Minister rebukes Gambling Commission over intrusive affordability checks

It is not the role of the government or the Gambling Commission to determine how much a person can afford to gamble, the British minister responsible for the issue said on Thursday in a significant intervention .

Paul Scully was giving the clearest indication yet of the government's thinking on the issue of affordability checks as it prepares to publish its long-delayed gambling review white paper.

His speech to the Betting and Gaming Council's (BGC) annual meeting in London appeared to be a shot across the bows of the Gambling Commission, which has been blamed for pressuring bookmakers into introducing intrusive affordability checks on punters while the wait for the white paper continues.

Scully said the government's proposals would be better described as "financial risk" checks, and that "frictionless" checks would be examined. BGC chief executive Michael Dugher said he hoped the industry regulator had heard the minister's message "loud and clear".

British racing's leadership will also have welcomed Scully's comments given the fears for the sport's finances if intrusive affordability checks for punters, requiring them to provide details such as bank statements and P60s in order to carry on betting, continue to be rolled out. One estimate has put the cost of the checks already in place to the sport's finances at £40 million.

Scully told the audience the white paper would not be "the final word on gambling reform" when it is eventually published, and that it would be followed by consultations led by both the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Gambling Commission.

While the minister said he could not pre-empt the details of the white paper, he did recognise that affordability checks were a subject the industry wanted to know about. And Scully made it clear it was not the government's intention to tell punters how much they should spend on their hobby, and that the industry regulator should not do so either.

He said: "There are a few things I can say at this stage. The first is that ‘affordability checks’ is probably the wrong title for the protections we’re envisaging. That word suggests that the government or Gambling Commission are going to set rules on how much people can ‘afford’ to gamble.

"Let me be really clear here that it is not the role of the government, it is not the role of the Gambling Commission, to tell people how much of their salary they are 'allowed to' spend on gambling. That's just not our role. We are not going to have a one size fits all approach, it's just not the intention. It may be more accurate to call them ‘financial risk’ checks – checking that a higher than usual level of spend is not itself an indicator of harm."

Scully said he did not believe better protection for the vulnerable would be provided "by moving to a black and white world where only financial indicators are considered". He added: "It is essential that operators use all the information they have on customers and their wider risk profile to inform the right interventions."

Scully said the white paper was "a matter of weeks away" but added it was "not the end of the conversation". Expanding on the consultation period after the white paper is published, the minister said: "When it comes to financial risk checks, the coming months will provide the opportunity to really nail down and test the logistics for frictionless checks, to design the necessary data safeguards, and to establish the best possible framework for identifying and acting on financial risk. 

"Again I strongly encourage you all to remain involved in the discussion, and be responsive to the issues because we want to make sure we get it right and we want to work with you to get it right."

Earlier in his speech Scully had said it was important the social and economic benefits of the sector were not discounted when wider gambling policy was discussed. However, he added: "Part of making sure the sector can flourish is making sure that we have the right regulation that protects people from harm. There are, to be blunt, still too many failings happening. So our act review is a real opportunity to make sure we have got the balance right. To make sure we respect people’s choice to gamble and the enjoyment they get from it. But also to follow the evidence and address the products and practices which increase the risk of harm."

Betting and Gaming Council chief executive Michael Dugher

Dugher said Scully had delivered two strong messages in his speech, one that it was not the role of the government or the Gambling Commission to tell people how much of their own income they can afford to spend on betting, but also that when checks are made they should be frictionless.

He added: "Frictionless does not mean asking people for documents, for payslips and bank statements and all of that. I thought it was a very strong message from the minister. We certainly heard that message loud and clear. I hope that the Gambling Commission also heard that message loud and clear."

Have you been affected by intrusive affordability checks? If so, we would like to hear from you. Email us (editor@racingpost.com) with the subject 'Affordability checks' to share your experiences and contact details

Read these next:

John Gosden fears affordability checks and black market could 'spell disaster' for racing 

Top bloodstock agent admits to betting on black market because of affordability checks 

Members' Club special offer: get exclusive tips and insight FREE for one month  

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