Experts caution that the UK government's recent decision to eliminate the 'aim to permit' licensing rule for gambling establishments may necessitate new legislation to amend the 2005 Gambling Act, raising the potential for additional reforms.
The 'aim to permit' rule directs local councils to grant licensing approvals for gambling venues as long as they comply with Gambling Commission policies and objectives. Prime Minister Andy Burnham announced this change on 11 August, emphasizing a shift to empower councils over their high streets. Under this new plan, Adult Gaming Centres, which provide 24-hour access to gaming machines, will now also need planning permission.
In making this announcement, Burnham grouped vape shops with betting establishments, referring to them both as “dodgy businesses,” a characterization that has prompted backlash from the industry.
The removal of the 'aim to permit' rule is unlikely to be a simple process since it underpins the 2005 Gambling Act's foundation. Andrew Lyman, Gibraltar’s Gambling Commissioner and a former director at the UK Gambling Commission, noted that changing this fundamental principle would require primary legislation. He suggested that the government might find a workaround through planning changes, but warned this could lead to legal disputes and potential judicial review.
Louisa Clark, an independent licensing consultant and former compliance manager at the Gambling Commission, echoed Lyman’s assertion that amending the Gambling Act through primary legislation appears unavoidable. "I don’t think that’s in any doubt really. Aim to permit is written directly into the Gambling Act itself. It can’t be overturned by making a ministerial announcement, changing local policy or Gambling Commission guidance,” she stated. The specifics of this process—whether it will involve overhauling the Gambling Act, creating new legislation, or a bill specifically removing 'aim to permit'—remains uncertain and will be clarified in an upcoming consultation.
The implications of legislative changes to the Gambling Act could open a Pandora’s box, especially in a climate where government sentiment towards gambling seems increasingly negative. Following the announcement, the Association of Directors of Public Health (ADPH), which represents public health directors across the UK, called for a new Gambling Act grounded in public health principles. In a statement shared on LinkedIn, ADPH urged that this governmental shift should also lead to comprehensive changes, including a ban on gambling advertising and sponsorship.
Lyman highlighted that increased pressure from campaigners and politicians may expand the reform debate beyond just the licensing issue. He remarked, “Any change to primary legislation will result in a wider debate about government risk appetite and the general approach to gambling.” He anticipates that what has been anticipated as a six-week consultation could evolve into a considerably lengthier policy process addressing modifications to the Gambling Act and the Gambling Commission’s role.
Although the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government is expected to spearhead a rapid consultation about this change, with hopes for implementation by January 2027, industry experts view this timeline as overly ambitious if significant legislative adjustments are needed. The current Gambling Act took multiple years to develop, which suggests that any new or revised legislation might take even longer, particularly if priorities shift during that time.
Experts suggest that the announcement may not have been thoroughly grounded in practical considerations regarding the withdrawal of the 'aim to permit' rule. Clark emphasized the forthcoming consultation as a moment for discussing the implications of this decision. “I think it’s more a political ambition at this point in time,” she stated, recognizing that it remains unclear how this will unfold, although it could provide an opening for campaigners to influence the conversation significantly.
While acknowledging the possibility of further reform, Clark cautioned against presuming that new legislation is the inevitable outcome of current developments. "We need to be cautious about predicting the scope until we’ve seen the consultation and a draft bill. We need to not confuse political rhetoric with what’s settled legislatively because we just don’t know.”
As the UK retail sector faces emerging challenges, the prospect of more restrictions looms. Lyman warned that changes might even target existing premises licenses, not just new ones, a move he believes would be misguided. “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 and presents issues for the rule of law.”
