Andy Burnham’s GMCA blasted for “dangerous” caveat on GamCare-run helpline

Jordan Lea, founder of gambling-related harms awareness and education charity Deal Me Out, has taken legal action against the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) over a controversial caveat placed against a National Gambling Helpline referral pop up on its gambling-related harm support site.

Formed in 2011, the GMCA consists of 11 members, 10 of which are indirectly elected members, each a councillor from one of the 10 boroughs that make up Greater Manchester, alongside the directly elected mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham.

Last year, the GMCA partnered with Gambling with Lives to create Chapter – One, a pilot project in Greater Manchester, in a bid to ensure the public had access to evidence-based information on the causes and effects of gambling addiction, as well as self-protection tools, all advertised as “free from the influence of the gambling industry”.

That distancing from the industry is something that is at the very heart of this dispute.

In May 2023, the GMCA received £653,514 from the Gambling Commission, to deliver an innovative public health programme in Greater Manchester. The same month, Gambling with Lives also received £350,350 from the same source.

Those monies came from regulatory settlements, as opposed to RET donations, which Gambling with Lives has noted puts distance between itself and the industry.

According to the Gambling Commission website, Gambling with Lives will use the funds to deliver “an 18-month pilot to trial different delivery methodologies as well as the delivery of education materials in non-school settings to young people and adults”.

GMCA will use their respective monies to fund “a four-year project to deliver an innovative whole-system population health programme in the Greater Manchester city-region”.

The dispute

The saga is centred around a caveat that features on the Chapter – One website, run by the GMCA, in relation to the National Gambling Helpline, operated by GamCare.

A note included in a pop up which advertises the Helpline reads: “The National Gambling Helpline and support network is commissioned by the charity GambleAware, which receives voluntary donations from the gambling industry.”

Lea’s contention stems from the fact the note explicitly states the helpline is funded by operator donations, as per LCCP requirements under the existing research, education and treatment (RET) framework.

Lea argues that a vulnerable individual could be put off against using the helpline given the connection between the industry being stated without context or further information.

With the help of Manchester Central MP Lucy Powell, Lea has been in communication with the GMCA in a bid to get the authority to remove the caveat.

Gambling with Lives has made its stance on the debate surrounding the industry’s influence when it comes to funding charitable organisations clear on its website, with a post that reads: “Independent research is fundamental in painting an accurate picture of the current landscape of gambling harm in the UK. It was only through our research that we were able to highlight the established link between gambling disorder and suicide, which had been largely concealed.

“All too often, research is funded by the gambling industry and carried out by researchers or organisations partnered with the industry, reminiscent of how the tobacco industry once operated. 

“Accurate research into the gambling industry and its most dangerous products must be completely independent of the industry itself to have true value.”

Gambling with Lives claim on the “established link between gambling disorder and suicide”, in which the charity claims up to 496 people in the UK commit suicide as a result of gambling disorders has been thoroughly debunked.

Accusations of bias

While speaking exclusively to EGR, Lea outlined his concerns over the GMCA’s reluctance to work with organisations that feature on the RET list or gained any additional funding from those inside the industry.

“The caveat they [GMCA] have placed upon only GamCare, which runs the National Gambling Helpline, almost infers, or is used to infer, that it is some way the industry which is running these things, which is just completely not true,” Lea explains.

“We believe that that is designed that way, and is designed to discredit and harm GamCare, GambleAware and by proxy, all of the organisations on the RET list.”

Direct contact between Deal Me Out and the GMCA has been limited according to Lea, who claims the authority simply “refuse to engage”. 

However, in a letter signed by mayor Andy Burnham addressed to Powell, the authority discussed its decision to place such a caveat on the helpline.

It claimed: “In relation to specific comments about information provided about services for people experiencing gambling harms, GMCA has a commitment to be open and transparent about the source of funding and encourages organisations to take a similarly transparent approach.

“This is something recommended by the Office of Health Improvement and Disparities’ (OHID) assessment of England’s gambling treatment system to help residents and potential partners decide with whom they engage.”

