UKGC Redacts Details on New Gambling Survey
FOI reveals correspondence on the Gambling Survey for Great Britain has been partially withheld, citing privacy concerns.
The UK Gambling Commission has partially withheld information regarding the development of its new flagship gambling survey. An FOI request for correspondence about the survey's methodology resulted in the release of redacted documents, obscuring some details of the consultation process.
Article Content
The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) has released partially redacted documents detailing the development of its new flagship survey for measuring gambling behaviour in Great Britain. The disclosure, made in response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request dated 19 March 2024, sheds light on the process but raises questions about transparency.
The request sought all correspondence between the UKGC and Professor Patrick Sturgis of the London School of Economics concerning the methodology of the new Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB). While the Commission released two large PDF files, it withheld some information, citing data protection exemptions.
Why This Survey Matters
The GSGB is set to become the new official source for statistics on gambling participation and rates of harm in Great Britain. The data it produces will be fundamental to the UKGC's regulatory decisions, government policy, and public health strategies. Its findings will directly influence future consumer protection measures, from affordability checks to marketing rules.
To ensure the survey's statistical robustness, the UKGC enlisted Professor Sturgis, a leading expert in survey methodology, to conduct an independent review. The accuracy and credibility of the GSGB's methodology are therefore critical for the entire industry and for consumer safety.
Details of the Disclosure
The FOI request specifically asked for communications with Professor Sturgis and internal memoranda related to his methodological review. In its response, the UKGC stated that while it was disclosing information, some parts were exempt.
The Commission relied on Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act, which protects personal information. It argued that there was "no strong public interest" in disclosing the personal data of the individuals involved and that doing so would be disproportionate.
The response noted: "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."
As a result, the two released documents, totalling over 10MB, contain redactions. The names and other personal details of most staff involved in the discussions have been blacked out, though the UKGC confirmed that data relating to very senior individuals, such as the CEO, has not been redacted.
Significance for Consumers and Transparency
The partial redaction of these documents means that a complete, independent analysis of the discussions surrounding the GSGB's methodology is not possible. While the involvement of an academic expert like Professor Sturgis was intended to bolster confidence in the new survey, the lack of full transparency around the consultation process may have the opposite effect.
For consumers, the integrity of the GSGB is paramount. The data it generates will be used to shape the regulations designed to protect them. Any opacity in the survey's development could undermine trust in its eventual findings and the fairness of the regulatory framework built upon them.