MPs looked on in disbelief as the Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) chief, Grainne Hurst, told the Treasury Select Committee that there is no social ill with gambling. Astonished MPs asked her to restate the claim, and she did so. The committee chair, Dame Meg Hillier MP, said she was frankly flabbergasted.
Giving evidence earlier that day, former Paddy Power co-founder Stewart Kenny told the committee that operators steer new sports bettors toward online slots with free-spin offers. He said this shifts customers from the least risky product to the most risky, and he appeared alongside Dr Theo Bertram of the Social Market Foundation and Carsten Jung of IPPR.
From that moment, the tone was set. Hurst’s denial collided with Kenny’s evidence and with common sense.
What the GSGB says about harm today
The Gambling Commission’s 2024 Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) is now the official source of statistics. It reports that 2.7 percent of adults scored eight or higher on the Problem Gambling Severity Index, with another 3.1 percent at moderate risk. These figures replace older, lower estimates that some still cite. The Commission explains the survey’s official status and methods.
In an exclusive SiGMA News interview, Dan Waugh of Regulus Partners argued that the GSGB overstates prevalence relative to operator data in several verticals and that the regulator has not engaged openly enough with methodological concerns raised by the Office for Statistics Regulation.
The Commission maintains that GSGB is its official statistics source and says it is addressing the statistics watchdog’s recommendations and the findings of an independent review by Professor Patrick Sturgis, Professor of Quantitative Social Science at the London School of Economics. Sturgis was commissioned to assess GSGB methods and ran targeted experiments on survey mode and topic wording to explain why online self-completion surveys report higher rates of problem gambling than other approaches, and then set out improvements for future waves.
The Office for Statistics Regulation reviewed GSGB methods and recommended improvements, which the Commission says it is addressing.
Youth data adds urgency. The Commission’s 2024 youth report found that one point five percent of eleven to seventeen-year-olds met the youth problem gambling screen. The proportion rose from about 0.8% the year before. That shift should concern any responsible operator and will shape how policymakers approach gambling social ills.
How product design shapes risk in practice
Kenny told MPs that customers are nudged from a first casual sports bet to slots. He described a journey from the least to the most addictive product. The mechanism is familiar to operators: a new customer deposits for a football bet, receives promotional credit, then sees a free-spin offer on a slot game, or a pop-up during a quiet moment in their sports betting session. The nudge is deliberate. It matters for policy and product teams because it reveals that product risk isn’t incidental; it’s baked into customer acquisition and cross-sell design. It makes risk concrete.
The GSGB survey and wider research point in the same direction: online casino and slot play are more tightly associated with higher problem gambling scores than sports betting, both cross-sectionally and over time. The practical reading is simple: Risk varies by product. Design and speed shape behaviour and harm. That is the core of gambling’s social ills, not the activity itself, but how products are designed and marketed.
The operator playbook before November
Circle 26 November 2025 on your calendar. The UK Budget lands, and Westminster is sharpening its tax tools for higher-risk products like online slots and casino games. The industry fears job losses and a slide into the shadows. Parliament is holding those fears up to the light of data and research.
Operators who document product risk management now, ahead of the Budget announcement, position themselves as credible partners in shaping the tax framework rather than as obstacles to reform. They also reduce the likelihood of hastily written, one-size-fits-all rules that ignore operational realities.
Checks should be tailored to the specific product driving the session. For example, a slots session with fast cycles requires earlier and more detailed checks than a weekly football bet. Adjust reviews based on session intensity and speed, not one-size-fits-all rules. This approach makes checks fairer and easier to defend. It also directs harm-reduction resources where gambling social ills are most acute.
How operators can lead on product risk
Operators who move first on product risk win twice. They show good faith before regulation arrives, and they lower the chance of blunt, one-size-fits-all rules written in haste. This is the window. Here is what moving first looks like with six practical steps that stand out.
Tier affordability and reviews by product risk
Tailor checks to the product that drives the session. A fast slots session needs earlier and deeper questions than a weekly football bet. Calibrate reviews to intensity and speed rather than blanket rules.
Set promotional guardrails on cross-sell
Limit cross-sell from sports into slots. Time gaps, frequency caps, and clear opt-outs help. Do not turn every sports bettor into a slots lead.
Tie safer gambling cues to product features
Place prompts, pauses, and spend reminders where risk is highest. For slots, build controls that pause play during rapid losses. Add similar interventions for high-risk in play moments to interrupt escalation.
Fix withdrawal and cash-out hygiene
Treat withdrawals as a trust feature. Keep anti-money laundering checks strong while removing unnecessary delays. Faster, transparent withdrawals reduce frustration, lower the chance of reversal, and support retention.
Adopt risk-adjusted revenue as a core KPI
Reward safer yield. Score revenue by quality, not only by volume. Use a risk modifier that reflects product intensity. Align incentives with what regulators expect to see.
Document and publish your product risk matrix
Rank products by risk and list the controls at each level. Publish the matrix, keep it updated, invite independent review, and make a product council responsible for the cadence.
Taken together, these steps demonstrate credible leadership on gambling-related social ills and offer policymakers a practical alternative to sweeping, one-size-fits-all rules.
Westminster context and why it matters
Hurst argued that higher taxes would put jobs and shops at risk and would push play to unregulated markets. That argument is familiar in many sin tax debates. Policy advisers will weigh it against evidence from official statistics and from independent think tanks. MPs also heard that targeted taxation can focus on high-risk products and raise revenue with fewer side effects. The committee papers and the hearing show that product design now sits in the policy crosshairs.
A balancing view from outside the industry is worth noting. Recent proposals from public policy institutes back product-specific duties that match external costs. One analysis suggests that higher rates on remote casinos and cash-prize machines could raise about 3.2 billion pounds a year. It frames tax as a tool to steer risk rather than a blunt instrument that hits sports betting equally. Westminster is testing practical answers to gambling’s social ills. Operators should plan for this direction of travel.
Horseracing industry groups have argued strongly against blanket tax increases, warning of shop closures and job losses. While some operators warn of job and shop losses, others support product-differentiated policies that protect lower-risk verticals. The Budget looms and tempers rise, yet the direction of travel is clear.
Targeted policy pathways that operators can support
A credible industry position accepts that product risk differs. It then helps shape the least distortionary tools.
Three ideas stand out:
First, risk-weighted duties. Higher duty for higher risk categories. Lower duty for lower risk categories. This supports the retail estate and rewards low-risk play. It creates a defensible, rational framework.
Second, proportional affordability and know-your-customer rules. More depth for higher risk modes. Lighter touch for low-risk activity. This reduces friction where it is least needed. It also directs resources where they have the most benefit.
Third, transparent evidence sharing. Publish how design changes affect session length, loss of concentration, and withdrawal reversals. Invite independent audits. This approach earns credibility when Parliament asks for proof.
The claim that gambling causes no social ills failed at the committee table. The data and the lived reality did not bend to it. Operators now face a choice. They can defend a position that lacks credibility and watch MPs and think tanks set the agenda. Or they can lead on product risk and shape rules that reflect evidence and remain commercially rational. November is the moment to choose leadership over defensiveness. The window for input is open. After that, Parliament decides alone.
Don’t just read the news — stay ahead of it. Subscribe HERE to SiGMA’s Top 10 News countdown for stories shaping iGaming’s future, weekly insights from the world’s biggest iGaming community, and exclusive subscriber-only offers.
