Take it with you

Gambling iStock 000001239081XSmall 146x219Is the portability of casino licences the next step towards localism? Ewen Macgregor looks at recent developments.

Following the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee report The Gambling Act 2005: A bet worth taking?, the Government's response on the portability of casino licences, amongst other issues, is anticipated in early November.

Whilst some of the CMS recommendations have attracted criticism, it is, however, interesting to note that there appears to be a coming together of political opinion, on the issue of portability of 1968 Act converted casino licences.

What is meant by portability of 1968 Act converted casino licences and what are the prospects of portability being turned into reality?

At the present time, under the Gambling Act 2005 it is possible for a 1968 Act converted casino premises licence to be moved ("varied") from one location to another. However, this is subject to the caveat that the premises to which it is being moved to must be "wholly or partly situated in the area of the licensing authority which issued the licence". For example, a 1968 Act converted casino premises licence, issued by authority A, can be moved to another location, so long as that location is wholly or partly within authority A. It is currently not possible to move a 1968 Act converted casino premises licence from authority A to a location which is entirely beyond the boundaries of authority A, in to authority B.

A large section of the casino industry would like to see a change in the law so that a 1968 Act licence can be moved from Authority A to Authority B, should authority B have expressed a desire for a casino licence (or at the very least not issued a "no casino resolution").

This is what is known as "portability of licences".

The background to the issue of portability is a simple one:

  • under the Gaming Act 1968, there were 53 permitted areas where an operator could apply for a casino licence; these were prescribed by regulations which came into force back in 1972;
  • in the run up to the implementation of the Gambling Act 2005 the guillotine came down on applications that could be made for 1968 Act casino licences. As there were a limited number of new casino licences available under the Gambling Act 2005 (17 in total), this resulted in a flood of new applications for 1968 Act licences;
  • at a time when the Casino Advisory Panel invited bids for one of the, at that time, 17 Gambling Act 2005 casino licences to be issued (one regional, eight large and eight small), 68 submissions were received;
  • there are a total of 186 1968 Act casino licences, which are "frozen in aspic" and cannot be increased. 146 of these licences are currently being operated, and the remaining 40 are unused/dormant;
  • the 16 local authorities granted the eight large and eight small casino licences were subsequently identified. Five years on the scenario is: eight licences have been awarded; one is open – in Newham; five local authorities have yet to start the application process; and ten are located in 1968 Act permitted areas.

When the National Casino Industry Forum (an organisation which represents 90% of the UK Casinos) appeared before the CMS Select Committee they raised the issue of "portability" of 1968 Act licences. This issue gained some sympathy from the Committee who stated that "we recommend that any local authority be able to make the decision as to whether or not they want a casino." This would appear to tie in with the coalition's desire for localism, shifting power from central government back into the hands of individuals, communities and councils.

The report goes on to say that "as a step towards this, we recommend that existing 1968 Act Casino licences are made portable, allowing operators to relocate to any local authority provided that they have the consent of that local authority".

Why is portability of licences an attractive option?

The added attraction of portability of 1968 Act casino licences to the Government is that it does not result in an increase in the overall number of gambling permissions/premises licences across the country. If portability became a reality, it would simply see a re-distribution of already granted licences.

So as to avoid a licence being imposed on a reluctant authority, the CMS report recommends a "triple lock" system whereby an operator who wished to move their licence to a different local authority area would require:

  • local authority approval;
  • planning permission (casinos are sui generis); and
  • a premises licence issued under the Gambling Act 2005.

In so far as the local authority approval is concerned, the current Gambling Act 2005 provides a local authority with the ability to pass a resolution not to issue casino premises licences (s.166 of the Gambling Act 2005). At the present time this resolution relates to the small and large (and the now defunct regional) casino licences, but a change in law could see this extended to include converted casino licences issued under the Gaming Act 1968.

With a change in the current regulations, enabling a 1968 Act licence being transferred from local authority A to local authority B, the industry's desire for portability of 1968 Act converted casino licences could be achieved by a statutory instrument.

This would present an opportunity for any of the 52 unsuccessful local authorities who applied for a 2005 Act casino licence, to have the benefit of a casino within their local authority area (should they still want one), with the relocation of a 1968 Act licence, but without the administrative bureaucracy and cost that goes with the 2005 Act process.

There is also the added attraction of portability to those authorities who have been awarded one of the eight large and eight small casino licences. Within a number of these authorities lie dormant/unused 1968 Act converted casino licences. If these 1968 Act licences were capable of being moved out with these authority areas, this may increase the regenerative benefit that could be payable to the awarding council under the Schedule 9 Gambling Act 2005 casino competition.

The industry, and no doubt local authorities who still harbour a desire to have a casino within their area (as well as those authorities awarded a 2005 Act casino licence), will no doubt be waiting with interest for the Government's response to the CMS Report in early November. Until then, it will be up to the industry, and those local authorities who would like to see a change in this area of gambling legislation, to continue to lobby government to bring about portability.

Ewen Macgregor is a Senior Associate at Bond Pearce LLP, specialising in liquor licensing and gambling law. He can be contacted on 0845 415 6647 or by This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..