UKGC Admits FOI Error on Adviser Links
Regulator initially denied holding correspondence with a key gambling harm researcher, later correcting its response after an internal review.
A Freedom of Information response has revealed the UK Gambling Commission initially told a requester it held no correspondence with a key academic adviser, Professor Heather Wardle. The regulator later admitted this was an error following an internal review. The case highlights significant redactions in the UKGC's communications with both researchers and anti-harm campaign groups.
Article Content
UKGC Corrects Record After Initially Denying Correspondence with Key Adviser
A Freedom of Information (FOI) disclosure has revealed the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) initially, and incorrectly, stated it held no correspondence with a leading gambling harm researcher, only to reverse this position after an internal review was requested.
The request, dated 8 February 2024, asked for all correspondence between the regulator and two key parties: the campaign group Gambling with Lives, and Professor Heather Wardle, a prominent academic from the University of Glasgow and a key adviser on gambling-related research.
In its initial response, the Commission stated that "no information is held" regarding communications with Professor Wardle between 1 January 2021 and the present. This was despite the professor’s known advisory role and recent appearance at a UKGC conference. After the requester challenged this, an internal review concluded the initial search was flawed and that the UKGC did, in fact, hold relevant information.
Why This Matters for Consumers
Transparency in how the UKGC interacts with researchers and campaign groups is crucial for public confidence. Professor Wardle’s research helps shape the evidence base for new regulations designed to protect consumers, while Gambling with Lives advocates for stronger controls on behalf of families harmed by gambling. The ability to scrutinise these relationships allows the public to understand the influences on the UK’s gambling laws and hold the regulator to account.
The initial error and subsequent heavy redactions limit the public's view into these critical discussions.
Breakdown of the FOI Response
The FOI request was split into two parts. The response to each reveals significant limits on what the UKGC is willing to make public.
Correspondence with Professor Heather Wardle
Following the internal review, the UKGC admitted it held correspondence but would be redacting information under several exemptions:
- Section 22A (Research Information): The UKGC states some information is part of an ongoing research programme and releasing it prematurely could create a "confusing picture" and prejudice the research. This means data and analysis that may inform future policy are being withheld until official publication.
- Section 43 (Commercial Interests): This exemption was used to protect information related to regulatory settlements, where gambling operators pay a sum in lieu of a financial penalty. This suggests discussions about how money from operator fines is allocated to research projects are being kept confidential.
Correspondence with Gambling with Lives
The UKGC provided some correspondence with the campaign group but withheld significant portions, citing three exemptions:
- Section 41 (Confidentiality): Information was withheld because it was provided to the Commission in confidence. This related to a proposal for funding through regulatory settlements, again shielding details of how fine money is used for socially responsible purposes.
- Section 31 (Law Enforcement): This exemption protects information that could prejudice the UKGC's ability to regulate the industry. Its use here implies that correspondence with Gambling with Lives may have included discussions about potential or ongoing compliance issues and regulatory action against specific operators.
- Section 40 (Personal Information): Standard redactions were made to protect the personal data of non-senior staff.
Significance for Regulatory Transparency
This case highlights two key issues for regulatory transparency. Firstly, the initial failure to locate any correspondence with a prominent adviser raises questions about the robustness of the Commission's information management and FOI processes.
Secondly, the extensive use of exemptions—particularly concerning law enforcement and the use of regulatory settlement funds—means the public remains largely in the dark about crucial aspects of the UKGC's work. While the Commission argues these redactions are necessary to protect its functions and the integrity of its research, they also prevent full public scrutiny of how it engages with key stakeholders and holds the industry to account.