The Gambling Commission has published the results of several phases of stakeholder engagement designed to update its existing Evidence Gaps and Priorities document, as the new statutory levy comes into effect.

And that’s likely to be a very  big task given the current market assessment of the size of the gap in the Gambling Commission’s intelligence.

On the regulator’s Evidence Roadmaps redress, it plans to address the wide scope of the previous six research themes, providing greater detail on the identified evidence gaps, as well as “greater transparency of our regulatory evidence needs.”

“It is important to be clear that the Commission will not be the only body who can or should tackle the important questions outlined in the roadmaps publication,” said head of evidence assurance and evaluation, David Taylor. 

“The themes and roadmaps all relate to our role as the regulator to keep gambling safe, fair and crime free, but there’s an opportunity for other stakeholders to fill identified gaps with robust research and triangulate evidence to build a stronger collective understanding.”

It’s a bold statement, but according to some, a hollow one too. Talking to Coinslot this week, one prominent figure in the industry remarked: “Since when did they ever listen to research from the industry? The only research they seem intent on acting on is their own. And that’s been slated by the statistics regulator and the independent assessor of the Commission’s very own GSGB.”

Few will disagree with that, but the Commission remains fixed on its course. Taylor continued to explain that the six evidence themes are: early gambling experiences and gateway products, the range and variability of gambling experiences, gambling-related harms and vulnerability, the impact of operator practices, product characteristics and risk, and illegal gambling and crime.

“Alongside UK Research and Innovation as the main commissioner of research under the new system, the Commission will also be in receipt of levy funds to commission further regulatory research which will allow us to accelerate progress.”

Well that’s not been particularly well spent over the years, but at least they have a large chunk of the £100m a year Levy funds to waste.