Financial Risk Checks for Gambling

Stephen Crabb Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Carolyn Harris]

I totally agree. Anti-gambling is one thing that I am not. I am very fond of visiting the racetrack, as I am the bingo hall. My motive does not come from being anti-gambling. I want to protect vulnerable people.

The logical way forward would be to protect and proactively introduce affordability checks on anyone gambling larger sums. Those would not stop anyone who can afford it betting as much as they choose, but it would stop those who cannot. After carefully considering the evidence, the Government included a consultation on two forms of affordability checks in their proposals in the White Paper. The first would consist of background checks on those spending moderate levels, which would look at financial vulnerability. The proposed limits for the checks to be triggered would be a net loss of £125 within a month or £500 within a year.

The second would be a more enhanced check for those regularly spending higher levels, which might indicate a binge gambling problem. The proposed thresholds for them would be a £1,000 net loss within 24 hours and £2,000 within 90 days—halved for those aged between 18 and 24, given that that group has already been identified as being at greater risk of harm.

Although many have jumped to condemn the checks, it is important to be clear about who would be impacted by them. Recent research conducted by Dr Philip Newall from the University of Bristol and Dr David Zendle from the University of York using open banking data found that the unharmed gamblers have an average monthly spend of £16.41, compared with £208.91 for the highest risk group. That suggests that risk-free gamblers would very rarely trigger any affordability checks. If anything, the figures highlight the fact that the proposed thresholds are far too high and could be set at a lower level. To be clear, the initial background checks of financial vulnerability would be frictionless, using publicly available information such as credit reference data alongside negative indicators such as county court judgments and insolvency checks. The enhanced checks would initially use open banking, with more intrusive checks only being triggered further down the line.

It must also be put into perspective that the enhanced checks would be narrowly targeted to around 3% of the online gambling accounts affected. I can say at this point that it is the online accounts that are key. Online is where the most harm is taking place. It is where people—incredibly vulnerable people—can spend money they just do not have, with no intervention, with no contact with anyone that might notice a problem, and, until last week’s announcement, without limits. Online is causing harm at rates far in excess of any land-based venue, and it is important that we keep that in mind. The APPG’s focus has always been on that, and we have continually called for the likes of horseracing tracks and bingo halls to be considered separately in legislation.

For the 3% of affected online gambling accounts, the vast majority of checks would be frictionless. The Gambling Commission has already advocated for the focus of checks to be on publicly available data. Research suggests that only 0.3% of account holders would be subject to the level of checks that would require them to hand over any additional financial information. However, it seems that the smaller number of enhanced checks that would require consent on the part of the individual are being used as a scaremongering tactic to turn the debate on affordability into a controversial topic. Given that those checks have such a minimal impact, it is difficult to see why they have been contested so vehemently.

We know that the industry has stirred up the controversy by exaggerating the levels of intrusion and suggesting that the checks would drive gamblers to the black market. That loses sight of the whole point of the checks, which is to protect gamblers from harm by ensuring that they are spending within their means. Surely that is in the interest of the industry, which currently has a reputation for allowing those unable to control their gambling to gamble far in excess of what they can afford to spend.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making some strong points, and she has done some excellent work on this issue. When one talks to people who have lived and are living with serious gambling addictions, what comes across very strongly is the way they alter their behaviours to avoid accountability and scrutiny, to the point of using multiple identities. That being the case, is the hon. Lady confident that these kinds of checks, some of which will be intrusive, as she said herself, will drive the better outcomes we all hope to see?

[Carolyn Harris]

While we do not have all the answers now, that does not mean we should not do anything to protect those who are vulnerable. It is our responsibility to make sure that the system works to protect vulnerable gamblers.

It is ironic that this is the same industry that just a few years ago set out the three steps for responsible gambling, which included only gambling what is affordable —the same industry that still spends big bucks on “Safer Gambling” logos and promoting safer gambling week. It seems to be a case of talking the talk, but being totally unwilling to walk the walk and actually implement the measures that could protect the most vulnerable customers.

As I said at the beginning, we know that the vast majority of the 22.5 million people gambling in this country enjoy doing so safely and within their own limits. Nobody, least of all me, wants to prevent them from being able to do that. We have already established that the number of people who could trigger a check as a result of their spending, even if it is money they can afford to spend, is negligible. The argument against affordability checks is therefore very difficult to grasp, when a slight inconvenience for a very small number of people will protect many more.

The argument for affordability checks is comprehensive. It will stop those gripped by addiction from gambling more than they can afford. It will reduce the levels of harm we are seeing. It will protect the industry’s most vulnerable customers. Most importantly—and I say this because there are people in this room today who have lost children because of this addiction—it will save lives.