By Tony O’Reilly-
The Culture, Media and Sport Committee has stepped into the increasingly contentious debate over affordability checks in gambling, demanding answers from the Gambling Commission over how the new financial risk assessment regime will be implemented and raising concerns that British racing may have been sidelined during the process. The intervention represents the latest political scrutiny of one of the most controversial elements of the government’s gambling reforms and comes just days after the regulator confirmed it would proceed with the introduction of the checks despite sustained opposition from the racing industry and bookmakers.
In a formal letter to the Gambling Commission’s acting chief executive Sarah Gardner,(pictured) the committee sought detailed explanations about the evidence underpinning the decision to introduce the assessments, the methodology used to develop them, and the extent to which the regulator has engaged with stakeholders throughout the process. The committee also questioned reports that racing will not be represented on implementation groups established to oversee the rollout of the new measures, prompting fresh concerns over the industry’s influence on a policy that many believe could have significant financial implications.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
Concerned insiders in the British betting industry have frequently expressed concerns to The Eye Of Media.Com about the serious lapses common amongst many gambling operators when it comes to affordability checks and effective oversight of regular gamblers, particularly those with a gambling problem.
The Total Gross Gambling Yield (GGY) for the regulated gambling industry in Great Britain (April 2024 to March 2025), is £16.6bn, with £12.6bn representing revenue from betting, casinos, bingo and other regulated gambling products. The Gambling Commission this week finally gave the green light for the introduction of the financial risk assessments, often referred to by critics as affordability checks, following months of consultation and debate. The assessments are designed to identify customers who may be at risk of experiencing gambling-related financial harm by using financial information to assess whether their level of gambling is sustainable. While ministers and regulators argue the reforms are intended to better protect vulnerable consumers, the plans have been fiercely resisted by bookmakers and British racing, who have repeatedly warned that additional friction in the betting process could drive customers towards unregulated gambling operators while reducing betting revenues that help fund the sport.
The committee’s intervention follows a strongly worded response from the British Horseracing Authority, whose chief executive Brant Dunshea said he was “hugely disappointed” by the Gambling Commission’s decision. Dunshea questioned both the transparency of the regulator’s decision-making and the evidence used to justify the introduction of the checks, arguing that not all of the material informing the decision had been published. He also called for a significant improvement in the commission’s engagement with stakeholders, suggesting communication throughout the process had fallen short of expectations.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
Those concerns appear to have resonated with MPs. In its letter, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee asked Gardner five detailed questions covering the evidence base supporting the financial risk assessments, the methodology employed in reaching the decision, and the commission’s assessment of the likely impact on both consumers and the gambling industry. The committee also requested greater clarity over how implementation groups would operate and who would be selected to participate in them.
Particular attention was given to reports that representatives from British racing would not have a seat at the table during the implementation phase. The committee asked the Gambling Commission to explain the rationale behind any decision to exclude racing from those groups and to set out how the industry’s views would instead be incorporated into the development of the new regime. Given the close financial relationship between betting and horseracing, the issue is likely to remain a major point of contention as implementation progresses.
The letter also highlighted wider concerns over stakeholder engagement. Gardner was informed that the committee had heard from several interested parties who believed the Gambling Commission’s consultation and communication throughout the process had been inadequate. MPs requested an explanation of how the regulator had engaged with affected industries and sought reassurance that all relevant sectors would continue to have meaningful opportunities to contribute before the assessments are fully introduced.
The committee’s decision to intervene is likely to increase pressure on the Gambling Commission to demonstrate that the reforms have been developed on a robust evidence base while maintaining confidence among industries that will be directly affected by the changes. Racing has consistently argued that betting turnover is a vital source of income for the sport through media rights and the statutory levy, and industry leaders have warned that any reduction in betting activity could have serious economic consequences across racecourses, owners, trainers, breeders and stable staff.
The Gambling Commission has maintained that the financial risk assessments have been designed to identify only those customers whose gambling activity may indicate financial vulnerability, while minimising disruption for the vast majority of bettors. Regulators argue that technological advances will allow many of the checks to be carried out seamlessly without requiring customers to provide additional documentation. Nevertheless, critics remain sceptical about both the practical operation of the system and the potential unintended consequences if customers choose to move their betting activity to unlicensed operators that fall outside UK regulation.
Dame Caroline Dinenage, the Conservative MP who chairs the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, sought to strike a balance between consumer protection and safeguarding the economic contribution of the gambling sector. She acknowledged the importance of ensuring that individuals at risk of gambling-related debt receive appropriate support but emphasised that any regulatory changes must also recognise the industry’s wider economic significance.
“It’s important that people at risk of gambling-related debt receive appropriate support,” Dinenage said. “At the same time, any regulatory change must recognise the significant economic contribution made by the industry.”
She added that the Gambling Commission must provide greater clarity over how the new assessments will operate in practice and urged the regulator to work closely with bookmakers during implementation to ensure that new obligations do not place unnecessary burdens on responsible operators.
“The Gambling Commission needs to be clear about how the assessments will work and should work closely with bookmakers to ensure new obligations do not impose undue burdens on responsible businesses,” she said.
The committee’s intervention comes at a particularly sensitive moment for the regulator, with the implementation phase now set to begin following its long-awaited decision. While the Gambling Commission has sought to reassure the industry that the checks will be proportionate and evidence-led, opposition from racing shows little sign of easing. Industry leaders continue to argue that greater transparency is needed over the evidence supporting the policy and have called for closer collaboration between regulators and those whose businesses will be directly affected.
Whether the committee’s questions lead to any changes in the implementation process remains to be seen. However, the decision by MPs to seek formal answers from the Gambling Commission represents a significant development in the debate and underscores the political scrutiny now surrounding the introduction of financial risk assessments. With concerns over stakeholder engagement, industry representation and the evidence base all now under examination, the regulator faces mounting pressure to demonstrate not only that the new system will protect consumers, but also that it has listened to the concerns of sectors that believe the reforms could fundamentally reshape the future of regulated betting in Britain.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar