Experts are cautioning that the recent move by the UK government to repeal the 'aim to permit' licensing rule for gambling venues could necessitate new legislation to amend the Gambling Act of 2005, potentially leading to further reforms.
The rule guided local councils in granting licensing approval for gambling establishments, provided they complied with the standards set by the Gambling Commission and adhered to its licensing objectives.
On August 11, Prime Minister Andy Burnham announced this change as part of a plan to enhance local control over high streets. Additionally, plans now require Adult Gaming Centres, which operate around the clock, to seek planning permission.
In his announcement, Burnham placed betting shops alongside vape shops, labeling them as “dodgy businesses,” a remark that has drawn significant backlash from the industry.
Changing the aim to permit rule presents complexities, as it is a core component of the 2005 Gambling Act. According to Andrew Lyman, Gibraltar’s Gambling Commissioner and a former director of the UK Gambling Commission, modifying such a foundational aspect would require primary legislation. He indicates that while the government might attempt to circumvent this through planning changes, it could lead to legal disputes and potential judicial reviews.
Louisa Clark, an independent licensing consultant and former Gambling Commission compliance manager, agrees that altering the Gambling Act through primary legislation is unavoidable. She emphasizes that the aim to permit rule is directly incorporated into the Act and cannot simply be dismissed with a ministerial announcement or local policy changes. The specifics regarding how this will transpire—whether through a complete overhaul of the Act, a new law, or a targeted bill—will emerge from an upcoming consultation.
Industry stakeholders express concerns that legislative modifications may spark wider debates at a time when public attitudes towards gambling are increasingly critical. The Association of Directors of Public Health (ADPH), representing public health directors throughout the UK, has called for the establishment of a new Gambling Act rooted in public health principles. In a recent LinkedIn statement, ADPH stated that the government's decision must be accompanied by nationwide action, including a ban on gambling advertising, promotions, and sponsorships.
Lyman warns that the push for changes to primary legislation will likely encourage advocates to broaden discussions on gambling reform. He states, "Any change to primary legislation will result in a wider debate about government risk appetite and the general approach to gambling. Those calling for a new Gambling Act will agitate for that, and what has been billed as a six-week consultation will evolve into a prolonged policy process regarding revisions to the Act and the role of the Gambling Commission." He adds that the intention to return power to local communities could lead to extensive and potentially tortuous reform efforts.
The future implications of this initiative remain uncertain. The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government is expected to lead a rapid consultation, aiming for implementation by January 2027. However, critics describe this timeline as optimistic, especially if primary legislation is indeed necessary, given that the current Gambling Act took several years from conception to enactment. Should significant amendments be on the horizon, it could take considerable time before tangible change occurs, and priorities may shift.
Experts suggest that the government's announcement seems premature, lacking comprehensive planning regarding the practicalities of revoking the aim to permit rule. Clark highlights that the forthcoming consultation will be crucial for discussing the implications of this initiative. She observes, "It’s more a political ambition at this point in time," noting that while campaigners may find opportunities to advocate for more extensive reforms, it remains uncertain how these changes will manifest.
Lyman cautions that the notion of granting licensing authorities the power to revoke existing licenses solely based on moral or social concerns would be problematic. He describes such a stance as an extreme anti-gambling position that presents challenges for legal governance, stressing that local councils should not be afforded such authority.
