Public Sector Equality Duty

Request

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I am writing to request information on how the organisation satisfies its own Public Sector Equality Duty.

Please provide responses to the following 5 questions for the financial year 2024/25:

1. Central Oversight: Does the organisation maintain a single central register of all completed Equality Impact Assessments? If YES, please provide a copy of this list. If NO, please explain how the Board assures itself of compliance with the PSED.
2. Consultation: How many EQIAs completed in this period involved a public consultation of less than 6 weeks?
3. Cost of Challenge: In the last 3 financial years, what is the total value (£) of external legal costs incurred defending challenges related to the organisation's own compliance with the Equality Act 2010?
4. Sign-Off: For the 5 most significant policy changes enacted by the regulator in 2024/25, please state the job title of the individual who quality-assured the associated EQIA before final Board approval.
5. Monitoring: Please provide evidence (e.g., a policy or recent Board report) of how the organisation monitors the actual versus predicted impact of its regulatory decisions on protected groups.

Response

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

In your email you have requested the following information for the financial year 2024/25:

1. Central Oversight: Does the organisation maintain a single central register of all completed Equality Impact Assessments? If YES, please provide a copy of this list. If NO, please explain how the Board assures itself of compliance with the PSED.
2. Consultation: How many EQIAs completed in this period involved a public consultation of less than 6 weeks?
3. Cost of Challenge: In the last 3 financial years, what is the total value (£) of external legal costs incurred defending challenges related to the organisation's own compliance with the Equality Act 2010?
4. Sign-Off: For the 5 most significant policy changes enacted by the regulator in 2024/25, please state the job title of the individual who quality-assured the associated EQIA before final Board approval.
5. Monitoring: Please provide evidence (e.g., a policy or recent Board report) of how the organisation monitors the actual versus predicted impact of its regulatory decisions on protected groups.

The Gambling Commissions responses to your enquiries are as follows:

1. Central Oversight: Does the organisation maintain a single central register of all completed Equality Impact Assessments? If YES, please provide a copy of this list. If NO, please explain how the Board assures itself of compliance with the PSED.

I can confirm that the Commission does not maintain a single central register of all completed Equality Impact Assessments. However, consideration of the potential equality impacts of the Commission’s policy amendments is embedded throughout the policy development process. At each formal decision point, this includes an assessment of known or potential equalities impacts of the policy proposals and/or decisions being taken. These key points include:

Decision to consult – a provisional assessment ahead of consultation. The decision to proceed to consultation is made by the relevant decision-maker as set out in the Corporate Governance Framework.

Publication of consultation - evidence of potential equalities impacts identified prior to consultation is included in the consultation document, alongside the Commission’s initial assessment, and a request for further evidence or information which might assist the Commission in considering any equalities impacts of the consultation proposals.

Decision to proceed with new, amended or removal of requirements – the outcome of our assessment of the equalities impacts of the consultation proposals are presented to the relevant decision-maker as one factor in a decision to proceed on whether, and if so how, to bring changes into effect. Decisions on some matters are reserved for Board as set out in the Corporate Governance Framework.

In line with good practice, our approach to how we will consider the equalities impacts of our requirements/policy changes on gambling businesses is considered on a case-by-case basis.
Of the changes to the LCCP and RTS that came into effect during the period April 2024-March 2025, full EIAs were carried out for the following policy changes.

Added Social Responsibility (SR) Code Provision 3.4.4 - Financial vulnerability checks for remote gambling businesses to undertake financial vulnerability checks to inform customer interaction decision making came into effect on 30 August 2024 (Paragraph 7 remained in effect between 30 August 2024 and 27 February 2025 only).

Amendments to the LCCP Social Responsibility Codes 3.2 in relation to preventing underage gambling, which came into effect on 30 August 2024, and consequential amendments to a number of Ordinary Code provisions.

