Key takeaways from the Westminster Hall horseracing debate

MPs assembled in Westminster Hall yesterday afternoon (25 October), led by former Conservative minister Matt Hancock, to debate the future of horseracing in the UK.

The 90-minute session, given top billing ahead of ‘sustainability of rural postal services’ and ‘government support for a circular economy’, saw a handful of politicians voice their gripes with the state of the sector.

From slamming the government and the Gambling Commission (GC) to drumming up support for rural workers and the hospitality industry, the session saw MPs state their case for the future of the sport.

While a majority of the voices were pro-horseracing, and in turn pro-betting, a couple of contributions highlighted the issue of gambling-related harms in the UK. These were to take a back seat, however, as affordability checks were beaten black and blue by the attendees.

The measures, which continue to dominate headlines and industry chatter in the UK, were raised with Gambling Minister Stuart Andrew who was in attendance and who made assurances that the scheme will be “proportionate” if and when it is put in place.

Here, EGR details the key contributions from the session:

Stuart Andrew, Gambling Minister and Conversative MP for Pudsey

Speaking during the session, Andrew, having heard the gripes and concerns of the MPs, moved to assure that affordability checks would only be implemented when they could be proven to be fully “frictionless”.

The Conservative MP stressed that affordability checks had not yet been put in place, and operators requesting documents from customers has led to “inconsistency across the sector”. Andrew said operators were seeking documents at different points of the customer journey, and often in the “form of onerous documentation like payslips and bank statements”.

Andrew added that he was aware of reports of firms using checks as a way to restrict successful bettors. He added that he had spoken to Gambling Commission CEO Andrew Rhodes on the matter, asking the chief to challenge operators to “be more transparent”.

On affordability checks coming into force, Andrew said he was exploring options including a pilot scheme and phased implementation, with the GC due to host workshops with the industry to explore these options.

Andrew said: “The white paper was clear. We only want checks for those most at-risk of harm. We want the checks themselves to be painless for the overwhelming majority of customers, and neither the government nor the Gambling Commission should put a blanket cap on how much money people spend on gambling.

“This will be at the forefront of our minds and the frictionless point is essential to this. I want to reiterate my commitment that proposed checks will not be mandated across the sector until we are confident that they are frictionless for the vast majority of customers who will be caught by them.

“The Gambling Commission will continue to work closely with gambling operators, the financial services sector and the ICO to develop the checks.”

Matt Hancock, independent MP for West Suffolk

In opening the debate, former cabinet minister and reality show contestant Matt Hancock, now sitting as an independent MP for West Suffolk, which includes the racing town of Newmarket, described affordability checks as a “really serious policy error”. Hancock, who has experience with the industry given his role in the FOBT maximum stake reduction from £100 to £2, warned that affordability checks would drive punters into the hands of unregulated operators.

The former Health Minister said that the checks should be made distinct between online casino and sports betting, with the former being “designed to hook people in with an adrenaline rush”.

He also took aim at the GC’s role in the process: “Many people have already closed their betting accounts because they refuse to give highly personal data away. I can understand why they have done that. It is in response to the white paper, not to government policy.

“[The Gambling Commission] are getting this wrong and they are damaging the very purposes they are setting out to achieve. The Minister [Stuart Andrew] can act on this simply by setting out that the current way the affordability checks are being put in place is counterproductive.”

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, was as vocal as expected. The MP for Shipley has previously called the GC the “most out-of-touch regulator in the country” while he also sat on the now dissolved APPG for betting and gambling.

As he lamented affordability checks for infringing on consumer privacy, arguing why checks aren’t in place to buy coats or suits, Davies said should the measures be put in place it would be “tragic for the racing industry”.

He added: “Why is betting frowned upon to such an extent that the government wants to stick its nose in and find out whether or not I can afford to spend my money. These arbitrary figures are, I’m afraid in my opinion, ridiculous.

“People want proportional checks. We’re basically treating everybody in this country who bets on anything as a potential problem gambler even though the rate in this country is very low,” he concluded.

Laurence Robertson, Conservative MP for Tewkesbury

Roberston, who began with an apology for his late arrival to the debate, said that he was “firmly with the government” in wanting to tackle gambling-related harms. However, he stopped short of backing affordability checks and instead put the onus on operators to manage customers in-house.

Robertson suggested firms should be able to have effective systems in place to detect potential or actual gambling-related harms and then “take action to prevent those problems occurring”. Robertson did fail to mention that operators already have these measures up and running.

On affordability checks, the MP added that the measures could have the opposite effect of preventing gambling-related harm, as well as lasting impacts for the horseracing industry.

Referencing the recent British Horseracing Authority survey which took in 14,000 responses, Robertson said that the level of individuals already subject to affordability checks was damning.

He added: “How bad is it going to get if the Gambling Commission is allowed to run away with this and the damage it could do to horseracing? I just don’t know how bad that could be.

“What I want to see is the government to take a step back on this and see the potential damage it could to horseracing without actually helping the people we all want to see helped.”

Gavin Newlands, SNP MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire North

The Scot was one of the few voices in Westminster Hall to attempt to spend the majority of their speaking time dedicated to gambling-related harms. While Newlands did note that “most gambling is done without any harm”, he said that those who are impacted needed to be supported.

The SNP MP then proceeded to state that one person in the UK commits suicide each day due to gambling-related harm. Davies then interjected, arguing that that stat had been “debunked” and queried Newlands’ use of it and where it came from.

Newlands proceeded to say he was happy to write to the MP for Shipley on the matter but did not address the question during the debate.

With time running out, having given way to other MPs in the room who took umbrage with his remarks, Newlands closed out his comments by adding that without affordability checks being addressed, individuals suffering from gambling-related harm would continue to switch between operators, ultimately losing more money.”