Records that contain election interference or political interference
Request
I am writing to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for any documents, emails, memos, or minutes that contain the phrases "election interference" or "political interference" shared with or by members of the executive team of the Gambling Commission. This request specifically pertains to the period from May 1, 2024, to July 22, 2024.
Response
In your email you have requested any documents, emails, memos, or minutes that contain the phrases "election interference" or "political interference" shared with or by members of the executive team of the Gambling Commission.
This request specifically pertains to the period from May 1, 2024, to July 22,2024.
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.
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
Internal Review Request
Thank you for your response. I would like to request an internal review for the following reasons:
Failure to properly balance the public interest. Within the 'Arguments in favour of disclosure', the Gambling Commission (GC) failed to recognise the context of the UK General Election and the effect that the GC's investigation into parliamentary candidates had on the Election.
The ICO has made clear that there is 'a public interest in transparency and accountability, to promote public understanding and safeguard democratic processes.' The most fundamental democratic process is a General Election. The GC's investigations into parliamentary candidates had an undeniable effect on the 2024 General Election by influencing voter perceptions of the candidates running for election. A proper assessment of the public interest test cannot be made without reference to the context of the UK 2024 General Election.
Once the public interest test has been properly applied, taking into account GC's involvement in the UK General Election, the internal review ought to find that the public interest overrules any concerns about prejudice. To quote the ICO decision notice IC-94049-Q4D7, 'the exemption is subject to a public interest balancing test. The effect of this is that the information should be disclosed if the public interest favours this, even though the exemption is engaged.' Unclear grounds for refusal. The ICO states that in using the Section 31 exemption, 'you must be clear on which sub-section you are relying on and why it applies.' The GC has not made clear which of the subsections from Section 31(1)a-j that it has relied on. The application of the exemption has therefore not been properly applied.
Likelihood of prejudice. The ICO guidance states the prejudice must be 'significant', not just trivial, and there must be a 'real possibility' of the negative consequences happening. Your arguments about potential behaviour changes or evasion by individuals are speculative and do not demonstrate a significant and likely prejudice.
The GC states within the 'Arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption' that, '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.'There are two points I would like to make in relation to this for the purposes of internal review:
Firstly, the assertion that this expectation of confidence is likely to be affected by disclosure does not apply to all documents covered in the scope of the initial request. Even if we accept the assertion above, it would only apply to documents that have been provided by third parties. There would be no risk to confidence in disclosing documents produced internally by the GC. Even if internally produced documents contained elements that could risk affecting third party confidence, the GC should have considered redacting the parts of those documents that create the risk rather than applying a blanket refusal (please see point 4 below).
Secondly, the expectation of confidence by third parties cannot alone be relied upon if that expectation is based on a misunderstanding of the FOIA. If a third party disclosed information that falls within the scope of the initial request with an expectation of confidence, and the FOIA makes clear that there is public interest in disclosure of the information, that expectation by the third party cannot then be used in favour of maintaining the exemption. The expectation of confidence must conform to the law - an expectation of confidence that goes beyond what is laid out in law cannot simply be asserted as a means to tip the public interest test in favour of maintaining an exemption.
Blanket refusal. The ICO makes clear that competing public interest arguments should be made after the information has been reviewed. 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)'. In this case, the GC has chosen to NCND the existence of any material that would fall under the scope of the initial request.
As stated in point 3(a) of this request, the initial request did not mention third party discussions. Instead, the initial request was for 'any documents, emails, memos, or minutes that contain the phrases "election interference" or "political interference" shared with or by members of the executive team of the Gambling Commission'. Even if, once the public interest test has been applied with reference to the General Election (as laid out in point 1), the internal review finds that some information is still exempt, it does not follow that all documents covered by the initial request are exempt. The main arguments by the GC in favour of maintaining the exemption is the effect on third party disclosure.
Those arguments do not apply to internal documents where there is no third party expectation of confidence and they should therefore be released.
Internal Review Response
I am writing to you further to your Freedom of Information request dated 22/07/2024 which we responded to on12/08/2024, 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:
Any documents, emails, memos, or minutes that contain the phrases "election interference" or "political interference" shared with or by members of the executive team of the Gambling Commission (as listed on your website: Executive Team (gamblingcommission.gov.uk). This request specifically pertains to the period from May 1, 2024, to July 22,2024.
