The days when Parliament would adjourn on Derby day to allow honorary members to attend Epsom are long gone, but the sport of kings made a much-anticipated return to the Westminster agenda on Monday.
MPs met to debate a petition calling on the government to “abandon the planned imposition of price controls on some people wishing to bet”. A total of 103,386 people signed the petition, which was launched by Jockey Club general manager Nevin Truesdale at the beginning of November.
Relating to: Michelle Mone’s Monbeg Genius still on track to line up in Grand National
Many of these signatories will have learned of the petition through the sport’s trade newspaper, the Racing Post. He has been campaigning fiercely for months against the checks, which would be triggered by losses of as little as £125 in 30 days or £500 a year, and described Monday’s event as “a big day for the future of racing”. in Britain”.
In a debate that stretched for the full three hours and drew contributions from nearly two dozen MPs from all parties, the burning issue of the race at the moment was examined thoughtfully, carefully and occasionally with humour, as some members admitted to having unsuccessful second careers. as racing bettors. But there was also consistent recognition of the potentially dire consequences of gambling addiction and the extent to which online gambling increases its risks.
MPs’ contributions varied in both style and content, but generally fell into one of two groups. The former opposed the proposed controls, either on principle or because of the potential harm to racing that would occur if punters stopped betting or were drawn into illegal markets.
This aspect of the debate was led by former Labor member and current independent MP for St Helens North, Conor McGinn. “Objectively speaking, this is bad policy,” McGinn said. “This is an example of government overreach and violation of individual rights.” He added that relying on net losses as a measure of affordability was a “terrible measure” that did not take into account the wide range of incomes and circumstances among gamblers.
Another independent MP, former health secretary Matt Hancock, has suggested “regulation” to exempt racing from checks, as is the case with gambling on the national lottery. “We fall into the trap that something needs to be done and because it is something, then it has to be done,” Hancock said.
The second group of contributors, which included several members of the APPG (All Party Parliamentary Group) on Gambling-Related Harm, could be described as being in favor of affordable price controls but were also focused on online gaming (e.g. casino products and slot machines). the main cause for concern.
Sheffield Central MP Paul Blomfield, whose constituent Jack Ritchie committed suicide due to his gambling addiction, accused the industry of trying to mobilize races to abolish checks altogether. “They’re using this as a wedge issue,” Blomfield said. “Do not allow horse racing to be used to undermine necessary controls.”
Ronnie Cowan, the Scottish National Party member for Inverclyde, was perhaps the only participant happy to say that he saw the knock-on effects of race as a relatively minor issue in the debate. “What is the price of life?” he asked, before responding to several contributors who pointed out that a £500 loss in a year equates to £1.37 a day.
“For some people, it can make the difference in putting money at the counter or putting food on the table,” Cowan said, adding: “If the checks say they can afford it, they can afford it.”
When the debate ended, Stuart Andrew MP, the minister responsible for gambling, made clear that affordability checks were still on the way and insisted they would be a significant improvement over “onerous, ad hoc and inconsistent controls”. Gambling firms currently do this “often without explanation and by asking customers to provide data manually.”
Andrew said the promise of “frictionless” checks would be delivered “without burdening customers” except in a handful of cases. Many in the racing world are not convinced. But while the checks are up to policy, the details are now up to the Gambling Commission. Truesdale left the debate still hopeful that the process would be worthwhile.
Catterick Bridge 2.20 out of focus 2.50 Meadow Wolf (confectionery) 3.20 Covenant Child 3.50 Isholo Du Vivien 4.20 Doctor Kananga 4.50 Burrows Hall
Leicester 2.35 hatos 3.05 Flemen’s Tipple 3.35 Lincoln Lyn 4.05 No Fight 4.35 gallyhill 5.10 Alexander Peco
Southwell 4.28 David’s Diva 5.00 InglebyArchie 5.30 Another Angel 6.00 Majed 6.30 George 7.00 Deaf (nb) 7.30 Velvet Vulcan 8.00 Prince Hector 8.30 Ignac Lamar
“There was significant attendance and interest and I was told that a large number of people would attend the Westminster Hall debate,” he said. “There are also people mentioned who are not here. [former chancellor] Nadhim Zahawi and [former home secretary] Priti Patel, I think there is a significant increase in support for our cause.
“No one is against tackling problem gambling but it needs to be done in a proportionate way and that came out very, very clearly, I think it was good for us and there were a lot more speakers who supported where we were coming from.
“Stuart Andrew said it would eventually be frictionless, and if he can get it done, we’ll see. It’s the detail that matters, it’s about implementing it logically and proportionately, and that’s now entirely the responsibility of the Gambling Commission.”