‘We're making a mistake, we must start again’ - MPs round on affordability checks in key debate

MPs debated the petition calling for affordability checks to be scrapped at Westminster Hall on Monday. The debate transcript is available to read here.

• Watch a replay of the debate here

A raft of MPs on Monday urged ministers to rethink affordability checks as they blasted the government's proposals as being bad policy.

But in a parliamentary debate at Westminster Hall gambling minister Stuart Andrew pledged to plough on with the measures - despite insisting they must not adversely affect racing.

The strongly-attended debate was triggered by the petition calling for affordability checks, which were among the measures proposed in the government's gambling white paper published last year, to be scrapped after it received more than 100,000 signatures in less than four weeks.

The impact of affordability checks on racing’s finances has been forecast as being as much as £50 million a year over the next five years, while a study published by Regulus Partners last week estimated that up to one in seven racing jobs could be lost as a result of the financial hit.

Affordability debate:

• 'These checks are deeply flawed and people could be forced to the black market during the Cheltenham Festival'   
• Lee Mottershead: Affordability debate highlights support in parliament for racing's cause - now the government must finally start to listen  

Andrew said that both the government and Gambling Commission had listened to the concerns voiced about the checks, but reiterated that the industry regulator would be proceeding with the proposals, although there would be a pilot of enhanced checks.

He added: "I am clear that we must ensure that these checks do not adversely affect racing, or those who work in the sector or interrupt the customer journey.

"They also must not push away high net worth individuals such as owners and trainers that invest in the sport.

"We want to protect those at risk and I make no apology for us doing that, but with minimal disruption to the majority who I recognise bet on horseracing with no ill effect."

Shadow gambling minister Stephanie Peacock called for more clarity from the government.

"I think there is a consensus over the need to update our regulation so that vulnerable people are better protected from gambling harms in the modern age," she said.

"But at the same time it is the punters, racing and the gambling industry that deserves some clarity on how the government will ensure affordability checks are carried out with accuracy and in a way that does not cause unnecessary friction for those gambling responsibly."

A number of MPs from across the political spectrum spoke at the debate, including many with racecourses in their constituencies.

Among them was former culture and health secretary Matt Hancock, whose West Suffolk constituency includes Newmarket.

Matt Hancock: "The current proposals are going to lead to worse problems"

He described affordability checks as "a huge issue", adding: "This is absolutely central to the future of horseracing and we are making a mistake. We must stop and we must start again."

Hancock cited the most recent Gambling Commission figures which had shown betting turnover on horseracing had fallen by £900 million in the space of a year.

He added: "The financial impact on the horseracing industry is already happening and we already know that prize-money is going up in the rest of the world and is incredibly tight in the United Kingdom."

He also made what he described as a constitutional point.

Hancock said: "The Gambling Commission has interpreted the minister saying the checks will be frictionless as 'frictionless for the vast majority'.

"Well that is different. These checks should be frictionless if they are going to happen at all. The minister has committed to that, that is government policy, and yet we have a regulator wrongly misinterpreting frictionless as frictionless for the vast majority. It is a distinct problem."

Conor McGinn, whose St Helens North constituency includes Haydock Park, said the entire horseracing industry was speaking with one voice on the issue.

McGinn added: "It's bad policy by any objective measure and it's hard to find any objective measure because this is not evidence-based.

Conor McGinn: "This is massive government overreach and infringement on the rights of the individual"

"It's incoherent and at many levels it's in response to anecdote and to emotion."

He added: "This is massive government overreach and infringement on the rights of the individual. For no other legal leisure activity in the UK has the government set out spending limits in this fashion."

McGinn said there was no need to imagine the impact of affordability checks as it was already being felt by the sport and creating a "funding crisis".

He added: "The government should bin this idea, preferably permanently but certainly until the promised frictionless element is proven to be just that."

Philip Davies MP said he wanted to speak up for the horseracing industry and foremost for punters.

He said he had a number of concerns, adding he found it offensive that the government and Gambling Commission believe there was "something inherently distasteful about betting" and accused the government of "snobbishly treating punters as some kind of pariah".

Davies added: "It is unacceptable to me that the government, the Gambling Commission and the bookmakers will basically between them decide how much each individual punter can afford to spend on their betting, and the punter themselves will get virtually no say in this whatsoever."

Not all those who spoke at the debate were critics of the proposals.

Labour MP Carolyn Harris said: "Nobody, least of all me, wants to stop people betting. The number of people that will trigger a check is negligible. The argument against affordability checks is hard to understand when a small inconvenience for a small number of people will reduce the levels of harm."

Read more: 

Lee Mottershead: Affordability debate highlights support in parliament for racing's cause - now the government must finally start to listen 

Key quotes: 'These checks are deeply flawed and people could be forced to the black market during the Cheltenham Festival' 

John Gosden: 'The government is in complete denial of the appalling consequences of these catastrophic policies'   

Subscribe to Racing Post Members' Club Ultimate Monthly and get 50% off your first three months!

Available to new subscribers purchasing Members' Club Ultimate Monthly using code MEMBERS24. First three payments will be charged at £24.98, subscription renews at full monthly price thereafter. To cancel please contact us at least seven days before subscription is due to renew.