Experts are expressing concern that the UK government's recent decision to revoke the 'aim to permit' licensing rule for gambling premises may compel new legislation to amend the 2005 Gambling Act, potentially leading to further reforms in the sector.
The 'aim to permit' rule encourages local councils to approve licensing applications for gambling establishments, provided they align with the policy, guidance, and licensing objectives set by the Gambling Commission.
On August 11, Prime Minister Andy Burnham announced this change, part of an initiative to empower councils with greater authority over their high streets. As part of this initiative, Adult Gaming Centres, which provide round-the-clock access to gaming machines, will now be required to obtain planning consent.
Burnham's announcement also introduced new restrictions on vape shops, which he associated with betting shops, calling both “dodgy businesses,” a classification that has prompted backlash from industry stakeholders.
However, the removal of the 'aim to permit' rule from local licensing procedures is not expected to be straightforward. This rule is a fundamental aspect of the Gambling Act of 2005. Andrew Lyman, Gibraltar’s Gambling Commissioner and former UK Gambling Commission director, pointed out that altering such a core principle would necessitate primary legislative changes. He suggested that while the government might attempt to navigate this issue through planning adjustments, such measures could lead to legal conflicts and trigger judicial review.
Louisa Clark, an independent licensing and compliance consultant and former compliance manager at the Gambling Commission, echoed this sentiment, stating that amending the Gambling Act through primary legislation seems unavoidable. "Aim to permit is directly written into the Gambling Act itself," she said. "It can’t just be overturned by ministerial announcements or changes in local policy or Gambling Commission guidance."
The specifics regarding how this amendment will manifest – whether it involves a complete overhaul of the Gambling Act, a new legislation, or a bill specifically aimed at eliminating 'aim to permit' – will be outlined in an upcoming consultation.
Potential legislative changes could introduce complications for the industry, especially as government perspectives on gambling appear to be increasingly negative. Following the announcement regarding 'aim to permit,' the Association of Directors of Public Health (ADPH), representing public health officials in the UK, called for a new Gambling Act rooted in public health principles. In a statement on LinkedIn, the ADPH emphasized that this government action should coincide with national efforts to implement a ban on gambling advertising, promotions, and sponsorships.
Lyman indicated that additional pressure from advocacy groups and politicians is likely to broaden the discussion on gambling reform. "Any changes to primary legislation will prompt broader discussions about the government’s comfort with risk and its overall approach to gambling," he said. He warned that the six-week consultation proposed could evolve into a prolonged policy process concerning amendments to the Gambling Act and the Gambling Commission’s role.
The hope of returning powers to local communities might inadvertently open a ‘Pandora's box’ that could lead to an extensive and arduous journey toward a new Gambling Act.
The path forward remains uncertain. The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government will spearhead a fast-track consultation on the matter, aiming for implementation by January 2027. Many industry experts regard this timeline as overly ambitious, considering the need for primary legislative changes.
The current Gambling Act took several years to move from concept to implementation, suggesting that if significant revisions are forthcoming, it could be a lengthy process before anything substantive is achieved, potentially shifting priorities in the meantime.
Experts contend that the government's announcement may have occurred without comprehensive consideration of the practical ramifications associated with removing 'aim to permit.' "The forthcoming consultation will serve as an opportunity to discuss these implications freely," Clark noted. She emphasized that at this stage, it appears more as a political ambition than a definite plan.
While advocates may see this as a chance to expand their agenda, Clark cautioned against assuming that a new act is an unavoidable outcome. "We must be cautious about predicting the extent until we see the consultation feedback and a draft bill," she stated.
While discussions about the impact of withdrawal from the 'aim to permit' rule surface, there are growing concerns about existing licenses, with reform advocates suggesting those could also be reconsidered. Lyman warned against this proposal, stating, "Granting licensing authorities the power to revoke existing licenses solely based on moral judgments against gambling poses a significant threat to the rule of law and illustrates why such powers should not reside with local councils."
