Who are the Gambling Commission board members responsible for Thursday's crucial affordability checks decision?

Click here to add us to your Google preferred sources or find out more here

The commissioners of the Gambling Commission board are due to meet on Thursday to discuss the recommendations of their executive with regard to moving from pilot phase to the full implementation of affordability checks.

Plentiful evidence has emerged that the pilot scheme has not lived up to government promises that it will be frictionless for the consumer, while there have been instances where the three credit reference agencies used to trial financial risk assessments , as they have been termed by the regulator, have turned up different results for the same customer. 

Last week, the Gambling Commission's executive director of research and policy, Tim Miller, told a conference that the checks could be evaluated properly only "in the real world", the broadest hint yet that problems with the pilot scheme will not prevent the board signing off on the wider rollout on Thursday. 

But is the current composition of that board of commissioners one that should inspire confidence that all the intricacies of such a pivotal decision will be taken into account? 

Betfair founder and leading racehorse breeder Andrew Black believes there are serious questions to be answered as to why an organisation with such broad powers to regulate the industry appears to lack relevant experience in the sector.

"To me, the Gambling Commission is a completely inappropriate body for one which has the power that it has, because it is made up of the wrong people," says Black. 

"We, the gambling industry – and associated industries – are completely unrepresented on that board. What you have is people who are in complete ideological alignment with each other, not one of whom has any background in our industry.

"They have the power to regulate the industry and to fine anyone at will. They have extraordinary executive power, and the government is taking their recommendations as you would take a considered recommendation from a balanced group, and that is not what it is."

Andrew Black: Betfair co-founder has been critical of the composition of the Gambling Commission boardCredit: Edward Whitaker (racingpost.com/photos)

The Gambling Commission is one of a host of government-adjacent agencies that both inform policy-making and enact regulations for their chosen sector. 

They are often labelled as 'quangos' (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations), and successive waves of government reforms from administrations of both stripes have led to a diversification of the types of agencies that inhabit the sector, which now comes under the all-encompassing term of 'arm's-length bodies', or ALBs. 

Drawing a comparison with the regulator in the financial services industry, Black says that the lack of sector-specific knowledge of the gambling industry is a key weakness in the composition of the board of an agency which currently has interims as both chair and chief executive.

He says: "The FCA [Financial Conduct Authority] is the most analogous body that I can think of to us, one that regulates an industry and has that full executive power to fine anyone any amount of money for doing something that they see falls outside of best behaviour, in the same way as the Gambling Commission does.

"As a regulator, the FCA has eight individuals on the board of ten who have worked or still work in the financial industry. That, to me, is normal. 

"Then you have a lawyer to make sure that everything is done legally, and a civil servant who is there to make sure that all of the users of those products are properly considered. That, to me, is a good balance for a regulator, because among that group they can understand all of the relevant issues, to make sure that the industry is well regulated and looked after properly.

"We have [when a full board sits] ten people, all of whom come at it from the same perspective. Every single one of them comes at it from the perspective of the problem gambler. 

"The problem gambler is the only person represented on the board of that regulator, and that’s extraordinary and very wrong."

Black continues: "This is not the constitution of a regulator, this is the board constitution of a lobby group, or a sub-committee.

"We have to recognise this, and we should be saying to the government that they have to understand that this is not a fair or balanced opinion that’s coming to them, because the group that has put it together is not a balanced group.

"That needs to be seen and recognised and understood, because if we don’t see and recognise and understand that problem, then we’re never going to get out of this. 

"They are not a regulator, they are our executioner."

Who are the commissioners on the Gambling Commission board?

The CVs of the commissioners who currently sit on the Gambling Commission board – there are two vacancies – make for impressive reading, with high achievement in each one's chosen profession followed by broad experience of non-executive roles, many in the regulatory sphere.

But it's hard to argue with Black's basic assertion that, with the exception of former civil servant David Rossington, none has much experience of the gambling industry, while none has worked in the sector, as is the case with other regulators such as the FCA.

Charles Counsell (acting chair)
Career has been focused on delivering change programmes across the private and public sectors. Has been chief executive of both the Money Advice Service and the Pensions Regulator.

Claudia Mortimore
25 years' experience in criminal law, specialising in drugs, tax, money laundering and fraud.

