Key takeaways from the Petitions Committee debate on affordability checks

A host of MPs gathered in Westminster Hall yesterday afternoon, 26 February, led by Labour and Co-operative Party MP for Heath Christina Rees, to debate the implementation of affordability checks that were outlined in the white paper into the Gambling Act 2005 review.

The three-hour-long session on the highly controversial checks took place as a result of the petition set up by Jockey Club CEO Nevin Truesdale, which surpassed the requisite 100,000 signatures to trigger a parliamentary debate last year. 

The session tackled many concerns raised by industry stakeholders over the proposed checks, in particular the potential damage to the horseracing industry as well as being “an infringement on the right of the individual” to their privacy.

Another concern high up on the agenda was whether these checks would work as intended, which is to reduce the effects of gambling-related harm by identifying those at risk sooner. 

The counter argument is that customers may turn to the black market rather than hand over their financial documentation. 

The measures, which have generated much discourse within the industry over the past few months, will be introduced as part of a pilot scheme first revealed by the Gambling Commission (GC) last week and confirmed by Gambling Minister Stuart Andrew during yesterday’s debate in Parliament. 

Here, EGR details the key contributions from the session: 

Stuart Andrew, Gambling Minister and Conservative MP for Pudsey

Speaking at various points throughout the session, Andrew, having listened to the concerns raised by MPs, said the government is “walking a fine line” and needs to get affordability checks right to help those who may be at risk of gambling harm without infringing upon others who are gambling responsibly and safely. 

Andrew noted the pilot scheme will see checks implemented at the higher level of the two-tier system outlined in the white paper, which come into force when a player records a net loss of more than £1,000 in a rolling 24-hour period or £2,000 in a rolling 90-day window. 

The minister proffered assurance the checks would not be intrusive and would only use publicly available data. 

Andrew remarked: “The pilot will run for four months, during which time the Gambling Commission (GC) will consider all issues that arise. The Commission is clear that this process will help refine the final requirements and models for data sharing and help ensure that the intentions and commitments in the white paper are fulfilled.

“I am sure everybody agrees it is important that we do not skip ahead to full implementation before getting the details right.

“I know that many members have made suggestions to me and to the Commission. All of us want to find a solution that actively protects those most at risk of harm. The Commission is actively considering all the proposals, and I can confirm that many of the ideas that have been raised will be explored during the pilot stage,” he added.

The Conservative MP concluded the debate by addressing ministers’ concerns surrounding the checks risking pushing customers towards the black market. 

Andrew explained the government plans to give the GC further powers to block and disrupt illegal operators. 

He commented: “As set out in the white paper, we committed to giving the Commission more powers to block and disrupt illegal gambling websites. We are delivering on that commitment through the Criminal Justice Bill, which will allow the Commission to suspend IP addresses and domain names if they are being used for the purposes of serious crime connected with unlicensed gambling. 

“The Commission has also been able to invest in work to combat illegal gambling, and it has succeeded in disrupting and reducing illegal traffic into British gambling markets. That work should be enhanced by the new disruption powers that the Commission will receive once the Criminal Justice Bill has passed through Parliament.”

Matt Hancock, Independent MP for West Suffolk

Former Cabinet Minister Matt Hancock, now an independent MP for West Suffolk, which includes the racing town of Newmarket, proclaimed that affordability checks are “absolutely central to the future of horseracing” and called on the Gambling Minister to “stop and start again” in terms of their implementation.

In fact, Hancock went as far to say that affordability checks could make gambling-related harm worse. He referenced a report by PwC, which showed black-market gambling had doubled in the two previous years up to 2020 and that in December 2022, 250,000 people visited black-market sites compared to 80,000 the year prior. 

Hancock specifically attributed games of chance such as online slots to be the main cause of gambling-related harm and suggested the new stake limits on slots should be reduced further from £5 to £2. 

The former Health Secretary then moved on to discuss the damage affordability checks will likely have on the horseracing industry. He emphasised that horseracing is the UK’s second largest sport, with five million people attending races annually, generating £4bn for the UK economy. 

Hancock further highlighted that around 26% of bettors had experienced some form of affordability check ahead of the proposals coming in, which had led to a reduction in betting turnover by £900m in 2022-23. 

The former Conservative MP then returned to games of chance, stating: “Horseracing already has its own legislative framework. It has had it since Churchill introduced the Tote. There is already in law a definition of and a separation of horseracing. 

