Sarah Fox's secondment from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to the Gambling Commission occurs at a particularly turbulent time for the regulator. With four years of experience heading the DCMS's gambling and lotteries team, Fox will now join the Commission’s executive team, where she will oversee policy, research, statistics, and National Lottery regulation. Her appointment comes in the wake of executive director Tim Miller's departure and just three months after Andrew Rhodes resigned as chief executive.
Currently, acting chief executive Sarah Gardner is at the helm while the Commission grapples with rising scrutiny regarding its evidence, industry engagement, and its role in translating the gambling white paper into actionable policy.
This context has led to speculation that Fox’s arrival signifies more than a simple strengthening of the executive team. As a senior official from the Commission’s sponsoring department, she possesses substantial insight into the regulator’s ongoing programs and the political decisions informing them.
Fox has been responsible for overseeing key elements of policy, including the gambling white paper and its implementation, the shift to the fourth National Lottery licence, society lotteries, and horse racing. Her extensive 23-year Civil Service career spans the Home Office, Cabinet Office, and Department of Health and Social Care.
Gardner highlighted the value of Fox's experience, stating it would be "invaluable" as the Commission works to finalize reforms posited in the white paper, assess their impacts, and safeguard National Lottery participants while maximizing benefits for good causes. Fox expressed enthusiasm for the opportunity to aid the regulator in its efforts.
Despite this strategic move, industry commentator Vaughan Lewis advised caution in interpreting Fox’s secondment as an indication that ministers intend to intervene in the Commission’s affairs. He remarked, "I’m not sure there is much evidence that the government is taking the criticism seriously. There are selected people within parliament for whom it is an issue, but they are still in the minority and remain outliers."
Lewis argued that the dynamics within the government might offer a more accurate explanation for Fox's move than any political push to assert control over the Commission. "I haven’t heard anything to suggest anyone is seriously considering taking this up as an issue," he noted. He further asserted that the situation seemed more related to civil service concerns regarding the flow of necessary paperwork and information.
Fox's appointment adds an experienced executive to the Commission amidst a period of senior personnel changes. However, it does not formally alter the regulator’s status or accountability, nor have DCMS or the Gambling Commission implied that her secondment is meant to change their direction.
Challenges persist, particularly in light of previous tensions between the Commission and both parliamentarians and horse racing representatives. The Culture, Media and Sport committee has sought clarification on financial risk assessments, including the rationale for their implementation and the Commission's engagement with the racing industry. The decision to move forward with risk checks prior to the release of complete evidence from pilot studies has been a notable source of contention.
The Commission faced backlash from the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) following allegations of insufficient engagement with the racing community. Gardner stated that the Commission was "surprised and disappointed" by these claims, asserting that the accusations lacked factual support. Conversely, the BHA contended that attempts to engage with the regulator in the lead-up to its decisions had been rebuffed, criticizing the timing of risk checks and the absence of supporting evidence.
Lewis emphasized that the core issue is not merely whether the government aligns with individual decisions made by the Commission but also the degree to which the regulator is encroaching upon the responsibilities typically reserved for elected officials. He suggested, "In some ways, parliament should take it up. What is essentially happening is that the regulator is assuming a lot of parliament’s role and responsibility in the formation of policy."
Nonetheless, he sees little motivation for ministers to elevate the Gambling Commission's performance as a pressing political matter. He explained, "Gambling is either something politicians want to make noise about because they are clamping down on it, or something they do not want any noise about at all. I struggle to see anyone taking the Gambling Commission’s performance up as a serious political issue."
In summary, Fox steps into a regulator facing two key challenges. The first involves operational complexities as the Commission aims to complete a multifaceted reform program and manage its responsibilities regarding the National Lottery amid personnel turnover. The second revolves around building confidence, as stakeholders, including operators and racing representatives, demand clarity on policy development, the evidence driving decisions, and the extent of engagement before decisions are finalized.
Fox's extensive background in departmental reforms positions her well to bridge any existing divides, heightening the scrutiny surrounding her role. While her arrival does not imply that the DCMS is taking control of an independent regulator, it places a seasoned gambling official at the heart of the Commission during a critical time when its credibility and accountability are increasingly under review.
