There is a dangerous idea taking hold in British politics: that governments should decide which lawful businesses make a sufficiently “positive contribution” to society, and then use taxation and regulation to punish those that fall out of political favour.
That principle should concern every business sector, not just gambling.
The Prime Minister’s recent description of parts of our sector as “dodgy” was not merely disappointing. It was an extraordinary way to characterise legitimate businesses which are licensed, closely regulated, inspected by local authorities and required to meet extensive social responsibility obligations.
The Government has also announced plans to remove the “aim to permit” principle from the Gambling Act 2005, potentially giving local authorities greater scope to reject new gambling premises even when an operator satisfies the licensing objectives.
The announcement was accompanied by a claim that betting shops and amusement arcades are “rapidly spreading” across Britain’s high streets. That claim is exaggerated and completely contradicted by the evidence.
Gambling Commission figures show that the number of licensed gambling premises has been falling for years. The number of adult gaming centres has declined by around 12% since 2015, while the wider land-based gambling sector has also contracted significantly. This is a story of a regulated high street sector operating from fewer venues and under mounting financial pressure, rather than a story of uncontrolled proliferation.
A false account of what is happening on Britain’s high streets
The language used in the announcement therefore suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the industry the Government is proposing to regulate. That is deeply worrying.
Rather than minor rhetorical flourishes, these statements form the justification for a potentially significant change in licensing policy. If that justification is based on a false account of what is happening on Britain’s high streets, the proposals themselves must be subjected to far greater scrutiny.
Policy cannot be credible when the premise on which it is based is demonstrably wrong. Nor should responsible, licensed businesses be portrayed as a growing social menace simply because that description makes for a more convenient press release.
Taken together, these developments point to something more troubling than a legitimate debate about regulation. They suggest that businesses which have complied with every rule imposed upon them may nevertheless be taxed, restricted and ultimately regulated out of existence because politicians disapprove of the activity itself.
A government has every right to regulate an industry and tax commercial activity. But those decisions should be based on evidence, proportionality and economic reality. Taxation and regulation should not become instruments of moral judgement, used to squeeze lawful businesses out of existence because ministers or campaigners dislike the choices made by their customers.
Gambling has been part of British life for centuries. From the Grand National and the football pools to bingo halls, working men’s clubs and seaside arcades, having a modest flutter has long been woven into our social and cultural fabric. It has also traditionally been a working-class pursuit.
Operating under the three licensing objectives established by the Gambling Act
That history matters because the political debate increasingly feels less like a serious discussion about regulation and more like a judgement about which forms of leisure are considered respectable.
Spend £30 on cocktails and it is hospitality. Spend £30 attending the races and it is a day out. Buy a National Lottery ticket and you are supporting good causes. Spend a modest amount in a licensed arcade and suddenly your choice is treated as evidence of social failure. That is not a defensible distinction.
The tension is not new. Parts of the early Labour movement initially opposed off-course betting on paternalistic grounds. That position changed as the party recognised that gambling restrictions were often designed and enforced in ways that disproportionately controlled working-class people, while wealthier citizens continued to gamble in apparently more socially acceptable surroundings. More than a century later, we appear to be drifting back towards the same double standard.
This is not an argument against protecting people from gambling-related harm. Every responsible operator accepts that duty. Bacta’s members operate under strict licences, with local authority oversight, rigorous age controls, legally prescribed machine stakes and prizes, staff training requirements and formal self-exclusion arrangements.
Licensed arcades do not serve alcohol. They provide supervised, face-to-face environments with trained staff able to identify vulnerability, interact with customers and offer support. They operate under the three licensing objectives established by the Gambling Act, including protecting children and vulnerable people from harm or exploitation.
Responsible businesses that understand their obligations
Bacta members have also continued to strengthen protections beyond the statutory baseline, including introducing new player prompt controls, enhancing customer interactions, improving player messaging and working to provide greater consistency across self-exclusion arrangements.
Those are not the actions of a “dodgy” industry. They are the actions of responsible businesses that understand their obligations and are prepared to keep improving.
Responsible regulation is entirely compatible with personal freedom. What is not compatible with either is the assumption that the existence of harm among a minority removes the right of millions of adults to make legitimate choices about how they spend their own time and money.
