Controversy over Affordability Checks Continues

The UK Government is currently planning a reform of the gambling industry. It’s been an ongoing task for a few years now and some of their proposals are not winning the acceptance of both the gambling industry and users of the legal UK online gambling platforms listed by BritishGambler.co.uk and other sources. This is particularly the case when it comes to stricter affordability checks.

On February 26 a debate was held in the House of Commons on the subject of affordability checks. The debate took place after a petition registered by Nevin Truesdale (chief executive of the Jockey Club) reached the 100,000 signature mark. When that happens a parliamentary debate on the subject matter must take place.

One of those MPs who were most vocal against stricter affordability checks was Phillip Davies. He’s the Conservative MP for Shipley and a former chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Betting and Gaming. His view of the proposals is that they are  “completely unacceptable.”

He made it known during his speech that he was “speaking up” for gamblers and the horse racing industry. His view of gamblers is that they have been “largely ignored” in the debate over whether stricter affordability checks should be introduced.

While he admitted that it is important for gamblers to only wager amounts they can afford to lose, the MP felt that the current plans of the Government and the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) are not the answer to the problem.

He believes that it is “unacceptable” that the UKGC and the Government should between them determine how much each gambler can bet. Even worse, the gambler would get “virtually no say whatsoever” over the matter.

Discussing the UK horse racing industry, he said that it is one that is the second largest spectator sport with only football beating it. A “huge amount” of foreign investment is achieved by the industry.

“Much of its income” comes from the gambling industry and if stricter affordability checks are introduced, it could seriously affect them. The fear is that such moves being introduced would see gamblers move to the unlicensed and unregulated black market.

If that was to happen then it would seriously hit the finances of the UK horse racing industry.  With that being the case the MP believes that the planned measures, “however well meaning” they may be” cannot be introduced. To do so would have “a devastating effect” on what he calls a “great sport.”

Greyhound racing would also be affected by the introduction of stricter affordability checks. The chair of Premier Greyhound Racing is Lord Lipsey (Labour). Last October he said that the loss of high-spending gamblers would damage the industry.

Responding to Mr Davies, Carolyn Harris MP focused on how stricter affordability checks would have a positive impact on those struggling with their gambling. The MP quoted statistics from the UKGC that said 22.5 million people in the UK gamble, that’s approximately 44% of the population.

That’s a figure that has been criticised in the past. While some people do gamble, it may just be a bet on the Grand National or Epsom Derby rather than continually betting on sport.

The MP said that the “overwhelming majority” of UK gamblers do so “without any issue.” However, this is not the case for everyone and the UKGC and the government hold responsibility for those who have problems because of their gambling.

Eager to show that she was not against gambling, the MP stated that her aim was to “protect vulnerable people.” Imposing affordability checks on those who are gambling large amounts is in her opinion the “logical way forward.”

Her view is that the new measures wouldn’t stop those who can afford to bet as much as they wish. On the other hand though, stricter affordability checks “would stop those who cannot.”

A major concern of those opposed to stricter affordability checks is they would be seen as an infringement on people’s personal freedoms. More attention paid to providing additional support and education for those with gambling addiction would be of greater help.

Affordability checks are already carried out by gambling companies. It’s in their best interests to do so because the UKGC have issued heavy fines to those they feel haven’t been doing enough to help their customers. Continued failure to do so could even lead to them losing their licence.

After the parliamentary debate there is hope that horse racing may be treated differently from “games of chances” such as slots. The fear of the horse racing industry being severely damaged financially appears to be a risk that isn’t worth taking.

That’s particularly the case with a General Election on the horizon and the Tories not exactly popular at present. There are many MPs who will be defending seats in constituencies where the horse racing industry is a key employer.