Consultation response
Licensing, Compliance and Enforcement Policy: Consultation Response
This response sets out our position in relation to the consultation around proposed changes to our Licensing, Compliance and Enforcement Policy.
Contents
- Executive summary
- Introduction
- Summary of responses - Licensing changes
-
- Proposal 1: Policy position in relation to dual regulation products
- Proposal 2: Changes to complete applications
- Proposal 3: Clarification of relevant persons
- Proposal 4: Timescale for using licence
- Proposal 5: Clarification of suitability criteria
- Proposal 6: Clarification of financing arrangements
- Proposal 7: Addition of new examples to update the Commission about
- Proposal 8: Minor updates to reflect minor changes to processes in the policy
- Summary of responses - Compliance changes
- Summary of responses - Enforcement changes
Limitations
The inclusion of survey questions relating to the adverse consequences of gambling will provide important insight into the effects of gambling on individuals and their friends and family. However, it is important to recognise some of the limitations inherent in survey research. Firstly, because the survey relies on self-reporting, responses are determined by personal perceptions and recollections, which can be influenced by factors such as social desirability and recall bias. As a result, the accuracy of information on adverse consequences from gambling largely depends on respondents' subjective experiences and their willingness to share sensitive information. Ideally, a range of subjective and objective methods is needed to provide robust insight into the impacts of gambling on individuals and society. Secondly, while the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) invited people to take part in the survey using a random-probability method of sampling, participants ultimately decided whether or not they would like to take part. This may limit the generalisability of the findings to the wider population due to potential differences between those who chose to participate and those who declined.
Finally, it is important to recognise the complexity of accurately measuring adverse consequences from gambling. The potential effects of gambling can manifest in many ways and are influenced by a range of personal, social and environmental factors. Capturing this complexity in a survey format is inherently challenging, and therefore our questions may not include all aspects of gambling-related harms. To help mitigate these limitations, the GSGB has been rigorously tested through both quantitative and qualitative methodologies and incorporates recommendations from a wide range of stakeholders, including people with lived experience of gambling harms. Furthermore, our survey questions were developed based on existing frameworks of harm, which helps to ensure that they are conceptually sound and capture a range of adverse consequences associated with gambling. This comprehensive approach helps to ensure that the survey provides a valid and reliable estimate of the adverse consequences from gambling across representative samples of the population. A full review of the strengths and limitations of the overall GSGB methodology is available.
Last updated: 25 July 2024
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.