This box is not visible in the printed version.
Request date: 24 July 2024
This version was printed or saved on: 9 May 2025
Online version: https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/about-us/freedomofinformation/correspondence-between-anna-turley-and-the-gambling-commission
I am sending this request under the Freedom of Information Act.
Please provide all email correspondence between Anna Turley (the former and current MP for Redcar) and the:
Of the Gambling Commission from 1 January 2020 and 3rd July 2024 concerning gambling regulation.
Thank you for your request which has been processed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
In your email you have requested all email correspondence between Anna Turley (the former and current MP for Redcar) and the:
Of the Gambling Commission from 1 January 2020 and 3rd July 2024 concerning gambling regulation.
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 confirming whether we do or do not hold information falling within the scope of your request would constitute the disclosure of personal data and would contravene this principle.
This information is therefore exempt under section 40(5) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Section 40(5B) provides that the duty to confirm or deny does not arise in relation to other information if or to the extent that any of the following applies—
(a) giving a member of the public the confirmation or denial that would have to be given to comply with section 1(1)(a)—
(i) would (apart from this Act) contravene any of the data protection principles.
It is the view of the Commission that confirming whether we do or do not hold information in relation to Ann Turley would constitute the disclosure of personal data and would not be fair and lawful.
There is no legitimate public interest in confirming or denying this information and it would not be fair to do so. This information is therefore exempt under section 40(5) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
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 a new tab), Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.
Information Management Team
Gambling Commission
This refusal is unlawful, and I would like an internal review.
Section 40 is not an absolute exemption, and disclosure in this case would be lawful, fair and transparent.
It is therefore deeply concerning that you have applied section 40 in a blanket neither confirm nor deny manner, without properly considering whether the information is actually exempt.
This disclosure of information about Turnely would be lawful because it is necessary, proportionate, and serves a clear legitimate interest under data protection legislation.
REDACTED
Anna Turley is the serving MP for Redcar, having previously been MP for the constituency up to the 2019 election. After losing her seat in 2019, she moved into the lobbying sector, working for lobbying firm Arden Strategies, as well as completing work for the Betting and Gaming Council.
There is a longstanding debate about whether it is appropriate for former members of parliament to use the influence, experience, and contacts gained in office to obtain lucrative roles in the private sector after they have left office.
This request was intended to inform this debate, which clearly serves a legitimate interest.
There is no other way to obtain access to this information, so disclosure is necessary.
As a former MP, now again elected, Turley must expect the highest degrees of scrutiny. This material also squarely falls within her professional activity, and does not contain any sensitive personal information (such as health information). The public interest in transparency clearly therefore outweighs Turley's interest in privacy.
Disclosure would also be transparent and fair. As an MP, Turley can be reasonably expected to understand the operation of FOIA, and due to the widely understood expectation of public scrutiny of serving and former MPs, disclosure of information about her professional activities cannot reasonably be deemed unfair.
I am writing to you further to your Freedom of Information request dated 24/07/2024 which we responded to on 12/08/2024, and your subsequent request for an internal review received on 12/08/2024.
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:
Please provide all email correspondence between Anna Turley (the former and current MP for Redcar) and the
Of the Gambling Commission from 1st January 2020 and 3rd July 2024 concerning gambling regulation.
In our response, we advised that confirming whether we do or do not hold information in relation to correspondence between Anna Turley and the listed members of Commission staff would constitute the unfair and unlawful disclosure of personal data.
We therefore exempt this information under section 40(5) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Section 40(5) of FOIA states that the duty to confirm or deny whether information is held does not arise if providing the public with that confirmation or denial would contravene any of the data protection principles set out in the Data Protection Act (DPA).
It was the Commission’s view that there is no legitimate public interest in confirming or denying this information and it would not be fair to do so.
Your request for an internal review focuses on the application of the section 40(5) exemption taking into consideration that the individual is a serving member of Parliament.
Internal Review
Firstly, it should be noted that Anna Turley’s public facing positions within parliament were held outside the date parameters set out within your request. Any personal identifiable information processed during this specific time period, would be when this individual was not in a public facing position.
Under section 1(1) of FOIA, anyone who requests information from a public authority is entitled, under subsection 1(1)(a), to be told if the authority holds the requested information – this is referred to as ‘the duty to confirm or deny’.
However, section 40(5B) provides that the duty to confirm or deny does not arise in relation to other information if or to the extent that any of the following applies— (a) giving a member of the public the confirmation or denial that would have to be given to comply with section 1(1)(a)—
(i) would (apart from this Act) contravene any of the data protection principles.
It is our view that either confirming or denying that the information is held would contravene the first data protection principle.
Personal Data
Firstly, we must determine whether the withheld information constitutes personal data. Section 3(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) defines personal data as:
‘any information relating to an identified or identifiable living individual’.
