Bacta, the trade body representing amusement arcades and Adult Gaming Centres, has warned it would seriously consider judicial review proceedings if the UK moves toward revoking existing AGC licences.
The warning came in response to calls from prominent reform campaigner James Noyes, who urged the government to include licence revocation powers in its consultation on changes to the so-called “aim to permit” rules.
Prime Minister Andy Burnham sparked controversy this week by targeting the gambling industry, controversially grouping betting shops alongside “dodgy businesses” in language that has drawn widespread criticism across the sector.
Burnham announced the government intends to remove the “aim to permit” clause from the Gambling Act, which currently requires local authorities to start from a position of agreeing to grant licences when an operator meets the licensing objectives.
Noyes wrote on X that scrapping the statutory “aim to permit” rule was “a major step forward,” but argued that local authorities must also be given powers to review and revoke existing licences, not simply refuse new ones.
The Social Market Foundation, where Noyes serves as a senior fellow, has conducted substantial research showing that Adult Gaming Centres have historically clustered in more deprived areas throughout the UK.
SMF deputy research director Jamie Gollings said that councils know their high streets better than anyone, yet the “aim to permit” rule has meant “they’ve had very little real say over what opens on them.”
Bacta president Joseph Cullis, whose family has operated AGCs in North Ayrshire, Scotland since the 1960s, said: “If they were to go down [the licence revocation] route, there is no doubt about it that JRs would come into play.”
Cullis argued forcefully against the prospect of licence revocations, stating: “You can’t take businesses from people that have been in an industry for decades. I’ve got staff that’s worked for me for 30-odd years. These people’s livelihoods rely upon my business.”
Gambling reform campaigner Matt Zarb-Cousin told NEXT.io that removing “aim to permit” means revoking the main liberalising principle of the 2005 Gambling Act and would correct the power imbalance between licensing authorities and the gambling industry.
Zarb-Cousin argued that if done properly, the changes would make it easier for authorities to refuse and revoke licences “without successful legal challenge,” signalling that reformers see revocation as a core part of the policy goal.
Licensing and regulatory solicitor Leigh Schelvis of Schofield Sweeney cautioned that moving toward revocations based solely on the number of gambling venues in a given area would be fundamentally unfair to operators.
Schelvis stated that from an operator perspective, “licences should only be revoked for failure to promote the licensing objectives,” and warned authorities could face formal legal action from the trade if they proceed otherwise.
One anonymous industry source expressed frustration at the direction of policy, telling NEXT.io: “It’s an ideological hit job from a government that’s captured by campaigners who want to end gambling.”
Expert sources have flagged that aggressive revocation powers could effectively drive retail gaming out of areas governed by Labour or Green councillors, creating a patchwork of local gambling restrictions across the country.
