This box is not visible in the printed version.
Request date: 23 June 2024
This version was printed or saved on: 7 May 2025
Online version: https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/about-us/freedomofinformation/gc-executive-team-communications
I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
I would like to request the following information:
Email subject lines:
Please provide the email subject lines for all emails sent from the Gambling Commission executive team to any email address with the domain name '@labour.org.uk' during the period from 15 May 2024 to 23 June 2024. That includes any response emails, i.e. an email that includes 'Re:' in the subject line.
Sentences containing specific terms:
Please provide any sentence within those emails that contains one or more of the following words: 'Tory', 'Tories', 'Conservative', 'Conservatives', or 'CCHQ'. Please ensure that the search covers the entire chain of emails rather than just the emails sent by any member of the executive committee. If a relevant term appears further down the email chain (e.g., in a previous correspondence to which a member of the executive committee is responding), include the sentence containing the term.
If no such content is found, simply list the email subject line as laid out in part 1 of this request.
Thank you for your request which has been processed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
In your email you have requested:
Email subject lines: Please provide the email subject lines for all emails sent from the Gambling Commission executive team to any email address with the domain name '@labour.org.uk' during the period from 15 May 2024 to 23 June 2024. That includes any response emails, i.e. an email that includes 'Re:' in the subject line.
Sentences containing specific terms: Please provide any sentence within those emails that contains one or more of the following words: 'Tory', 'Tories', 'Conservative', 'Conservatives', or 'CCHQ'.
Please ensure that the search covers the entire chain of emails rather than just the emails sent by any member of the executive committee. If a relevant term appears further down the email chain (e.g., in a previous correspondence to which a member of the executive committee is responding), include the sentence containing the term. If no such content is found, simply list the email subject line as laid out in part 1 of this request.
The Commission is a regulatory body with licensing, compliance, and enforcement functions; through our regulatory activity, the Commission aims to protect consumers and the wider public, and to raise standards in the gambling industry. We take care to publish as much information as possible. However, we must also be careful not to reveal any information that could hinder our ability to conduct investigations or enable those we may investigate to avoid detection.
The Gambling Commission do not provide comment on any communications undertaken unless it is in the public interest to do so. As such, we are unable to confirm or deny whether we hold any information within the scope of your request. Section 31(3) of the FOIA (Law Enforcement) exemption applies.
Having acknowledged that the Commission is not able to confirm or deny whether we hold any information within the scope of your request, section 31 of the FOIA requires that we consider a public interest test to identify whether there is a wider public interest in fulfilling this request as opposed to maintaining the exemption.
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 it is fulfilling its statutory obligations as set out in section 22 of the Gambling Act 2005. The statutory duties laid out in section 1 are:
a. preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime,
b. ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way, and
c. protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling.
Finally, fulfilling this request 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 carrying out activities which contribute to our regulatory activities. These procedures and processes have been put in place to increase the integrity of our work, demonstrating to the public at large that they can have confidence in the Commission’s ability to uphold its statutory obligations.
There is an expectation of confidence in much of the Commission’s work, particularly regarding the external conversations that take place between the Commission and third parties. It is the impact on this work of the Commission which is more likely to be affected by disclosure.
Confirming or denying information which makes specific individuals or events identifiable could alert individuals involved to the fact that the Commission was/is or alternatively wasn’t/isn’t engaging in specific conversations; providing an opportunity for individuals to alter their behaviours or evade detection. This would result in making it more difficult for the Commission to achieve its aims.
Further to this, simply confirming or denying this request for information would impact on the openness of stakeholders when sharing important information with us or other law enforcement agencies. The amount of information released is carefully considered in order to protect the integrity of the Commissions work and individuals from being unfairly associated with unsubstantiated allegations.
Finally, if a formal decision is made the Commission will ordinarily publish all such information in full. Fulfilling this request may prejudice the outcome of future regulatory work of the Commission, or another body, to the detriment of the public interest.
Weighing the balance
Given the points considered, disclosure of the information would be damaging to the Commission as a regulatory body which serves to protect the wider public interest.
Ultimately, the Gambling Commission regulates gambling in the interests of consumers and the wider public. As such, the Commission believes that the interests of the public are better served through maintaining the exemption, therefore, we are not in a position to confirm or deny whether we hold any information in relation to your request.
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
Thank you for your reply. I would like to request a review of your decision. My request for review is based on the following considerations.
The Gambling Commission (GC) publicly announced that several parliamentary candidates were under investigation for alleged wrongdoing during the UK General Election campaign. Given the real effect that decision had on the election and voter intentions, it is of the utmost public interest to disclose whether any communication took place between the GC executive team and members of the Labour party during that period.
If no email communication occurred, the public can be assured of the GC's independence. If communication with a political party did occur, then that raises legitimate questions over the GC's decision to announce that it was investigating parliamentary candidates for wrongdoing.