The two main elements of personal data are that the information must relate to a living person and that the person must be identifiable. An identifiable living individual is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of the individual. Information will relate to a person if it is about them, linked to them, has biographical significance for them, is used to inform decisions affecting them or has them as its main focus.
You have requested email correspondence with a specific individual. If held, the requested information clearly both identifies, and relates to, the individual named in the request. Issuing a confirmation or a denial would reveal information which has this individual as its focus and would therefore reveal their personal data.
This information therefore falls within the definition of ‘personal data’ in section 3(2) of the DPA.
Data Protection Principles
Secondly, under section 40(5B)(a)(i) and (ii) of FOIA, we must consider if confirming or denying holding third-party personal data would, in itself, contravene any of the data protection principles in Article 5 of the UK GDPR. There are seven data protection principles. In this case, it is principle (a) which is relevant to this request.
Principle (a) states:
‘Personal data shall be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject…’
Article 5(1)(a) of the UK GDPR states that “Personal data shall be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject”. This means that the information can only be disclosed if to do so would be lawful, fair and transparent.
In order to be lawful, one of the lawful bases listed in Article 6(1) of the UK GDPR must apply to the processing. It must also be generally lawful.
Article 6(1) of the UK GDPR specifies the requirements for lawful processing by providing that “processing shall be lawful only if and to the extent that at least one of the” lawful bases for processing listed in the Article applies.
The Commission considers that the lawful basis most applicable is basis 6(1)(f) which states:
“processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child”.
In considering the application of Article 6(1)(f) of the UK GDPR in the context of this request for information under FOIA, it is necessary to consider the following three-part test:
i. Legitimate interest test: Whether a legitimate interest is being pursued in the request for information;
ii. Necessity test: Whether disclosure of the information is necessary to meet the legitimate interest in question;
iii. Balancing test: Whether the above interests override the legitimate interest(s) or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject.
Legitimate interest
In considering any legitimate interest(s) in the disclosure of the requested information under FOIA, the Commission recognises that a wide range of interests may be legitimate interests. They can be the requester’s own interests or the interests of third parties, and commercial interests as well as wider societal benefits.
Anna Turley was appointed Junior Lord of the Treasury on 10 July 2024. She was elected as the MP for Redcar in July 2024. The Commission accepts that the requestor, as well as the wider public, has a legitimate interest in understanding any communications between Anna Turley and the Gambling Commission.
However, the Commission is of the view that the legitimate public interest in this individual’s private life and her public life are two very different things and attract different weight. Consequently, should this individual have communicated with the Commission she would reasonably expect her personal data to be processed fairly and not disseminated to the public.
Necessity, is disclosure necessary?
In the context of the FOIA, ‘necessary’ means more than desirable but less than indispensable or absolute necessity.
Accordingly, the test is one of reasonable necessity and involves consideration of alternative measures which may make disclosure of the requested information unnecessary. Disclosure under the FOIA must therefore be the least intrusive means of achieving the legitimate aim in question.
In the circumstances of this case, the legitimate interest in understanding whether or not Anna Turley corresponded with the Commission cannot be satisfied in any way other than by the Commission issuing a confirmation or a denial that the relevant information is held.
Although the Commission acknowledges that, whilst confirmation or denial may be desirable for transparency reasons and may also satisfy public curiosity in the topic to which the request relates, there is no pressing social need for such a response. There is no necessity in confirming or denying that information is held that outweighs the privacy rights of this individual.
The DPA 2018 requires personal data to be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to a data subject.
The Commission argues that a third party would not expect their correspondence to be disclosed to the world at large.
Balancing
Finally, it is necessary to balance the legitimate interests in disclosure against the data subject’s interests or fundamental rights and freedoms. In doing so, it is necessary to consider the impact of disclosure.
In this case, Anna Turley would have a reasonable expectation that her private correspondence with a government department would not be disclosed to the world at large. Disclosure could expose her to unwanted and potentially distressing contact or abuse.
Confirming whether the requested information is or is not held would have an adverse impact upon the privacy of this individual. Taking into account the fact that during this particular timeframe this individual was not in a public facing role her right to privacy outweighs any legitimate interest in confirming or denying that information is held.
The Commission is of the view that any legitimate interests in confirming or denying that information is held is not sufficiently strong enough to override the fundamental interests of the data subject and therefore does not consider that there is a lawful basis for the processing of this personal data and, accordingly, confirmation or denial under the FOIA would be unlawful.
As confirmation or denial would be unlawful, such processing would breach the first data protection principle and the Commission are entitled to rely on section 40(5B) of the FOIA.
Ultimately, the disclosure of this personal data would not contribute to any constructive debate of whether the third party is appropriate for their role and for that reason, when weighed up against the consequences that disclosure would illicit, the legitimate interest in disclosure does not outweigh the fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject.
As such, we uphold the decision to withhold the information under section 40(5B) of the FOIA.
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