There’s a simple principle that should guide any new regulation: does it actually work, and does it make people’s lives better? Right now, serious questions are being asked about whether the Gambling Commission’s proposed Financial Risk Assessments (FRAs) meet that test. 

Let me be clear from the outset. Protecting vulnerable people and ensuring strong consumer safeguards are vital. Where there is clear evidence of problem gambling, intervention is justified and necessary. But effective regulation must also be practical, proportionate and grounded in reality, balancing protections with the need to keep millions of customers safely within the regulated market. 

We should also recognise how much has already changed in recent years. Since frictionless checks were first proposed, the regulated sector has introduced a wide range of tougher safeguards, from vulnerability checks and stricter online stake limits to improved monitoring, earlier interventions and better protections for young adults. These measures are already making a huge difference. 

That is why serious questions must now be asked about whether an additional layer of financial checks is still necessary or proportionate. 

Most people who enjoy a bet do so safely and responsibly. They deserve protection where problems arise, but they also deserve to be treated fairly and proportionately. 

That is why the row over gambling checks matters. When the Government promised new financial risk checks, the deal with the public was clear: they would be frictionless. No hassle. No ordinary punter being asked to hand over private documents just to enjoy a bet. 

I support sensible measures to protect people from gambling harm. Where someone is clearly in trouble, operators should act. But that is different from letting a regulator press ahead with wide-ranging checks without clear evidence or transparency. 

The Gambling White Paper promised frictionless checks, and Ministers have repeated that commitment. My colleague Stuart Andrew MP, then Gambling Minister, was clear the system should only be rolled out once it had genuinely met that test. 

The current Minister has also backed “frictionless, near-instantaneous checks” that would work for customers, the betting industry and racing. 

The Gambling Commission consulted on these checks in 2024 and began a pilot afterwards. Yet we still have not seen a full public explanation of what that pilot has shown. 

Ministers have quoted headline figures in Parliament, including the claim that 97% of checks would be frictionless. But that framing risks understating the real impact. In practice, the proportion of active customers affected is likely to be significantly higher and across millions of accounts, that means a substantial number of customers being interrupted or asked to provide personal financial information. That’s why the current direction of travel on FRAs is so concerning. 

Of course, where there are clear signs that someone is suffering harm, operators should step in and support must be available. But that does not justify creating a system where large numbers of law-abiding adults risk being subjected to intrusive financial scrutiny simply for taking part in a legal activity. 

We were told these checks would be “frictionless”, but in reality a customer placing a bet may suddenly be flagged by an automated system, asked for more information, or even told to hand over private financial documents such as bank statements, payslips or proof of income before they can carry on. That is not a light-touch safeguard it is intrusive, confusing and completely out of proportion to having a legal flutter. 

This is not just about inconvenience. It is about trust. If people feel they are being excessively monitored for engaging in a legal activity, confidence in the system begins to erode. 

There is also a more serious unintended consequence that cannot be ignored. 

If regulated betting becomes too complicated or intrusive, some customers will inevitably look elsewhere. The illegal gambling market is already growing, and it thrives on exactly this kind of frustration. Unlike licensed operators, black market sites offer no consumer protections, no safeguards, and no accountability. 

That is a lose lose situation. The very people these measures are designed to protect could end up in far riskier environments, beyond the reach of UK law. 

So the question must be asked: what is the evidence that an additional layer of checks will deliver better outcomes? 

So far, that case has not been made. 

Ministers have been clear that any new system must be proven to work before it is rolled out. It must be genuinely frictionless in practice, and it must strike the right balance between protecting those at risk and respecting the freedoms of the wider public. 

On all three counts, the current proposals fall short. 

This is not an argument for doing nothing. It is an argument for getting it right. 

Area of Golders Green cordoned off after stabbing attack 29 April 2026 (ZUMA Press, Inc./Alamy)

3 min read59 min

Most people simply don’t know any Jews and perhaps know even less about Jewish British history; about the infamous English blood libel originating in Norwich in 1144; about the slaughter of 57 Jews in Bury St Edmunds in 1190, which is commemorated by a teardrop memorial in Bury’s Abbey Gardens; and about the expulsion, by King Edward I in 1290, of the Jews of England, who did not return until 1656, the time of Cromwell – 366 years later. 

Yet there have been Jews in England for almost 1,000 years, and hatred of them is nothing new. Now we are witnessing in our time another terrible surge in anti-Jewish racism. A man is accused of attempting to murder two Jewish citizens in north London last month. We have seen attacks on ambulances and synagogues, and last Yom Kippur two Jews were killed in an attack in Manchester.

This latest surge in anti-Jewish hatred on our streets follows the war in the Middle East, yet the actions of the elected government of the State of Israel are no more the responsibility of England’s Jews than the actions of the Vatican are the responsibility of British Catholics, or the actions of the Chinese government the responsibility of the British Chinese community. 

The murder suspect in Golders Green did not stop to inquire whether the men in black coats and hats were supporters of the policies of the Israeli government. Their kippah alone seemed enough to make them a target.

Hatred on our streets, seemingly unfettered, has been weaponised by those, including foreign powers, who stir division. All right-minded people in our country have been appalled by the scenes of destruction in Gaza and now in Lebanon, and they have a right to protest, peacefully, in opposition to those acts of violence. The right to protest and our freedom of speech are precious principles in this country. 

But there is no right, and nor should there be, to intimidate or to chant racist slogans designed to incite hatred. The expression “globalise the intifada” is not confusing. We have seen where it leads. It leads to Manchester, to Bondi Beach and to Golders Green.

The expression ‘globalise the intifada’ is not confusing. We have seen where it leads

If there were a sustained campaign of terror against another distinctive group in our country, Sikhs or Buddhists, would there not be outrage and street protests? Would it not be viewed as a national emergency? 

Where are the anti-racists who march for peace and goodwill? Where is the solidarity with this small British community currently under attack? What will each of us do now, because what starts with the Jews never ends with the Jews? 

Now, more than ever, it is time for us to come together to say clearly and loudly that we British are a tolerant and compassionate people, and that anti-Jewish racism will not prevail.

In 1190, those few Jews who had escaped slaughter in Bury St Edmunds were expelled by Abbot Samson, earning the town the dubious honour of being the first in England to expel its Jews. 

Almost 1,000 years later, I am the first Labour MP for Bury St Edmunds but also its first Jewish MP. History has come full circle. But so too has the oldest form of hate. Learning the lessons of history must come full circle too. 

Peter Prinsley is the Labour MP for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket

Keir Starmer cannot lead Labour into the next general election, according to the party’s trade union backers.

In a huge blow to the prime minister, they said the party “cannot continue on its current path” and that change is needed at the top.

The intervention by the Trade Union Labour Organisation (TULO) comes as Starmer clings onto power despite more than 80 MPs calling on him to quit and four of his ministers resigning.

The PM is holding showdown talks with leadership rival Wes Streeting in Downing Street, where he will be asked how he plans to turn the government around after Labour’s humbling in last week’s elections.

In a statement, TULO said: “It’s clear that the prime minister will not lead Labour into the next election, and at some stage a plan will need to be put in place for the election of a new leader.

“This is a point where the future of the party we founded will be debated and determined, and we are working closely as unions to shape a shared vision on policy, political strategy and economic policy that will re-orient Labour back to working people.”

Subscribe to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.