The House of Commons culture, media and sport committee has written to the Gambling Commission asking for clear answers about its planned financial risk assessments by 24 July, adding fresh parliamentary scrutiny to a policy that has already drawn years of opposition from the racing industry. The issue sits at the centre of the affordability checks dispute, with the British Horseracing Authority saying the regulator’s latest move raises more questions than it answers.
Committee intervention adds pressure
Dame Caroline Dinenage, who chairs the committee, said it is important that people at risk of gambling-related debt receive appropriate support. She also said any regulatory change must recognise the significant economic contribution made by the industry.
She added that the Gambling Commission needs to be clear about how the assessments will work and should work closely with bookmakers to make sure new obligations do not place undue burdens on responsible businesses. The committee’s request for answers by 24 July means the Commission will now face closer scrutiny over how, and when, the checks will be introduced.
A long-running dispute
The checks were first proposed in late 2020 under the last Conservative government, and racing has opposed them ever since. The subject returned to Westminster in February 2024, when a parliamentary debate was triggered by an online petition that received more than 100,000 signatures.
Last Tuesday, the Gambling Commission said it planned to introduce financial risk assessments for gambling customers. Less than a week later, it said the move would be staged, but it did not give a precise timeline. That lack of detail has become a key frustration for critics, especially after a five-and-a-half-year campaign around the policy.
What the BHA says
Brant Dunshea described the Commission’s approach as unilateral and called it a clear abdication of duty by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, saying the department had failed to grip the process or properly consider the damaging consequences of the decision.
He also argued that rather than protecting consumers, the checks would have the opposite effect by driving more customers to the illegal market, increasing the risk of gambling-related harm and starving the Treasury of much needed tax revenue. For the BHA, that is why the debate has not faded: it sees the policy as harmful to both racing and the wider gambling framework.
With the committee now demanding answers by 24 July, the Gambling Commission faces a tighter political spotlight as it tries to explain how the affordability checks will work in practice and what comes next.
