DCMS has announced plans to consult on increasing the Gambling Commission’s licence fees by a minimum of 20 percent, as the regulator reportedly counts the cost of implementing White Paper recommendations, expanding its research and data programmes, and “disrupting illegal markets at scale.” Many, however, consider the legitimate and shrinking land based industry is paying plenty for licensing activities that the regulator does and suggests that if it wants to play bully big bollocks then it should go to other sources to fund ever more research, counter illegal markets and a massively overstaffed organisation.
DCMS is to launch a consultation on raising Gambling Commission licence fees by a minimum of 20 percent, with the department stating a 30 percent rise – generating an extra £8.7m annually – is necessary to retain the current level of regulatory activity.
According to a report, published officially on 27 January, the Commission currently operates at a deficit and has eroded its reserves by disrupting the illegal gambling market, implementing White Paper reforms, and developing its data capabilities.
“Forecasted costs will increase in future years, and without a fee uplift in October 2026 the Commission’s reserves are expected to be completely exhausted during the 2026 to 2027 financial year,” stated DCMS.
Well DCMS, it would help these reserves to last somewhat longer if the Commission didn’t pay such exorbitant salaries, eye-watering staff benefits and pensions that even the late Robert Maxwell would have died for.
“The Commission plans to absorb some future inflationary pressures, but without an uplift it forecasts a deficit of £7m in 2027 to 2028, rising to £9.5m in 2030 to 2031.”
The current fee structure,the paper noted, has been in place since 2021, when remote fees were increased by 55 percent increase and non-remote fees by 15 percent, however the consultation now outlines three options for reform: 1) a 30 percent increase, 2) a 20 percent increase, or 3) a headline 20 percent fee increase, plus a 10 percent increase ringfenced for illegal markets.
As the saying goes, you’re having a laugh aren’t you? Try waiting 12 years for a Triennial Review in stakes and prizes which is when the industry was last afforded an uplift.
And it’s calls for another Triennial rise are constantly being dismissed.
So, the industry can’t raise its prices, but the Commission can?
And how. Option one is the Gambling Commission’s “preferred option,” and would provide “the level of funding required to maintain the Commission’s current work programme at a steady state,” however the regulator would still need to deliver efficiency savings of approximately £3.2m.
Option two would reportedly require the Commission “to reverse the expansion of its recent regulatory activity and revert to a level of regulation more consistent with its pre-white paper position,” which considering the over-burdening level of regulation and overstaffing at the Commission, sounds a far better deal for everyone.
Option three, the government’s preferred option, would see one third of a 30 percent increase ringfenced for illegal markets and revenue protection work, while the 20 percent “would be available for all other elements of the strategic commitments outlined previously (data, evaluation, policy, stakeholder engagement etc).”
“The ringfenced option would therefore still necessitate efficiencies across the rest of the organisation commensurate with the 20 percent option.”
Here’s a thought: what about a fourth option before anyone commits to even more spending? Given the Commission and DCMS are obsessed with research and gathering evidence, what about launching an independent review of the regulator – it’s remit, its staff levels, its spending activity and whether it’s fit for purpose.
It’s been going nearly 20 years, and no-one has ever considered this option?
What about investing a little bit of money investigating whether this Commission is capable of doing the work its proposing before throwing good money after bad.
The Commission has spent its entire existence marking its own homework; perhaps it’s time
for an independent assessment?
“An embarrassing gaffe”: GamCom fee consultation plans leaked by DCMS
Plans for the consultation on GamCom licensing fees were accidentally leaked online ahead of publication, in an “an embarrassing gaffe” by DCMS.
In an article reporting on the error, The Telegraph described the move as a “Whitehall blunder,” which follows a similar leak by the OBR ahead of November’s Budget.
“Documents mistakenly published online on Tuesday showed Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, has drawn up plans to raise licence fees,” wrote the paper’s media and telecoms editor James Warrington, adding the leak was “an embarrassing gaffe.”
Though DCMS has not commented on the leak, it may bring ministerial aides into the firing line once again, after the Office for Budget Responsibility accidentally published the Budget prior to the Chancellor’s official address to Parliament.
Originally published on Coinslot on February 2, 2026. Republished with permission.