The key questions MPs must ask Gambling Commission chiefs in crucial meeting

Thousands of racing fans and punters have contacted us over the last six weeks to share their concerns and anger over affordability checks and the latest proposals from the Gambling Commission.

On Tuesday, the regulator's chief executive Andrew Rhodes, his deputy Sarah Gardner and executive director Tim Miller go before the members of parliament who sit on the Culture, Media and Sport select committee, whose job it is to scrutinise the department and the public bodies it oversees – including the Gambling Commission.

In looking ahead to this crucial public session, we present the following questions we believe MPs should be putting to Rhodes and his colleagues on behalf of our readers.

The key questions

1. Many people believe affordability checks are an infringement on their civil liberties and their autonomy. How do you respond to the view that adults should be free to spend their own money as they wish, without government or regulatory interference?

2. Your consultation on 'financial vulnerability and financial risk checks' (better known as affordability checks) has 34 questions and involves reading and understanding thousands of words of complex regulatory language. How many regular bettors did you consult in framing this? And how can it possibly be sensible or workable to have such a complicated framework?

3. Government ministers have repeatedly made clear to the public that financial checks on bettors must be frictionless. Do you accept that all of the evidence to date suggests that this will not be the case? And can you outline exactly how you believe checks can be made frictionless?

4. Many bettors are concerned that using credit reference agencies to conduct enhanced financial risk checks will involve hard credit checks that will then appear on their credit history and have a major impact on their ability to borrow in future. Can you provide reassurance that there will be no hard checks on credit files as part of the 'frictionless' enhanced checks solution?

5. Bookmakers, following discussions with the Gambling Commission, have now been imposing affordability checks for at least two years. What evidence do you have that this has led to reduced levels of problem gambling?

6. Many bettors are concerned about the planned treatment of winnings, arguing that the time periods proposed after which winnings will be considered losses if re-bet (seven days at the £1,000 check, 90 days at the £2,000 check) are arbitrary and will ensure even long-term winning bettors are caught up in affordability checks. How were these limits determined and how do you justify using such a short timespan?

7. Numerous big-staking bettors have already moved to illegal offshore bookmakers or are considering doing so as a consequence of affordability checks. What does the Gambling Commission consider an acceptable growth in market share for the black market as a consequence of these proposals?

8. Fans of racing and those involved in the sport have grave concerns about the impact these checks will have on the sport's funding. Has a detailed impact assessment been carried out and what reassurances can you provide that steps will be taken to avoid catastrophic unintended consequences?

• To complete the Gambling Commission's consultation on affordability checks, visit racingpost.com/consultation and follow the instructions.
• The Racing Post also wants to hear from you: What has been your experience of affordability checks since the white paper was published at the end of April, and what do you think of the government's proposals? Have affordability checks affected your betting behaviour?
• It's a chance for your voice to be heard. Email the Racing Post at editor@racingpost.com with the subject 'Affordability checks' to share your experiences, your thoughts about the government's proposals, and your contact details.

Read these next:

It's D-day for punters as Gambling Commission chiefs face grilling from MPs over affordability checks 

'All of a sudden you're being made to feel guilty for having a flutter. Why can't it be taken as an enjoyment?'  

'Why is gambling different?' - sports minister to be scrutinised on affordability checks by punters' body 

Subscribe to Racing Post Members' Club Ultimate Monthly and pay just £9.99 per month for your first two months!

Available to new subscribers purchasing Ultimate Monthly using code SUMMER. First two payments charged at £9.99, renews at full monthly price thereafter. To cancel please contact us at least seven days before subscription is due to renew. Offer expires 30/09/2023.