Experts express concern over the UK government's recent move to repeal the 'aim to permit' licensing rule for gambling premises, warning that this could necessitate new legislation to revise the 2005 Gambling Act, potentially leading to further reforms in the sector.
This 'aim to permit' rule instructs councils to approve licensing for gambling establishments if they comply with Gambling Commission policies, guidance, and licensing objectives. On August 11, Prime Minister Andy Burnham announced this change as part of a broader initiative to empower councils regarding their high streets. Additionally, Adult Gaming Centres, which offer around-the-clock access to gaming machines, will now need planning permission under these new measures.
Burnham likened betting shops to vape shops, categorizing both as “dodgy businesses.” This characterization has prompted backlash from the gambling industry.
The removal of the 'aim to permit' rule poses a significant challenge. According to Andrew Lyman, Gibraltar’s Gambling Commissioner and a former UK Gambling Commission director, fundamentally altering this principle of the Gambling Act will require primary legislation. He mentioned that while the government might find a workaround through planning changes, doing so risks creating legal conflicts and likely judicial review.
Louisa Clark, an independent licensing and compliance consultant, echoed these sentiments, emphasizing that amending the Gambling Act through primary legislation is essential. "Aim to permit is specifically written into the Gambling Act and cannot simply be overturned by a ministerial announcement or changes in local policy or guidance from the Gambling Commission," she stated. However, it remains unclear how this amendment might unfold, whether it involves an overhaul of the Act or a targeted bill focusing specifically on the repeal of the 'aim to permit' rule.
For the gambling industry, altering the Gambling Act could expose it to further scrutiny at a time when government sentiment towards the sector appears unfavorable. In response to the announcement, the Association of Directors of Public Health (ADPH) has called for a new Gambling Act informed by ‘public health principles.’ They stated on LinkedIn that this change should be coupled with a ban on gambling advertising, promotion, and sponsorship.
Lyman warned that any modifications to primary legislation will trigger a broader discourse on the governmental approach to gambling. He predicts that a six-week consultation may evolve into a more extended policy-making process concerning the Gambling Act and the Gambling Commission's role. “The move to return power to local communities could open a Pandora's box and lead to a complex revision of the Gambling Act,” he said.
Although the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government plans to fast-track a consultation regarding this change, aiming for implementation by January 2027 may be overly ambitious if new legislation is necessary. The current Gambling Act took years to finalize, indicating that even significant amendments might lead to a substantial delay, during which time political priorities could shift.
Experts note that the announcement precedes a thorough examination of the practical implications of removing the 'aim to permit' rule. Clark highlighted that the upcoming consultation will provide an opportunity to assess these implications further. “This appears to be more of a political ambition at this stage,” she remarked, adding uncertainty to the future trajectory of the reform.
While the potential for increased lobbying exists, Clark cautioned against assuming that a new Act is a certainty. She stressed the importance of differentiating between political statements and legislative outcomes. “We must not conflate political rhetoric with the legislative realities,” she advised.
Nevertheless, with growing challenges impacting the UK’s retail sector, the prospect of stricter regulations could provoke anxiety among executives. One alarming notion, supported by reform advocates, is the potential targeting of existing premise licenses, not limited to new applications. Lyman firmly argued against this approach, stating that allowing authorities to revoke licenses solely based on moral opposition to gambling would undermine legal principles and highlight the inappropriate nature of such powers in the hands of local council members.
