by Long gone are the days when parliament would adjourn on Derby Day to allow dignitaries to attend Epsom, but the sport of kings made an expected return to the limelight in Westminster on Monday.
MPs have gathered to debate a petition which calls on the government to “abandon the planned implementation of affordability checks for certain people who want to bet”. 103,386 people signed the petition, which was launched by Nevin Truesdale, chief executive of the Jockey Club, in early November.
Related: Monbeg Genius Michelle Mone is still on track to be in the final at the Grand National
Many of those signatories will have found out about the petition through the sport’s trade paper, the Racing Post. He has been campaigning fiercely against the checks – which would trigger losses of as little as £125 in 30 days or £500 a year – for months and described Monday’s event as “a huge day for the future of racing. in Britain”.
In a debate which ran for its full scheduled length of three hours, and which drew comments from around two dozen MPs of all parties, the current issue of racing was examined thoughtfully, carefully and occasionally with humour. , with some members embarking on unsuccessful second careers. as racing punters. But there was also consistent acknowledgment of the dire consequences of gambling addiction, and the extent to which online gambling increased its risks.
MPs’ contributions varied in tone and substance, but were largely one of two groups. The first were against the proposed checks, on principle or because of the possible damage to racing as punters stop betting or driven to illegal markets.
This side of the debate was led by Conor McGinn, former Labor Taoiseach and now independent for St Helens North. “This is bad policy by any objective measure,” McGinn said. “It’s an example of government overreach … and an infringement on individual rights.” He said the reliance on net losses as a measure of affordability was a “terrible measure” that failed to take into account the huge range of incomes and circumstances among gamblers.
Another independent MP, former health secretary Matt Hancock, proposed a “carve-out” for racing to exempt it from the checks, as is the case with gambling on the national lottery. “We’re falling into the trap of something has to be done, and this is something, this has to be done,” Hancock said.
A second group of contributors, including some members of the APPG on Gambling Related Injury (All-Party Parliamentary Group), could be described as in favor of affordability checks but also focused on online gambling – casino products and slots , for example – as the main cause of concern.
Paul Blomfield, MP for Sheffield Central whose colleague, Jack Ritchie, took his own life as a result of a gambling addiction, has mobilized the racing industry to try to end the checks completely. “They’re using it as a wedge issue,” Blomfield said. “Don’t use horse racing to undermine the checks that are required.”
Ronnie Cowan, Scottish National Party member for Inverclyde, was perhaps the only participant willing to point out that he saw the ramifications for racing as relatively minor in the debate. “What price is life?” he asked, before responding to a number of participants who pointed out that a loss of £500 a year equates to £1.37 a day.
“For some people putting money in the meter or food on the table could make the difference,” Cowan said, adding: “If the checks say they can afford it, they can pay it.”
Concluding the debate, Stuart Andrew MP, the minister with responsibility for gambling, made it clear that affordability checks are still on the way, and insisted that these will be a significant improvement on “the checks unwieldy, ad hoc and inconsistent” that gaming businesses are doing, “often without explanation and asking customers to provide data manually”.
The promise of “frictionless” checks, Andrew said, would be delivered “without burdening customers” in all but a handful of cases. Many people in racing are still not sure. But while the checks are policy, the details are now up to the Gambling Commission. Truesdale left the debate hopeful that the process will prove worthwhile.
Charles Bridge 2.20 Out of Focus 2. 50 Prairie wolf (nap) 3.20 The Contract Boy 3. 50 Isholo Du Vivien 4.20 Dr Kananga 4.50 Burgh Hall
Leicester 2.35 Hats 3. 05 Tipple Flemen 3.35 Lon Liath 4. 05 No Coping 4.35 Gallyhill 5.10 Iskandar Peko
South Well 4.28 Diva David 5.00 Ingleby Archie 5.30 Another angel 6. 00 Majed 6.30 There is George 7.00 Daafy (nb) 7.30 Velvet Vulcan 8.00 Prince Hector 8.30 Ignace Lamar
“There was significant participation and interest and I’m told there are a lot of people there for a debate in Westminster Hall,” he said. “There are also people who were just mentioned here, like [former chancellor] Nadhim Zahawi and [former home secretary] Priti Patel, so I think there is significant support for our cause.
“No one is against solving gambling problems but it has to be done proportionately and that came through very clearly, which I think was good for us, and there were a lot more speakers in favor of where we are from coming.
“Stuart Andrew put his stallion out at the end about being at ease, if he can do that work remains to be seen. What is important is the detail, it is about implementing it thoughtfully and proportionately and it is now entirely up to the Gambling Commission.”
