During a parliamentary discussion, Philip Davies MP branded GB Gambling Commission’s and UK Government’s proposals on affordability checks as “completely inacceptable”.
Yesterday (26th February), a debate was held after the petition registered by Jockey Club Chief Executive Nevin Truesdale in November reached 100,000 signatures. The number of signatures required for a parliamentary discussion is this.
Davies, who previously chaired All-Party Parliamentary Group on Betting and Gaming (APPG), said that when he weighed in on the discussion he represented two specific groups.
Let me be clear that today I’m speaking for two different groups. First, I speak for the racing industry. But first and foremost, it is punters. He said that the people have been ignored for a long time in this tug of war over affordability checks.
They are often caught in the middle of arguments between well-funded gambling industry lobbyists and well-funded antigambling campaigns.
Davies admitted that his opinion isn’t controversial in encouraging players to bet only what they can afford.
He added, “However what the Gambling Commission and government propose is totally unacceptable.”
It is inacceptable that, together, the Gambling Commission, the Government and bookmakers decide, on a basic level, how much each punter has to bet and they have virtually no input from the punter.
Davies defends horseracing industry
Davies then focused on the original debate, the possible impact of affordability checks in the horse racing sector. British racing, he said, is Britain’s second-largest spectator sport, after football. It also brings “a large amount” of investment from abroad.
The gambling industry is a major source of income for the wonderful sport of Horse Racing. The more money that is spent on the black market the less there will be for horse racing,” Davies said.
The government can’t possibly introduce any measures that, no matter how well-intentioned, will be devastating to this wonderful sport.
Many people have expressed concern about the future of the racing industry under the threat of affordability tests. The Labour Party peer Lord Lipsey and Premier Greyhound Racing chair spoke against affordability checks in October of last year and the potential impact on greyhound racing. Lipsey said checks for high-spenders would harm greyhound racing.
GamCare, a gambling harm prevention organization, expressed its support for affordability tests, but also questioned the thresholds for checks. This could lead to players losing significant sums of money prior to the implementation of checks, according to GamCare.
Carolyn Harris is focused on high-spenders
Carolyn Harris, MP, responded to Davies by highlighting the positive effects that affordability checks can have for the most vulnerable if they are implemented correctly.
Harris stated that the Commission has estimated there are 22,5 million gamblers in the UK. Around 44% of UK’s population gambles.
However, the use of this 44% figure does not confirm what is meant by “gamble”. The debate has been a hot topic because there’s a big difference between betting on Grand National every few years and doing it regularly.
The Commission, she added, and the Government are responsible for the harm caused by gambling.
Harris said that “the overwhelming majority of people [gamble] with no problem, but it’s not for everyone.” The Gambling Commission, and even the government has a responsibility to protect those who are addicted to gambling.
Harris stated that gambling isn’t her thing. She continued, “I love visiting both the bingo hall and the racetrack.” I want to protect people who are vulnerable.
She said that it would be “logical” to conduct affordability checks for those who “play larger amounts”.
The laws would only stop people who could not afford to gamble as much.
What is the next step?
The debate has led to the realization that “games” of chance can’t be separated from racing, given its impact on the British Economy.
It is now important to ask what actionable steps can be taken and if yesterday’s discussion (and support from MPs) has any impact on policy.
iGB is still waiting for information from the Commission.
In addition, the Commission dismissed black-market fears as being “overstated”, which is a concerning trend in light of mounting evidence that the overregulation of German operators severely hampers them.
As we also saw yesterday, it is still unclear how a decrease in online gambling would impact the funding for racing.
The statutory levies are used to fund racing in the UK. However, the knowledge of this fact was not evident at yesterday’s discussion.
Since its publication almost one year ago, the white paper on the Gambling Act Review has been the subject of most controversy. The affordability checks have become an important part of subsequent consultations on the Gambling Act review.
Industry Reaction
Melanie Ellis, partner of Northridge Law, states that “many MPs who spoke in the debate were from constituencies where the horseracing sector is a major employer.”
She also adds there was a perceived lack of understanding as to how the proposed checks on affordability will differ from those already in place.
She explained that “in reality, licensed operators conduct detailed affordability assessments with lower triggers, such as PS1,000 within a 24-hour period or PS2,000 over a 90-day period. They do this because they fear the Gambling Commission may fine them, or even revoke the licence, if they don’t,”
Ellis says that frictionless checks early on and triggers to further check are a significant improvement over the current industry situation.
She says that, “Whatever the view of the government is, the Commission expects operators to act in response to any evidence of gambling or vulnerability,” and to be able to afford it. As such, I believe that frictionless early check and triggers for enhanced checking represent an improvement over the current situation. This is true for both customers and operators.
