Britain’s horseracing industry has called for an urgent rethink of Government proposals to introduce “intrusive” financial checks on people who lose as little as £1.37 a day with bookmakers, as MPs prepare to debate the topic on Monday (February 26).
Plans for two tiers of checks were set out in April last year when the Government published its Gambling White Paper: ‘High stakes: gambling reform for the digital age’, intended to bring gambling regulation in the UK in line with modern technology.
The first tier would be for those who lose £125 in a 30-day period or £500 in a year placing any form of bets to be subject to background checks using “publicly available data”. The second would result in more detailed scrutiny for bettors with net losses of £1,000 within 24 hours or £2,000 in 90 days. These checks would involve credit reference agencies in the first instance, with bookmakers also required to ask customers for personal documentation such as bank statements and proof of earnings.
However, the proposals have been met with significant and widespread opposition and in November last year the horseracing industry launched a petition - “Stop the implementation of betting affordability/financial risk checks”.
required to be considered for a parliamentary debate – with signatories from every constituency in the UK –Parliament’s Petitions Committee confirmed the debate would take place tomorrow at 4.30pm.
It will provide an opportunity for MPs from all parties to debate the proposed financial risk checks in front of the Government Minister responsible for gambling, Stuart Andrew MP, and his opposition counterpart, Shadow Minister Stephanie Peacock MP.
Last year’s petition was registered in the name of Nevin Truesdale, Chief Executive of The Jockey Club, but was launched on behalf of Britain’s horseracing industry, which supports more than 85,000 jobs and contributes £4.1 billion to the UK economy each year.
Mr Truesdale warned today that the proposals not only risk the livelihoods of those working in the industry but also have the potential to fuel the unregulated gambling black market and do more harm than good.
He explained: “The racing industry has been supportive of the Government’s efforts to bring gambling regulation in line with the digital age.
“However, we strongly believe that proposed one-size-fits-all ‘financial risk checks’ would not effectively help those at risk of gambling harm, and could instead see people turn to unregulated betting markets in order to avoid intrusive checks. It is important to remember that these proposals would impact people betting on any sport and it is extremely concerning that a recent survey conducted by the British Horseracing Authority showed that four in 10 bettors said they would be prepared to use an unregulated bookmaker if stringent checks are implemented and that more than one in four of those surveyed had already been asked for some form of personal proof of funds.
“The proposed checks would see punters undergo financial background screening if they lose £125 a month or £500 in a year – the equivalent of just £1.37 a day. Such checks would fail to recognise an individual’s personal circumstances and not effectively take action to intervene if there are signs of gambling vulnerability.
“Instead, a better system of increased use of data sharing and government-agreed ‘markers of harm’ would allow for early and more specific intervention as soon as anyone showed any signs of harmful betting and be a much more effective way to tackle problem gambling with the small minority of individuals whom it impacts.”
Explaining the potential impact on the wider horseracing industry, Mr Truesdale continued: “It's not just ineffective action on gambling harm that we are worried about. These proposed financial risk checks could also have a devastating impact on horseracing’s ability to continue to support the 85,000 jobs it does across the UK – by reducing racing’s income by potentially as much as £50million a year.
“Such a large reduction in funding to racing could have huge knock-on implications, not just in reducing the amount of prize money on offer for participants who rely on racing for income, but could also result in job losses. Whether you are a breeder, trainer, farrier, vet, jockey, or you work in a racing yard, at a racecourse in any capacity or in one of the countless other roles as well as a range of other businesses who depend on racing communities for many of their customers, the proposed checks provide a real threat to some of these vital occupations.
“We want to work with the Government to ensure we can find a solution that effectively tackles gambling harm, and also protects the racing industry.”