timeThe days when Parliament prorogued on Derby Day to allow honorable MPs to attend Epsom are long gone, but the King’s campaign makes its much-anticipated return to the Westminster spotlight on Monday.
MPs gathered to debate a petition calling on the government to “abandon plans to impose affordability checks on some people who want to place a bet”. A total of 103,386 people have signed the petition, which was launched by Jockey Club chief executive Nevin Truesdale in early November.
Many of the signatories learned about the petition through the Racing Post, the sport’s trade newspaper. It has been running a fierce anti-cheque campaign for months – with checks triggered as long as a loss of £125 within 30 days or £500 within a year – and described Monday’s event as “important for the future of racing” A day “in England”.
In a debate scheduled to last three hours, speeches from around two dozen MPs from all parties provided a thoughtful, careful look at current hot-button issues in racing, sometimes with a touch of humor, with some admitting their first The second career was not successful. As a racing bettor. But there is also unanimous recognition of the dire consequences gambling addiction can have, and the extent to which online gambling increases risk.
MPs’ contributions varied in tone and substance but fell broadly into one of two categories. The first objections were made to the proposed inspections, either on principle or because punters could cause damage to horse racing by stopping betting or being forced into an illegal market.
Conor McGinn, the former Labor MP and current independent MP for North St Helens, led this side of the debate. “By any objective measure, this is bad policy,” McGinn said. “This is an example of massive government overreach … and an infringement of individual rights.” He added that relying on net losses to measure affordability was “a poor metric” that did not take into account the huge income among gamblers. and situation.
Another independent MP, former health secretary Matt Hancock, suggested “excluding” horse racing from inspection, as is the case with gambling on the National Lottery. “We fall into the trap of saying, because something has to be done, and this is something, then it has to be done,” Hancock said.
The second group of contributors, including several members of the Gambling Related Harms APPG (All-Party Parliamentary Group), arguably supports the affordability check, but also focuses on online gaming – such as casino products and pokies – as the main cause for concern reason.
Sheffield Central MP Paul Blomfield, whose constituent Jack Ritchie took his own life due to a gambling addiction, accused the industry of mobilizing racing to try to block the checks altogether. “They treat it as a wedge issue,” Blomfield said. “Don’t let horse racing be used to undermine necessary inspections.”
Ronnie Cowan, the SNP member for Inverclyde, was probably the only contributor who was happy to say that he considered the knock-on effects of racing a relatively minor consideration in the debate. “What’s the cost of life?” he asked, before replying to several contributors who pointed out that losing £500 over a year equates to £1.37 a day.
“For some people, putting money on the meter or putting food on the table might make a difference,” Cowan said. “If the check says they can afford it, they can afford it,” he added. . ”
Newsletter Promotion Post
At the end of the debate, the minister responsible for gambling, Stuart Andrew MP, made it clear that affordability checks were still ongoing, insisting they would be a significant improvement on “burdensome, ad hoc and inconsistent checks”. Gambling companies are currently implementing this “often without explanation and requiring customers to provide information manually”.
Andrew said that except in a few cases, the promise of “frictionless” checks will be honored “without placing a burden on customers.” Many in the racing community remain unconvinced. But while inspections are policy, the details are now the responsibility of the Gambling Commission. Truesdale remains hopeful during this debate that the process will prove worthwhile.
quick guide
Greg Wood’s Tuesday Advice
exhibit
Catterick Bridge 2.20 Out of Focus 2.50 Steppenwolf (nap) 3.20 treaty boy 3.50 Isolo Duvivian 4.20 Dr Kananga 4.50 Burrows Hall
Leicester 2.35 six 3.05 Flemish wine 3.35 lincoln lake 4.05 No tackle 4.35 Gary Hill 5.10 iskandar petko
Southwell4.28 david’s diva 5.00 Ingleby Arch 5.30 another angel 6.00 Majid 6.30 Tice George 7 o’clock Tamiflu(nb) 7.30 Velvet Vulcan 8.00 prince hector 8.30 Ignac Lamar
“There was a lot of participation and interest, and I heard a lot of people attended the debate in Westminster Hall,” he said. “There are also people who are not present but are mentioned, e.g. [former chancellor] Nadine Zahavi and [former home secretary] Priti Patel, so I think there’s a lot of support for our cause.
“No one is against tackling problem gambling but it has to be done proportionately and that’s very, very clear and I think it would be good for us to have more speakers supporting our position.
“Stuart Andrew showed off his stall at the end, saying it was frictionless, it remains to be seen if he can do that. The details are what matter, it’s about implementing it wisely and appropriately, it all depends The Gambling Commission’s decision now.”