David Rossington
Former senior civil servant within the DCMS with extensive knowledge of gambling policy and the National Lottery.

Helen Dodds
International lawyer, consultant and board member; former global head of legal at Standard Chartered Bank.

Helen Phillips
Former senior regulator at the Environment Agency; long list of non-executive board work includes Legal Services Board, Social Work England and Chartered Insurance Institute.

Lloydette Bai-Marrow
Anti-corruption expert and economic crime lawyer; formerly worked for Serious Fraud Office, HMRC and Crown Prosecution Service; chair of Spotlight on Corruption.

Sheree Howard
Executive director at the Financial Conduct Authority, fellow of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries.

The Racing Post put Black's criticisms of the board composition to the Gambling Commission, and a spokesperson supplied the following defence:

"Our independent commissioners are appointed by the secretary of state for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

"Our board brings experience and knowledge from a wide range of sectors to set and oversee the corporate strategy and help us ensure gambling is fair and safe.

"In addition, the Commission has an Industry Forum which provides us with insight into the views of industry about the Commission's plans, the quality of Commission services, and the wider environment in which gambling operators work."

How does the Gambling Commission stack up against other regulators?

Though non-aligned with any political party, the Institute of Economic Affairs is a free-market think tank which seeks to promote the economic liberalism first written about by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, and at least partly applied in government by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. 

The IEA's head of lifestyle economics, Dr Christopher Snowdon, says that while the Gambling Commission's reliance on non-practitioners is not unique in the regulatory sphere, it is very much at one end of the spectrum compared to many other agencies.

Dr Christopher Snowdon: 'The Gambling Commission is very keen on lived experience, as long as they’ve had a negative experience'Credit: Institute of Economic Affairs

Snowdon said: "In other bodies, such as the Advertising Standards Authority or the Financial Conduct Authority, you would expect to see people who have experience working in that business, in those relevant industries. It wouldn’t be seen as a conflict of interest. 

"But because gambling has been repositioned as a public health issue, you tend to have this idea that anyone who’s ever been involved in gambling is barred, and anyone who’s ever gambled is suspect.

"If you look at Public Health England – which is now the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities – you wouldn’t get anyone with experience of the alcohol industry working in their alcohol office. That would be considered a horrendous conflict of interest. Whether that produces good policy is a different question. 

"But the Gambling Commission used to have more people who have what is now called lived experience. The Gambling Commission is very keen on lived experience, as long as they’ve had a negative experience. I don’t think that’s improved things, and I think Andrew Black’s basic point is right. 

"It’s not the only agency of that kind which doesn't have people within it who understand the particular business, but I would say it’s one of a small number."

Snowdon also believes that the Gambling Commission's relentless concentration on measures it believes will reduce levels of gambling harm comes at the cost of considering the ability of the industry to function, let alone thrive.

"Everything the Gambling Commission does is focused on gambling-related harms," says Snowdon. "It’s a perfectly legitimate thing to be focused on; it’s within its mandate. But within its mandate is also helping the industry to prosper, and it doesn’t seem very interested in that side of it. 

"One of the big differences between the Gambling Commission and most other quangos – not all of them but most – is that the other bodies tend to be engaged with enforcing well-established rules and laws. The Gambling Commission seems to be making it up as it goes along."

On Thursday, the Gambling Commission's board, with enormously varied experience of the law, banking, crime enforcement and the application of public policy – but very little direct knowledge of gambling or the gambling industry – will discuss whether to press ahead with the implementation of affordability checks.

Checks which could cost the horseracing industry an estimated £250m in lost income over the first five years, as well as driving increasing numbers of consumers to unregulated black market betting sites which contribute to neither the UK exchequer nor the racing industry, and which have no interest in protecting them as bettors and no hesitation in exploiting anyone who is vulnerable to gambling harm. 

Read these next:

Glacial progress, substantial problems and no evaluation - why there are huge concerns about the affordability checks pilot 

Racecourse MPs slam insufficient scrutiny and lack of transparency as they urge a halt to introduction of 'damaging' affordability checks 

Bookmakers threaten legal challenge to affordability checks that could mean one in five regular punters are asked for financial documents 

Looking for free bets? Racing Post have got the best offers, all in one place. Visit racingpost.com/freebets to find out more.