Gambling Expert Quits UK Government Role Over Affordability Checks

A gambling expert has quit his advisory position with the Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS), flagging shortcomings with the United Kingdom Gambling Commission’s (UKGC) affordability checks. Dr James Noyes, a policy researcher at a leading think tank, the Social Market Foundation (SMF), claimed he had no choice but to stand down from the Gambling Act Review Evaluation Advisory Group.

The UKGC is eager to roll out its controversial affordability checks, which are supposed to be “frictionless”. However, the financial risk assessments, as they are also known, could cost the British horseracing industry as much as £300 million over the next five years. Noyes is up in arms about it, insisting the measures haven’t been analysed properly.

More scrutiny needed

Previously an advocate for affordability checks, Noyes wrote to the Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy last month, requesting a pause to the introduction of the scheme. It has been suggested that the UKGC could approve the measure at its next board meeting on May 21, prompting widespread concerns within the betting industry.

Intriguingly, a YouGov poll, commissioned by the Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) last month, revealed that 65% of betting customers would not be willing to hand over personal information, such as pay slips or bank statements, to prove they could afford to place a wager. In a letter seen by The Sun, Noyes expressed his frustration over the policy, insisting that more scrutiny of the measures was needed.

He wrote: “As someone who was invited to give expert advice to this process, it astonishes me that we have a situation whereby controversial financial checks are being rolled out by the Gambling Commission before any meaningful and independent evaluation of this policy can be carried out. This is clearly unacceptable.

“I was very surprised that at no point during the meetings of the advisory group was there an opportunity to discuss the potential impact of these checks on consumer and operator behaviour, or critically, in terms of harm reduction. In the case of the Gambling Act review, and most notably financial risk assessments, this has not happened. Instead, we have a situation where there is confusion.”

An “outdated” measure

The light-touch vulnerability checks trialled by the UKGC were supposed to provide seamless checks for those punters spending £1,000 within 24 hours or £2,000 within 90 days. Noyes suggested that the data used to set the spending thresholds for affordability checks were perceived as “outdated”.

Moreover, Noyes raised inconsistencies in the findings provided by credit reference agencies while carrying out checks for the same customer. As such, the checks weren’t frictionless, and Noyes labelled them as “extremely detrimental” to racing.

BHA rally behind Noyes

Among the biggest affordability checks critics are the British Horseracing Authority (BHA), which has routinely claimed that the checks would see more bettors defect to black market operators. In response to Noyes’s resignation, the BHA backed the SMF’s Senior Fellow for taking a firm stand on the matter, reiterating the need for the scheme to be paused.

BHA CEO Brant Dunshea said: “We commend Dr Noyes for having the courage and principle to resign from this evaluation group over his concerns about his work. What increasingly appears to be an ideological desire to implement affordability checks is now impacting sound policymaking.

“We call on the DCMS to make the membership of this [advisory] group publicly available at the earliest opportunity and continue to urge the government to reconsider this misguided policy that will have clear unintended consequences for British racing.”