I am aware of the debate relating to financial risk checks for gambling on 26 February.
Unfortunately, Ministers cannot speak in debates other than those covering their own portfolio. However I will certainly be following this debate very closely and I am continuing to raise concerns on behalf of the racing industry with Ministers directly. I met trainers at Lambourn in February, and I have relayed this robustly to the Gambling Minister and have since invited him to meet the trainers so he can hear from them directly.
In October, I spoke in the debate prior to the one this month on the future of British Horseracing. In this debate, I raised concerns about the Government’s Gambling Act Review, including serious concerns about the new affordability checks that are being proposed by the Gambling Commission.
Whilst the general ambition to tackle problem gambling is laudable and I am aware of the catastrophic effect it can have on peoples lives, the evidence shows that it occurs with greatest frequency in casino-like contexts (whether online or in person) like poker or roulette, and the online slot machines. It is far less a feature of horseracing where the odds change all the time and for many people, it is a big day out once or twice a year.
The Gambling Commission has suggested that anyone who loses more than £125 over a 30-day period will need to produce evidence of earnings with their next bet. Some bookies in Newbury have already starting introducing affordability checks of this nature and it has had a chilling effect on gambling levels because people are unwilling or unable to produce payslips or bank statements before placing a bet.
You can watch my full speech in the previous Westminster Hall debate here.
I know that the Government is aware of these industry concerns, and has been clear that any checks should not overregulate the gambling sector. I will continue to urge the Government to proceed with care and seriously consider whether affordability thresholds are appropriate for a sector like racing, which is not part of the problem these proposals are really seeking to address.
(February 2024)
