Sturgis, a professor at the London School of Economics, hailed the study as “exemplary in all respects”.
Nevertheless, he voiced concerns about the General Commission’s (GC) historical track record of generating unreliable statistics, particularly questioning the accuracy of the GSGB, scheduled for release this summer.
Sturgis cautioned, “Until there is a better understanding of the errors affecting the new survey’s estimates of the prevalence of gambling and gambling harm, policymakers must treat them with due caution, being mindful of the fact there is a non-negligible risk that they substantially overstate the true level of gambling and gambling harm in the population.”
This critical assessment by Sturgis reflects a broader lack of trust in the commission’s work, as highlighted by David Brown, a UK industry veteran of 50 years, who criticised the GC’s misrepresentation of affordability checks statistics.
Following Sturgis’ review, gambling advisory business Regulus Partners asserted that concerns over the GSGB’s potential statistical inaccuracies remained unresolved, describing the situation as an “inconvenient truth” that had been glossed over.
Regulus also pointed out previous data discrepancies, such as the GC’s failure to disclose information on consumer views of affordability checks and the chair of its Advisory Board for Safer Gambling downplaying the importance of statistical accuracy.
Despite GC chief executive Andrew Rhodes pledging to address concerns over statistical accuracy, Regulus criticised his efforts as inadequate.
Melanie Ellis, an experienced gambling regulatory lawyer, echoed the concerns raised by Sturgis and Regulus, emphasising significant disparities between the GC’s data and NHS surveys on gambling.
Ellis suggested that while it might be too late for potential inaccuracies to directly impact white paper measures, they could influence the wider public debate on gambling harms.
A major consequence of the GC’s inconsistent statistical accuracy is the erosion of trust, a crucial component for regulatory bodies.
Ellis and Regulus urged the GC to adopt complete transparency to rebuild trust, akin to the transparency it expects from operators.
Pressure is mounting on the GC to rectify its approach, with stakeholders encouraged to hold the commission accountable for its actions.
The decision by the GC to produce its own data on gambling harms, disregarding the NHS Health Survey, raises ethical concerns and could distort public policy.
Regulus and Ellis both criticised the GC’s neglect of the NHS Health Survey, suggesting it aims to monopolise problem gambling data despite evidence favouring the NHS survey’s accuracy.
The recent announcement of new maximum stake measures for online slots has stirred further debate, with Regulus arguing against a one-size-fits-all approach and predicting adverse effects on the industry.
Regulus also highlighted the growth of the black market, citing data indicating a significant increase in illegal operators and urging caution against exacerbating the problem.
Critics of the GC claim it has an anti-gambling agenda, further fuelled by its perceived selective publication of data.
These uncertainties surrounding the UK gambling market, coupled with the GC’s perceived shortcomings, contribute to a tumultuous landscape as 2024 unfolds.