Black Market Betting Correspondence

Request

Between September 4, 2023 - December 10, 2024 inclusive:

1. All papers from Gambling Commission board meetings relating to unlicensed, unregulated and 'black market' betting.
2. All internal emails from the chief executive, Mr Andrew Rhodes, on, or containing, the subject unlicensed, unregulated and 'black market' betting.
3. All internal emails from executive director Mr Tim Miller on, or containing, the subject unlicensed, unregulated and 'black market' betting.
4. All correspondence from the Gambling Commission to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on the subject unlicensed, unregulated and 'black market' betting.

Response

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

In your email you have requested between September 4, 2023 - December 10, 2024 inclusive:

1. All papers from Gambling Commission board meetings relating to unlicensed, unregulated and 'black market' betting.
2. All internal emails from the chief executive, Mr Andrew Rhodes, on, or containing, the subject unlicensed, unregulated and 'black market' betting.
3. All internal emails from executive director Mr Tim Miller on, or containing, the subject unlicensed, unregulated and 'black market' betting.
4. All correspondence from the Gambling Commission to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on the subject unlicensed, unregulated and 'black market' betting.

Please see the attached information held by the Gambling Commission we are able to disclose falling within the scope of your request. Please note, we also searched our records for the term ‘illegal betting.’

The following exemptions apply to some of the information that we hold.

Section 40(2)

We have redacted from the attached, information relating to identifiable individuals that would constitute personal data. This includes names and email addresses.

The Data Protection Act 2018 requires personal data to be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject. It is the view of the Commission that disclosing the personal information within the attached documents would constitute the disclosure of personal data and would contravene this principle.

This information is therefore exempt under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Section 35

Section 35 of FOIA applies to information held by central government departments or other bodies or authorities exercising statutory functions on behalf of the Crown.

Section 35 sets out four separate classes of information, each relating to a different activity. In this case, our view is that the following class of information applies to some of the information held:

(a) the formulation or development of government policy.

The purpose of subsection 35(1)(a) is to protect the integrity of the policymaking process, and to prevent disclosures which would undermine this process and result in less robust, well-considered policy options in private.

The FOIA does not define ‘government policy’ directly, however The Modernising Government White Paper (March 1999) describes policymaking as: “the process by which governments translate their political vision into programmes and action to deliver ‘outcomes’, desired changes in the real world.” We therefore understand government policy to be seen as a government plan to achieve a particular outcome or change in the real world. Policies can include both high-level objectives and detailed proposals on how to achieve those objectives.

To be exempt under section 35, the information must relate to the formulation or development of government policy. These terms broadly refer to the design of new policy, and the process of reviewing or improving existing policy.

This is a qualified exemption, therefore the Commission must consider whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption is greater than the public interest in disclosing the requested information.

Arguments in favour of disclosure

• The Commission is a public body which is required to regulate the gambling industry in the public interest. There is therefore a public interest in members of the public having confidence the Commission is being open and honest with the information it holds so that it can be held to account.
• We acknowledge that there is a legitimate public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of the Commission. It is important that there is sufficient information in the public domain, so consumers have an understanding of the regulatory activity that the Commission is taking and any suggestion of changes to, or the formulation of, government policies.
• Increase the public understanding of the relationship between central government and Crown bodies.
• Disclosure of the requested information could demonstrate to stakeholders and relevant parties how the Commission is discussing the formulation of policies and, furthermore, this disclosure may encourage stakeholders to work with us and contribute to our programme of work, increasing confidence in the Commission as a regulator and its ability to uphold the law.

Arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption

• To disclose to the public whether we hold this information could impact on the free and frank exchange of information between the Commission and third parties in future.
• The Commission is focused on protecting policymaking processes, which includes preserving a ‘safe space’ for the Commission and third parties to discuss and debate live policy issues and possible implications of proposed reforms away from external interference and distraction, whilst preserving the convention of collective responsibility.
• The policy process also remains ongoing at the time of the request, and therefore further disclosure of the requested information could prejudice the outcome of ongoing or future policy formulation by the Commission by exposing techniques and practices to the detriment of the public interest.
• Disclosure may hinder the candid nature of communications in the future which could be damaging to future decision making which again is not in the public interest. It is important that decisions can be discussed and reached freely.

Weighing the balance

The Commission acknowledges that there is a public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of public authorities and the importance of having sufficient information in the public domain for stakeholders to understand our regulatory activity and any suggestion of changes to, or the formulation of, government policies.

However, disclosure of this information, at this time, would be damaging to the Commission as a regulatory body which ultimately serves to protect the wider public interest. There is a strong public interest in preserving the processes that the Commission has in place to discuss and debate policy issues away from external interference and distraction and preserving the convention of collective responsibility.

Given the points considered, the Commission believes that the interests of the public are better served through maintaining the exemption.

Section 31

Section 31(1)(g) exempts information whose disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the purposes specified in subsection (2).

