'A clear abdication of duty' - BHA CEO slams government over affordability checks and says decision is 'self-harm on an immense scale'

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

BHA chief executive Brant Dunshea has accused the government of abdicating responsibility for the introduction of affordability checks, which he warned will have "severe financial implications for British racing".

The Betting & Gaming Council (BGC) also voiced its disappointment and frustration that the Gambling Commission had decided to press ahead with the checks on punters, despite serious concerns raised about their reliability following a pilot which began in 2024.

On Tuesday morning, the Gambling Commission finally confirmed the long-awaited news that the checks, also known as financial risk assessments, would be implemented, claiming they would remove the need for "unnecessary and unpopular document checks".

When the measures were included in the last government's gambling white paper, analysis by independent consultants Regulus Partners estimated the policy would cost the racing industry £250 million in lost revenues over five years. 

The BGC has also claimed the measures will result in around 120,000 racing punters being subject to the checks, including requests for personal financial information such as P60s and pay slips, due to inconsistent results returned from the credit reference agencies (CRAs) involved.

Dunshea said: "We are hugely disappointed that the Gambling Commission will implement affordability checks which will have severe financial implications for British racing and the UK economy and subject racing bettors to unwarranted levels of intrusion."

• Controversial affordability checks on punters given green light by Gambling Commission despite opposition from racing and bookmakers 

The governing body's chief executive said the BHA had engaged in a "spirit of huge goodwill" to advise the government about the potential impact this policy would have on British racing and its fanbase.

Dunshea warned the checks would have the opposite effect to protecting customers and would instead drive some to the illegal market. 

He said evidence from elsewhere in the world showed the decision was "one of self-harm on an immense scale that will have damaging economic and societal implications". 

Dunshea added: "For this decision to be taken unilaterally by the Gambling Commission shows a clear abdication of duty by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which has failed to grip this process or properly consider the damaging consequences of the decision.

"A policy decision of this magnitude needed to receive parliamentary scrutiny, especially when other policies from the 2023 gambling white paper were passed via legislative routes.

"Sadly, this is the latest in a long chain of events that shows how little the DCMS has done for the country’s second favourite sport. This includes its failure to reform the horserace betting levy, despite clear evidence that demonstrates British racing needs a higher annual yield to remain internationally competitive. This has all been at a time when we see other governments around the world committing significant effort and resource to promoting their horseracing industries."

Online turnover on racing since 2017-18

Dunshea said the checks should not be implemented until issues such as the inconsistency in the results from CRAs and the failure to publish key evidence surrounding the checks, such as an independent review carried out by researchers NatCen, were resolved.

He added: "We will now seek to work with the DCMS, the Gambling Commission and the betting industry to find ways to mitigate the worst impacts of this policy. 

"The former has repeatedly insisted that this policy, in light of the severe loss of turnover that British racing has already experienced due to ongoing document checks, will be better for our industry. 

"It is very clear that, once implemented, an independent evaluation of this policy will be required to see whether that has indeed been the case."

The Gambling Commission said the checks would be introduced in stages and with higher thresholds, initially, than was originally planned.

Grainne Hurst: "The commission has failed to address the fundamental issues"

However, BGC chief executive Grainne Hurst said the delays to implementation and raised thresholds were "clear recognition that the concerns raised by the BGC and others were well founded".

She added: "Unfortunately, the central issues around reliability, consumer impact and the practical operation of these checks remain unresolved.

"The commission has failed to address the fundamental issues identified during its own pilot. It has not demonstrated that the data underpinning these checks is accurate, reliable or consistent enough to support regulatory decisions affecting customers."

Hurst also raised concerns that the full evaluation of the pilot had not been published, "so neither the industry nor the public has seen the evidence needed to justify introducing these checks".

She added: "These checks cannot be described as genuinely frictionless if they produce unreliable outcomes, lead to unnecessary account restrictions or ultimately result in customers being asked to provide documents or open banking information.

"While the commission has announced implementation groups, it has given no indication that they will resolve the outstanding questions around reliability, consumer impact and how the system will operate in practice."

Read these next:

Controversial affordability checks on punters given green light by Gambling Commission despite opposition from racing and bookmakers 

Lack of parliamentary scrutiny of affordability checks 'beggars belief', says BHA 

Decision on affordability checks discussed at Gambling Commission board meeting 

Sign up to receive On The Nose, our essential daily newsletter, from the Racing Post. Your unmissable morning feed, direct to your email inbox every morning.