'They are listening' - BHA chief says government alive to concerns as owners quit over affordability checks

The departure of powerful owners deterred by affordability checks when seeking to bet is a cause of live concern at the BHA, whose chief executive Julie Harrington revealed yesterday that real-life examples had been shared with government.

Harrington was speaking on Wednesday at a media briefing when a number of industry topics, including levy reform, the fixture list, the whip and saunas, were covered.

The controversial issue of affordability checks was also high on the agenda after well-known owners Phil Cunningham and Carl Hinchy expressed their alarm over the intrusive action.

In Cunningham's case, he said he was being courted by black market bookmakers, while Hinchy revealed his inability to strike a sizeable bet on his horses meant he was quitting the sport.

British racing is already staring into a financial black hole as a result of checks, which involve punters being asked by bookmakers for sensitive financial information before they have a bet. Affordability checks have been a fact of betting for several years but were formally adopted in the government's gambling white paper published earlier this year. 

The government has repeatedly stressed that affordability checks should be frictionless, but last month the Gambling Commission published proposals that suggested assessments would be far more heavy-handed, and Cunningham and Hinchy's observations were not lost on Harrington.

Julie Harrington: BHA boss spoke at a media briefing on Wednesday

She said: "It's a big area of concern for us and we've been open about that from the very beginning. 

"We've had ongoing meetings, not just with the Gambling Commission, but also DCMS, and what's been very good is that the ROA [Racehorse Owners Association] and NTF [National Trainers Federation] have been able to give us confidential, but live, examples of people who are clearly able to afford an enjoyable leisure pastime and are spending huge amounts more on their horses, than they are on the ability to have a punt on them.

"We've been able to meet direct with the Gambling Commission and share those real stories and DCMS have, pleasingly, asked us further questions and for more evidence on that, which is good – they are listening." 

The Gambling Commission's consultation stage on the matter closes in October and Harrington was keen to point out how high it is on the BHA's agenda.

"This is an area of concern for us but – be assured – we are into government and into the Gambling Commission and have been ever since this was raised," she added. "The white paper concedes there is going to be an impact on racing and we told government in no uncertain terms we felt that was an underestimation, and we've been able to demonstrate why we believe that's the case.

"They have said they don't want racing to be negatively impacted, but how these checks are going to come in and how quickly they come in is a key unanswered question for us."

Harrington's colleague Greg Swift reiterated the BHA's commitment to making sure any financial checks are reasonable. Swift, who joined the body as director of communications and corporate affairs last year, said: "Work is now under way across the industry to pull together the sport's response to the Gambling Commission's consultation process. 

"I think we have a meeting with the BGC [Betting and Gaming Council] this week to discuss our approach on this and clearly we'll work closely with the BGC on this to present a united front to government on the potential and unintended consequences of the actions they may take.

"We have been clear that sweeping blanket checks on affordability are unacceptable. Checks that take place need to be proportionate and very acutely targeted to make sure they deliver on the objective of preventing gambling harm. We've spelled that out to DCMS on a number of occasions and we've spelled that out to the Gambling Commission on a number of occasions."

Swift, who previously worked in government, added: "The BHA will hold the pen on the sport's response, but it will be a response that is fed into from all sectors including those who represent the gambling consumer," he added. "We will continue to push very hard across government to make sure they fully understand the implications of some of the proposals that are spelled out in the white paper."

• 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 editor@racingpost.com with the subject 'Affordability checks' to share your experiences, your thoughts about the government's proposals, and your contact details.

Read more:

'It's a step too far' - Grade 1-winning owner Carl Hinchy quits racing over affordability checks 

'I'm being courted by offshore bookies' - Classic-winning owner sounds alarm over affordability checks 

Racing must react as another leading punter says no to affordability checks 

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

Sign up to receive On The Nose, our essential daily newsletter, from the Racing Post. Your unmissable morning feed, direct to your email inbox every morning