tCI Comment
We’ve been expecting significant consultation on gambling for quite a while, and the Government seems to be taking an appropriately cautious approach to ensuring it gets the right information and data to be able to properly assess the current state of the law in this area. Consulting on the methodology to be used in something can be a useful tool, particularly if it is an issue of some complexity, or something where there is a very technical element to analyse. For most consultations it will be unnecessary, but it’s something to bear in mind.
Article
The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) has extended the consultation phase of its feedback on its research methodologies with regards to gambling participation and how problem gambling prevalence is measured across the country.
The consultation, which was originally due to close on 12 February, has been extended by a further two-weeks to Friday 26 February. It will give respondents more time to participate in what is considered to be a critical area of the government’s review of the 2005 Gambling Act.
As previously stated, the regulator was ordered to review its research methodologies to provide the government and UK health services with the most accurate data on gambling participation and further insights on elements influencing problem gambling.
Feedback will help the Commission review how it gathers data and promotes statistics on UK gambling participation and problem gambling which, to date, has been compiled in accordance with the government’s ‘Statistical Service in the Code of Practice for Statistics’.
The need for ‘reliable facts’ on problem gambling statistics was cited as an urgent requirement of the government’s gambling review by the select committees’ of Lord Grade and Lord Foster.
A significant area of concern, public feedback on research methodologies runs alongside key consultations on gambling affordability measures, safer gambling interactions and operators’ additional customer care duties and controls.
Article originally appeared on SBC News
The Institute cannot confirm the accuracy of this story or confirm that it presents a balanced view. If you feel this is inaccurate we would welcome your perspective and evidence that this is the case