Experts have raised concerns following the UK government’s recent decision to repeal the ‘aim to permit’ licensing rule for gambling establishments. This move is likely to necessitate new legislation to amend the 2005 Gambling Act, potentially leading to further reforms in the gambling sector.
The ‘aim to permit’ rule serves as a guideline for councils, allowing them to approve licenses for gambling premises if compliance with Gambling Commission policies and objectives is proven.
On August 11, Prime Minister Andy Burnham announced the repeal as part of efforts to give more control to councils over their high streets. As part of this initiative, Adult Gaming Centres, which provide 24-hour access to gaming machines, will also now require planning permission.
Burnham referred to these establishments alongside restrictions on vape shops, grouping them under the umbrella of “dodgy businesses,” a designation that has prompted backlash from the industry.
Experts warn that the removal of the aim to permit rule will not be an easy undertaking, as it is a core element of the 2005 Gambling Act.
Andrew Lyman, Gibraltar’s Gambling Commissioner and former UK Gambling Commission director, pointed out that amending something so fundamental would necessitate primary legislation. He acknowledged that the government might attempt to maneuver around this through planning changes, but such an approach could lead to legal conflicts and potentially result in judicial reviews.
Louisa Clark, an independent licensing consultant and former compliance manager for the Gambling Commission, concurred, stating that amending the Gambling Act through primary legislation is unavoidable. "Aim to permit is directly enshrined in the Gambling Act itself. It can’t be overturned solely through ministerial announcements or changes in local policy or guidance,” she said.
The specifics of what this amendment might entail, whether a complete overhaul of the Gambling Act, a new act, or a focused bill to eliminate the aim to permit rule, will become clearer during a forthcoming consultation.
However, these legislative changes could open a Pandora's box at a time when the UK government's stance on gambling seems increasingly negative. Following the announcement, the Association of Directors of Public Health (ADPH) has advocated for a new Gambling Act rooted in public health principles, calling for a ban on gambling advertising, promotion, and sponsorship.
According to Lyman, there will be intensified pressure from various campaigners and political figures to broaden the discussion around reforming the Gambling Act. He indicated that any shift in primary legislation will spark a wider debate about the government's overall approach to gambling.
While the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government is expected to lead a fast-tracked consultation on this change, aiming for implementation by January 2027, many in the industry view this timeline as overly ambitious if primary legislative action is needed. The current Gambling Act took several years to enact, suggesting that any significant amendments could delay actionable changes for an extended period, during which priorities may evolve.
Experts assert that the recent announcement appears to have been made prior to fully considering how the repeal of the ‘aim to permit’ will function in practice. Clark emphasized the forthcoming consultation as a crucial opportunity for stakeholders to discuss the implications of this overhaul and highlighted the current situation as more politically motivated than grounded in practical considerations.
She expressed that campaigners might seize this moment to push for broader changes beyond merely removing the aim to permit rule.
While suggesting that a new act isn’t guaranteed, she cautioned against jumping to conclusions until the consultation feedback and draft legislation are reviewed.
As the UK’s retail sector continues to face challenges, the looming possibility of further restrictions on gambling will likely preoccupy industry executives. One concern surfacing among reform advocates is the potential targeting of existing premise licenses, rather than just new ones.
Lyman criticized this notion, asserting that granting licensing authorities the power to revoke licenses without justifiable reasons would undermine the rule of law and highlight the dangers of allowing council officials unchecked authority in gambling matters.
