The Gambling Commission has insisted it is not diverging from a pledge for frictionless affordability checks set out by government in the face of pointed questioning from MPs on Tuesday over why gamblers were being asked for personal information by bookmakers.
Senior figures at the Gambling Commission appeared at a culture, media and sport select committee meeting on Tuesday to answer questions about the progress of the gambling review.
The Gambling Commission’s chief executive Andrew Rhodes revealed that “almost all” responses to its consultation on the Gambling Review white paper had been on the subject of controversial affordability checks gamblers are to be subjected to. He acknowledged: “This is the most debated and very strong views have been expressed on it.”
Rhodes was subsequently asked to explain whether the checks would be frictionless by Labour MP Kevin Brennan. He pointed out that Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer had stated in the House of Commons that 80 per cent of gamblers triggering the criteria for affordability checks would have to do “nothing at all” and others would be subjected only to “frictionless” checks. He added: “Is it the intention to implement what she said in that statement?”
In response, Rhodes said the body’s aim was to “implement what the white paper says”, leading Brennan to ask why those subjected to affordability checks would potentially be required to tell bookmakers their job title and provide further information.
“If someone gave a job title in one of these frictionless checks,” Brennan asked, “would they have to supply documentation to prove they were telling the truth? You could invent a job title, and say you were an astronaut.”
Kevin Brennan: Labour MP for Cardiff West
He also referred to comments from Tim Miller, executive director at the Gambling Commission, that a customer’s postcode would be checked, adding: “Aren’t these checks about individuals, rather than a generalised assumption about our constituents in a particular area and whether they are at risk of being a problem gambler?
“The minister said 80 per cent of people would have to do, and I quote, ‘nothing at all’. She didn’t say anything about providing a job title. It was clearly meant to give the impression to the House that nothing would be required of customers and most people would have a simple check.”
Miller said no documentation would be required to prove a given job title was correct, but that the information would be used to form an overall strategy of someone’s financial risk.
“One of the important things to note is that before we published these consultations was that we confirmed with DCMS that what we were consulting on was consistent with the wording of the white paper,” he said. “I’m satisfied that what the minister said was accurate and complete.”
The Gambling Commission was also asked about the potential risks of punters turning to the unregulated black market if barriers were put in the way to bet with regulated firms.
Rhodes reiterated his belief that the risks of the black market were “overstated” and added: “Every time I’ve heard someone say to me, based on what’s happening here people are going to the black market I have asked them the same question: Tell me where? And I have not once had an answer. I have not once been given the name of an operator or a person or a location or anything I can act upon and I have consistently asked that question every time.
“But there is undoubtedly a risk that if people cannot gamble in the legitimate industry for a number of reasons they may go somewhere else so we have to get the balance right.”
Questions were also asked of sports minister Stuart Andrew, who promised the government would take a “balanced and proportionate approach” when asked by Conservative MP Damian Green about the potential infringement of any changes to gambling legislation and regulations on individuals’ liberty.
Green cited a 120-page dossier of readers’ letters given to the committee by the Racing Post before the session, which he contrasted with what he deemed a “window of acceptability” given to questions asking how much tighter regulation had to be.
Sports minister Stuart Andrew is quizzed on gambling legislation
“Yet on the other side,” said Green, “we’ve had more than 100 letters sent to the committee by the Racing Post of people saying, ‘I’m an adult, I’m doing something legal, I can take decisions about how I spend my money – butt out of my life’. Do you have any sympathy with that view?”
In response, Andrew said there had been “strong arguments on both sides” of the debate and that meeting bereaved families had “stuck with me”. However, he added: “There are a vast majority of people who do enjoy gambling in a safe way and it isn’t for us to tell them how to spend their money. We are trying to bring about a balanced and proportionate approach.”
Andrew also said the government appreciated the potential knock-on effects to horseracing of the gambling review and added that efforts would be made to protect the industry.
“I personally, the department and the government recognises the massive contribution horseracing makes to this country,” he said. “There’s no way we want to do anything to harm that.”
- 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 [email protected] with the subject ‘Affordability checks’ to share your experiences, your thoughts about the government’s proposals, and your contact details.
Read more:
Labour peer hits out at ‘pathetic’ Gambling Commission proposals over affordability
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.