A report by the Adam Smith Institute makes this case directly. It argues that the policy debate too often portrays gambling consumers as inherently irrational and overlooks the freedom and dignity of adults making their own decisions. It also highlights the substantial cumulative tax and regulatory burden already borne by land-based operators.
Licensed arcades contributed £207 million in direct taxes in 2024, rising to £256 million when irrecoverable VAT is included. They supported almost £900 million in economic activity across the wider economy, alongside thousands of jobs concentrated in high streets and working-class communities where alternative investment is often limited.
These are physical businesses. They employ local people, pay business rates, maintain premises and support British manufacturers, distributors, engineers and suppliers. Many are intergenerational family businesses that have served their communities for decades. They cannot relocate their operations abroad or spread higher costs across international divisions.
They also cannot respond to taxation in the same way as most businesses. Their principal prices, machine stakes and prizes, are set by law. When wages, energy costs, business rates or taxes rise, operators cannot simply adjust their prices to recover the difference.
Prohibition by another route
When further restrictions are imposed, they cannot redesign their entire offer overnight. Eventually, the numbers stop working. At that point, the result is fewer staff, less investment, vacant premises, weakened supply chains and ultimately closed businesses. Treasury receipts fall with them.
Removing “aim to permit” risks compounding that pressure. The principle does not force councils to approve unsuitable applications. Local authorities already have extensive powers to scrutinise premises, impose conditions and reject applications that fail to uphold the licensing objectives. What the principle does is ensure that licensing decisions are based on evidence and the law, rather than general opposition to gambling.
If a responsible operator can satisfy every licensing requirement and still be refused simply because elected representatives dislike the activity, that is no longer proportionate regulation. It is prohibition by another route.
The debate becomes still more detached from reality when campaigners and politicians blur the distinctions between different parts of the industry. An adult gaming centre is not a betting shop. A family entertainment centre is not an online casino. These distinctions are fundamental to effective policymaking.
Bacta is a broad church. Its members range from intergenerational family SMEs rooted in their communities to international businesses operating around the world. They include high-tech manufacturers, machine suppliers to pubs, clubs and bingo halls, and operators of family entertainment centres and adult gaming centres.
Treating all those businesses, products and environments as though they are interchangeable reveals a lack of understanding that should concern anyone who believes regulation must be properly targeted.
Which lawful business will be judged socially unacceptable next?
When policymakers cannot meaningfully distinguish between an arcade and a bookmaker, they cannot provide a serious foundation for public policy.
That does not mean every criticism of gambling should be dismissed. It means policy must distinguish between products, environments and levels of risk. It must recognise the difference between supervised and unsupervised play, and between land-based and remote gambling. Most importantly, it must be grounded in evidence rather than moral disapproval, inaccurate claims or inflammatory rhetoric.
Britain is a pluralistic country. People make different choices about how they relax and enjoy themselves. Some go to the pub. Some attend the races. Some play bingo or visit an arcade.
Provided those activities are lawful, properly regulated and responsibly operated, politicians should be extremely cautious about deciding that one group’s recreation is less worthy than another’s.
The Government should challenge wrongdoing wherever it occurs. Bacta will support it in doing so. But it must also distinguish between illegal operators and the regulated businesses which follow the rules, employ thousands of people and make a substantial contribution to their communities.
Calling those businesses “dodgy”, falsely presenting a contracting sector as one that is “rapidly spreading”, and then using that characterisation to justify further licensing restrictions is not evidence-based policymaking. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of our sector, with potentially devastating consequences for the people whose jobs, businesses and livelihoods depend upon it.
Because once politicians claim the right to tax or regulate lawful industries out of existence simply because they do not like them, the question is no longer whether gambling is popular in Westminster.
The question is which lawful business will be judged socially unacceptable next.
Age-old opposition
Allaster Gair said……. “The tension is not new. Parts of the early Labour movement initially opposed off-course betting on paternalistic grounds. That position changed as the party recognised that gambling restrictions were often designed and enforced in ways that disproportionately controlled working-class people, while wealthier citizens continued to gamble in apparently more socially acceptable surroundings. More than a century later, we appear to be drifting back towards the same double standard…
Originally published on Coinslot on September 7, 2026. Republished with permission.