Once again, we have witnessed a summer of political upheaval.

It saw the arrival of a new administration led by PM Andy Burnham, swiftly followed by a lengthy recess and then the Political Party Conference season. In less than a month the Burnham Government will unveil its first Budget and, yet again, this could have far-reaching consequences for British horseracing in the shape of potential tax rises.

As ever, the BHA Corporate Affairs team has been heavily involved in developments across several policy areas, and this blog details the ongoing work of our Corporate Affairs team in the lead up to the upcoming Budget on the 28^{th of} October.

Future of Betting Shops

It was perhaps unrealistic to expect that, following last year’s Budget and the significant debate triggered by HM Treasury’s consultation on remote gambling tax rates, we would not be back again 12 months later facing a further threat to racing’s income.

In a summer report, Labour-leaning think tank the Social Market Foundation proposed doubling the standard rate of Machine Games Duty from 20% to 40% for Category B machines, including those in high-street betting shops. It would, the report claimed, raise between £275m and £458m extra revenue for the Treasury. It is a plan which attracted the support of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who once worked in HMT with the now Chancellor John Healey.

Disappointingly for us, the report made no attempt to assess the potential second-order impacts – caused by a further loss of betting shops – of such a move on British racing.

Recent media stories suggest that the Treasury – currently losing valuable fiscal headroom due to the rising cost of borrowing and not helped by conflicts overseas – is considering the proposal. As a team, we are back trying to mobilise supportive parliamentarians to spell out how damaging this could be for the sport.

Independent modelling published today by Regulus Partners demonstrates that:

• If MGD is raised to 40%, it leads to 4,050 shop closures (c.75% of the remaining estate) and c.28,000 job losses in the betting sector.
• Levy income falls by £24m and media-rights income by £68m, leaving racing £92m per year worse off. Such sharp drops in revenue would inevitably lead to reductions in prize money, which, would negatively impact businesses throughout British racing.
• If 75% of shops shut, this policy delivers 32% less revenue for HMT, not more, and delivers more unemployment in areas where jobless rates are already high.

You can read their blog that fully details the methodology behind these calculations issue.

These numbers deliver a stark message. In short, the Government risks taking political pain, causing job losses in betting and triggering significant funding issues in racing to potentially hit the Laffer curve. This is a message we are taking into a meeting with HMT officials in early October. It is one we have also circulated to MPs and advisers during party conference season, more of which below.

We could acknowledge a counter argument that betting shop numbers are largely on a downward trend, reflecting changes in customer behaviour when it comes to gambling and that it may be better for us as British racing to keep our powder dry and focus on tweaking the funding model to ready ourselves for a time where the betting shop may be a thing of the past.

The reason we are not doing that is twofold. First, the main issue with the potential 40% tax rate is it will advance shop closure plans from operators as it will simply render too many of the existing shops unprofitable, given the significant costs associated with running a bricks and mortar business. An immediate rather than cumulative impact stems from that and we simply won’t have the opportunity as a sport to adapt.

Second, the latest industry statistics from the Gambling Commission demonstrate that horseracing turnover in shops was £2.9bn in 2024-25. While the trends referred to above have reduced that figure over time, it is still a sizeable market that is largely catering for a significant community of older racing supporters for whom the betting shop is their engagement with our sport. If they wanted to switch to betting online, they would have done so by now.

While our argument is not as simple as it was in 2025, given racing is only being indirectly targeted, it is important that the industry sets out clearly to policymakers the risks associated with pursuing this policy.

House of Lords Report

The House of Lords Liaison Committee has published its Gambling Harm —Time for Action: Follow-up report, revisiting the work of the special Lords committee on the social and economic impact of the gambling industry and its 2020 report, Gambling Harm —Time for Action. The BHA engaged directly with that original inquiry, submitting written evidence on behalf of British racing, while then Chief Executive Nick Rust appeared before the committee to give oral evidence.

For this report the Committee, which contains prominent gambling reformist Lord Foster of Bath, only invited a select group of stakeholders to submit evidence to the inquiry. Neither the BHA nor any stakeholder in British racing were part of that select group.

The follow-up report concludes that gambling harm remains a major public-health issue and argues that the growth of advertising since the Gambling Act 2005 has helped stimulate both increased participation and harm. While the report is consistent with the conclusions of the 2023 Gambling White Paper in that it concludes there is no evidence of a causal link behind gambling advertising and gambling-related harm, its primary recommendation is for a comprehensive ban on gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship.

Welcome exemptions were at least recommended for on-course advertising for betting on horseracing and greyhound racing and for gambling advertising during dedicated racing broadcasts. The report stops short of offering horseracing and greyhound racing the same carve out for digital platforms.

This blog has previously predicted that this area of gambling policy would be the next battleground, and this Committee has made a clear attempt to push the Government towards further intervention.

Any further review of Britain’s regulatory framework for gambling advertising must be guided by robust evidence, not ideological opposition to gambling or a predetermined desire for greater restriction.

Party Conferences

The team has been on the road for several weeks for party conference season, with a presence at Reform UK, the Liberal Democrat and Labour conferences so far.

There is still more to come, with Plaid Cymru, where the team will attend the Welsh party’s conference for the first time, and the Conservative Party conference next on the schedule, giving us further opportunities to engage political stakeholders and make racing’s case across the political spectrum.

Those who tuned in for the gambling fringe event at Labour conference – organised by the Coalition to End Gambling Advertising and think tank More in Common – would have heard questions on racing to the panel from our Director of Communications and Corporate Affairs Greg Swift, who was later able to have a lengthy meeting with the new Gambling Minister Vicky Foxcroft at a private event later that night.

This fringe has drawn a fair bit of commentary from racing supporters online, both for its perceived lack of balance in terms of a panel, and with the Minister, very new in her brief following the change in party leadership over the summer, receiving some criticism.

As Greg outlined in his question, the Minister has a large brief which also includes responsibility for youth, digital inclusion, civil society and loneliness, and will likely be working through a significant number of introductory stakeholder meetings over the coming months. We would therefore encourage racing fans to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt; future engagements will clearly be more indicative on where she stands.

A question we will certainly continue to raise, however, is whether being the only major sport placed in the gambling brief is the right move from the Department moving forward.

 Jack Barton, Policy & Advocacy Manager