Further, the ICO writes, "If there is a plausible suspicion of wrongdoing, this may create a public interest in disclosure. And even where this is not the case, there is a public interest in releasing information to provide a full picture." That plausible suspicion was not addressed in your weighing of the public interest.
For prejudice to occur, the released information would have to reveal elements of the GC's investigatory operations. Email subject lines are highly unlikely to contain such information.
The ICO guidance on the prejudice test states that "The prejudice claimed must be real, actual or of substance". You say in your reply that "Fulfilling this request may prejudice the outcome of future regulatory work..." however, the ICO makes clear in the same guidance that the public body "must... Show that there is a causal link between the disclosure and the prejudice claimed." An assertion that prejudice "may" occur does not meet the test for demonstrating a causal link.
The GC has not sufficiently demonstrated how disclosing email subject lines would be likely to cause actual prejudice to their law enforcement functions.
Therefore, your claim that "Confirming or denying information which makes specific individuals or events identifiable could alert individuals involved to the fact that the Commission was/is or alternatively wasn't/isn't engaging in specific conversations; providing an opportunity for individuals to alter their behaviours or evade detection" is invalid.
You write in your "Arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption" that: "Further to this, simply confirming or denying this request for information would impact on the openness of stakeholders when sharing important information with us or other law enforcement agencies." However, if the Labour party did inform the GC of potential wrongdoing, it could well be argued that given the context of a General Election, this does not constitute legitimate openness but instead a motivated disclosure. Therefore the risk to legitimate openness created by confirming or denying does not apply in this case. I would again point to the overwhelming public interest in maintaining the UK's democratic process and the independence of the GC.
I would ask whether the option of a partial response was considered and, if so, why it was rejected.
a. The ICO writes,"Rather than making blanket rulings, you should balance the competing public interest arguments, after a contents based assessment of the withheld information. You should follow the approach endorsed by the Upper Tribunal in Department of Health v IC & Lewis [2015] UKUT 159 (AAC)"
I am writing to you further to your Freedom of Information request dated 23/06/2024 which we responded to on 22/07/2024, and your subsequent request for an internal review received on 22/07/2024.
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:
Email subject lines:
Please provide the email subject lines for all emails sent from the Gambling Commission executive team to any email address with the domain name '@labour.org.uk' during the period from 15 May 2024 to 23 June 2024. That includes any response emails, i.e. an email that includes 'Re:' in the subject line.
Sentences containing specific terms:
Please provide any sentence within those emails that contains one or more of the following words: 'Tory', 'Tories', 'Conservative', 'Conservatives', or 'CCHQ'. Please ensure that the search covers the entire chain of emails rather than just the emails sent by any member of the executive committee. If a relevant term appears further down the email chain (e.g., in a previous correspondence to which a member of the executive committee is responding), include the sentence containing the term.
If no such content is found, simply list the email subject line as laid out in part 1 of this request.
In our initial response, we advised that the Gambling Commission do not provide comment on any communications undertaken unless it is in the public interest to do so. As such, we were unable to confirm or deny whether we held any information within the scope of your initial request. Having acknowledged we were unable to neither confirm or deny whether we held the requested information, Section 31(3) of the FOIA (Law Enforcement) exemption was applied and a public interest test was considered.
In your appeal, you have focused on the following areas:
As such, we have concentrated our internal review on these elements of our initial response.
Internal Review
Point One
The duty to confirm or deny
Section 1(1)(a) of FOIA provides that any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request. This is known as ‘the duty to confirm or deny’. However, in certain circumstances there are exemptions to this duty.
Under section 31(3), the duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1). You have requested information relating to specific communications undertaken by the Commission. Given the type of information requested, we consider that section 31 of the FOIA would apply to the requested information, if held. The Commission is a regulatory body with licensing, compliance and enforcement functions. Through our open correspondence with a variety of stakeholders and third parties, the Commission aims to protect consumers and the wider public, and to raise standards in the gambling industry.
Section 31 – Law enforcement
Section 31 of the FOIA provides that information held by a public authority is exempt if its disclosure would or would be likely to prejudice the exercise of a public authority of its functions for any of the purposes specified in subsection 2.
In those cases the relevant purposes referred to in subsection (1)(g) to (i) are— (a) the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has failed to comply with the law, (b) the purpose of ascertaining whether any person is responsible for any conduct which is improper, (c) the purpose of ascertaining whether circumstances which would justify regulatory action in pursuance of any enactment exist or may arise,
The Commission is a public body which is required to regulate the gambling industry in the public interest. Section 22 of the Gambling Act 2005 sets out that the Gambling Commission is responsible for regulating and promoting licencing objectives as set out in section 1 of the Gambling Act 2005.
