Hear the full interview
From 6:57 in Thursday’s episode of Nick Luck Daily. Press play to start at the interview.
Plumpton director Tom Savill says he will make racing’s voice heard on the new Gambling Policy Commission, a self-appointed body that has launched a review of whether Britain needs a new gambling act.
The commission is chaired by Jagjit Chadha, professor of economics at Cambridge University, and was seed funded by gambling reform campaigner Derek Webb. Its ten members include Savill, co-author of the “Securing Racing’s Future” report, and James Noyes of the Social Market Foundation.
‘Two years before the iPhone’
Savill told Nick Luck that the review would go further than the last government white paper. “It’s been 20 years since the Gambling Act 2005 and 25 years since the Budd Review in 2001, so we’re looking at a holistic review of the legislation surrounding gambling and how relevant it is in today’s digital world,” he said. “The white paper didn’t look at whether we needed a new act altogether. When the 2005 Act came out, it was two years before the iPhone was even invented, and it still talks about things like telephone betting.”
He admitted the government had not asked for the review. “There’s a cost of living crisis and several other serious issues, so we could sit around forever and wait for them to finally tackle the problem of gambling,” he said. “But this government has been quite vocal in saying gambling needs reviewing of some sort, so we’ve pre-emptively gone ahead and started that review.” The call for evidence, covering the commission’s eight core objectives, closes on 12 February 2027.
‘Total independence’ from Derek Webb
Nick put it to Savill that the commission’s backers have a clear agenda. Savill insisted it was independent. “These are incredibly serious people who wouldn’t have accepted anything other than total independence from Derek Webb,” he said. “Yes, Derek provided the seed funding, but he hasn’t had any further involvement at all. You’ve got former Bank of England advisers and Treasury advisers, and I think most of the commissioners haven’t even met Derek. The proof of the pudding will be in the reports we do.”
He stressed that he is one voice among ten. “I’ll be making the case for racing, as best I can, to make racing’s voice heard,” he said. “It would be great for the BHA to be involved in submitting evidence, so it’s not just my voice in the room, but cold, hard facts from the BHA saying this is racing’s contribution and this is where we’re at with funding.”
“I’ll be making the case for racing, as best I can, to make racing’s voice heard.”
Tom Savill
BHA: ‘No involvement or engagement’
Brant Dunshea, chief executive of the BHA, said the governing body only learned of the commission when it was announced. “We’ve had no involvement or engagement with any of the members of the commission on its establishment or its terms of reference, so we don’t yet know a great deal about it other than what’s been published,” he said. “We have engaged with government to understand whether it had been involved in discussions around its establishment, and we’re advised that from a DCMS perspective, that’s not the case.”
“We of course are very committed to engaging with government on future gambling policy,” he added. “We’ve been working hard over the last month or two to reframe our engagement with government, and we’re very much committed to working in a positive, collaborative way with them on how we can support their growth agenda.”
‘We’ve seen this movie before’
Lydia Hislop, Nick’s guest on the programme, was sceptical. “We’ve seen this movie before,” she said. “When Tom said nobody is coming at this with any preconceived ideas, I did allow myself a snort. Nobody denies that gambling policy isn’t fit for the modern world. But it makes a lot of political sense for a self-appointed commission to gather evidence in a public way and present its findings to government, which almost creates an obligation for government to take them seriously. And it doesn’t end well for horse racing.”
She urged racing fans and punters to respond to the call for evidence. “If they don’t contribute, their voices don’t get heard,” she said. “The punter is missing from all of these examinations, particularly the punter whose lived experience is that they really enjoy betting and would like to be able to do it a little more freely than the affordability checks have ended up forcing upon them.”
