Yet more fudge as white paper rebukes bookmakers over restrictions but takes no real action

The fudge-filled gambling white paper is even more frustrating than you might have realised.

As has been widely reported, the plans laid out by the latest incarnation of the Conservative administration have proved to be not so sinister or dangerous as we once expected. There is also a significant possibility it will not be Rishi Sunak but Sir Keir Starmer who ultimately dictates the future shape of the United Kingdom's gambling landscape. As such, although where we are now is better than where we feared we might be, it's extremely hard to predict where we will end up.

Having sought to avoid making definitive judgements on a number of the most critical issues, it is perhaps no surprise that a similar approach has been taken in relation to the restrictions all too regularly imposed on punters by algorithm-led bookmakers increasingly keen to push away those who win too much or even just prove adept at beating starting price.

The good news is that account restrictions are covered in their own section within the sizeable tome. The bad news is the government has basically left it to bookmakers to police themselves.

The white paper reports that some respondents to the Gambling Commission's 2020 call for evidence highlighted what they considered to be unfair practice that "runs contrary to the licensing objective that gambling should be ‘fair and open'". The government refers to "informal estimates" from operators that between 0.7 and three per cent of accounts are restricted but adds that "the real figure is likely to be higher", given bookmakers tend to use 'restriction' as an all-encompassing term to include accounts that have, in effect, been terminated.

Offering its view on restrictions, the white paper states: "It is apparent that some operators may be using restrictions to minimise commercial risk with excessive caution." It goes on to add that this approach "creates the impression of an online betting market that exists to only serve and maximise profit from losing customers" and further points out that "excessive commercial caution risks driving customers to the black market".

In a further relevant section, readers are told: "As part of the Commission’s joint work with the Competition and Markets Authority it was made clear . . . that while licensees can manage their financial exposure to individual gamblers, it is not appropriate to unilaterally remove or alter their obligations to provide the substantive benefits promised under the contract."

The government has therefore acknowledged there is a problem and delivered what can be interpreted as a mild rebuke. At the same time, it has offered no real solution to the problem, one that risks driving fans and punters away from the sport. The difficulty, we are told, is that although bookmakers cannot use business decisions to discriminate against people if those decisions transgress "the basis of prohibited characteristics", being a successful bettor is "not a protected characteristic in discrimination law".

That conclusion will disappoint so many punters who have been told they can stake only a few pounds, or even a few pence, in even the biggest races. It means it will remain largely down to bookmakers, monitored by the Gambling Commission, to be less defensive. On the plus side, the government does make clear it has real concerns about restrictions and instructs bookmakers to be more open with punters who have hitherto been told simply that their ability to bet has been curtailed due to "trading decisions".

Making that clear, the white paper says: "Licensed operators should be transparent with customers, both at the start of the relationship and throughout, about how, when and why an account might be restricted."

Cheltenham's International Hurdle will move to Festival Trials Day as part of a revision of the British Jumps PatternCredit: Alan Crowhurst (Getty Images)

Enhanced transparency would indeed be welcome. Even more welcome would be for bookmakers to show greater willingness to take on honest punters who happen to be quite good at finding winners. That said, the government has acknowledged that at a time when gambling is under its microscope, restrictions are worth discussing. I'm encouraged by that and delighted punters might get a chance to bet on some hopefully more competitive Graded races following the changes announced to the British jumps Pattern.

At this point I must declare an interest, having been part of the cross-industry Quality Jump Racing Review Group which first set out to reconsider the upper tier of the jumps programme. Now, as a member of the BHA's Jumps Pattern Committee, I firmly believe that the bold decision to axe a number of high-profile races, with others repositioned or relocated, will be in the sport's best interest.

It has long been acknowledged that the top horses had too many options, making it too easy for them to avoid each other outside of the spring festivals. By pruning the Pattern and spacing out the contests that remain, the intention is that the autumn and winter features will provide more enticing fare. The proof of the pudding will be in the racing, and in time further revisions may be needed, but the BHA, racecourses and the sport's participants have, to their credit, combined to take meaningful action.

It is particularly pleasing to see the International Hurdle pushed back by Cheltenham from December to late January. Had the race not been moved, it would this year have been one of three major Champion Hurdle trials staged in Britain within 25 days. In its new slot, the International makes Festival Trials Day even more exciting and provides a valuable new opportunity for the elite hurdlers. Also worth applauding is the Jockey Club's decision to turn the Desert Orchid Chase into a Grade 2 limited handicap. Some would want to see more Grade 2 prizes amended in the same way but we do, at least, now have a test case.

In a wider sense, the philosophy behind the new-look jumps Pattern is that less is more. When tasked with offering clarity in the gambling white paper, the government evidently had the same mindset.

Members' Club Ultimate subscribers can read more of Lee Mottershead's articles here:

Racing does not need to appease the antis - it's the middle ground that must be won 

'It was ghastly, it got into my thoughts and dreams for years' - the drama and agony of the void National 

Nico de Boinville: 'I guess I could change my accent but I am who I am - I don't worry about what people think of me'  

How affordability checks kept a successful Cheltenham owner from some of his £100,000 in winning bets 

Stay ahead of the field with 50 per cent off the ultimate racing subscription. Enjoy the Racing Post digital newspaper and award-winning journalism from the best writers in racing. Plus, make informed betting decisions with our expert tips and form study tools. Head to the subscription page and select 'Get Ultimate Monthly', then enter the code WELCOME2023 to get 50 per cent off your first three months*.

*Available to new subscribers purchasing Members' Club Ultimate Monthly using code WELCOME2023.

First three payments will be charged at £19.98, subscription renews at full monthly price thereafter.

Offer expires 31/12/2023. Customers wishing to cancel will need to contact us at least seven days before their subscription is due to renew.