Correspondence between the GC and BACTA

Request

All correspondence between the Gambling Commission and BACTA in the last five years. If this is too time-consuming, for all the correspondence in the last year.

Response

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

In your email you have requested copies of all correspondence between the Gambling Commission and BACTA in the last five years. If this is too time-consuming, for all the correspondence in the last year.

Please see the attached information held by the Gambling Commission we are able to disclose falling within the scope of your request. The information we are able to disclose is correspondence dated within the last year.

Please note, we have only included our direct email correspondence with BACTA. We have not included emails where BACTA was included in the correspondence in addition to other organisations.

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, email addresses and job titles.

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.

Law Enforcement – 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 some of the information falling within the scope of your request 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,

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.

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

Arguments in favour of disclosure:

• We acknowledge that there is a legitimate public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of the Commission.
• Disclosure of the requested information could demonstrate to stakeholders and relevant parties the work that the Commission is undertaking in relation to the information it receives.
• Disclosure of the requested information could demonstrate to stakeholders and relevant parties how and when the Commission communicates with organisations.
• 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:

• We rely on the voluntary supply of information in order to perform our licensing, compliance and policy functions. In relation to stakeholder engagement, we rely on open and frank exchanges in order to reach decisions. Disclosing operational information without sufficient rationale would undermine this trust and make stakeholders less likely to co-operate with requests in future.
• Disclosure of this information would be likely to lead to reluctance from stakeholders to provide information to the Commission in the future, which would have a substantial adverse effect on the Commission’s ability to carry out its regulatory functions.
• 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.
• It could seriously impact the Commission’s investigation processes, if details of what information it used to inform its regulatory activities 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.

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.

We consider that the public interest is better served by withholding this information.

Section 43(2) Commercial Interests

Section 43(2) exempts information whose disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any legal person (an individual, a company, the public authority itself or any other legal entity). A commercial interest relates to a legal person’s ability to participate competitively in a commercial activity.

The Commission’s view is that the disclosure of some of the information requested would, or would likely to be, prejudicial to BACTA.

The Commission considers that the public interest in disclosing this information is outweighed by the wider public interest in protecting the commercial interests of BACTA. Our full public interest consideration for the section 43(2) exemption is set out below.

Arguments in favour of disclosure:

• There is a legitimate public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of public authorities
• Disclosure may encourage stakeholders to work with us and contribute to this programme of work, increasing confidence in the Commission as a regulator and its ability to uphold the law
• Increased transparency regarding operators would promote consumer confidence and help them make informed choices.

Arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption:

• Details of individual companies not directly associated with the gambling industry does not contribute to supporting consumers with their choice of operator
• Disclosure may hinder the candid nature of communications in the future which could be damaging to future decision making which is not in the public interest
• The Commission considers that the public interest in disclosing this information is outweighed by the wider public interest in preserving the principle of confidentiality, and the impact that disclosure would have on third-party organisations and our working relationships.
• The Commission depends and relies on the free flow of confidential information from stakeholders more generally to perform its statutory functions. The Commission’s ability to undertake its statutory functions would be significantly fettered if disclosure occurred.

Weighing the Balance

Whilst the Commission aims to be open and transparent, there is a need to preserve the confidentiality of information submitted on that basis and to be mindful of the commercial sensitivities of information that is held.

Looking at all the circumstances of the case and the nature of the request, there is more than a 50% chance that prejudice would be likely to be caused to one or more of the parties by disclosure.

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).