Commons Committee Presses UK Gambling Commission on Financial Risk Assessment Policy

Key Points

• The Culture, Media and Sport Committee has formally written to the Gambling Commission seeking clarity on its financial risk assessment (FRA) policy.
• Committee chair Dame Caroline Dinenage MP has posed five detailed questions to acting UKGC chief executive Sarah Gardner.
• FRAs will be introduced in phases, starting with checks on bettors over 25 who deposit more than £5,000 net within a rolling 24-hour period.
• No enforcement action will be taken against operators during the early implementation phase if they fail to act on an assessment.
• Full rollout will eventually trigger assessments at £1,000 net deposits within 24 hours or £3,000 within 90 days.
• The committee wants the Gambling Commission to publish its full dataset, evidence base and methodology behind the policy.
• Questions have been raised over whether the racing industry has been excluded from “implementation groups” shaping the next phase of FRAs.
• The Gambling Commission maintains that FRAs are distinct from affordability checks and will not cap or limit customer spending.
• The racing sector has strongly criticised the policy, citing analysis suggesting it could cost the industry around £250 million in lost revenue over five years.
• The Gambling Commission has been given until 24 July to respond to the committee’s letter.

London (Britain Today News) July 13, 2025 – The chair of the UK’s cross-party Culture, Media and Sport Committee has written to the acting chief executive of the Gambling Commission, demanding answers over the regulator’s decision to press ahead with financial risk assessments for gamblers, amid growing unease from parts of the betting and racing industries.

The letter, sent by committee chair Dame Caroline Dinenage MP to acting Gambling Commission chief executive Sarah Gardner, follows the regulator’s announcement last week that it would begin phasing in financial risk assessments (FRAs) across the industry. The move has reignited a long-running debate about the balance between consumer protection and the financial sustainability of British horseracing and the wider betting sector.

What has prompted the Commons committee to intervene?

The intervention comes directly after the Gambling Commission confirmed the phased introduction of FRAs, a policy that has been years in the making and subject to repeated delay following an earlier pilot scheme and subsequent analysis of its findings. With the regulator now moving from pilot to practical rollout, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee has stepped in to scrutinise how the decision was reached and what its consequences might be for both consumers and the industry at large.

Dame Caroline Dinenage said she was seeking to

“assist the committee’s understanding of the policy and its likely impact on consumers and industry,”

signalling that MPs want documented evidence behind the regulator’s approach before the scheme becomes further embedded.

Who is Dame Caroline Dinenage and what is the committee’s role?

Dame Caroline Dinenage MP chairs the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, a cross-party body of MPs whose responsibility, according to the Parliament.uk website, is

“to scrutinise the work of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and its associated public bodies.”

The Gambling Commission, as the statutory regulator of Britain’s betting and gaming industry, falls within that remit, giving the committee formal standing to question the regulator’s policymaking process.

By putting her questions in writing and requesting a response by a set deadline, Dinenage has placed the Gambling Commission under direct parliamentary pressure to justify both the substance and the process behind its FRA policy.

What exactly are financial risk assessments?

Financial risk assessments are checks designed to identify gamblers who may be spending at levels that put them at risk of financial harm. Under the scheme confirmed by the Gambling Commission last week, assessments will initially apply to customers of the industry’s largest operators who are aged over 25 and whose net deposits exceed £5,000 within any rolling 24-hour period.

Crucially, the regulator has stated that during the early stages of implementation, it will not take enforcement action against operators who fail to act following an assessment, giving the industry a degree of breathing room as the system beds in.

UKGC director of major policy projects and evaluation Helen Rhodes explained the rationale behind the policy earlier this year, stating:

“Financial Risk Assessments are a proposed way of identifying high-spending remote gambling customers who may be in financial difficulties, in order to help support them.”

She added:

“This is not an ‘affordability check’ as the check proposed would make no assessment of a customer’s income or how much an individual could afford to gamble. There are no proposals or plans to introduce affordability checks.”

When will FRAs be introduced and how will they be phased in?

The current phase, targeting deposits above £5,000 net within 24 hours for customers over 25, represents only the starting point of a broader rollout. Once fully implemented, the thresholds will tighten considerably. Under the full scheme, assessments will be triggered when a customer’s net deposits total £1,000 within a 24-hour period, or £3,000 over a rolling 90-day period.

This staged approach follows a previous pilot study conducted by the Gambling Commission, the results of which were analysed in detail before ministers and regulators agreed to proceed. That analysis process was itself a source of delay, pushing back the timeline for FRAs on multiple occasions before last week’s confirmation.

