Opinion piece tests MP Peter Bedford's claims against the UK Gambling Commission

An opinion column by SBC News senior journalist Viktor Kayed scrutinises recent criticism of the UK Gambling Commission by Peter Bedford, the MP for Mid Leicestershire. Bedford argues that the regulator has failed for decades to meet its three statutory objectives: keeping gambling free from crime, ensuring it is fair and open, and protecting children and vulnerable people. He describes "heavy and inconsistent regulation" as putting the licensed market in jeopardy. The column accepts there are legitimate reasons for the industry to challenge the Commission, but tests the specific claims.

The first allegation is that the Commission funds anti-gambling lobbying in breach of its own rules. The column notes that operators were historically required to contribute to approved organisations working on research, prevention and treatment, and that since April 2025 this money has come through the statutory levy. The strongest support for Bedford is an October 2026 commentary by analyst Dan Waugh, which alleged that more than £95m in regulatory settlements between 2019 and 2025 included funding for organisations advocating stricter regulation. The author points out that this is commentary rather than an independent audit, and says Bedford does not name the organisations, amounts, lobbying activity or the rule allegedly broken.

The second claim is that the Commission lobbied for higher gambling taxes. The column says the regulator advised government that a statutory levy was needed because the voluntary contribution model was not financially sustainable, a view also held by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. The levy, it argues, is a mandatory version of earlier voluntary payments rather than a tax, and the decision to introduce it was the government's. Under the Gambling Act 2005 the Commission has an advisory role. The author concedes a theoretical tension between advocating policies that raise operator costs and avoiding unnecessary burdens, but says Bedford offers no analysis of it.

The third claim concerns survey data. Bedford says the Commission's Gambling Survey for Great Britain puts problem gambling at nearly four times the rate in the NHS's Health Survey for England. The column notes that the Office for Statistics Regulation flagged in May 2025 a "non-negligible risk" that the GSGB could overestimate harm, which lends some support to Bedford. However, the OSR also said the two surveys should not be compared directly because of methodological differences. The 2025 GSGB showed a problem gambling rate of 2.4% on the Problem Gambling Severity Index, against under 1% in the 2024 HSE, a gap the author says is not precisely fourfold.