Philp States “Proportionate” Affordability Checks
The Gambling Minister has said affordability checks are to be “proportionate” and refused to commit to a proposed £100 limit while speaking in the House of Commons.
Gambling Minister Refuses to Commit to £100 Gambling limit © Pixabay.
The UK’s Gambling Minister Chris Philp has said that affordability checks will be “proportionate and pitched at the right level”. The MP was speaking in a House of Commons debate following the death of Jack Ritchie, a teacher who took his own life due to gambling addiction.
Philp said: “The evidence that we have seen makes the case that we need to go significantly further to make sure that people are appropriately protected.
“I know that all of us in this House will be profoundly and powerfully conscious of our duty and our obligation to protect young people,” the Conservative MP added.
When asked what amount the affordability amount should be per person if introduced as part of the government’s review of current gambling laws, Philp would not be drawn into specifying an amount.
In the debate, Labour MP Paul Blomfield quoted research from the Social Media Foundation, a leading cross-party think-tank, who called on the government to set a £100 limit.
Responding to Blomfield’s call, Philp said: “Affordability checks need to be proportionate and pitched at the right level, but they have a really important role in making sure that some of the situations that I have mentioned, and situations like Jack Ritchie’s, do not occur.
“The data is available if operators properly use it and if the Gambling Commission has proper access to it to deliver that result. That should be a very significant area of attention in the gambling act review that is coming up very shortly,” he added.
It is not the first time that Philp has dismissed the idea of a £100 limit. In December last year, the Gambling Minister spoke at the GambleAware annual conference.
He said: “As the Commission has said, demanding payslips or bank statements from every customer spending £100 or so is likely to be unwelcome, disruptive and disproportionate to the risks. But there is a level that is appropriate,”
However, he would not disclose what he believed is sensible, although industry insiders believe he favours a low four-figure number, over ten times the amount that campaigners are calling for.
At the GambleAware conference, he stated his belief that more intrusive checks should be made the higher the spend on gambling and also said he wanted companies to use the data that operators have on customers to reduce harm.
“I am really keen to explore the role of technology and available data, such as that held by credit reference agencies, to make these sorts of checks work smoothly in a way that is acceptable to customers. At high levels of gambling, more intrusive checks are appropriate.
“Checks based on spend and financial circumstances must supplement rather than supersede all the existing requirements on operators to monitor play data, identify risk and intervene accordingly.”, added Philp.
At the House of Commons debate, he expressed his view that some gambling verticals are “significantly more risky than others” and hinted that these games would be targeted in the review.
“Clearly, a great deal has changed in the 17 years since 2005 when that act was passed, not least the explosion of internet gambling.
“The nature of the online games, the fact that people can access them 24/7, the fact that frequency of play is very high, and the look and feel of some of the features make them significantly more risky than other forms of gambling, such as gambling in person at a racecourse, playing bingo or playing the National Lottery.
“All those things can be addictive, but the online games have a much higher risk,” he added.