What questions has Dinenage asked the Gambling Commission?

In her letter, Dame Caroline Dinenage set out five specific questions for Sarah Gardner to address.

First, she asked whether the Commission will publish the full dataset, evidence base and methodology that informed its decision to proceed with FRAs and to set the proposed thresholds at their current levels.

Second, she requested an estimate of whether the new scheme will result in more or fewer recreational bettors being asked to provide documents or other financial information to operators, when compared with existing arrangements already in place.

Third, the letter asked the regulator to detail the consultations and other engagement activities it undertook with operators, consumers and other stakeholders throughout the process. This question was prompted by suggestions from some stakeholders that, in Dinenage’s words,

“engagement by the Gambling Commission throughout this process has been insufficient.”

Fourth, Dinenage’s letter raised the issue of “implementation groups” that are due to be established over the summer to support the next phase of FRA delivery. She asked how decisions have been made regarding participation in those groups, including what criteria were used to select which organisations and individuals would be invited to take part.

Why is the racing industry concerned about being excluded?

The fifth and final question in Dinenage’s letter addresses concerns raised directly with the committee by stakeholders, who say there

“may be no representation from the racing industry within these implementation groups.”

The letter continues:

“If this is the case, could you explain the rationale for that decision and how the Commission intends to ensure that the views of the racing sector are taken into account during implementation?”

This question reflects mounting frustration within British racing, an industry that relies heavily on betting turnover for funding through the levy system, and which has been among the most vocal critics of the FRA policy since its inception. Racing figures have long argued that any reduction in betting activity caused by financial checks would have a direct and disproportionate impact on the sport’s finances.

How has the Gambling Commission responded to accusations of affordability checks?

The Gambling Commission has consistently sought to separate FRAs from what it regards as a distinct and more restrictive concept: affordability checks. UKGC director of policy Ian Angus recently stated that FRAs are “not affordability checks by another name.”

Angus further clarified that the thresholds at which assessments are triggered will not limit or cap how much a customer can spend on gambling, framing the checks instead as a targeted mechanism to identify potential harm among the highest-spending customers rather than a blanket restriction on betting activity.

Despite this framing from the regulator, sections of the industry and media continue to use the terms “financial risk assessments” and “affordability checks” interchangeably, a conflation that has fuelled much of the ongoing controversy surrounding the policy.

What has the racing sector said about the financial impact of FRAs?

British racing has been unequivocal in its rejection of the policy, regardless of how it is labelled. Industry figures frequently refer to the checks as “affordability checks” in racing circles, underscoring the depth of scepticism towards the regulator’s terminology.

Central to racing’s objections is analysis produced by Regulus Partners, which the sector has repeatedly cited as evidence that the policy could cost racing an estimated £250 million in lost revenues over a five-year period. That figure has become a rallying point for racing bodies and betting-industry representatives who argue that reduced betting turnover, driven by friction from financial checks, would directly diminish the funding that flows back into the sport.
Explore More about Politics:
University of Aberdeen Investigates Staff Member Over Ann Widdecombe Death Comments
Government Urged to Reconsider Removing Local Authorities from ICBs

What happens next in this process?

Dame Caroline Dinenage has requested a formal reply from the Gambling Commission by 24 July, giving the regulator a limited window to prepare detailed answers to all five questions. How comprehensively the Commission responds, particularly on the question of racing’s representation within implementation groups, is likely to shape the tone of the relationship between Parliament, the regulator and the racing industry as the FRA scheme progresses toward full rollout.

The committee’s intervention adds a further layer of scrutiny to a policy that has already taken years to reach implementation, and suggests that MPs intend to keep a close watch on how the Gambling Commission manages both the practical rollout of financial risk assessments and its engagement with affected industries.

What could this mean for gamblers and the gambling industry?

For gamblers, the immediate practical effect of the current phase is limited to the highest-spending customers of the largest operators, specifically those over 25 who make net deposits exceeding £5,000 within a 24-hour period. As the scheme progresses towards its fully implemented thresholds of £1,000 within 24 hours or £3,000 within 90 days, a considerably larger pool of bettors is likely to fall within scope.

For the wider industry, and racing in particular, the coming months are likely to prove pivotal. With enforcement action withheld during the early implementation phase, operators have some short-term flexibility, but the long-term thresholds set out by the Gambling Commission indicate that financial risk assessments will become a routine feature of high-value betting activity in Britain. Whether racing secures a seat at the table in shaping how that system is implemented may depend heavily on how the Gambling Commission responds to Dame Caroline Dinenage’s letter by the end of July.