by gambling are treated. Jordan and I were on a panel with Gordon Moody CEO, Monica Schaffach, just a few weeks ago, fact. And Monica described these sort of claims that the industry is somehow

11:36
polluting treatment providers as not just wrong and not just nonsense, but insulting. These are passionate people. You're talking about, I mean, think in any service that cares for people, whether you're talking about doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, whatever, these are people that are doing this job generally because they love it. They might fall out of love with it it's a tiring job.

12:05
But they're certainly doing it for the good of their patients. the thought that this shadowy industry will come in and make you do it badly is, to use Monica's words, insulting. And this is why we got, this is why everyone got together to write the letter, because it's just outrageous.

12:33
That's what everyone I spoke to felt. Yeah. Just to kind of backstab up there, we, I mean, we've been working within the system for quite some time, not once as an operator ever tried to influence anything we've ever done. It just doesn't happen in reality. I can understand where the perception comes from, if you will, and why people feel that it's possible. So therefore, if it's possible, it's probably the wrong thing to be doing.

13:00
So generally, think everyone's okay with the levy and understands why it's being put into place. don't think that there is a huge, I mean, I've been quite vocal, vocally against the levy, but it's not so much for the reasons, you know, it's not that I think it's a totally bad idea. I think it's just that it was set up to attack our sector and I wanted to ensure that our sector had a role in the future. But everyone does.

13:29
All organizations are there to help people. That's what we're here to do. And having people consistently saying you're wrong, you're evil, you are, it's so offensive. And particularly as someone with lived experience of gambling addiction, it really cuts to the bone for me. I certainly don't do this for the money. I can assure you that. It's something that I think we, you know, I do this because I love doing it. I love speaking to people.

13:57
who are coming into support and I love going into school and speaking to young people. It's just what I love to do. And to be told that I am, you know, in some way corrupt is personally offensive, but it's also offensive to all the team members we've had and have that go out every day to do the right thing and to try and really impact people's lives in the community. Yeah, it was it was interesting actually, because in this

14:26
There was two halves to the testimony in the committee. And the first half was this Sam Chamberlain and Professor Heather Wardle of University of Glasgow and a lady called Lucy Hubber, who is a director of one of the NHS trusts, I think. But the second half was the gambling commission's not Ted, Tim Miller.

14:56
someone from the Office of Health and Health Improvement and Disparities. Andrew Barica. Yeah. And Henrietta Belden Jones, who's the National Clinical Advisor for gambling harms. But what I found interesting was, well, several things. But Tim Miller from the gambling commission spent a lot of his testimony kind of defending really the role of the gambling commission, because a lot of what was said in the

15:26
previous testimony was kind of misleading in that they use this phrase self-regulation as if the industry is not regulated at all. And so I think you could see that at some stages, Tim, who has been involved in a massive overhaul of gambling regulation in the last few years, was visibly frustrated by some of the questions that he was being asked.

15:55
Yeah, I thought actually it was a bit of a panels by two halves. thought actually Tim Miller, Andrew Veracur and Tanya Bone-Jones were significantly better. It was a much more... I mean, it was like the professionals on that one and then the... I don't want to be offensive, but the amateurs before. Well, the thing is, Jordan, the thing is, the problem for me is that they're not amateurs.

16:24
I mean, Professor Heather Wardle, for example, is a very, very well-respected academic. And frankly, she should know better because she's been involved in the commissioning of research using the Gamble Aware for years and was on the gambling research, what is it called? body, the strategy board that does the commissioning. she...

16:50
And this is the problem, know, the MPs think they're speaking to experts and she is to all intents and purposes an expert, but she's an expert with a political opinion that she wants to ram down people's throats. If I could just interject, isn't this criticism or this kind of quarrel, isn't this part of a process that just, it's better just to air it out and just to get somewhere. Jordan, your thoughts?

17:18
I can sort of understand that point. think the reasoning why these comments are coming out in select committees, I don't think these are widely held beliefs. they're generally... Let's put it this way. When I first came to this space, we had a strategy meeting with some more prohibitionist sided people as to how we were going to attack all of these things. And the industry in the schools was one and there were lots of other...

17:48
areas that people agreed to use as attack grounds to try and force the levy. And that's something that played out and is now being still pushed by... You don't see this so much with the prohibitionist organizations anymore. You see it with the academics that are actually fighting for the money. I think it does need to be dealt with. there is actually... The NHS and the government actually produced a piece of work quite well.

18:17
about two years ago, which focused on building the bridges between the two sides, if you will. But that's not been done. our organizations would love to work with the NHS. We would love to work with NHS Northern Gambling Service and any other gambling service. We would happily send over service users, but we can't do that. They won't touch us. They won't go anywhere near us. And that's just not beneficial to anyone, not for service users and not for the system going forward.

18:46
Is this an argument that needs to be played out? Well, yes and no, but I feel like there's a forum for this and I don't think it's appropriate to be just putting forward opinion in a select committee hearing in front of MPs who aren't experts in the field by any means. They're interested observers and they're obviously influential.

