Andrew Rhodes, the Gambling Commission’s (UKGC) chief executive, has defended the regulator’s work in the face of an increasingly acrimonious national conversation.
In a speech to industry executives, Rhodes noted how polarised the debate around gambling has become in the UK, highlighting the body’s previous work in challenging “misrepresented statistics”.
“Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but some of what has gone on has been an unedifying sight and I am not sure is helping anyone,” he said.
As such, the Commission chief said he was committed to having difficult conversations with industry.
As part of this, Rhodes called for a more “grown-up relationship” with the sector. He argued this involves being transparent about important issues and taking a collaborative approach in addressing them.
Debate around affordability checks rages on
Certain aspects of the governments planned reform of the gambling industry, as laid out in April’s Gambling Act review white paper have been subject to controversy.
A particular flashpoint has been the imposition of affordability checks. The Commission has said light checks will trigger at a £125 net loss over 30 days, with more rigorous credit checks to kick in for customers spending £1,000 in a 24-hour period.
Much of the debate has centred around the UK racing industry, which depends heavily on gambling income. Some campaigners are sceptical the checks will be truly “frictionless” as promised by the government.
A petition launched by the head of the Jockey Club to halt the introduction of affordability checks has reached 77,000 signatures as of 10 November.
Rhodes argued the debate around horse racing has become “exceptionally difficult and sometimes very bitter”.
He cautioned that the regulator would not give the horse racing sector special treatment.
“It is not the job of the Gambling Commission to consider or advise on the wider implications for any given sport – that is the role of DCMS,” he said.
“However, that doesn’t mean the Commission does not therefore consider what is proportionate or is indifferent.”
To this end he highlighted the Patterns of Play research highlighting that horse racing betting receives disproportionate revenue from a small group of customers, even more so than other forms of sports betting.
“The current campaign from many in the horseracing industry is to petition that there should be no checks at all on how affordable someone’s gambling is on horseracing,” he said.
“This is a point of principle disagreement – it does not matter whether checks are frictionless or not, the point of the argument is there should be no checks at all.
“The call being made here is for unlimited and, quite literally, unchecked gambling losses on a sport, to support the growth and continuation of that sport.”
Rhodes ultimately rejected the arguments from the racing industry, suggesting that the industry was only in this situation because there have been too many egregious cases in the past.
“Socially and politically unacceptable”
These stories, he said, have become “socially and politically unacceptable” as such enforcement action escalated and ultimately a line was drawn.
“A year ago I set out, at a high level, how I wanted our relationship to work,” said Rhodes. “There is an unavoidable and inescapable tension between the regulator and the regulated. However, that does not need to be adversarial as a point of principle.
“Compliance is non-negotiable and having a better relationship, a more constructive mutual relationship, does not mean standards drop. It can mean, however, we navigate difficult things in a better way and that is very much my intention.”
