The Gambling Commission's latest move to introduce "Financial Risk Assessments" – commonly known as affordability checks – into the gambling industry is facing intense scrutiny, with a parliamentary committee demanding answers over concerns of its implementation and impact. The cross-party Culture, Media and Sport Committee (CMSC) has written to the regulator, setting a deadline of 24 July for responses to critical questions regarding these new measures, which many in the racing industry see as a final defeat in their five-and-a-half-year campaign against the policy.
The CMSC's questions echo concerns repeatedly voiced by the racing industry since the checks were first proposed in late 2020. Key inquiries include whether the Commission will publish the full dataset and methodology behind its decision, and what impact these new checks will have on recreational bettors, requiring them to provide personal financial information. The committee has also highlighted complaints from stakeholders about insufficient engagement from the Gambling Commission throughout this process, and a lack of racing industry representation in implementation groups.
Dame Caroline Dinenage MP, Chair of the CMSC, acknowledged the dual challenge of protecting vulnerable individuals while recognising the significant economic contribution of the gambling industry. In a statement accompanying the letter, she stated that regulatory change must balance these competing interests. She urged the Gambling Commission to provide clear explanations on the operation of the assessments and collaborate closely with bookmakers to prevent undue burdens.
The racing industry has long been critical of affordability checks, arguing they could severely impact its funding model and drive customers towards unregulated markets. Brant Dunshea, Chief Executive of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA), described the Gambling Commission's decision as a "clear abdication of duty" by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. He argued that these checks could have the opposite effect to protecting consumers, pushing them towards higher-risk platforms and reducing tax revenue.
The BHA has expressed frustration with the Gambling Commission's engagement throughout this process, accusing it of failing to consider the damaging consequences of its policy. The industry is now waiting for detailed answers from the regulator on how these affordability checks will operate in practice.