UKGC: No Data on Affordability Check Job Losses
FOI reveals regulator does not hold information on job impact in the racing industry, while disclosing senior management expenses.
A recent Freedom of Information request has revealed the UK Gambling Commission does not hold data on potential job losses in the horse racing industry resulting from its new financial risk checks. The regulator did, however, release two years of senior management expense data and pointed to its public register for gifts and hospitality.
Article Content
A Freedom of Information (FOI) request has revealed the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) does not hold data on the number of jobs that may be lost in the horse racing industry as a result of its new financial risk check policies.
The request, dated 9 April 2024, also sought details on senior management expenses and gifts, which the regulator provided or directed to public registers. However, the admission regarding job impact data is a significant finding for consumers and industry observers monitoring the effects of the UK Government's gambling reforms.
What the FOI Request Asked
A member of the public submitted a request to the UKGC asking for three specific pieces of information concerning the regulator's Chairman, CEO, and Executive Team:
- Itemised expense claims for the last two years.
- The number and type of gifts and hospitality ('freebies') accepted over the same period.
- The number of jobs expected to be lost in the racing industry due to the "Affordability Intrusion policy"—a term used by the requestor to describe the financial risk checks stemming from the Gambling Act Review White Paper.
The UKGC's Response and What It Reveals
The Commission provided a full disclosure on two points but confirmed it lacked the specific information requested on job losses.
Senior Expenses and Gifts
For the expense claims, the UKGC released a spreadsheet containing two years of data for its Senior Management Team. This demonstrates a level of financial transparency regarding the operational spending of its top executives.
Regarding gifts and hospitality, the regulator cited Section 21 of the FOIA, which exempts information that is already reasonably accessible elsewhere. It directed the requestor to its public Gifts and Hospitality Register, where all declarations over the value of £10 are recorded. This is standard practice for public bodies and provides a clear public record of potential influences.
A Data Gap on Job Impact
On the critical question of job losses in the racing industry, the UKGC's response was direct: "The Commission does not hold this information."
This is a notable admission. While the regulator is responsible for implementing the financial risk checks, it confirms that it does not possess its own internal data or forecasts specifically quantifying the policy's impact on employment within a key sector that derives significant funding from gambling.
In its response, the UKGC attempted to be helpful by pointing the requestor towards two other sources: its own consultation response published on 1 May 2024, which outlines plans for evaluating the impact of the changes, and the impact assessment published by the Government alongside the White Paper. This assessment provides a broader overview of expected impacts on the industry but does not contain the specific, granular data the FOI request sought.
Why This Matters for Consumers
The FOI response highlights a central tension in the ongoing debate over gambling reform. While the UKGC is moving forward with policies aimed at reducing gambling harm, critics, particularly from the horse racing industry, have voiced strong concerns about the potential economic consequences.
For consumers, this disclosure confirms that the body implementing these significant changes does not hold its own specific projections on the policy's effect on jobs in related industries. It underscores the reliance on broader government impact assessments and signals that the full economic fallout, a key concern for many stakeholders, is an area the regulator itself is not specifically quantifying.