AN OPEN CHALLENGE TO @jranoyes, @mattzarb AND @WillProchaska I’ve now publicly invited all three of you, more than once, to an open debate with @DanielWaugh6, @chrisgambler247 and me. So far, not one of you has responded. What makes that particularly noticeable is that @mattzarb and @jranoyes are hardly strangers to public debate. Both regularly express their views on X, answer questions and challenge people who disagree with them. @mattzarb in particular frequently engages in lengthy exchanges with ordinary punters, racing people and industry critics. So what is different about this invitation? Is it the format? The participants? The subjects? Or the prospect of a properly chaired, recorded debate in which everyone faces the same scrutiny? You regularly present evidence and arguments intended to influence Government policy. Those arguments have potentially enormous consequences for millions of recreational bettors, people experiencing gambling harm and the future of British racing. Surely those arguments deserve to be tested publicly, with knowledgeable opponents asking questions and the evidence available for everyone to examine? Let’s examine the statistics. Affordability and financial-risk checks. Gambling harm and how it is measured. The black market. Advertising. The very different risks associated with different gambling products. The economic consequences for British racing. And let’s examine the subjects that receive considerably less public attention. Who funds the organisations influencing policy? What commercial interests exist? What relationships connect campaigners, research organisations, advisers and policymakers? Who is benefiting financially today, and who could benefit from the regulatory framework that emerges tomorrow? Could future Government contracts, commercial opportunities or regulatory requirements create financial advantages for organisations or individuals already advocating particular policy outcomes? These are legitimate questions of public interest, not allegations of wrongdoing. And they apply equally to both sides. I have no funding behind my involvement in this campaign and no organisation directing my position. I have racing-related interests, which I’m perfectly happy to disclose. @DanielWaugh6 and @chrisgambler247 can declare their own relevant interests. Everybody declares. Everybody gets challenged. Nobody controls the room. The proposed format couldn’t be much fairer. Three against three. Equal time. An independent chair. Evidence and sources available in advance. A full recording available publicly. @nickluck remains my suggestion for an independent chair, subject to everyone’s agreement. Lee Keys @SystembetU previously raised the possibility of using the Barstewards platform and offered to take part. Does that offer still stand Lee? Did you contact any of @jranoyes @mattzarb or @WillProchaska? What was their response? And I want to bring @vickyfoxcroft into this conversation. Minister, there’s a fundamental question here about how Government evaluates evidence from organisations and individuals actively seeking to influence gambling policy. When those arguments are presented to Ministers, how do you ensure the underlying statistics, assumptions, funding relationships and potential commercial interests receive proper independent scrutiny? How do you ensure that knowledgeable people holding opposing views receive a meaningful opportunity to challenge them? And how does Government distinguish between genuinely independent evidence and advocacy supported by organisations with particular policy or commercial interests? Following the evidence must mean examining all of it, not simply accepting the evidence presented by those with the greatest access to Government. Which brings me back to @jranoyes, @mattzarb and @WillProchaska. You have every opportunity to challenge our arguments. If our statistics are wrong, demonstrate it. If our interpretation of the evidence is wrong, explain why. If our concerns about funding, relationships and commercial interests are misplaced, put the facts on the table. If the proposed chair, participants or format are unacceptable, suggest credible alternatives. But please explain why an invitation to a fair, open and independently chaired debate remains unanswered when public engagement is already such a regular part of your campaigning. I’m not asking anyone to accept my conclusions. I’m asking that all our conclusions be subjected to exactly the same scrutiny. And I’m perfectly prepared to have my own arguments dismantled if the evidence doesn’t support them. So here’s the question again. @jranoyes @mattzarb @WillProchaska — will you participate in an independently chaired public debate, yes or no? The invitation remains open. You ask Government to follow the evidence. I’m asking you to put that evidence on the table and defend it under equal scrutiny. And @vickyfoxcroft, I’m asking Government to ensure that the same standard applies to everyone seeking to influence the future of gambling policy. Follow the evidence. Follow the money. Let the arguments stand or fall on their merits.