In our initial response, we advised that the Commission do not provide comment on any communications undertaken unless it is in the public interest to do so. Consequently, we were unable to confirm or deny whether we held any communications within the scope of your initial request. Having acknowledged that we were unable to neither confirm or deny whether we held the requested information, section 31(3) of the FOIA (Law Enforcement) was applied and a public interest test was considered. It was concluded that this information was exempt from release.
In your appeal you have focused on the following areas:
- Failure to properly balance the public interest test.
- Unclear grounds for refusal.
- Likelihood of prejudice.
- Blanket refusal.
As such, we have concentrated our internal review on these elements of our initial response.
Internal Review
- Failure to balance the 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.
Firstly, 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 high-profile issues. We recognise that releasing this information will increase public awareness of the work carried out by the Commission. Further to this, the quality of the content of deliberations by Commission officials may improve if there was an expectation of the information being made publicly available.
Despite this, there is an expectation of confidence in much of the Commission’s work. 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 a regulatory body, the Commission relies on a variety of sources sharing information to enable the Commission to carry out its functions. Disclosing information which may have been discussed may deter these sources from sharing important material with us, as such prejudicing our regulatory functions. 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 initial view was that there was a greater public interest in favour of engaging the exemption when considering the impact. We uphold this decision.
- Unclear grounds for refusal
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:
- preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime,
- ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way, and
- protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling.
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, and the free and frank exchanges between staff members, 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, and on the confidence individuals have in the Commission’s ability to handle information appropriately. It could also discourage staff members from having free and frank exchanges in relation to the Commission’s work.
If the Commission is unable to discuss 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 uphold the decision 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 3 and 4 – Likelihood of prejudice and blanket refusal
In your review, you have advised that we have not sufficiently demonstrated how disclosing correspondence with the phrases "election interference" or "political interference" would be likely to cause actual prejudice to law enforcement functions.
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.
It is our argument that the disclosure of the requested information ‘would be likely to prejudice’ the regulatory functions of the Commission and any future investigations. The amount of information we release is carefully considered in order to protect the integrity of the Commission’s work. Whilst the Commission aims to be open and transparent, there is a need to preserve the confidentiality of any potential developmental discussions, and to be mindful of the sensitivities of information that is held.
Establishing trust with both internal and external stakeholders is key to having open and frank exchanges and this, in turn, will make stakeholders more inclined to provide sensitive information on the basis it is trusted to be kept with appropriate safeguards. Internal discussions that may or may not have taken place could be based on information that has been provided to us by a third party in confidence and, as such, disclosure of any internal correspondence, if it is held, could impact on the trust that has been established with those third parties.
We rely on our stakeholder’s sharing information in order to function as a regulatory body. Discussing within the public domain information (at any level of detail) may deter these stakeholders from sharing important material with us in the future, as such prejudicing our regulatory functions. Ultimately, disclosure of the information would be damaging to the Commission as a regulatory body which serves to protect the wider public interest.
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.
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.
ICO Decision Notice
Decision Notice: IC-328180-Z7Y7 (opens in a new tab)
Response in relation to ICO Decision
I am writing regarding your Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) request dated 22 July 2024 and the above Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) Decision Notice of 31 October 2024.
You requested the following information:
“I am writing to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for any documents, emails, memos, or minutes that contain the phrases "election interference" or "political interference" shared with or by members of the executive team of the Gambling Commission, as listed on your website:Executive Team. This request specifically pertains to the period from May 1, 2024, to July 22, 2024.
The purpose of this request is to determine whether any political actors contacted the Gambling Commission to raise concerns about parliamentary candidates engaging in inappropriate gambling activities.
I am particularly interested in any expressions of concern regarding such communication within the Commission, rather than seeking the content of communications with political third parties.”
The Commission conducted searches based on the parameters above and confirms that it holds no information relevant to your request.
Information falling outside of your Request
You may wish to be aware for general interest that the Commission does circulate media articles of interest. A publicly available media article, containing the term “political interference”, can be found here: Betting scandal puts Gambling Commission in spotlight (opens in a new tab).
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: foi@gamblingcommission.gov.uk.
Please note that requests for an internal review should be made within 40 working days of our initial response; requests submitted after this timeframe will not be processed.
If you are not satisfied with the outcome of our review, you may apply directly to the ICO for a decision. Generally, the ICO will not review a decision unless you have already completed the review process with the Gambling Commission.
Please note that any complaint to the ICO regarding the Commission’s handling of your information request must be submitted within six weeks of receiving our final response or last substantive contact.
The ICO can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.