Financial Risk Checks for Gambling

Debate between Philip Davies and Adam Afriyie

Monday 26th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Philip Davies]

I very much agree with my right hon. Friend, as I happily do on most things. Of course people spend more than they should on all those other things, but the Government are snobbishly only treating punters as some kind of pariah, which I do not appreciate.

In Parliament, we should stand up for people’s freedoms. I was not elected to Parliament to stop everyone else doing all the things I do not happen to like myself, but some Members seem to think their job is to do nothing other than that. It is unacceptable that the Government, the Gambling Commission and the bookmakers will basically, between them, decide how much each individual punter can afford to spend on their betting, and the punter gets virtually no say whatsoever. It is completely outrageous. The Conservative party used to believe in individual freedom and individual responsibility, and some of us still do.

If we asked how much responsibility each group should take for determining how much somebody can afford to spend on betting, I doubt anyone would say that the individual concerned should have 0% responsibility, but that is the route down which we are in danger of going. It is absurd to think that bookmakers and regulators should be able to decide how much each individual person in the country should be allowed to spend on betting. When people open an online betting account or the next time they log in, perhaps they should be forced to enter how much they want to limit their spend over a fixed period. The responsibility for ensuring that they do not go over that should rest with the bookmaker, but not the decision as to how much they can afford in the first place.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

Does it not strike my hon. Friend that there is a degree of hypocrisy, when a large proportion of problem gamblers who really are in great difficulty are just using national lottery scratchcards? The figure is about four times higher than that for those who gamble on horseracing.

[Philip Davies]

I know that my hon. Friend is a big supporter of Windsor racecourse in his constituency. I will come on to that later. I hope you will think about the interventions I am taking, Sir Edward. I do not want to get in trouble.

Future of Horseracing

Debate between Philip Davies and Adam Afriyie

Wednesday 25th October 2023 Westminster Hall

[Philip Davies]

I am sure that we are all grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his declaration. Unlike him and my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), I do not seek to ride any winning horses; I just try to back a few, with mixed results. At least when I lose, I know that I am contributing to the levy, as the right hon. Gentleman has encouraged us all to do.

As the right hon. Gentleman said, horseracing is a very successful sport in this country, but it is under increasing threat from foreign competition, particularly from the middle east. Many of our best horses are now sold to race there, where racing is much more profitable than in the United Kingdom.

Whether people like it or not, the vast majority of income for the racing industry comes through betting, one way or another. Owners put an awful lot of money into it without much expectation of return, and I can certainly vouch for that. Betting brings around £350 million a year into the industry. That is much more than the total prize money in the UK. If racing loses that betting income, the problem of horses moving overseas will only get worse. British racing would cease to be the best in the world. That would be terrible for the country as a whole, as well as for individual constituencies.

The right hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to focus much of his remarks on the issue of affordability checks, and I want to concentrate on it in the short time available to me. There is an issue of principle here. Who decides how much people can afford to bet on anything? Who decides what people can afford to spend on anything? We are in an interesting situation where the Government are deciding that people should have an affordability check on their betting, but on nothing else. People who spend a modest amount on betting—for example, those who lose £2,000 over 90 days—will undergo enhanced affordability checks.

I will illustrate how absurd the situation is. A racehorse owner might buy 10 horses, and spend £1 million each year at the sales buying those horses. None of that is subject to an affordability check. They then put those 10 horses in training, and pay fees of around £250,000 a year. None of that is subject to an affordability check. But if they were to spend £2,000 betting on those horses over a 90-day period, they would, at the Government’s behest, be subject to an enhanced affordability check. It is complete nonsense. Surely nobody here thinks that those people should be subject to an affordability check on that basis.

The racing industry worries that people who spend an awful lot of money owning and buying horses, and who enjoy having a bet on their horses when they run, will leave the sport, because that betting part will be at risk if the Government go ahead with their plans. That would be tragic for the racing industry and for those people, and it cannot have been the Government’s intention when they introduced affordability checks.

This blanket number is wrong, and why would it apply only to betting? Why is betting frowned upon to such an extent that the Government want to stick their nose in and find out whether I can afford to spend my money—it is my money, after all—on betting? They do not check whether I can afford to buy a pair of shoes, a coat, a suit or anything else. They want to interfere only if I am betting on anything, including horses. There is an important matter of principle here.

