On Monday, 10 August, Prime Minister Andy Burnham announced his plans to scrap the ‘aim to permit’ rule across Britain, which prevents local councils from refusing the opening of new betting shops.
The measure will also require planning permission to be obtained for any new Adult Gaming Centres (AGCs) in England.
Revoking the ‘aim to permit’ rule could follow after the government launches a consultation into changing the Gambling Act 2005.
Burnham framed the move as a way to put “communities back in control” across the country, with the likes of think tank the Social Market Foundation (SMF) and Labour MP Dawn Butler having been critical of the rule in the past.
EGR has compiled thoughts from industry stakeholders on the impact Burnham’s measure will have going forward.
Melanie Ellis, partner at Northridge Law
“The proposal to remove the ‘aim to permit’ requirement on local authorities reflects the broader shift in regulatory narrative from the ‘consumer choice’ philosophy of 20 years ago to the ‘consumer choice’ one of today.
“There is no suggestion the ‘demand’test that existed prior to the Gambling Act 2005 will be reinstated, rather it seems that local licensing authorities will instead have a wide discretion as to whether to grant a new premises licence.
“In practice, operators may need to demonstrate not just compliance with the licensing objectives but also benefits to the local community (for example through local investment and employment opportunities) to persuade the authority to grant a licence. It seems likely different licensing authorities will take different approaches to the exercise of that discretion, leading to considerable uncertainty for operators and a higher burden to successfully obtain a licence.
“One consequence of licences becoming more difficult to obtain may be that operators prefer to take over an existing premises’ licence (which would become valuable assets, particularly in areas where local authorities prove reluctant to grant new licences) rather than incur the costs and risks of a new application.”
Kirsty Caldwell, founder and CEO of Betsmart Consulting, industry forum chair at the Gambling Commission
“The categorisation of gambling venues, alongside vape shops and other so called ‘dodgy businesses’, smacks of such an embarrassing level of ignorance, I barely know where to start.
“The gambling sector is clearly one of the most tightly regulated and closely supervised industries in existence. Huge sums of money are poured into anti-money laundering controls and consumer protection, and licensed gambling businesses are transparent with the extremely zealous regulator, providing detailed data around customer and financial activity on a quarterly basis, as well as undergoing frequent regulatory audits.
“Furthermore, aside from the entire industry which this uneducated comment maligns, the prime minister is also doing a great job of heavily criticising the country’s regulatory body.
“Along with the significant tax revenue generated by the industry (which is clearly desperately needed by the government) and the 100,000+ jobs it creates, it should also be remembered that gambling venues provide valuable community hubs on often completely desolate high streets. Perhaps it might be an idea for Mr Burnham to visit a betting shop or two before he passes further judgement or, indeed, policy position.”
Harry Stewart-Moore, partner at Child & Child
“There can’t be many businesses which are required to go through a stringent licensing process and are then closely and heavily regulated which have been described by a sitting prime minister as ‘dodgy’. Where does this leave the reputation of the Gambling Commission which has been regulating this sector for the last 20 years?
“It would also be tempting to conclude that the prime minister was not entirely on top of his brief. It is hard to imagine he understood the complex but vital relationship between LBOs [licensed betting offices] and the horseracing industry when he launched his broadside, for example.”
Dan Waugh, partner at Regulus Partners
“It is difficult to know what to make of the government’s plans to end ‘aim to permit’ because at the moment it is a soundbite rather than a policy. Simply removing the words ‘aim to permit’ from section 153 of the Gambling Act would be incoherent; it requires substitution by a new form of words and, at present, we don’t know what those are. The Act needs to provide some sort of guidance and, if they [licensing authorties] are not supposed to allow licensed businesses to carry out lawful trade, what are they supposed to do?
“The whole point about ‘aim to permit’ is to encourage licensing authorities to focus on the law rather than their own moral whims. The aim does not create a carte blanche. It is contingent on whether permitting a venue to open would be consistent with the objectives of the Gambling Act (including protection of children and vulnerable people), any codes the Gambling Commission sees fit to issue and the local authority’s own statement of licensing principles. It is designed to protect licensing decisions from the caprice of the personal moral judgements of local councillors, whose tastes may differ from those of the general citizenry.
“What is particularly concerning about the government’s announcement is its disregard for factual accuracy, including claims the number of betting shops is growing (when the sector is already contracting at an alarming rate), that councils are powerless to prevent licensing and planning applications (they are not, as the record shows), that no-one wants betting shops (millions of people use them every month) or that highly regulated and culturally historic businesses deserve to be characterised as ‘dodgy’ or lumped in with criminal enterprises. Regardless of one’s views about gambling, this example of TikTok politics bodes ill for how we will be governed.”
Sian Harding, managing associate in the Interactive Entertainment team at Mishcon de Reya
“The ‘aim to permit’ rule replaced the requirement for applicants to prove unmet demand, which had led to hugely protracted application processes. It allows authorities to grant premises licences provided that the use of the premises accords with relevant codes of practice, Gambling Commission guidance, and the licensing objectives.
“The prime minister’s view that such premises can be lumped in with vape shops and ‘rogue operators’ fails to recognise the strong regulatory regime applicable to licensed operators, developed over many years.
“Indeed, the Gambling Impact Assessment regime approved earlier this year addressed the very issue that government is concerned about, providing a proportionate way for local authorities to depart from ‘aim to permit’ in vulnerable areas. Going beyond this to completely remove a national presumption that legitimate, compliant businesses may obtain licences to operate is disproportionate.
“Removing that presumption without a sensible replacement test also risks creating a vacuum in which such businesses’ applications may be refused for political rather than regulatory reasons, undermining the consistency that a well-functioning licensing system relies on.”
Betting and Gaming Council
“We support tough action against criminal operators and agree local people should have a proper say over their high streets. But the suggestion betting shops are spreading unchecked is simply wrong.
“Betting shop numbers have fallen by over a third since 2019. Around 3,000 shops have closed and over 15,000 jobs have already been lost.
“It is wrong to lump highly regulated, licensed betting shops together with rogue or criminal businesses. Betting shops still support 37,500 jobs, bring vital footfall to neighbouring businesses and, for many customers, are valued community hubs.
“The real threat to Britain’s hard-pressed high streets is more empty units and fewer local jobs, not businesses rooted in the communities they serve.”
Dawn Butler, Labour MP for Brent East, in an op-ed for the Guardian
“The gambling industry is lucrative and deeply embedded in our communities. When I looked into why councils were struggling to stop new betting shops, casinos and adult gaming centres opening, I discovered the problem.
“At the heart of it was the outdated ‘aim to permit’ principle in the Gambling Act 2005. It meant councils were effectively working against a presumption that gambling premises should be permitted, leaving them limited ability to say no. This one principle is the root of the crisis on our high streets: it has stripped local people of any real power to shape their own communities, and let the industry expand largely unchecked.
“The government has announced it is scrapping ‘aim to permit’, giving councils and communities greater power over what happens on their high streets. This is a huge victory for London and for communities nationwide.”
The post Industry reaction to the potential scrapping of ‘aim to permit’ rule first appeared on EGR Intel.
EGR gathers the thoughts of interested parties as Prime Minister Andy Burnham announces plan to strike blow to the UK’s retail sector
The post Industry reaction to the potential scrapping of ‘aim to permit’ rule first appeared on EGR Intel.