The statutory duties laid out in section 1 are:
To be an effective regulator, those who have an interest in the gambling industry must have confidence that the Commission can handle sensitive information accordingly. The Commission relies on the voluntary disclosure of information to be able to regulate effectively. Therefore, confirming or denying whether the requested information is held could impact on the willingness of individuals to supply essential information to the Commission and on the confidence, individuals have in the Commission’s ability to handle information appropriately.
If the Commission is unable to obtain the relevant information needed to make decisions this could harm its ability to effectively carry out its regulatory functions and objectives set out in the Gambling Act. Whilst it is recognised that the Commission has powers to formerly order information, the process is burdensome and would mean that the Commission would likely receive less information and deal with fewer cases, which in turn would affect its ability to function effectively and meet its duties under the Gambling Act.
As such, we are satisfied that information relating to specific correspondence, being held for the purposes of specific regulatory functions would be exempt by virtue of section 31(1)(g), and it follows that section 31(3) is engaged.
Point Two - Public Interest Test
Having acknowledged that the Commission was not able to confirm or deny whether information is held within the scope of your request, we considered a public interest test to identify whether there was a wider public interest in fulfilling this request opposed to maintaining the exemption, as is necessary when looking to apply the section 31 FOIA exemption.
There is a legitimate public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of the Commission, and we acknowledge that fulfilling this request may demonstrate the type of information processed by the Commission, enhancing accountability and transparency in relation to a high-profile matter.
However, there is an expectation of confidence in much of the Commission’s work. Whilst investigations are ongoing, public authorities require a safe space in which to operate and premature disclosures could create intense media pressure which could present problems for the judicial processes. Confirming or denying information which makes specific individuals or events identifiable is likely to impact on the openness of stakeholders when sharing important information with us or other law enforcement agencies.
As has been confirmed on the Metropolitan Police (the MET) website, the MET Police will investigate a small number of bets made on the timing of the General Election as part of a joint investigation led by the Gambling Commission. Once or if a formal regulatory decision has been made or there is agreement of a regulatory settlement, the Commission will ordinarily publish all such decisions in full. Fulfilling this request may prejudice the outcome of any ongoing or future investigation by the Commission, or another body, to the detriment of the public interest.
To disclose to the public whether we hold this information could also impact on the free and frank exchange of information between the Commission, its stakeholders and other regulatory bodies, which could ultimately result in consumers not being protected from organisations who are unfit or incompetent in their activities.
On balance, our view was that there was a greater public interest in favour of engaging the exemption when considering the impact.
When reviewing this request, the public interest test was further considered, and we can confirm that fulfilling this request may demonstrate the type of information processed by the Commission which may further increase public awareness of the work carried out by the Commission.
However, as a regulatory body, the Commission relies on a variety of sources sharing information to enable the Commission to carry out its functions. Discussing within the public domain information which may have been passed to us may deter these sources from sharing important material with us, as such prejudicing our regulatory functions.
Point Three – Risk of Prejudice
In your review, you have advised that we have not sufficiently demonstrated how disclosing email subject lines would be likely to cause actual prejudice to law enforcement functions. It is our argument that by disclosing that the Commission have or have not had any contact with, or regarding, the various third parties listed within your request would, in itself, disclose information.
The amount of information we release is carefully considered in order to protect the integrity of the Commission’s work and individuals or operators from being unfairly associated with unsubstantiated allegations.
Looking at all the circumstances of the case and the nature of the request, there is more than a 50% chance that prejudice to the Commission would be caused by confirming or denying whether we hold any information falling within the scope of your request. Once/if a formal regulatory decision has been made, the Commission will ordinarily publish all such decisions in full. This far better achieves the aims of protecting players and preventing widespread malpractice than releasing any information prematurely.
After reviewing your request and our response, we uphold our original decision to engage the section 31 exemption in relation to your request and we are unable to confirm or deny whether we hold any specific information within the scope of your request.
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.
Decision notice reference: IC-327041-X1Q5 (opens in a new tab)
I am writing regarding your Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) request dated 23 June 2024 and the above Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) Decision Notice of 17 December 2024.
You requested the following information:
Please provide the email subject lines for all emails sent from the Gambling Commission executive team (as listed on your website, to any email address with the domain name '@labour.org.uk' during the period from 15 May 2024 to 23 June 2024. That includes any response emails, i.e. an email that includes 'Re:' in the subject line.
Please provide any sentence within those emails that contains one or more of the following words: 'Tory', 'Tories', 'Conservative', 'Conservatives', or 'CCHQ'. Please ensure that the search covers the entire chain of emails rather than just the emails sent by any member of the executive committee. If a relevant term appears further down the email chain (e.g., in a previous correspondence to which a member of the executive committee is responding), include the sentence containing the term. If no such content is found, simply list the email subject line as laid out in part 1 of this request.
Please disregard any mass emails such as press releases, promotional/marketing emails or any other automated emails. I am specifically seeking direct communications where the email is written for a single or small set of intended recipients.”
The Commission conducted searches based on the parameters above and confirms that it holds no information relevant to your request.