That explanation has been emphatically rejected by Lea, who explained he has searched extensively for that OHID recommendation and is yet to see anything to suggest it exists.

EGR contacted the OHID for evidence of the assessment referred to by Burnham, to which it was sent the department’s assessment into the adult gambling treatment system in England.

Within that assessment, the OHID explains that: “Changing the funding model to remove reliance on gambling industry donations could help improve relationships and system co-ordination between NHS and third sector providers. This is because the current model has caused tension due to different views between providers about what is a conflict of interest.”

“Changing the funding model could also establish principles of engagement and dedicate efforts, such as mediation, to building professional relationships.”

“A stakeholder suggested that improved governance and transparent commissioning processes across third sector providers would help NHS engage with third sector providers and lead to better co-ordinated efforts.”

Lea also went on to highlight the fact that the GMCA has only placed such a caveat on the GamCare-run and GambleAware-commissioned National Gambling Helpline and not other GambleAware-funded projects, such as GamBan and TalkStopBan.

“For me, it’s not right that you should include a caveat on one and not on the other. Again, I just want to make an absolutely clear point that that is not GamBan’s fault, and I don’t want to see a caveat placed upon them either, this shouldn’t be there.”

The caveat’s (potential) consequences 

Lea candidly opened up on his own previous struggles with gambling harm and how damaging this caveat could prove to be.

“I am from Wales, but the gambling I did was all based in Manchester, and I phoned up the helpline, and that was one of the reasons why I’m so passionate about this. I got some great initial support. 

“It was about three in the morning, where else can you go? And if I have looked on that website to look for support. Well, I can’t count on the NHS because they’re closed. So ‘oh, what about this helpline?’ And you just see the caveat, which essentially says it’s the gambling industry in disguise. I believe that’s a safeguarding issue.”

As mentioned, the GMCA works in partnership with Gambling with Lives, which Lea believes has sparked a dangerous echo chamber that means the authority is reluctant to take on any further information beyond what is provided by its partner.

Burnham’s letter signs off with the claim that the GMCA is committed to working with all partners, regardless of funding status in a bid to deliver on Greater Manchester’s Gambling Harms Action plan.

Lea continued: “My aim is to remove the caveat and to create an open communication between all those organisations so that we can move forward to help people.”

Lea admitted that he did not expect the episode to rumble on long enough to a point where legal action was something he would ever deem the most appropriate course of action.

“I was very much of the opinion that once it got a bit of a buzz that they would just remove it, because this is such a tiny thing. It’s such a tiny piece of the puzzle,” he added.

“It’s almost insignificant, but it’s so significant at the same time. For them, it’s just removing a very small caveat on a website which has no significance at all, whereas for us this is a safeguarding issue and something which is massively detrimental and discriminatory to our sector.”

A troublesome tweak

It should be noted, the caveat has been changed from how it originally appeared, with the first edition reading: “It is important you are aware that the National Gambling Helpline and Support Network is commissioned by the charity GambleAware, an organisation that is funded directly by the gambling industry.”

However, Lea’s initial update in which he confirmed he’d be taking legal action also saw him claim that the tweak has actually made the caveat worse. 

The Deal Me Out chief believes the caveat in its current form makes it seem the donations are voluntary from the operators, rather than an LCCP requirement, which could sway potential service users away from seeking help they require.

“Technically, you can say that the correct usage of the word may be voluntary donations. However, the narrative that that creates is that this is just the gambling industry going ‘Oh, tell you what, we’ll give a million quid to GamCare for the sake of it’ – when these are LCCP requirements. This is a licensing requirement. 

“You just don’t need any inference that the gambling industry are voluntary donating money to people. We just don’t need that.”

As he gears up for a legal battle against the GMCA, Lea stopped short of issuing a lengthy assessment of how he thinks it will play out, but did reaffirm that he is confident the caveat will be removed eventually.

When approached for comment by EGR, a spokesperson for Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) said: “GMCA is aware of a complaint and will respond directly once we have received details of this.”

EGR understands that two other complaints have been raised against the GMCA regarding the caveat and has also contacted Gambling with Lives for comment.