“I recommend that the government separate games of chance, in which there is no skill involved, and there are guaranteed losses, from horseracing, which is one of this country’s finest achievements and brings joy to so many.”

Hancock went on to challenge the GC’s recent claim that the checks will be frictionless. He referenced comments made by the Gambling Minster, on multiple occasions, that the checks would be frictionless for all. Hancock said these comments had been interpreted by the GC as meaning checks would be “frictionless for the vast majority”.

He explained: “These checks, if they are to happen at all, should be frictionless. The [Gambling] Minister has committed to that, and it is government policy, yet we have a regulator wrongly misinterpreting ‘frictionless’ as ‘frictionless for the vast majority’. It is a distinct problem.”

Carolyn Harris, Labour MP for Swansea West

Harris was one of the few MPs in the room in favour of affordability checks being implemented in their proposed state, as, she announced, they will “stop those gripped by addiction from gambling more than they can afford”. 

The Deputy Welsh Labour leader claimed only 3% of gambling accounts would be affected by these checks and, “for the vast majority” these checks would be frictionless. She referenced research carried out by the GC that suggested only 0.3% of account holders would be subject to the level of checks that would require financial information be shared.

Harris also wanted to dispel the industry’s and other MPs’ argument that affordability checks would push customers towards unlicensed operators.

She said: “We know the industry has stirred up the controversy by exaggerating the levels of intrusion and suggesting that the checks would drive gamblers to the black market. 

“That loses sight of the whole point of the checks, which is to protect gamblers from harm by ensuring they are spending within their means. 

“Surely, that is in the interest of the industry, which currently has a reputation for allowing those unable to control their gambling to gamble far in excess of what they can afford to spend.”

Philip Davies, Conservative MP for Shipley 

Davies, who has been a recipient of gifts from the industry, which were declared in line with the MPs Register of Interests, spoke of his vested interest in the industry and condemned the apparent viewpoint the government has of people who gamble, stating: “the government are snobbishly only treating punters as some kind of pariah, which I do not appreciate”.

The Conservative MP added that what the government and GC are proposing in terms of affordability checks is “completely unacceptable”. 

He added: “I have a number of concerns about that approach, both practically and in principle. I find it somewhat offensive that the government and the GC believe there is something inherently distasteful about betting. If that is not the case, why are the government proposing that type of affordability check just on gambling? 

“Why do they not ask every retailer in the country to carry out similar checks on customers to ensure they can afford to buy whatever they come to the counter with? Is the [Gambling] Minister really claiming that nobody spends more on alcohol than is good for them, more on shoes than they should, or more on holidays than they can actually afford?”

Conor McGinn, Labour MP for St Helens North

McGinn, whose St Helens North constituency includes Haydock Park racecourse, deemed affordability checks a “bad policy, in terms of the concept and the philosophy behind it”. He said net loss “is a terrible barometer” for affordability and that it does not take into account a number of different ranges in disposable income. 

The Labour MP went on to question whether checks are an effective means of tackling problem gambling, referencing instead other tools including self-exclusion registers and deposit limits as more effective ways of curtailing gambling-related harm. He proposed there should be more discussions on how these tools can be improved further. 

McGinn then moved on to talk about the specific impact affordability checks could have on the horseracing industry. He echoed the point made by Hancock that it has been negatively affected by the checks already in place. 

He said: “Racing has a specific problem because of the unique, inextricable relationship that we have with betting through the levy, and it is creating a funding crisis for our sport.

“Like all sports, racing is facing difficult economic headwinds, but the decision to hurt betting revenue, as set out in black and white in the government’s white paper, was certainly careless, if not deliberate. The £900m reduction in horseracing betting revenue will mean a direct hit of £50m to racing. That is the genesis of the problem.

“The reduction in the levy that will result from less betting on racing, and the resultant loss in the value of media rights, will have a consequential impact on prize money.” 

McGinn continued: “Racecourses face a very difficult environment already, and participants, owners and trainers feel frustrated about the level of prize money. It risks the sustainability of our courses and racing yards. That will mean closures and job losses and will very quickly put racing in a death spiral. We have already seen the impact on punters; I can attest to that.

“I have heard some of the contributions and, well intentioned and from people with a genuine love of horseracing though they are, they need to be challenged. Racing and betting have to work together,” he concluded.