Cookies on the Gambling Commission website

The Gambling Commission website uses cookies to make the site work better for you. Some of these cookies are essential to how the site functions and others are optional. Optional cookies help us remember your settings, measure your use of the site and personalise how we communicate with you. Any data collected is anonymised and we do not set optional cookies unless you consent.

Set cookie preferences

You've accepted all cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Skip to main content
Back to full FOI list

Frictionless Checks

Request date
19 October 2023

Outcome
Full disclosure

Document actions
Print or save

Request

  1. Any emails sent by Andrew Rhodes to the gambling minister relating to"frictionless" checks and, in particular, the assertion in annex A of the white paper that 80 percent of accounts meeting the spend threshold would undergo frictionless checks.

  2. Any emails sent by Andrew Rhodes to the DCMS in general relating to"frictionless" checks and, in particular, the assertion in annex A of the white paper that 80 percent of accounts meeting the spend threshold would undergo frictionless checks.

  3. Any emails sent by Sarah Gardner to the gambling minister relating to"frictionless" checks and, in particular, the assertion in annex A of the white paper that 80 percent of accounts meeting the spend threshold would undergo frictionless checks.

  4. Any emails sent by Sarah Gardner to the DCMS in general relating to"frictionless" checks and, in particular, the assertion in annex A of the white paper that 80 percent of accounts meeting the spend threshold would undergo frictionless checks.

Response

Thank you for your request which has been processed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

In your email you have requested:

  1. Any emails sent by Andrew Rhodes to the gambling minister relating to "frictionless" checks and, in particular, the assertion in annex A of the white paper that 80 percent of accounts meeting the spend threshold would undergo frictionless checks.
  2. Any emails sent by Andrew Rhodes to the DCMS in general relating to "frictionless" checks and, in particular, the assertion in annex A of the white paper that 80 percent of accounts meeting the spend threshold would undergo frictionless checks.
  3. Any emails sent by Sarah Gardner to the gambling minister relating to "frictionless" checks and, in particular, the assertion in annex A of the white paper that 80 percent of accounts meeting the spend threshold would undergo frictionless checks.
  4. Any emails sent by Sarah Gardner to the DCMS in general relating to "frictionless" checks and, in particular, the assertion in annex A of the white paper that 80 percent of accounts meeting the spend threshold would undergo frictionless checks.

I can confirm that a small amount of information is held by the Commission falling within the scope of part two of your request. However, this information forms part of the ongoing work following the Gambling Act Review. As such, we are of the view that the information you have requested is exempt under section 36 of the FOIA.

Section 36

Section 36 of the FOIA provides that, information is exempt if, in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person, disclosure of the information under this Act - (2)(b) would, or would be likely to, inhibit -

i. the free and frank provision of advice, or

ii. the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation.

The view of the qualified person is that disclosure in this instance would be likely to inhibit the ability of Commission officials and others in expressing views and deliberating issues relating to the key aspects of the Gambling Act Review which would in turn impair the quality of decision making and the provision of advice to DCMS.

Public Interest Test

Having acknowledged that some of the information within the scope of your request is exempt from disclosure, section 36 FOIA requires that we consider a public interest test to identify whether there is a wider public interest in fulfilling this request opposed to maintaining the exemption.

Factors in favour of disclosure:

  • It is recognised that there is a legitimate public interest in promoting the transparency of the Commission and in making information available to the public.
  • Further to this, the quality of advice and the content of deliberations by officials may improve if there was an expectation that the information would be made publicly available.

Factors against disclosure:

  • Disclosure of the material falling within the scope of your request would be likely to prejudice free and frank communications and advice between Commission officials.
  • The Gambling Act Review remains under ongoing discussion and live deliberations continue between the Gambling Commission and the DCMS on this matter.
  • There is a need for a safe space for Commission officials to have free and frank exchanges with the DCMS in order for the Commission to assure itself, and therefore Government, that decision making is effective.
  • Disclosure would impact the ability of Commission colleagues to discuss live issues in the future, exchange informal views and advice and reach decisions, free from external interference and distraction.
  • Premature publication of this data could lead to an incomplete and confusing picture emerging and would be likely to cause prejudice to ongoing work of the Gambling Act Review, particularly where there is an intention to publish in the future.