The Commission considers the subsections below apply and therefore the information is exempt from disclosure:

i. Subsection 31(2)(b) refers to the purpose of ascertaining whether any person is responsible for any conduct which is improper,

ii. Subsection 31(2)(c) refers to the purpose of ascertaining whether circumstances which would justify regulatory action in pursuance of any enactment exist or may arise,

iii. Subsection 31(2)(d) refers to the purpose of ascertaining a person’s fitness or competence in relation to the management of bodies corporate or in relation to any profession or other activity which he is, or seeks to become, authorised to carry on.

It is our view that the regulatory functions of the Commission, would be prejudiced by disclosure of this information as it would:

i. prejudice the Commission’s ability to fulfil its statutory functions by revealing how the Commission assesses operators’ and individuals as well as applications for regulatory purposes, and

ii. prejudice the Commission’s compliance and enforcement activity and raise overall standards in the gambling industry as it would undermine the trust the Commission has gained with operators in terms of disclosing information where it is necessary and proportionate and to cooperate in an open manner.

The Commission therefore concludes that the disclosure of this information would prejudice the regulatory functions of the Commission.

Arguments in favour of disclosure:

• The Commission is a public body which is required to regulate the gambling industry in the public interest. There is therefore a public interest in members of the public having confidence the Commission is being open and honest with the information it holds so that it can be held to account.
• It is important that the public are assured that the Commission is carrying out its functions in ensuring that any individuals or organisations who are involved in providing gambling facilities to the public have undergone the necessary assessments and will uphold the licencing objectives ensuring that consumers are protected.
• Disclosure of the requested information could demonstrate to stakeholders and relevant parties how the Commission is assessing licensees and, furthermore, this disclosure may encourage stakeholders to work with us and contribute to our programme of work, increasing confidence in the Commission as a regulator and its ability to uphold the law.

Arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption:

• The Commission has robust and effective processes and procedures in place which are utilised when assessing licensees. These procedures and processes have been put in place to minimise the risk of an operator continuing to provide gambling services where they do not meet the required standards. This demonstrates to the public at large that they can have confidence in the Commission’s compliance assessment processes.
• There is an expectation of confidence in much of the Commission’s work, particularly when discussing areas of a licensee’s compliance with the LCCP. It is the impact on this work of the Commission which is more likely to be affected by disclosure.
• Disclosing this level of detail is likely to reveal the techniques the Commission uses in general when conducting investigations. This could severely hamper the effectiveness of the Commission’s investigatory processes in future cases.
• It could seriously impact the Commission’s investigation process, if information relating to what information it uses to inform the licence review process became known; this is strongly not in the public interest as it would impair the Commission’s ability to regulate effectively.
• Disclosure of this information would also undermine the Commission's ability to uphold the licensing objectives which would impact on the trust and confidence of the public in it as a regulator.
• Further, disclosure of the requested information would prejudice the outcome of future assessments by the Commission by exposing assessment techniques and practices to the detriment of the public interest.

Weighing the balance

The Commission acknowledges that there is a public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of public authorities and the importance of having sufficient information in the public domain to support consumers with their choice of operator, however, disclosure of the information would be damaging to the Commission as a regulatory body which ultimately serves to protect the wider public interest.

It is important that the public are assured that the Commission is carrying out its functions in ensuring that any individuals/organisations who are involved in providing gambling facilities to the public have undergone the necessary assessments and will uphold the licencing objectives ensuring that consumers are protected.

However, there is a strong public interest in preserving the processes that the Commission has in place to assess operators’ compliance with the LCCP and identify any operators who will be unable to comply with the licensing requirements. The public trust that the Commission has robust processes in place to assess operators so that when they use the services provided by an operator, they are confident that there has been sufficient scrutiny of that operator to ensure that they are protected. If this information were released it would undermine that confidence.

We consider that the public interest is better served by withholding this information, ensuring that consumers are protected through our processes rather than releasing information about our processes which in our view will not benefit the public as a whole.

Further information relating to the Gambling Commission’s approach to tackling unlicensed gambling can be viewed on our website: Blog - Unlicensed Gambling – Our approach to tackling unlicensed gambling. Please also consider the following link in relation to the activity taken by the Commission in 2024: Activity to tackle unlicensed gambling and outcomes.

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. 

It should be noted that if you wish to raise a complaint with the ICO about the Commission’s handling of your request for information, then you are required to do so within six weeks of receiving your final response or last substantive contact with us.

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

Information Management Team
Gambling Commission

Files

Some files may be not be accessible for users of assistive technology. If you require a copy of the file in an accessible format contact us (opens in new tab) with details of what you require. It would help us to know what technology you use and the required format.

PDF Files Some PDF files cannot be displayed in a browser, you will see a message saying "Please wait...". If you see this message, you will need to download the file and open it in Adobe Acrobat Reader (opens in a new tab).