����žž

A Gambling Commission official has firmly defended its upcoming release of statistics from the Gambling Survey for Great Britain as “open and transparent”, and prepared to set a “new baseline” for tracking gambling-related harm over time.

The release of new statistics, set for Thursday (July 25), has been criticised by gambling industry executives worried that the headline numbers will be taken out of context and used as ammunition by critics seeking tougher restrictions.

Dan Waugh of Regulus Partners challenged new commission published Friday (July 19) that warned the survey data should not be used to “provide direct comparisons with results from prior gambling or health surveys”, “as a measure of addiction to gambling”, or “to calculate an overall rate of gambling-related harm in Great Britain”.

Waugh said he found it “very strange for a regulator to publish market statistics if there are such profound doubts about their reliability”.

Waugh and others have said they fear that headline statistics for problem gambling, which could rise as much as ten-fold due to differences in wording and measurement, could stoke a backlash.

He touted the National Health Service prevalence survey, which has put problem gambling rates at well below 0.5 percent, over the commission’s survey, whose preliminary results put it at 2.5 percent.

That survey is done in person and had participation rates of 50 percent to 60 percent pre-COVID, Waugh said.

In contrast, the Gambling Commission’s surveys are online, have lower response rates and probably over-sample gamblers and “highly engaged” gamblers, he said.  

However, Gambling Commission executive director Tim Miller defended the commission by stating that it had consulted all relevant agencies and “recognised experts” in an “open and transparent” process.

“What’s clear is, all methods have their limitations,” he said.

For example, he said, participation in the health survey itself has plummeted since the COVID-19 pandemic, to about 32 percent, there is a significant lag in publishing data and there is no consistent way to make comparisons across England, Scotland and Wales.

The commission also has little input into the NHS survey, he said.

Miller said he was “confident this [data] will be the new gold standard … when published with the appropriate caveats”.

Waugh and Miller, the commission’s executive director in charge of policy development and research, both spoke on a ����žž GamblingCompliance webinar on Tuesday (July 23).

Miller said he did not think gambling policy would change as a result of Thursday’s data release.

“I don’t think it would be appropriate to change government policy based on one set of data,” he said. “The absolute number is not the key thing, it’s how that number develops over time.”

Panellists also discussed how the general election has delayed policy changes outlined in April’s white paper, and whether the new Labour government’s gambling policy would deviate from its proposals.

“I don’t expect dramatic changes” based on Labour’s policy manifesto statements, said Sarah Fox, who heads gambling and lottery issues at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport.

But any changes may not come quickly. There is yet to be a minister assigned to gambling issues, she said.

Appointment of a gambling ombudsman, originally planned for this summer, will probably be delayed to 2025, said Bahar Alaeddini of Harris Hagan law firm.

An ombudsman is a “really good concept and good for consumers and operators”,  as an ombudsman will be able to resolve consumer disputes in a way that the Gambling Commission cannot, she said.

Key ombudsman issues undecided so far will be sources of funding and how to compel licensees to pay, she said.

Issues such as a planned increase in gaming machines, plus cashless play, both set for land-based venues, are also on hold with the change in government.

Neither is a matter for the Gambling Commission, as both need secondary legislation and, therefore, parliamentary time, Miller said.

Planned limits on online slot stakes of £5 for over-25s and £2 for those aged 18-24 are also a matter for parliament to implement, said Fox of the DCMS.