19:15
When Chamberlain brings up like big tobacco and compares it to the gambling industry with absolutely no evidence to back it up, it's just like, what's he doing here? What is this? You know, this is not what a health, what any select committee hearing should be about. I think that's my feeling. There's been a significant fallout from this select committee.

19:44
and the evidence that was presented. Where do you think this is reshaping the conversation on the gambling act and its reforms? There was a lot of talk at the moment, particularly from the campaign side about just scrapping basically the gambling act review and just looking at a new gambling act in total. I think that's really concerning. I think we spent a lot of time going through a lot of

20:13
policy proposals and that not, mean, most of them aren't even embedded in at the moment. This is all just very new. I'm already talking about scrapping that and just starting afresh. And I think that a lot of this is aimed at achieving that and trying to poke holes in the system as is, rather than looking at all the good work, you know, I mentioned previously that I think, you know, Tim Miller actually did a really good job on.

20:40
within that select committee. And I think the gambling commission is doing in some areas, some good work. And I think we need to let that embed and for all the gambling act review points to, you know, to be implemented. And I don't think we should be looking at the calls for a new gambling act or anything like that. think that's just silly. Steve, what do think this leads to? Yeah, I mean, I think...

21:07
Well, already we know that the select committee has written to the minister, not for DCMS, but for... The Agnes Minister, yeah. Yeah. To suggest a review. And in that, they've come up with various proposals about advertising, mainly about advertising, to be honest.

21:36
And local level frustrations as well. Local level frustrations too. And some very sensible things like, well, the NHS England is being abolished, so don't we need a new commissioning body? Well, yeah. But I think whether we see a review of the Gambling Act, I would be very surprised given that this last one's taken, what, four or five years?

22:05
And we're still, you know, reviewing it and still the gambling commission is fine tuning all the time. Um, but I, I do think I'll be shocked if we don't see more, more work on advertising. It seems inevitable. mean, you know, I carry the same opinion as you Steve. think that's where it's going to get open, either the local level or advertising, but Jordan back to you. Um,

22:33
This is a five year process. Is anyone happy at the moment? from your take? there any point where, no, okay. No, there is no Isn't that a worry though for the stakeholders? there seems to be kind of no point of harmony in this gambling review. No, and I think DCMS has got a lot to answer for on this one. I think they've bumbled the levy.

23:02
I think, we don't know, still at this stage, we don't know when the money's going to feed through the system. I don't know how many views we'll understand how procurement works and how long those things come to tape, but we've got no idea when we'll be able to start doing that. Will it be from October? If it is from October, we'll be looking at potentially, don't know, March, April, by the time any kind of money feeds through.

23:28
We would have already been having quarter one and quarter two, quarter three, quarter four rep payments by then. So, I mean, we this was coming and I think all organizations have taken some level of, know, they've looked at this, but no one can live off nothing and no services can be provided on nothing. So our sector is really struggling with that, but then the same is true of the other side as well and how that, you know, the funding for those organizations takes place. The DCMS hasn't.

23:58
looked at this very well at all. It's been produced terribly. you feel like we're going through a period of transition though for both of you? Looking at the stuff that's going on and it was meant to be implemented on the 6th of April. Have you seen any changes or does it feel like the changes are coming? There's been no communication and I think that's where they've let themselves down is in communication.

24:24
We haven't managed to any conversations with, and that's not some effing complainer, we haven't had any conversations with the ministers, but I don't think anyone has. They've just kind of closed shop on communication about these things. And I think just having, being a bit more open would be better. I don't know. This is all going to be...

24:53
probably quite a bit longer before we see any real benefit. But also there then comes in the fact that we probably can't access the levy anyway. And that's because we will always want to work with operators. believe very, I mean, it's something I really do believe in is working with operators is going to be the best thing for their customers. Therefore the service users we are looking to work with. just believe that so much.

25:22
And I'm proud of the work we do with operators in terms of kind of helping support their consumers. I will always want our branding to be on the bottom of the page, which they can click through and come onto our service. won't stop. That's not going to stop. therefore that might mean we can't access funding from a levy. I suppose the question, the real thing is we don't know. We don't know exactly. So Steve, I want to...

25:49
I want you to take us out and just put your final points across and how you will be following this story and what do you think the real fallout will be for UK gambling? Well, I think if there's any kind of consolation from this, I feel that we, the group of nine and Gamble Aware have hit back at these claims and

26:18
I don't think that's really been done very much in the past. So, and I think there's a, there seems to be a new willingness for people to poke their head above the parapet and correct things that are just wrong, you know? And so, I mean, I'm an eternal optimist. So that's the good I would take from this. So this is the first time this has happened at all.

26:48
when it's been a collaborative approach to combating some of the narratives. It's just something that no one's been able to kind of grasp in a collaborative manner, but there's always been too much push and pull within our sector to be able to do something collaboratively. not that, that's just as it is, but this letter has shown at least some collaboration to not put up with the nonsense anymore. Guys, thanks so much. can talk about this all day. And thanks to our audience for tuning in.