G3 Newswire has published a detailed interview with me about the Government’s proposal to remove the “aim to permit” principle from the Gambling Act 2005.

This would not be a minor technical amendment. It would reverse an important part of the philosophy upon which the 2005 Act was constructed.

“Aim to permit” has never meant automatic permission. An applicant must still satisfy the licensing objectives, Gambling Commission requirements and the local authority’s own policy. Licensing authorities can, and do, refuse applications.

More importantly, Parliament has already legislated for Gambling Impact Assessments. These will allow councils, where supported by evidence, to adopt a presumption against further gambling premises in particular areas.

Those new powers have not yet come into force, still less been tested in practice. Why, then, remove one of the central principles of the Act before the Government’s own new machinery has even turned a wheel?

The danger is that we recreate something resembling the old demand test through the back door accompanied by greater inconsistency between authorities, more expensive applications and considerably more litigation.

Where there is evidence of genuine gambling-related harm, it should of course be addressed. But a lawful and heavily regulated sector should not be made the convenient scapegoat for the much wider economic decline of Britain’s high streets.

The question is not whether councils should have effective powers. They should.

The question is whether dismantling a central principle of the 2005 Act is a proportionate response and whether the evidence truly justifies it.

Read full interview here