Stop the implementation of betting affordability/financial risk checks
This petition gathered 103,537 signatures between 1 November 2023 and 1 May 2024, according to the Parliament petitions site. The Government responded on 16 November 2023. MPs debated it in Westminster Hall on 26 February 2024.
The petition
The petition's creator is not named in the Petitions site's published record. Quoted in full from the UK Parliament petitions site.
Stop the implementation of betting affordability/financial risk checks
We want the Government to abandon the planned implementation of affordability checks for some people who want to place a bet. We believe such checks – which could include assessing whether people are ‘at risk of harm' based on their postcode or job title – are inappropriate and discriminatory.
The proposed checks could see bettors having to prove they can afford their hobby if they sustain losses as low as £1.37 per day. We accept the need to help those with problem gambling but more intrusive checks triggered at a higher threshold risks bettors moving to the black market where there are no consumer protections or safer gambling tools. We are concerned there will also be a negative impact on British horseracing’s finances due to a reduction in betting turnover and resulting fall in Levy yield.
The Government's response
The Government published its response on 16 November 2023; the petitions site lists the Department for Culture, Media and Sport as responsible. Its summary:
We are committed to a proportionate, frictionless system of financial risk checks, to protect those at risk of harm without over regulating. The Gambling Commission will set out plans in due course.
The opening 290 words of the 708-word response:
The government and Gambling Commission recognise concerns some have with the proposed system of financial risk checks for the highest spending online customers to help identify and tackle gambling related harm. We share the goals that the checks should not overregulate the gambling sector, should not unduly disrupt the millions of people who gamble without suffering harm, and should not cause unnecessary damage to sectors which rely on betting, in particular horseracing. The government is a strong supporter of horseracing, and recognises that it is not the job of either the government or the Gambling Commission to tell people how to spend their money. As outlined in the gambling white paper we are seeking to balance this freedom with the necessary action to tackle the devastating consequences which harmful gambling can have for individuals and communities.
Importantly, the proposals will represent a significant improvement for both businesses and customers compared to the current situation. While the Gambling Commission does not currently have specific requirements or thresholds, we know that operators are applying inconsistent ‘affordability’ checks on a number of customers, often without being clear on why the checks are happening, and normally requiring customers to provide data manually. We have challenged operators to be more transparent with customers in the interim, but the proposed system will be a significant improvement in having clear and proportionate rules which all operators are held to, and allowing for financial data to be shared seamlessly with operators instead of burdening customers with information requests. Both the government and the Gambling Commission have been clear that we would not mandate the checks proposed in the consultation until we are sure that they will be frictionless for the vast majority of customers who would be checked.
Read the full response on the petitions site.
Where the signatures came from
Signatures came from 650 constituencies on the boundaries used until the 2024 general election. The largest number, 1,241, came from West Suffolk.
102,575 of the signatures were from the UK and 962 from elsewhere, by the location signers gave.
| Constituency | Signatures |
|---|---|
| West Suffolk | 1,241 |
| Newbury | 830 |
| The Cotswolds | 746 |
| South East Cambridgeshire | 667 |
| Thirsk and Malton | 657 |
| Tewkesbury | 545 |
| Richmond (Yorks) | 530 |
| Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk | 515 |
| Cheltenham | 492 |
| North West Hampshire | 414 |
| Region | Signatures |
|---|---|
| South East | 15,289 |
| North West | 12,164 |
| South West | 10,840 |
| East of England | 10,468 |
| Yorkshire and The Humber | 10,388 |
| West Midlands | 8,772 |
| Scotland | 8,407 |
| London | 7,767 |
| East Midlands | 6,643 |
| North East | 5,564 |
| Wales | 3,651 |
| Northern Ireland | 2,042 |
Debate in Parliament
MPs debated the petition in Westminster Hall on 26 February 2024. Read the debate in Hansard. House of Commons Library debate pack.
Source and receipt
- https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/649894.jsonUK Parliament Petitions API · read 2026-10-15 · SHA-256
4cd55cdf2e61c099… - The petition on petition.parliament.uk
The petition's words are its creator's and the response is the Government's; this site quotes both and gives no view on either. Signature counts can still change while a petition is open. To report an error, send a correction request.