SBC News analysis disputes Peter Bedford's claims against Gambling Commission

SBC News has published an analysis challenging a recent attack on the UK Gambling Commission by Mid Leicestershire MP Peter Bedford, arguing that his three principal claims do not hold up to scrutiny.

Writing for the trade title, senior journalist Viktor Kayed examined Bedford's assertion that the regulator has failed its statutory duties and that, in Bedford's words, "heavy and inconsistent regulation" are "the antithesis of this duty that puts the licensed market in jeopardy".

Bedford's first claim is that the Commission has funded anti-gambling lobbying in breach of its own rules. Kayed noted that licensed operators have historically been required to contribute to organisations supporting gambling-harm research, prevention and treatment, with that funding now channelled through the statutory levy introduced in April 2025.

The strongest evidence cited by Bedford, according to the analysis, is an October 2026 commentary by gambling analyst Dan Waugh alleging that more than £95m in regulatory settlements between 2019 and 2025 included funding for organisations advocating stricter gambling regulation. Kayed pointed out this remains commentary rather than an independent audit, and that Bedford has not named the organisations involved, the sums committed, or the specific rule the Commission is said to have breached.

On the second claim, that the Commission has lobbied for higher gambling taxes, Kayed wrote that the regulator did advise government that the statutory levy was needed because the previous voluntary funding model was unsustainable, a view also shared by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. The levy, introduced in April 2025, is a mandatory charge on operators rather than a general tax increase, and formalises payments many operators were already making voluntarily before the Gambling Act review.

Kayed added that the Gambling Act 2005 gives the Commission a formal advisory role on policy and legislation, meaning a recommendation to introduce the levy is not in itself evidence the regulator exceeded its remit, since the final decision rested with government rather than the Commission.

The third claim concerns the Commission's Gambling Survey for Great Britain, which Bedford says puts problem gambling rates at nearly four times those recorded by the NHS's Health Survey for England, which he regards as the gold standard. Kayed acknowledged that the Office for Statistics Regulation flagged a "non-negligible risk" in May 2025 that the GSGB might overestimate gambling harm rates.

However, the analysis stressed that the OSR also explicitly stated the GSGB and HSE should not be compared directly, given differences in methodology, questionnaire design and response collection between the two surveys.

Kayed concluded that while there are legitimate grounds for the gambling industry to challenge the Commission's approach, Bedford's specific allegations lack the detail and evidence needed to substantiate them, risking confusion between genuine harm-prevention funding and political lobbying.