Bacta Answers the Dodgy Charge With the Regulator's Own Premises Numbers

Downing Street says adult gaming centres are spreading across the high street and wants councils able to refuse them. The trade body's reply is that Gambling Commission data shows 1,610 AGCs in 2015 and 1,415 in 2025. Its own member survey, taken before the change of prime minister, found 100% believe Westminster does not understand the sector.

• Bacta has responded to government plans to give local authorities greater power to block new adult gaming centres, part of a wider high streets package announced from Downing Street
• The proposals include removing the "aim to permit" principle from the Gambling Act 2005, with an expected six-week consultation and changes potentially taking effect from early 2027
• President Joseph Cullis says Gambling Commission data shows AGC numbers fell from 1,610 in 2015 to 1,415 in 2025, contradicting the claim that they have spread rapidly
• Communications director Allaster Gair called the prime minister's description of parts of the sector as "dodgy" an extraordinary way to characterise licensed and inspected businesses
• A Bacta member survey found 90% expect a severe negative impact from a Machine Games Duty rise, and 100% said Westminster policymakers do not understand the sector

The Argument Is About a Number, and the Number Is the Regulator's

Bacta, the trade body for Britain's gaming centre and amusement arcade sector, has responded in what it calls the strongest possible terms to government plans to give local authorities more power to block new adult gaming centres. The measures form part of a wider package concerning Britain's high streets, announced under the Labour government led by Prime Minister Andy Burnham, who took office on 20 July.

The central proposal is the removal of the "aim to permit" principle from the Gambling Act 2005, which currently requires a licensing authority to grant a premises licence where an operator satisfies the licensing objectives. Taking an expected six-week consultation into account, changes could take effect from early 2027. Until then there is no immediate change for existing venues.

Bacta president Joseph Cullis took issue with two things: the association of licensed operators with criminal ones, and the factual basis for the policy. "The Government's announcement associates responsible, licensed AGCs with illegal and criminal businesses. This is totally inaccurate," he said. "Bacta members operate in one of the most tightly regulated sectors on the high street, uphold rigorous standards of social responsibility and make an important contribution to local employment, investment and economic activity."

On the claim that arcades have proliferated, he cited the regulator against the government. "The suggestion that AGCs have spread rapidly across the country also demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of our sector and is contradicted by the Government's own regulator. Gambling Commission data shows that the number of AGCs has fallen from 1,610 in 2015 to 1,415 in 2025, a decline of around 200 premises over the past decade. Characterising this as an example of 'rapid expansion' is simply wrong."

Cullis said Bacta supports action against illegal operators, but that "conflating those businesses with legitimate, regulated AGCs risks undermining responsible operators while doing nothing to address the genuine criminal activity taking place outside the regulated market". He acknowledged the announcement came directly from Number 10 and said the association was "under no illusion about the seriousness of the challenge", promising to engage with the government, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the new gambling minister, and to respond to any consultation with an evidence-based case.

Writing separately on the association's website, communications director Allaster Gair warned of what he called a dangerous idea taking hold in British politics: that taxation and regulation may be used as punishment for a lawful trade. The prime minister's description of parts of the sector as "dodgy", he wrote, "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." He asked which lawful business would be judged socially unacceptable next, and argued that if the justification rests on a false account of the high street, "the proposals themselves must be subjected to far greater scrutiny".

The Members Were Asked, Before the Prime Minister Changed

A Bacta pulse survey of members, conducted before Burnham was confirmed in office, put numbers to the tax question. Every respondent said a significant increase in Machine Games Duty would have a negative impact, with 90% describing it as severe and 10% as moderately negative. Asked to name the biggest challenge that would follow, 67% said remaining profitable, 23% maintaining staff levels and 10% investing in new machines and refurbishment.

On investment, 87% said a downturn would be very likely and 3% likely, with 10% undecided. The most likely consequences named were the closure of some AGCs at 43%, a downturn in profitability at 30% and fewer jobs at 27%. The most emphatic finding was unanimous: 100% said Westminster policymakers do not understand the sector.

Cullis linked the tax to the black market directly. "If the licensed, regulated sector retracts it will be the illegal unregulated sector that benefits," he said, adding that many seaside piers and arcades rely on gaming income to stay viable year-round.

A Falling Premises Count Is the Strongest Card the Sector Has Played in Years

Trade bodies usually argue from forecast harm, which governments discount as special pleading. This is an argument from the regulator's own published count, and it is checkable in an afternoon. If ministers are justifying a change to licensing policy on rapid proliferation, and the licensing regulator records a decline of roughly 200 premises over a decade, then either the premise is wrong or the government means something other than premises numbers, such as clustering in particular high streets. Both are answerable. Neither has been answered.

"Aim to Permit" Is the Real Measure, and the Tax Is the Distraction

Machine Games Duty will move a profit-and-loss line. Removing "aim to permit" changes who decides whether a business can exist, handing councils discretion to refuse an operator that has met every licensing objective. That is a structural change to the Gambling Act rather than a fiscal one, it lasts beyond any Budget, and it applies to new premises in exactly the towns where existing operators would otherwise expand. The sector is currently fighting hardest on the tax because the tax has a number attached. The licensing change is the one that determines the shape of the estate in 2030.

Both Sides Are Arguing About the High Street and Neither Is Talking About Online

Eight in ten of the harms the government cites in gambling debates now occur on phones. The measures announced concern premises, and the duty under discussion falls on machines in buildings. There is a coherent policy case for treating the physical high street as a planning question separate from gambling harm, and there is a coherent case for taxing land-based gaming as a revenue matter. What there is not, yet, is an explanation of how a smaller licensed high-street estate reduces harm, and until the government offers one, Bacta's illegal-market argument is the only causal story on the table.

The government has a policy and the sector has the regulator's data. One of them will have to give ground on the facts before the consultation opens.