UKGC Lacks Local Self-Exclusion Data
FOI response reveals regulator cannot provide self-exclusion figures for individual betting shops or local areas, highlighting a data transparency gap.
The UK Gambling Commission cannot provide data on self-exclusions at a local level, a recent Freedom of Information response has confirmed. This gap in data makes it difficult to assess the use of this key responsible gambling tool within specific communities. The regulator collects data at an operator-wide level, not by individual premises.
Article Content
Key Finding: Regulator Unable to Track Local Self-Exclusions
A Freedom of Information (FOI) request has revealed that the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) does not hold localised data on the number of consumers who have self-excluded from betting shops.
The disclosure, made following a request on 6 January 2023, confirms that while the regulator collects self-exclusion data from operators, it is not broken down to a level that can identify trends in specific towns, boroughs, or individual high-street premises.
Context: Why Local Data Matters
Self-exclusion is a key tool for individuals seeking to control their gambling. It allows a person to voluntarily request that an operator refuses their service for a set period, typically between six months and five years. For land-based betting shops, this is managed through the Multi-Operator Self-Exclusion Scheme (MOSES).
Access to localised data is crucial for consumers, local authorities, and public health bodies to understand the prevalence of gambling harm in a specific community. Such information could help in targeting support services and assessing the effectiveness of responsible gambling measures at a local level. The absence of this granular data from the national regulator creates a significant blind spot.
Details of the FOI Request
The request asked for the self-exclusion statistics for all betting shops within the London Borough of Hillingdon for the 2021/22 financial year, with a preference for a breakdown by individual premises.
In its response, the UKGC stated: "Information not held."
The Commission explained that while it collects self-exclusion figures from operators through mandatory 'regulatory returns', this information is aggregated at the operator level. This means the UKGC can see how many people have self-excluded from an entire company's network of shops, but not where those exclusions occurred geographically.
"These figures are not broken down by individual betting shops," the UKGC response clarified. "As such, we were unable to provide any information falling within the specific scope of your request."
Significance: A Gap in Transparency
The Commission's inability to provide this data highlights a gap in regulatory transparency. It means that neither the public nor local councils can use the regulator's data to scrutinise the use or effectiveness of self-exclusion schemes in their area.
The UKGC did suggest an alternative source, pointing the requestor to the MOSES service itself. However, the Commission noted that MOSES is a private organisation and is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, meaning it has no legal obligation to share its data with the public.
This leaves a critical question unanswered: how can the impact of self-exclusion be measured at a community level if the data is not publicly accessible from either the regulator or the scheme administrator?