• Amended Social Responsibility (SR) Code Provision 3.2.3 (8) to remove the exemption for smaller operators to conduct test purchasing, so that the requirement applies to all categories of adult gaming centre operators.
• Amended Social Responsibility (SR) Code Provision 3.2.5 (7) to remove the exemption for smaller operators to conduct test purchasing, so that the requirement applies to all categories of non-remote bingo and family entertainment centre operators.
• Amended Social Responsibility (SR) Code Provision 3.2.7 (text in the header regarding its application) to remove the exemption for smaller operators to conduct test purchasing, so that the requirement applies to all categories of non-remote general betting (standard) operators.
• Amended Ordinary Code Provision 3.2.2 (4) to reference a ‘Think 25’ approach rather than ‘Think 21’.
• Amended Ordinary Code Provision 3.2.4 (2) to reference a ‘Think 25’ approach rather than ‘Think 21’.
• Amended Ordinary Code Provision 3.2.6 (2) to reference a ‘Think 25’ approach rather than ‘Think 21’.
• Amended Ordinary Code Provision 3.2.8 (2) to reference a ‘Think 25’ approach rather than ‘Think 21’.
• Removed Ordinary Code Provision 3.2.4 (5) because it became obsolete with the removal of the test purchasing exemption.
• Removed Ordinary Code Provision 3.2.6 (2) because it became obsolete with the removal of the test purchasing exemption.
• Removed Ordinary Code Provision 3.2.8 (text in the header regarding its application) because it became obsolete with the removal of the test purchasing exemption.
• Amendment to LCCP Operating Licence Code Provision 1.2.1 to clarify and extend the operator staff management roles required to hold a Personal Management Licence (PML), that came into effect on 29 November 2024.

Updates to the RTS, headed ‘Remote Games Design’ changes, that came into effect on 17 January 2025, including new or updated requirements relating to:

• features which speed up the time for a result to be shown or can give the illusion of control such as ‘turbo’ or ‘slam stops’ (RTS 14E)
• autoplay (RTS 8A)
• celebrations of returns less than or equal to stake (RTS 14F)
• operator-led functionality which facilitates playing multiple simultaneous products (RTS 14C)
• display of transactions - net spend and net time information (RTS 2E and RTS 13C)
• a minimum spin speed for casino games of 5 seconds (excluding peer-to-peer poker) (RTS 14G)
• security requirements.

2. Consultation: How many EQIAs completed in this period involved a public consultation of less than 6 weeks?

All of the EQIAs completed in this period involved a public consultation of more than 6 weeks.

3. Cost of Challenge: In the last 3 financial years, what is the total value (£) of external legal costs incurred defending challenges related to the organisation’s own compliance with the Equality Act 2010?

I can confirm that over the last three years, we have not had any legal spend defending claims against the Gambling Commission for Equality Act 2010 matters.

4. Sign-Off: For the 5 most significant policy changes enacted by the regulator in 2024/25, please state the job title of the individual who quality-assured the associated EQIA before final Board approval.

All Equalities Impacts Assessments are quality assured by a Director or above, and reviewed by the relevant decision-maker.

5. Monitoring: Please provide evidence (e.g., a policy or recent Board report) of how the organisation monitors the actual versus predicted impact of its regulatory decisions on protected groups.

I can confirm there is no recorded information falling within the scope of this part of your request. However, the Commission has made a commitment to improve its capacity to evaluate new requirements and policies. This includes delivering jointly with Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) the model for the evaluation of

Gambling Act Review measures. This project includes initial evaluation of the Remote Games Design changes, changes designed to prevent underage gambling, and the introduction of Financial Vulnerability Checks to inform customer interaction decision making.

This initial evaluation will inform our longer-term monitoring and evaluation of these policy changes.

Adopting a proportionate approach, each new or change to a regulatory requirement will have a monitoring plan. The plan will include methods and metrics to monitor equalities considerations. The approach to monitoring and evaluation required will depend on the complexity and expected impact of the new or changed requirements, and we treat equalities impacts in the same way.

Therefore, where evidence of equalities impacts or potential impacts associated with an individual regulatory decision is identified we will adapt our data collection and monitoring to increase our capability to gather evidence of whether the experience differs for different groups or individuals, in particular those with protected characteristics.

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