Lee Willows: Funding debate threatens UK\u2019s \u2018world class\u2019 treatment ecosystem
\n
\n<\/p>\n
The debate surrounding gambling research, education and treatment (RET) funding has been heating up significantly ahead of the government\u2019s <\/span>Gambling Act review White Paper<\/b>.<\/span><\/p>\n A range of viewpoints have been expressed on the matter, and notably, calls for the introduction of a statutory levy to support RET operations have been rising, although with some differences as to how this would operate.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Sharing his opinions on the matter at the <\/span>Westminster Media Forum \u2013 Next steps for UK gambling regulation<\/b>, Founder and former CEO of <\/span>YGAM <\/b>and Founder of <\/span>ESG Gaming<\/b>, <\/span>Lee Willows<\/b>, argued that the UK\u2019s gambling harm treatment ecosystem is \u2018world-class\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n However, he asserted that the \u2018funding debate\u2019 has been \u2018tarnished by some who feel there is a lack of independence, which is completely inaccurate\u2019;\u00a0this approach to my view is\u00a0threatening to break-up the ecosystem which in his view has helped many overcome problem\u00a0disorder.<\/p>\n The Third Sector provides over 90% of treatment and prevention work in the United Kingdom, reaching all four nations. We should be proud of that and humbled with this reach, progress and impact. The Third Sector approach is well-thought-through, evidence-led and independently evaluated.<\/p>\n \u201cThese divisions and the potential introduction of a statutory levy carry significant risks to my mind and in many ways undermines a lot of the good work that\u2019s been undertaken,\u201d he explained.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cWe have built an eco-system to deliver treatment, support and prevention that has impressive reach across the United Kingdom. This didn\u2019t happen overnight, it took time, and a huge collective effort on behalf of many very decent people.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cA statutory levy risks being seen by operators as another tax and as a result\u00a0may dilute\u00a0their level of\u00a0interest\u00a0in reducing harms.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n So far, the funding debate has seen a divergence of opinions \u2013 <\/span>GambleAware<\/b> CEO<\/span> Zo\u00eb Osmond<\/b>, the <\/span>Northern Gamblng Clinic <\/b>and <\/span>Social Market Foundation<\/b> (SMF) thinktank have been some notable voices in favour.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n However, leaders of the latter two groups have criticised GambleAware for perceived lack of independence from the industry, and have called for RET duties to be transferred to a new organisation.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Last February, NHS governors informed GambleAware that they would no longer accept grants from the gambling sector to help co-fund nationwide problem gambling clinics and RET programmes. Just yesterday, the <\/span>Association of Directors of Public Health<\/b> (ADPH) also weighed in on the debate, stating a case for how a public health levy should operate.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Meanwhile, <\/span>Dealmeout <\/b>Founder and CEO, <\/span>Jordan Lea<\/b>, criticised GambleAware for allegedly allowing funds to sit in its accounts in a discussion with SBC News last month \u2013 prompting a response from Zo\u00eb Osmond \u2013 whilst arguing that the NGC and SMFs calls for a NHS-focused levy would do more harm than good.<\/span><\/p>\n For Willows, the current model is not perfect, with the lived experience specialist asking: \u201cWhy is it so difficult for start-up organisations \u2013 often led by individuals with Lived Experience \u2013 to access funding, is something I hear a lot from the Lived-Experience community. I have long suggested we need a choir of voices to deliver services and we to consider taking a more agile approach to pilot, test and evaluate new ideas\u00a0?\u201d<\/p>\n However, he added that RET stakeholders should be \u2018humbled\u2019 by progress made on tackling problem gambling \u2013 evidenced by <\/span>UK Gambling Commission<\/b> (UKGC) figures showing a declining rate of 0.2% \u2013 whilst also questioning whether NHS-only programmes \u2018can do any better\u2019 than the current system in place.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cIt will not surprise you that I do not support a statutory levy,\u201d he continued. \u201cThere is much comfort to take from the current ecosystem and the many charities and non-profit organisations working hard in this space and it would be a big mistake to risk this.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cAdditionally, I believe our prime commissioner of services in this space might want to ask themselves what they can do better to support start-up organisations and foster agility, spending their income in a timely manner, with a percentage aimed at small start-up organisations.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n