The House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee (CMSC) has written to the Gambling Commission demanding answers on its planned financial risk assessments, commonly known as affordability checks, by 24 July. The cross-party committee's questions mirror many of those the racing industry has been asking since checks were first proposed under the last Conservative government in late 2020.
Key Questions Raised by the CMSC
The committee is asking whether the Gambling Commission will “publish the full dataset, evidence base and methodology that informed its decision to proceed” and whether the checks will mean that “more or fewer recreational bettors [will be] asked to provide documents or other financial information, compared with existing arrangements.” Additional questions reflect complaints from stakeholders, including the racing industry, that “engagement by the Gambling Commission throughout this process has been insufficient” and that there “may be no representation from the racing industry” in implementation groups the commission proposes to establish.
Dame Caroline Dinenage MP, chair of the CMSC, said it was “important that people at risk of gambling-related debt receive appropriate support. At the same time, any regulatory change must recognise the significant economic contribution made by the industry. The Gambling Commission needs to be clear about how the assessments will work and should work closely with bookmakers to ensure new obligations do not impose undue burdens on responsible businesses.”
Racing Industry's Long Campaign
News of the CMSC intervention comes less than a week after the Gambling Commission announced a “staged” approach to introducing checks, albeit without a precise timeline. The announcement seemed to represent a final defeat for the racing industry’s campaign, which included a parliamentary debate in February 2024 triggered by an online petition with more than 100,000 signatures. Dr James Noyes, an early proponent of checks, has joined calls for a pause to allow “adequate evaluation and scrutiny” of a pilot scheme.
Brant Dunshea, chief executive of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA), last week described the “unilateral” decision as “a clear abdication of duty by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which has failed to grip this process or properly consider the damaging consequences.” He reiterated the BHA’s belief that checks will drive customers to the illegal market, putting them at greater risk and starving the Treasury of tax revenue.
BHA's Frustration and FOI Request
The BHA has become increasingly frustrated by the Gambling Commission’s reluctance to engage during the piloting and launch of checks. Last month, the BHA submitted a freedom of information (FOI) request seeking detailed information about the pilot scheme after reports highlighted issues reconciling data from different credit reference agencies. The commission reportedly dismissed the request as “vexatious,” but the CMSC intervention cannot be brushed off so readily.
A Gambling Commission spokesperson said: “We take engagement with Parliament and its select committees incredibly seriously. We keep Parliament and the DCMS select committee updated on our work and of course we will be responding to Dame Caroline Dinenage’s letter by 24 July.”
Confusion Over Current Checks
The debate has been confusing, as punters have complained about intrusive checks by operators for several years. Operators claim they must conduct checks to comply with current legal obligations, but there has been no clarity on the criteria used, whether less profitable customers are disproportionately checked, or whether casino players are checked to the same extent. The Gambling Commission insists its new checks will be “frictionless” in all but a tiny handful of cases, but has offered little evidence, even in the face of the BHA’s FOI request.
The CMSC’s questions demand clarity, and while the Gambling Commission may have believed affordability checks were finally past the post, there could yet be more drama on the stiff uphill finish.
