Gambling ‘Financial Risk Checks’ Likely To Be Used Instead Of ‘Affordability Checks’

It is entirely possible that it is just a case of semantics, but the Gambling Minister, Paul Scully, has made a move to assuage the concerns of the Betting and Gaming Council by suggesting that ‘financial risk checks’ will be used on bettors rather than ‘affordability checks’ in the incoming white paper.

Speaking to the Annual General Meeting of the BGC towards the end of January, Scully, who is the Minister for Tech and the Digital Economy, made a suggestion that the forthcoming government White Paper into gambling will dial back on the nature of checks on customers.

The very phrase ‘affordability checks’ has become something of an issue for many in the industry, with the fear being that the government would put rules in place on how much someone can or cannot afford to gamble.

Instead, he said, a ‘one size fits all approach’ is not what they’re after, with ‘financial risk checks’ being a more accurate time that should be used. The government’s main concern, according to Scully, is that people that can ill afford even a small loss will be allowed to gamble if some sort of rules aren’t put in place.

What Is Someone’s Financial Risk?

Whilst speaking to the Betting and Gaming Council, Paul Scully was at pains to point out that the government is not looking for a ‘one size fits all approach’, so neither they nor the United Kingdom Gambling Commission will be looking to introduce one. He said, “It may be more accurate to call them ‘financial risk’ checks, checking that a higher than usual level of spend is not itself an indicator of harm.” Of course, quite what this means and what the difference is between the two things is anyone’s guess, up to and including Paul Scully.

When the White Paper is released at an unspecified time in the future, it seems likely that ‘financial risk checks’ will be the key phrase rather than ‘affordability checks’.

The idea seems to be that it doesn’t matter whether someone can afford to place a bet or not, it only matters whether they are putting their own or someone else’s finance at risk by getting involved in the world of betting. From the industry’s point of view, the concern was that intrusive checks on someone’s affordability might drive a punter towards the black market rather than using licensed sites.

Consultations Coming

The publication of the White Paper has been pushed back several times, not least of all because the former Prime Minister, Liz Truss, was out-lasted by a cabbage. Each new leader in Downing Street comes up with their own policies and ideas, with some of the ones put in place by previous incumbents being kicked down the road. The turmoil that has engulfed the Conservative and Unionist Party over the past year means that publishing the White Paper has not been on the top of the list of anyone’s priorities, but it does seem as if that is about to change.

The implication from Scully was that members of the industry would be receiving consultation engagements ‘in the coming months’. The goal is to ‘nail down’ the language as well as to ‘test the logistics’ for the various things that the UKGC is hoping to put in place when the review is published.

The likes of checks, design data safeguards and a framework around the notion of identifying and then addressing financial risk is all part of the White Paper. Land-based operators, meanwhile, could expect a meeting with the Minister in the coming weeks’, given their particular risk.

Anti-Gambling Groups Won’t Be Pleased

There has been a hope from some anti-gambling groups that the White Paper and the forthcoming review of the 2005 Gambling Act represents an opportunity to clamp down on some of the excesses that we’ve seen from the gambling industry in recent times.

Instead, it seems as though it will be the gambling industry as a whole that will be more pleased about what is likely to take place. During his speech, Scully suggested that the review is a chance for the stakeholders and policy makers to ‘build this country’s status as a world leader in gambling policy’.

Quite what that means isn’t clear, but the change of the language around affordability checks to appease those in the industry most concerned by the damage that such checks would do to their business seems to suggest that Scully is more interested in calming the nerves of the industry leaders than helping those that are most damaged by it. He said, “I also think ‘financial risk’ is a more appropriate term, as a consideration of financial circumstances can only ever reveal that one type of risk: financial.” Whether language changes alone will be enough to appease the industry remains unclear.

The Vulnerable Might Be Protected

The reality is that what the Minister has said to the Betting and Gaming Council is as clear as mud. To most, there doesn’t seem to be a huge difference between the idea of checking whether someone can afford to place the bets that they’re placing and whether they’re at financial risk by doing so. There are likely to remain some concerns for those within the industry that it is just a semantical alteration in order to make it seem like they’re listening, whilst those that want the government to crack down on the industry will be concerned that he appears to be cosying up to it.

The one thing that he did say that will give critics a slight reason for optimism is that the main aim of the government and the UKGC is to protect the vulnerable. Cases of ‘particularly vulnerable’ losers, who would be harmed by even the smallest loss, are those that they are looking to protect. As a result, checking whether someone is ‘financially stable’ enough to endure a loss within being ‘overly intrusive’ into their backgrounds is, it is hoped, likely to strike a better balance. Whether it is something that aims to please everyone and ends up pleasing no one remains to be seen.