The UK government’s decision to appoint the Office for Health Improvement & Disparities (OHID) as the Commissioner of a £30m industry levy to prevent gambling harms is coming under increasing scrutiny with the possibility the government ends up in court.
Concern has grown among Research, Education and Treatment (RET) providers that discriminatory practices at OHID have stopped them from providing their services under the current model and there is concern that it will just get worse when OHID becomes the sole commissioner.
Player Protection Hub has learned that lawyers are advising on the possibility of a judicial review to halt the appointment.
A public health approach:
The Prevention Commissioner’s role is to develop a “comprehensive strategy” to reduce gambling harms. In the recent past, OHID has signposted its intentions by convening a panel of non-industry experts to thrash out “a comprehensive public health approach” to gambling.
Its recommendations included:
Tax rises on operators above the rate of inflation
A maximum limit on customers gambling on an operator’s website at onceBanning in-play betting on sports events
A universal ban on all gambling marketing, advertising, and promotions
Banning the sale and consumption of alcohol at land-based gambling venues
Banning the broadcast or streaming of all live gambling competitions
Banning jackpot prizes after a set time or amount gambled on a specific product
All gambling products to have plain packaging!
It does not take an expert to point out that some of these recommendations would put companies out of business.
The big picture:
Non UK-readers will need to excuse us for dwelling on what seems to be a parochial affair of British politics but there are wider issues at play that are relevant to any regulated gambling market. Other issues with OHID include: The Gambling Commission has raised concerns about the organisation manufacturing statistics.
OHID’s ties with anti-gambling campaigners Gambling With Lives run so deep that a freedom of information request asking for emails between the two was rejected because of a clause that allows the government to turn down the request if it is too time-consuming. FOI requests have been granted for 400 pages-worth of documents.
“One good thing is that OHID is a public body and subject to public scrutiny,” says Regulus Partners’ Dan Waugh. “They should be easier to hold to account. The issue is that the industry has not been very good at holding public bodies to account, preferring to keep a low profile.”
reproduced from the Player Protection Hub. An excellent source of accurate analysis of gambling related issues
Geoff Banks Online Reports 