Middlesbrough Council Large Casino

Request

1. Copies of all communications between the Gambling Commission and Middlesbrough Council and/or their representatives, concerning an application made by Luxury Leisure and dated 14th March 2023 to vary the casino premises licence relating to 22, Newport Road, Middlesbrough.

2. Copies of all communications between the Gambling Commission and Middlesbrough Council and their representatives in relation to its Large Casino [from 1st May 2019 until present].

3. Copies of all communications between the Gambling Commission and DCMS concerning Middlesbrough Council's Large Casino [from 1st May 2019 until present].

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. Copies of all communications between the Gambling Commission and Middlesbrough Council and/or their representatives, concerning an application made by Luxury Leisure and dated 14th March 2023 to vary the casino premises licence relating to 22, Newport Road, Middlesbrough.

2. Copies of all communications between the Gambling Commission and Middlesbrough Council and their representatives in relation to its Large Casino [from 1st May 2019 until present].

3. Copies of all communications between the Gambling Commission and DCMS concerning Middlesbrough Council's Large Casino [from 1st May 2019 until present].

Question 1

Gambling operators are required to hold a licence from the Commission in order to offer facilities for gambling to customers located in Great Britain. The Commission goes through a licence application process as part of this and makes an assessment of suitability against criteria set out in the Act. Part 5 of the Gambling Act 2005 details the Commission’s statutory functions in relation to the licensing requirements. The Licence conditions and codes of practice (LCCP) set out the requirements all licensees must meet in order to hold a Gambling Commission licence.

Licensees and Businesses (gamblingcommission.gov.uk).

When we receive licence applications an assessment is made on whether a business will uphold the licensing objectives and also the suitability of the applicant to carry out the activities that the licence allows. As part of this assessment the Commission will request the following evidence to support the application and the individuals who are relevant to the application, such as:

• the identity of the individuals,
• financial and other circumstances including resources available to carry out licensed activities,
• integrity – honesty and trustworthiness,
• competence – experience, expertise, qualifications and history,
• criminality – criminal record.

Details with regards to how we process a licence application can be found on our website:

Licences and fees (gamblingcommission.gov.uk).

These checks are carried out to ensure that we meet our obligations under the Act and our Statement of Principles:

Statement of Principles.

Once licensed, gambling operators are subject to ongoing compliance requirements and are subject to regulatory action should they fail to meet their licence requirements. Information collated as part of this process is used to assess whether a person or entity is fit to hold a licence.

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 subsection below applies and therefore the information is exempt from disclosure:

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 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 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 existing 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.
• 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.

Question Two

The Commission holds no information in scope of your request.

Question Three

Please see the attachment containing correspondence between the Commission and DCMS in relation to Middlesbrough’s large casino.

Please note, the Commission may refuse requests in full or in part in certain circumstances and, having considered your request, the Commission considers that some of the information held within the scope of your request is exempt.

The exemption the Commission has relied upon is as follows:

Section 40(2) - Personal Information

Section 40(2) of FOIA exempts information from disclosure if disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles. Therefore, in order to disclose this information, the Commission must be satisfied it has a lawful basis to do so.

We have considered the request and do not consider there is a lawful basis for disclosure of the information. The Commission considers that it would be disproportionate for us to publicly disclose the personal data of individuals, as there is no strong public interest in doing so. There is also no expectation that the personal information of these individuals will be disclosed in the context in which it is held. The redacted personal information includes names and email addresses.

On balance, we do not consider there is a legitimate public interest in disclosing the personal data and it would not be fair to do so.

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

We have also removed from the attachment information which does not fall within the scope of your request.

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 a 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).