Stats watchdog bemoans lack of engagement over disputed figures on problem gambling

The “misuse” of statistics around the estimated social and economic cost of problem gambling “may have played a part” in the government’s decision to increase gambling taxes from next year, according to Regulus Partners.

The move to hike remote gaming duty from 21% to 40% and general betting duty from 15% to 25% followed lobbying from think tanks including the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) and Social Market Foundation (SMF).

The pair both referenced a 2023 report from Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) to support their respective proposals.

The OHID report estimated that the cost of harms associated with problem gambling amount to between £1bn and £1.7bn annually – but these figures have been repeatedly labelled as “misleading”.

The Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) wrote to the OHID in 2024 recommending it be more “mindful” in its use of language and avoid insinuating that problem gambling directly caused these costs.

In response, Jonathan Marron, the-then director-general of OHID (part of the Department of Health and Social Care), stressed the estimate did not imply causality.

However, the OSR has grown increasingly frustrated at how the figures have been used and the statistics watchdog wrote to Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) again last week. 

In his letter, OSR director-general Ed Humpherson wrote that the watchdog had received consistent feedback about references to the OHID report that incorrectly referred to harm “caused” by problem gambling, rather than being “associated” with gambling.

“We appreciate that the report does state that the links between problem gambling behaviours and harms are associative and do not demonstrate causality,” the letter stated.

“However, the examples shared with us suggest that the distinction between association and causation is not being fully understood by users. This undermines the analysis and creates the potential for people to be misled.”

Addressed to DHSC chief economist Chris Mullin, Humpherson went on to note that the OSR has tried to engage with OHID on “several occasions” to encourage the department to consider actions that could be taken to support the appropriate use of these figures.

“For example, including a prominent disclaimer or banner on the publication itself to clarify this point,” the letter continued. “However, we have lacked any recent engagement from OHID to engage with the importance of this issue.”

In response to the publication of the letter, Regulus Partners suggested the OSR’s “veiled criticism” of another public body was unusual and that the matter is significant for two key reasons.

“First, the misuse of the OHID figures may have played a part in the government’s decision to increase gambling taxes from next year. The SMF and the IPPR as well as former prime minister Gordon Brown all misrepresented the OHID report in lobbying the Treasury,” the analyst firm said.

“The SMF admitted its error but resisted calls to correct its Budget submission (it is unclear whether it advised government officials that the submission was inaccurate and potentially misleading).”

The second issue of note is that the OHID was this year appointed as commissioner of gambling-related harm prevention services under the statutory levy, with an annual budget of around £30m, Regulus highlighted.

“It has announced its intention to use some of this money to fund social action and campaigning, with particular regard to ‘regulatory opportunities’ on advertising and licensing,” the analysts added.

“This latest controversy does little to address concerns that the OHID will use its levy funding to prevent gambling rather than to prevent harm.”