Cookies on the Gambling Commission website

The Gambling Commission website uses cookies to make the site work better for you. Some of these cookies are essential to how the site functions and others are optional. Optional cookies help us remember your settings, measure your use of the site and personalise how we communicate with you. Any data collected is anonymised and we do not set optional cookies unless you consent.

Set cookie preferences

You've accepted all cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Skip to main content
  1. Home
  2. About us
  3. Publication scheme

19 June 2026 - Minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the Board of Commissioners

Minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the Board of Commissioners, 19 June 2026.

08:30 Remote via Teams.

Commissioners:

  • Charles Counsell (Interim Chair)
  • Lloydette Bai-Marrow
  • Helen Dodds
  • Sheree Howard (from item 15 onwards)
  • Claudia Mortimore
  • David Rossington

Executive team:

  • Katharine Diamond
  • Sarah Gardner
  • Natasha Harris
  • Tim Miller
  • Sue Young.

In attendance:

  • REDACTED
  • Sarah Fox, Deputy Director, Gambling and Lotteries, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) (item 15 only) Emma Ward, Director General, DCMS (item 15 only) REDACTED

Apologies:

  • Helen Gibson
  • Helen Phillips
  • Alistair Quigley
  • John Tanner

1. Welcome, apologies and declarations of interest

The Chair welcomed attendees to the meeting

Apologies were received from Helen Gibson, Helen Phillips, Alistair Quigley and John Tanner.

Helen Dodds declared a new interest. From June 2026, Helen has become a member of the International Advisory Board of the UK-Ukraine English Law Forum.

2. Financial Risk Assessments (FRAs)

Board was asked to consider the May Board paper and annexes along with the additional information provided for the June 2026 meeting.

Board was asked to:

a. review the overview of the evidence and the recommendations on whether and, if so, how to introduce financial risk assessments in the long term as set out in this paper and the accompanying Annexes.

b. approve the recommendations for staged implementation.

c. approve the strategic approach to Stage 1.

d. approve the communication approach, as well as the recommended approach to assurances to industry on enforcement during Stage 1.

REDACTED

REDACTED

Board discussed the papers – firstly the substantive matters for decision and then the communications and engagement approach, and raised a number of questions.

Board asked about the views of operators who have suggested that FRAs are not required because of the introduction of other measures.

REDACTED

The Interim Chair reflected that a key principle here is that there is a group of people at risk, and there is no other measure which is identifying or could identify all of these people.

REDACTED

Ultimately, if an operator has identified a customer in financial difficulties, proportionate action to support them is appropriate for any operator.

In respect of the effect on revenue to Treasury, Board noted that it is not the role of the Commission to assess potential tax revenue impact and that the White Paper acknowledged this impact in setting out the policy direction.

REDACTED

There are individuals and potential harms which will not be identified through FRAs because customer behaviours do not result in the need for checks. It is a combination of financial risk with high spend which is being targeted here.

Board asked about the support post identification of risk and the Commission’s role in articulating detail or supporting operators on the actions they need to take.

REDACTED

REDACTED

Board were reminded of the duty at all times on the operator to comply with the licence conditions, including management of risks in line with their own business. Financial risk assessments would be additional information that helps them to identify vulnerable customers and to know their customers better. It is an individual case and decision for the operator – but that is the existing requirement.

REDACTED

Board recognised the overriding objective to protect the vulnerable as the key driver for the decision. There is a need to ensure that there is meaningful data on the impact, costs, and to take a flexible approach to addressing new issues as they arise.

REDACTED

REDACTED

DECISION

Having reviewed the overview of the evidence and the recommendations

REDACTED

the Board:

a. approved the recommendations for staged implementation.

b. approved the strategic approach to Stage 1.

c. approved the communication approach, as well as the recommended approach to assurances to industry on enforcement during Stage 1.

The Board decided that differential thresholds should apply at Stage 1, and to apply a reduction to the thresholds for both consumers under 25 and those returning from a period of self-exclusion of £2,500 for young adults and those customers returning from a period of self-exclusion.

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

3. Communications

REDACTED

Board noted the following comments on communications and engagement:

Board noted the importance of stakeholder engagement and management of communications, including considering the consumer perspective to set out a balanced argument.

Board took assurance that different stakeholder groups have been considered in the wider communications plan.

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

Meeting closed 9.34am

Is this page useful?
Back to top