The intention behind some of the rules is ridiculous. For example, if someone loses £2,000 over 90 days, they get an enhanced affordability check, but they can offset only seven days of winnings against that. People’s losses are mounted up over 90 days, but they can offset any winnings made over only seven days. That is absolute nonsense. People could literally win £10,000 on the placepots at Cheltenham in March, go to the grand national at Aintree and lose £2,000, and then have to have an affordability check, even though they are £8,000 up. No account is being taken of how much is won in the previous month or two months—only of what was won in the previous seven days. Those arbitrary figures are ridiculous.

People want proportionate checks. We are basically treating everybody who bets on anything in this country as a potential problem gambler, even though the rate of problem gambling in this country is very low, at about 0.3%.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

We are very proud to have two racecourses in the Windsor constituency. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that if the checks are introduced, all that will happen is that reasonable people who occasionally bet on horses will go to a black market site, where there will be no checks whatsoever? In fact, they will be exposed to all sorts of risks that we do not want, and there will be no revenue to UK horseracing.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. How many people will go to the black market is a matter of dispute; it is impossible to know. However, people like a bet, and the chances are that they will keep betting. If they cannot bet on legitimate sites, they will go to illegitimate sites. There is a lot of truth in what my hon. Friend says.

I ask the Minister to ensure that the Government’s policy on this matter has a Conservative philosophy behind it. We believe that people should be free to spend their money as they wish, and we should not have bookmakers, the Gambling Commission and the Government deciding how much each individual can afford to bet on something. Let people make their own judgments and decisions; we have to have some individual responsibility. Any decisions must be proportionate to the problem, and we are very blessed to have low levels of problem gambling in this country. Those decisions have to focus on the wider impact on the horseracing industry, which cannot cope with the kind of reductions in betting that the right hon. Member for West Suffolk spoke about. That would be a disaster.

Many people in the racing industry think—I would be interested to know what the Minister thinks—that betting on horseracing is a game of skill; it is a matter of checking out the form, the draw, the ground and so on. When I back a horse, I do so scientifically. I can vouch for the fact that they do not always run scientifically, but I pick them scientifically. Does he think that games of skill should be treated differently from games of chance when it comes to betting? I would be interested to know his thoughts on that, because some people think that horseracing should be treated differently.

Many people make a living out of betting—professional gamblers. They go through good runs and bad runs. They will lose more than £2,000 over 90 days on many occasions, but they have won far more than that in the past. We cannot have blanket rules that are not sensible and that do not look at people’s overall patterns of behaviour. On the back of the consultation, I urge the Minister to think again. I urge him to think about making affordability checks proportionate and about Conservative principles, and ask him to have at the forefront of his mind the future of the horseracing industry, which I know he does not want to damage in any way.

Use of the Chamber (United Kingdom Youth Parliament)

Debate between Philip Davies and Adam Afriyie

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to take that view. He said that he wants to listen to the arguments; well, I have got on the record only one paragraph of my speech because I have been dealing with hon. Members’ interventions. My hon. Friend is a very diligent local MP, but I am sure that if he looks a bit harder, he will find some young people in his constituency, and then he can ask how many of them are desperate to come and have a debate in this Chamber. I think he will find that that is not near the top of their list of priorities. I could be wrong.

[Adam Afriyie]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

I give way to my hon. Friend, because I promised him earlier and forgot.

[Adam Afriyie]

It seems to me that my hon. Friend is going through a tick-box list of variables and characteristics of the various different organisations, and then going through the arguments one by one and trying to discount each individual argument, or arguing that that single variable is not the variable on which we should make the judgment. In sophisticated argument, and in making sophisticated judgments, one takes multiple variables and judges them all together in the round, not one by one. As he goes through each of the variables, he is agreeing that that variable is pretty much true or valid, but then saying that that on its own it does not seal the decision to make the judgment. I put it to him that if one is a little more sophisticated, one makes the judgment by taking all the variables and saying, in a combined fashion, that that therefore tips the judgment in favour of allowing them to be here.

[Philip Davies]

I applaud my hon. Friend’s honesty. In effect, he appears to be accepting the point that I have been making in dealing with interventions—that there is nothing unique about the UK Youth Parliament and its composition that means that it should uniquely be able to use this House—but exercising his judgment in believing, taking everything into account, that theirs is a different and special case compared with everyone else. That is a perfectly valid point and a perfectly respectable argument, but I am delighted that he appears to be agreeing with the thrust of my argument that there is nothing unique about the make-up of the UK Youth Parliament that means that it should uniquely be able to do this.