The Culture, Media and Sport (CMS) Committee has written to the UK Gambling Commission seeking clarification over its decision to introduce affordability checks, amid industry concerns about the implementation process and the apparent lack of racing industry representation.
In its letter to Gambling Commission Acting Chief Executive Sarah Gardner, the committee asked the Commission to publish the full dataset, evidence base and methodology used to support the policy and determine the proposed thresholds.
It also sought clarification on whether the new checks would result in more or fewer recreational bettors being asked to provide financial documents compared with the current system.
The committee questioned the Commission’s engagement with operators, consumers, sporting bodies and other stakeholders after being told the consultation process had been “insufficient.”
MPs also requested details of the implementation groups being established to oversee the rollout of the checks, including how members would be selected and which organisations would be represented.
The letter further asked the Commission to explain reports that the racing industry will not be represented on the implementation groups and how the sector’s views will be taken into account during implementation.
CMS Committee Chair Dame Caroline Dinenage MP said it is important that people at risk of gambling-related debt receive appropriate support. However, she stressed that any regulatory changes must also recognise the gambling industry’s significant economic contribution.
“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 in a statement.
The British Horseracing Authority’s Chief Executive, Brant Dunshea, had earlier criticised the decision to introduce the checks, saying he was “hugely disappointed” by the Commission’s approval, the Racing Post reported.
He also questioned the transparency of the process, claiming not all of the evidence underpinning the decision had been published, and urged the regulator to improve its engagement and communication with industry stakeholders.