White paper is close but the battle over affordability checks could rage on

Government ministers have been promising that the gambling review white paper is due to be published "in the coming weeks" for most of this year but the latest signs are their predictions might actually be about to come true.

A story in The Times on Saturday looked very much like the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) laying the groundwork for the publication of the white paper, which follows a manifesto pledge made by the Conservative Party to update gambling regulation to make it "fit for the digital age".

The gossip is the DCMS would like to finally get the white paper published before Christmas, two years after the gambling review was first launched, although time is running out with recess due to start on December 20. If that deadline is missed, then publication early in the new year looks certain.

A rather hyperbolic headline in The Times earlier in the week about a big rise in gambling addiction appears to have prompted the DCMS to put its side of the story across at the weekend.

There was a great deal within it that had already been flagged up, suggesting the various changes in government this year have not resulted in major alterations to the white paper since the summer, although the claim that restrictions on free bets and VIP packages had been dropped was a significant shift.

Other than that, a cut in the maximum stakes for online slots to mirror those in bricks-and-mortar establishments, the creation of an ombudsman to protect consumer rights and dropping plans to ban gambling sponsorship of football shirts had all been mentioned before. So had the idea of the introduction of non-intrusive affordability checks for punters, something akin to credit checks, although it was said there would be a consultation on how such checks would work.

If the government's plans come to fruition, then it raises the interesting question of what would happen to the very definitely intrusive checks, including requests for tax returns and bank statements, already introduced by operators under pressure from the Gambling Commission.

The effects of the measures operators have already taken were outlined by the regulator's chief executive Andrew Rhodes at a briefing for gambling industry chief executives in London on Thursday, with a reduction in the proportion of income coming from high-spending customers being the main result.

Andrew Rhodes: not the Gambling Commission's role to make a moral judgement on how much money is spent on gambling'

Interestingly, Rhodes told those present: "I'm not saying the regulator wants to see people in general spending less on gambling either – our role is to permit gambling as long as it is safe, fair and crime-free, not to make a moral judgement on how much money is spent on gambling."

He went on to say that he did not accept it was impossible to balance protecting people from harm with freedom of choice, adding: "Government has a big role to play in making the judgement about where that balance should be sought. It will be an important step for everyone in this room when a white paper is published for the Gambling Act review."

That Rhodes said the government has a "big" role to play in deciding the balance between freedom of choice and protection of people from harm is slightly concerning. The word 'big' suggests others might be involved to a lesser degree, but when it comes down to issues of freedom of choice it is elected representatives who should be entirely responsible for making a decision and not anyone else, such as a regulator for example.

However, Rhodes's comments would on the face of it appear to be positive for those punters whose ability to have a bet has been affected by intrusive checks, despite showing no signs of harm, and also for British racing's finances, which have already been affected and could be hit to the tune of tens of millions of pounds if the most stringent measures being proposed by campaigners are adopted.

If Rhodes is indeed saying it is down to the government to decide where the balance lies and if reports are right in saying the government believes non-intrusive checks are the correct path, then punters should be spared having to provide their inside leg measurement in order to have a bet unless those softer checks reveal reasons for concern.

The question is whether the genie can be put back in the bottle when it comes to punters being asked for personal information. What will the Gambling Commission do should an operator who has been asking customers for their bank statements decide to reverse that policy and instead rely on non-intrusive checks?

Rhodes told chief executives that the actions they had been taking thus far had been "your choices to make".

Putting to one side the fact many operators feel they have been left with no choice but to impose such checks in the absence of clear guidelines from the commission, will they be allowed to make their own choice to withdraw the more burdensome measures following the white paper?

Again, Rhodes said the commission had not baulked from taking action while the review has been ongoing and "it won't [baulk] going forward either".

If that is the case, and the Gambling Commission refuses to back down from its position of mandating intrusive financial checks on punters, elected officials may need to step in to remind them that parliament's authority trumps its own.

Read these next:

Intrusive affordability checks would be a disaster - but proponents don't get it

Poll: two-thirds of punters voice black market fears over spending limits

The Front Runner is our latest email newsletter available exclusively to Members' Club Ultimate subscribers. Chris Cook, a four-time Racing Reporter of the Year award winner, provides his take on the day's biggest stories and tips for the upcoming racing every morning from Monday to Friday. Not a Members' Club Ultimate subscriber? Click here to join today and also receive our Ultimate Daily emails plus our full range of fantastic website and newspaper content