Experts have raised concerns regarding the UK government's recent repeal of the 'aim to permit' licensing rule for gambling establishments, predicting that it will likely necessitate further legislation to amend the 2005 Gambling Act. This repeal appears to open the door for additional reforms in gambling regulations.
The 'aim to permit' rule has traditionally guided local councils in approving licensing for gambling premises, contingent upon their adherence to the policy, guidance, and licensing objectives set by the Gambling Commission.
Prime Minister Andy Burnham revealed the repeal on August 11, highlighting a commitment to grant local councils greater authority over their high streets. In conjunction with this announcement, Adult Gaming Centres, which provide 24-hour access to gaming machines, will now be required to secure planning permissions under the new regulations. Burnham has controversially grouped these centres with vape shops, referring to both as "dodgy businesses,” a characterisation that has drawn criticism from industry stakeholders.
The removal of the 'aim to permit' rule is complicated, as it represents a core principle of the 2005 Gambling Act. Andrew Lyman, Gibraltar’s Gambling Commissioner and former director at the UK Gambling Commission, noted, "A fundamental change to an underlying principle of the act (one might say the fundamental principle) would need to be changed by primary legislation." He suggested that the government might attempt to navigate this issue through adjustments to planning regulations, although doing so could lead to legal challenges and potential judicial reviews.
Louisa Clark, a licensing and compliance consultant and former Gambling Commission compliance manager, agrees that amending the Gambling Act through primary legislation is unavoidable. "I don’t think that’s in any doubt really. Aim to permit is written directly into the Gambling Act itself," she stated, emphasizing that it cannot simply be overturned through a ministerial announcement or changes in local policy.
The specifics of how this amendment will take shape remain uncertain, whether it entails a comprehensive overhaul of the entire Gambling Act or a more focused bill addressing the removal of the 'aim to permit' rule.
For the gambling industry, changes to the Act could pose significant risks, especially when governmental attitudes toward gambling appear increasingly negative. In response to Burnham's announcement, the Association of Directors of Public Health (ADPH), representing public health directors across the UK, has called for a new Gambling Act based on health principles and proposed a ban on gambling advertising and promotions.
Lyman anticipates increased pressure from activists and politicians to broaden the reform discourse. He explained that any modifications to primary legislation will prompt a wider discussion about government attitudes toward gambling. "Those calling for a new Gambling Act will agitate for that, and what has been billed as a six-week consultation may evolve into a much longer policy process concerning changes to the Gambling Act and the functions of the Gambling Commission," he indicated.
The introduction of community-driven power could potentially lead to unforeseen consequences, setting the stage for a drawn-out process towards a revised Gambling Act.
The trajectory of this change remains unpredictable. The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government will oversee a fast-tracked consultation, reportedly aiming for implementation by January 2027. However, industry analysts have described this timeline as overly optimistic if substantial legislative changes are required. The full development and passage of a revised Gambling Act took years, suggesting that significant amendments could delay any tangible outcomes while priorities shift.
Experts assert that the Prime Minister's announcement may have preceded a thorough evaluation of the practical implications of removing the 'aim to permit' provision. Clark highlighted the upcoming consultation as a chance for stakeholders to express their viewpoints on the consequences of this decision. "It’s definitely a possibility and an opportunity that they’re going to be exploring," she noted, anticipating lobbying efforts from reformers aiming to expand the discussion beyond merely eliminating the rule.
While a new act is not an unavoidable result of these changes, caution is advised in predicting the outcomes until the consultation and draft bill are reviewed. "We need to not confuse political rhetoric with what’s been settled legislatively because we just don’t know," cautioned Clark.
As these discussions unfold, the looming threat of additional restrictions is likely to concerned executives within the retail sector. Some reform advocates have suggested that existing premise licenses may come under scrutiny, a potential change that Lyman has strongly opposed. He cautioned, "The idea that powers should be given to licensing authorities to revoke existing licenses for no good reason other than a moral and social standpoint on gambling is tantamount to anti-gambling zealotry, presents issues for the rule of law and demonstrates exactly why local council officials or members should not be given such powers."