Weighing the balance

Whilst the Commission aims to be open and transparent, there is a need to preserve the confidentiality of developmental discussions, and to be mindful of the sensitivities of information that is held. Further to this, there is no outstanding public interest in releasing this information whilst the review is still ongoing.

Having weighed these issues, the view of the qualified person is that the public interest is best served through maintaining this exemption.

There is very little that providing this information would do in terms of the public interest whilst disclosure would be likely to impact the future of the Gambling Act Review.

Review of the decision

If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your Freedom of Information request you are entitled to an internal review of our decision. You should write to FOI Team, Gambling Commission, 4th floor, Victoria Square House, Victoria Square, Birmingham, B2 4BP or by reply to this email.

Please note, internal review requests should be made within 40 working days of the initial response. Requests made outside this timeframe will not be processed.

If you are not content with the outcome of our review, you may then apply directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have already exhausted the review procedure provided by the Gambling Commission.

The ICO can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s Office (opens in a new tab), Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Information Management Team
Gambling Commission
Victoria Square House
Victoria Square
Birmingham B2 4BP

Internal Review Request

As per your email advice of November 27, I am writing to seek an internal review of case 202300079.

While I take on board your reasons for preventing disclosure, I believe the outlined arguments could be used to block almost any FOI request. Against the backdrop of the Gambling Commission's wider reluctance to engage on this issue and its failure to publish details of the previous consultation, this latest decision inevitably strengthens the feeling that the commission is failing to meet basic transparency needs, which is deeply regrettable for a public body.

As such, I am writing to ask for an internal review.

Internal Review Response

I am writing to you further to your Freedom of Information request dated 19/10/2023 which we responded to on 27/11/2023, and your subsequent request for an internal review received on 20/12/2023.

We have now concluded our review and our findings are detailed below. This internal review was conducted by someone who was not involved in the processing of your original request.

In your initial email you requested the following information:

  1. Any emails sent by Andrew Rhodes to the gambling minister relating to "frictionless" checks and, in particular, the assertion in annex A of the white paper that 80 percent of accounts meeting the spend threshold would undergo frictionless checks.
  2. Any emails sent by Andrew Rhodes to the DCMS in general relating to "frictionless" checks and, in particular, the assertion in annex A of the white paper that 80 percent of accounts meeting the spend threshold would undergo frictionless checks.
  3. Any emails sent by Sarah Gardner to the gambling minister relating to "frictionless" checks and, in particular, the assertion in annex A of the white paper that 80 percent of accounts meeting the spend threshold would undergo frictionless checks.
  4. Any emails sent by Sarah Gardner to the DCMS in general relating to "frictionless" checks and, in particular, the assertion in annex A of the white paper that 80 percent of accounts meeting the spend threshold would undergo frictionless checks.

In our response, we confirmed that there is recorded information falling within the scope of your request held by the Gambling Commission. However, as this information forms part of the ongoing work following the Gambling Act Review, we were of the view that the section 36 of the FOIA was engaged.

We advised that this is an ongoing area of discussion and to disclose this information could inhibit the free and frank exchange of views.

It was the opinion of the ‘qualified person’ that the S36 exemption was engaged in relation to the information that you requested and the public interest test in withholding the information outweighed the public interest in disclosure.

We have reviewed our response and the public interest test arguments that have been considered when making a decision on disclosure of this information.

We recognise that there is a public interest in keeping consumers informed of how the Commission is addressing concerns raised about the issues discussed in the Wite Paper. The discussions that take place about this and the potential for a change to current policy needs to be protected to ensure that these discussions can continue, on this ‘live’ issue, free from external interference and distraction.

Disclosing opinions about important and sensitive matters would be likely to inhibit the ability of the Commission to conduct robust and meaningful reviews in the future, on such issues, and this could impact on the Commission’s role as a regulator which ultimately impacts on consumers.

Therefore, after reviewing your request and our response, I uphold our original decision to engage this exemption.

If you are not content with the outcome of your review, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure provided by the Gambling Commission. The ICO can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely,

Information Management Team

Gambling Commission

Is this page useful?
Back to top