UKGC Temp Staffing Costs Withheld
FOI reveals regulator used five agencies in 2022 but refused to disclose spending, citing data protection.
A Freedom of Information request has revealed the five recruitment agencies the UK Gambling Commission used for temporary staff in 2022. However, the regulator has refused to disclose its spending with these firms, preventing scrutiny of its operational costs.
Article Content
Regulator Names Temp Agencies But Redacts Financials
A Freedom of Information (FOI) request has revealed that the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) utilised five external recruitment agencies for its temporary staffing needs throughout 2022. However, the regulator has withheld all financial details related to this spending, preventing public scrutiny of its operational costs and value for money.
The data, released following a request made on 18 July 2023, confirms the names of the agencies but redacts crucial information on expenditure.
What the Data Reveals
The UKGC confirmed that between January 2022 and December 2022, it sourced all its temporary staff through the official Crown Commercial Service (CCS) framework, specifically RM6160. This indicates adherence to standard public sector procurement rules.
The five agencies that supplied staff to the organisation during this period were:
- Page Personnel
- Pertemps
- Hays
- Robertson Bell
- Red Snapper
The request sought a breakdown of spending per agency for administrative, financial, and IT roles, as well as the highest hourly charge rates for each specialism. The UKGC refused to provide this information.
Why Were Spending Details Withheld?
The Commission cited data protection as the reason for the refusal. In its response, it stated that disclosing spending breakdowns and hourly rates "could be linked to individual salaries, which could personally identify people and costs."
It argued that under the Data Protection Act 2018, releasing such information would be unfair to the individuals involved, who have a "legitimate expectation that their personal details will not be disclosed." The UKGC concluded that there was "no legitimate public interest in disclosing this information."
Similarly, the regulator declined to provide the names or contact details of staff responsible for managing recruitment contracts, exempting the information under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act as personal data.
Significance for Consumers and the Industry
The UKGC is funded by the licence fees paid by gambling operators. This spending, therefore, comes indirectly from the industry it regulates. The lack of transparency over staffing costs makes it impossible for the public or industry stakeholders to assess how efficiently the regulator is using its funds.
While the use of approved government frameworks is a positive sign of procedural compliance, the refusal to share financial data raises questions about accountability. Without knowing the scale of spending on temporary staff, it is difficult to analyse the regulator's resource allocation, its reliance on temporary versus permanent expertise, and whether it is securing value for money—all critical factors in its ability to effectively protect consumers.