UKGC reforms, GambleAware exits. What's next for gambling harm data in Britain?
The UK is undergoing a major transition in how it defines, funds, and manages gambling harm. On one hand, the Gambling Commission has accepted all nine recommendations from the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) to reform its flagship Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB). The Office for Statistics Regulation praised the GSGBs ambition, but pressed for further methodological transparency and ongoing user engagement in the reform process. On the other hand, GambleAware, the charity long central to commissioning treatment and research, has confirmed it will close by March 2026.
As one door closes and another swings wide, it leaves us asking: whos really telling the story of gambling harm in Britain now? As the GSGB undergoes reform and the statutory levy system takes hold, regulators are revising Britains approach to public health, treatment, and gambling research in real-time.
From charity to statutory
For over two decades, GambleAware has played a central role in the UK’s gambling harm ecosystem. Through its National Gambling Support Network, national prevention campaigns, and commissioning of the annual Treatment and Support Survey, it shaped much of the evidence base used in policy and media. It also funded research using the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI), a scoring tool still central to regulatory assessments.
However, GambleAware operated as a voluntary-funded charity, dependent on donations from the industry. Over time, criticism mounted. Experts across sectors called for hard boundaries between who funds gambling and who fixes its fallout. They argued for a statutory levy and an NHS-led model to bring gambling harms in line with other addictions.
The governments white paper set the course. A government-led system is now in motion, with appointed commissioners driving harm strategy across England, Scotland, and Wales. Meanwhile, GambleAware is preparing to phase out its role.
A detailed statement from highlights the scale of this change and the charity’s plan for a managed closure.
The new statutory system and what it means
This isnt just a funding change. Its a structural reset built around transparency and long-term public oversight. A statutory levy will replace voluntary donations, with licensed operators contributing directly to the national effort to prevent gambling harms. Commissioners will commission and coordinate research, prevention, and treatment services via NHS England, the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, and devolved bodies.
The handover begins in July 2025, with GambleAware stepping aside by March 2026 as the statutory system takes charge. Policymakers aim to ensure service continuity through this shift while embedding a public health ethos.
It marks a changing of the guard in how gambling harm data in Britain is collected and interpreted. By elevating the GSGB, the Commission aims to widen its impact and sharpen the tools used to track gambling harm. Full details can be found in the .
For service users, the stakes are deeply personal. The National Gambling Support Network, commissioned by GambleAware, has connected thousands of individuals with local treatment providers. As funding moves into government hands, service providers face real doubts over contracts, staffing, and the future of referral pathways. Charities relying on annual GambleAware grants may be left in limbo unless statutory commissioners move quickly to stabilise funding streams.
Graceful exit, strong message
In its July 2025 statement, GambleAware formally endorsed the statutory transition. It called it “a new era in which gambling harms are recognised alongside other public health issues and are funded through a statutory levy.”
The charity confirmed it will work toward a managed closure by 31 March 2026. It pledged to honour all current commissioning agreements, maintain the accessibility of its website and public resources, and prioritise a smooth handover for beneficiaries.
Chair Andy Boucher praised the staff and partners who had delivered national impact across prevention and support. The charity highlighted its work with lived experience communities and the third sector, framing its legacy as foundational. Baroness Twycross, Minister for Gambling, thanked GambleAware for its commitment and urged the new system to build on its progress.
The charitys final call to action was clear: sustain momentum, protect services, and ensure public health remains central in defining responsible gambling evidence.
GambleAware’s previous position on regulatory trends, including calls for warnings in lottery advertising, is reflected in its National Lottery harms report.
Sector reactions and rising questions
Stakeholders have offered mixed feedback. The Institute of Licensing and several public health advocates have called for greater transparency in how the GSGB integrates user feedback and handles bias in prevalence data. The OSR praised the Commissions reform roadmap but urged clearer guidance on interpreting survey results.
Academics have raised concerns about continuity. With GambleAware stepping away from direct commissioning, who will fund longer-term studies or address gaps left by the closure of the Treatment and Support Survey?
At the same time, industry commentators welcome the clarity of a statutory system and the enhanced credibility of official statistics. The UKGC has recently stepped up broader reforms too, including raising fine thresholds to 15 percent of GGY in a bid to bolster enforcement. Gross Gambling Yield is the amount operators retain after paying out winnings.
Over 70 industry figures have now joined the GSGB Statistics User Group. But questions remain about how well the new system will capture lived experience, respond to emerging harms, or manage public expectations around risk data.
Recent analysis of VIP scheme usage indicates no dramatic resurgence, as seen in SiGMA News’ recent UKGC VIP report.
Continuity, control, and credibility
The next 12 months will test the strength of the transition. The Commission must deliver on its GSGB reforms, ensuring that the surveys expanded dashboard, improved QA (quality assurance) processes, and benchmarked data withstand scrutiny.
Meanwhile, the new statutory commissioners have their hands full. Their remit may appear focused. Manage the handover, protect data integrity, and have an early impact. But the pressure to deliver is anything but simple.
GambleAware has urged its successors to build on existing frameworks rather than reinvent them. The risk is that, by moving too quickly, decision-makers may overlook critical nuances. But the opportunity is just as real: to unify harm reduction under one credible, well-funded system that earns trust.
If the transition delivers, with stable support networks, precise data, and policy grounded in lived experience, Britain could set the global standard. If this falls short, it wont just be a mess of missed deadlines. It will leave people with nowhere to turn and will be felt by service users left adrift, researchers cut off from critical data, and campaigners silenced by uncertainty.
Beneath the policy layers and institutional change, one question still drives the debate. Who defines gambling harm data in Britain, and to what end?
