Future of Horseracing

Laura Farris Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2023 Westminster Hall

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) on securing the debate. I take issue with him on only one point: I think he described Newmarket as the finest headquarters of racing, but as the MP for Lambourn, I have to boast that we have some of the best trainers in the whole of the country. We also have Newbury racecourse, which is probably the best-known destination in my constituency. Collectively, the Lambourn industry employs over 1,000 people and raises nearly £20 million a year for the local economy. Much more than that, it is part of our heritage and our story, and it is a sport that many people in West Berkshire feel incredibly proud of and connected to.

One of the biggest misconceptions about racing arises from a lack of knowledge about animal welfare. I am very proud of how seriously we take animal welfare in my constituency. We have the Valley Equine Hospital, an exceptional veterinary facility that is essentially dedicated to racehorses recovering from races. We also have centres working to retrain racehorses and prepare them for private ownership and a much more sedentary life, such as Retraining of Racehorses, just outside Lambourn, which is run by David Catlow, and HEROS, run by Grace Muir.

On the observation made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk, HEROS, which retrains racehorses, works with a large number of young people—often of school age, but maybe nearing the end of school—who have had difficulties at school and may have troubled backgrounds or other significant obstacles in their life. It has transformed these young people’s lives. Sometimes, working with animals allows people a channel of communication and development that no other channel in their life has afforded.

I say all this because I want to align myself with what my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said about racing’s uncertain future as a result of the affordability checks proposed under the review of the Gambling Act 2005. As a starting point, I think the general ambition to tackle problematic gambling is laudable. Problem gambling can ruin lives; it can suck people in. Gambling is highly addictive and can lead to a terrible downward spiral, in which people can lose everything: their marriage, their job, their home, and, in extremis, their life. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley is correct to say that it affects a tiny number of people—I think it is 0.3% of the population.

That kind of pernicious gambling has distinct features. It is far more closely connected with the sort of casino-type game typically found online, such as roulette or poker. Problem gambling has far less connection with horseracing, or many other sporting events. Horseracing in particular takes place at sporting events that many people will go to once or twice a year with their friends. They will have a big day out. They will have a flutter and a few drinks, and possibly push the envelope a bit. Greg Wood, the racing correspondent for The Guardian, put it this way in an article last month:

“The basic aim of affordability checks is a reasonable one…But the Gambling Commission’s proposals make the same basic mistake that has plagued the regulation of gambling for the past 20 years. They fail to appreciate the significant differences—in staking patterns, margins, cycles of profit and loss and more—that distinguish betting, on racing and other sport, from fixed-margin gaming products like roulette and online slots.”

There is a deep concern in the racing industry that the measures proposed are disproportionate and will have a significant impact on horseracing overall. It has been said, quite reasonably, that affordability levels are set too low. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley mentioned the £2,000 red flag moment, but the very first affordability check actually kicks in at a loss of £125 over 30 days—a loss that someone could easily incur at one race meeting alone.

By setting out a fixed figure, the proposal fails to take into account income differentials, or previous winnings made outside a very narrow window. It is also unclear how, if at all, affordability checks can really be “frictionless”, as the Gambling Commission has suggested, when there is no real mechanism to ensure that they are. The head of the Lambourn Trainers Association wrote to me yesterday, and said that bookies in Newbury have already started to bring in the checks, which require proof of earnings, such as payslips, even before any legislation has been brought in. The Gambling Commission has said that the most intrusive checks will apply to around only 3% of gamblers, but think about that: there are just under 32 million active gambling accounts held in the UK. Three per cent of that is still hundreds of thousands of people.

Half of all racegoers who responded to a survey conducted by British racing this October said they would either bet much less or stop betting altogether if they were required to provide proof of income. Most significantly, four out of 10 said that they would explore black market options instead. All that has the potential to be devastating. As the Minister will know, the White Paper estimates that the new protections would reduce horseracing betting gross gambling yields by somewhere between 6% and 11%, and that is before we take into account the behaviour of punters who do not particularly fancy a day at the races at which they have to prove their earnings.

This change will affect prize money, when British racing already pays out far less than its nearest competitors, such as Ireland and France, not to mention the middle east. If people cannot have a flutter, that will affect numbers going to the racecourse. It will also affect the value of media rights, which are integral to racing, the British Horseracing Authority says that it will seriously affect the levy and set horseracing on a path to financial decline.

I will make a final point about the levy. At present, racing receives a return of just over 2.8% of the total £10 billion that is spent on sport overall. That is the lowest of any major racing nation. The BHA estimates that the cost of affordability checks will result in an 11% reduction to the levy. That is money that would go directly to activities such as animal welfare, veterinary science and education—things that are crucial to helping the industry to develop and thrive.

I close by saying that if the Government wish to see British horseracing thrive, as I believe they do, they should remove racing from the affordability threshold test, recognising the difference between betting in sport and online gambling. Secondarily, the Government should increase the percentage of the levy that is paid to British racing, to support more competitive prize money, funding for equine welfare development and all the other things that I listed at the beginning of my speech, and to bring us in line with our international competitors.

Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Bill

Laura Farris Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 24th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

I rise in support of the Bill, which injects important clarity about zero-hours contracts. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) is correct to say that zero-hours contracts are here to stay and occupy an important role in the British labour market. They can certainly offer a degree of flexibility to students; to older workers who want complete flexibility when it comes to their hours; and to people with caring responsibilities, particularly parents. For example, one of the advantages of the bank model in the NHS, which is effectively a zero-hours contract by another name, is that people can take school holidays without having to apply to their boss and request the time off in the usual way.

I understand why zero-hours contracts are attractive, but we have to be honest: they exist in a grey zone between full employment rights and independent contractor status. We know that they have caused particular problems, which is why the Government have already legislated to ban exclusivity clauses where they applied. Some really high-profile cases about the contested grey zone, including the Uber case and the Deliveroo case, have reached the Supreme Court: are people independent contractors or workers with basic rights?

The Bill includes an inherent requirement that there be a right to request terms in the zero-hours arrangement that give some predictability. Whatever the advantages of flexible working, we know that some employers use zero-hours contracts on a quasi-exploitative basis. I have read grim stories in the newspapers, albeit not recently, of people travelling a long way by bus only to arrive at their employer’s gates and be told that there was no work for them that day. That is clearly not an acceptable situation.

The Bill would amend the Employment Rights Act 1996. Section 1 of that Act requires that within the first two weeks of employment all employers must provide an employment contract that sets out the days workers are required to work, the rate at which they will be remunerated, what they will be paid and when, what their basic duties are and what overtime they will get. At the heart of all employment relationships is the requirement that people who come to work have a basic idea of what is expected of them, how they will be paid and what they are reasonably expected to do. Even in this grey zone, with all the flexibility that I otherwise support, it cannot be right to allow a system to exist in which people have no idea from week to week and from day to day whether they will be required to work and, if so, how much.

Another important point of employment law is that, while of course it is correct that an employer can consider what it requires its members of staff to do and that it can set their duties and working hours, it does not have the unilateral right to vary the employment contract in any other context. It therefore seems to me right that, where reasonably possible, a worker should have the right to request predictability. The burden should be on the employer either to say, “Yes, we can offer you some predictability, and here is what it looks like”—something that would come pretty close to a standard contract of employment—or to say, “Such is the nature of our work that predictability is impossible in any circumstance.” That would at least give the worker the opportunity to know whether or not they could begin to plan their life around the job. That approach is a counterpoint to some of the exploitative practices that linger at the uglier end of the zero-hours contract world. For that reason, I support it, and I support this private Member’s Bill.