- Survey findings indicate that around 3% of adults in Northern Ireland are problem gamblers.
- There are differences of opinion about whether the terms “problem gambling” and “gambling addiction” mean precisely the same thing.
- However, these are terms that the UK Government, NHS and others have previously used interchangeably. In that context, it is fair to say that 3% of local adults meet the threshold for gambling addiction.
- The same survey data indicates that, among people who gambled in the prior 12 months, around 14% had at least sometimes bet more than they could afford to lose.
During a 16 March debate on the criminal justice system, Sinn Féin MLA Philip McGuigan claimed that:
“Around 3% of adults meet the threshold for gambling addiction, and 14% of people who gamble say that they have bet more than they can afford to lose.”
There are two parts to this claim:
- Around 3% of adults in NI meet the threshold for gambling addiction.
- 14% of people who gamble say they have bet more than they can afford to lose.
Both aspects are supported by evidence.
The first part relies on the interchangeability of the terms “problem gambling” and “gambling addiction”. There are differing views on whether these are the same thing however, with this context in mind, around 3% of local adults are considered to be a problem gambler based on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI).
Acknowledging that this relies on equating problem gambling and gambling addiction, this provides good evidence to support the first part of the claim.
The second part is more straightforward. The NISRA/DfC report states plainly that, among people who had gambled in the prior 12 months, 14% said they had sometimes bet more than they could afford to lose.
For more information, read on.
- Source
FactCheckNI contacted Mr McGuigan about this claim. He informed us that the statistics came from Prevalence of gambling in Northern Ireland 2024, a report published by the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) and the Department for Communities (DfC) at the end of last April. He said further that: “
“I did change the term “gambling addiction” from the term “problem gambling” used in the report.
“I added addiction rather than problem gambling as this phrase in my opinion unfairly blames the individual as opposed to the addictive product.
“The 3% figure is based on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI). A person with a PGSI score of 8 or more is identified as “Problem gambling with negative consequences and a possible loss of control”.”
- Gambling measures
The UK Gambling Commission describes problem gambling as “gambling to a degree that compromises, disrupts or damages family, personal or recreational pursuits.”
The commission says it currently measures the severity of problem gambling with several screening tools (noting that no such tool is perfect) and specifically cites the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI, mentioned by Mr McGuigan above):
- PGSI score of 8 and over represents problem gambling by which a person will have experienced adverse consequences from gambling and may have lost control of their behaviour. Involvement in gambling can be at any level, but it is likely to be heavy.
- PGSI score of 3 to 7 represents moderate risk gambling by which a person may or may not have experienced any adverse consequences from gambling but may be at risk if they are heavily involved in gambling.
- PGSI score of 1 to 2 represents low risk gambling by which a person is unlikely to have experienced any adverse consequences from gambling but may be at risk if they are heavily involved in gambling.
Regarding Mr McGuigan’s use of the term “gambling addiction” instead of “problem gambling”, note that some academics draw a distinction between the two but institutions such as the UK Government, NHS (see also here), the Royal College of Psychologists and University College London are happy to use them interchangeably.
Views on this may differ but, in any substantive analysis or discussion, clarity is paramount. This article will proceed on the basis that gambling addiction, as used by Mr McGuigan, is interchangeable with the term problem gambling, while also acknowledging the differing takes on this as well as the MLA’s reasoning for his own use of language. As always, clarity of context and meaning are important.
- Statistics
NISRA and DfC’s paper Prevalence of gambling in Northern Ireland 2024 was published on 30 April last year. Note that this paper considered anyone who had “spent money on any gambling type in the past 12 months” to be a participant in gambling – with around 57% of adults in NI meeting this threshold.
This survey analysis follows on from similar work done in 2010 and 2016, and the total proportion of adults who had taken part in gambling activity has decreased over time. In 2010 it was 80% and in 2016 it was 67%.
Its assessment of the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) mirrors that of the UK Gambling Commission:
Figure 1 – source: DfC/NISRA
The report states that the “vast majority” (88%) of adults were considered non–problem gamblers based on their PGSI score (note that this group includes all individuals who had not gambled in the previous 12 months).
Around 5% of adults were identified as low risk with “few or no negative consequences”.
Another 5% were found to be at moderate risk – while 3% were considered to be a problem gambler (i.e. those with a PGSI score of eight or higher), with the paper adding that:
“These groups [moderate risk and problem gamblers] are considered to experience at least some negative consequences from their gambling, with problem gamblers also experiencing a possible loss of control.
“Problem gambling levels have remained similar across all three surveys in 2010 (3%), 2016 (2%) and 2024 (3%).”
The NISRA/DfC report contains no mention of the word “addiction”. However, based on the context provided above, and the valid interchangeability (depending on who you ask) of the terms “problem gambling” and “gambling addiction”, it is fair to describe the 3% of adults deemed to be problem gamblers as people suffering from a gambling addiction, while also acknowledging that by some approaches these are not the same thing.
Taken altogether, this provides evidence in support of the first part of the claim.
Figure 2 – source: NISRA/DfC
- Beyond affordable
The second part of this claim is more straightforward. The prevalence paper states that:
“Approximately one in seven adults who participated in gambling in the last 12 months (14%) said they had at least sometimes bet more than they could afford to lose and about one in eight (12%) said they ‘needed to gamble larger amounts to get the same feeling of excitement’.”
This is the precise figure noted by Mr McGuigan and therefore is solid evidence in support of the second part of the claim.
- Further context on problem gambling
The NISRA/DfC report has a lot of interesting details on the entire gambling picture for Northern Ireland, including breakdowns by age, gender, community background and whether people live somewhere urban or rural.
Focusing just on problem gambling, the report states that more adults with no religion (8%) are problem gamblers than those who are Protestant (1%) or Catholic (2%).
A higher proportion of adults with a disability were found to be problem gamblers compared with those who do not have a disability (6% and 2% respectively). Adults with dependents (4%) were more likely to be problem gamblers than those without (2%), while 5% of adults in the most deprived areas of NI are problem gamblers compared with 1% in the least deprived.
