The BHA has rejected an accusation it has been complacent over the threat of intrusive affordability checks on punters which promise to cripple racing’s finances.

Conservative MP Philip Davies warned the sport on Monday about the consequences if the Gambling Commission’s proposals for affordability checks, currently out for consultation, were adopted.

Davies, whose West Yorkshire constituency adjoins that of sports minister Stuart Andrew, predicted the checks would stop “tens of thousands of people” who were not problem gamblers from betting any meaningful amount and that the racing industry and bookmakers were being “complacent” about the impact.

Responding to those claims, a BHA spokesperson said it had met with the Gambling Commission to outline its concerns and would be speaking to the Horserace Bettors Forum, which represents punters, before framing its response to the proposals.

The spokesperson said: “The BHA is working with industry stakeholders to produce racing’s response to the Gambling Commission’s consultation on affordability checks following the Gambling Review white paper. We will continue to make the case that sweeping blanket checks on affordability are not appropriate. Any measures brought in must be proportionate and targeted at individuals and their specific circumstances.

Philip Davies: Conservative MP has accused racing industry of complacency over affordability checks

“We remain firmly of the view that, if these checks are not introduced correctly, there could be significant unintended consequences for British racing. Our concerns have been repeatedly outlined to both DCMS {Department for Culture, Media and Sport] and the Gambling Commission – with whom representatives of British racing met last month – and we would reject any assertion we are complacent about the potential impacts of the proposals.

“We are aware of – and fully understand – the significant unease among racing bettors about these proposals and we will be speaking to the Horserace Bettors Forum as we draw up our response.”

At the end of April the government published its white paper on gambling reform in which it proposed two tiers of supposedly “frictionless” checks that would be conducted to ascertain if individuals could afford their level of gambling. The first, which would be triggered by a spend of £125, would check for details such as bankruptcy orders, while a more invasive “enhanced” check of personal finances would be triggered at a spend of £1,000 over 24 hours, or £2,000 over 90 days.

But more detailed proposals released last month included the suggestion that for the purposes of calculating spend winnings should only be counted as winnings for as little as seven days, and that enhanced checks should be rerun every six months to check financial circumstances had not changed. The Gambling Commission consultation closes on October 18.  

• How to respond to the Gambling Commission consultation: Views can be provided at this page. After completing the introductory questions, select ‘Remote gambling: financial vulnerability and financial risk’ from the ‘Consultations contents page’. You may choose to answer as many or as few questions as you wish. Further Racing Post guidance on responding to the consultation can be found here.

• The Racing Post wants to hear from you: What has been your experience of affordability checks since the white paper was published at the end of April, and what do you think of the government’s proposals? Have affordability checks affected your betting behaviour?
  It’s a chance for your voice to be heard. Email the Racing Post at [email protected] with the subject ‘Affordability checks’ to share your experiences, your thoughts about the government’s proposals, and your contact details.

Read these next:

Affordability proposals are not ‘frictionless’ warns Flutter chief  

MP urges racing to make its case against ‘crippling’ Gambling Commission proposals  

Affordability checks explained and how to respond to the Gambling Commission consultation