UKGC Unable to Track Staff Working Abroad
Illustration for UKGC Unable to Track Staff Working Abroad

Article Content

Regulator Withholds Data on Overseas Staff

The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) cannot provide basic information on how many of its staff have permission to work from outside the United Kingdom, a recent Freedom of Information (FOI) response has revealed.

In a request dated 8 January 2025, the regulator was asked for the number of employees permitted to work abroad for the financial years 2021/22, 2022/23, and 2023/24. The request also sought details on their pay bands and the countries they were working from.

The Commission refused the request, stating that retrieving the information would exceed the cost limit set out in the Freedom of Information Act. This response suggests the regulator does not have a centralised system for tracking such arrangements.

Why This Matters

As the public body responsible for regulating the UK's multi-billion-pound gambling industry, the Gambling Commission's operational transparency is a matter of significant public interest. Consumers and industry stakeholders expect the regulator to maintain robust internal processes and data management. This inability to easily access its own staffing information raises questions about the efficiency of its internal record-keeping.

Details of the FOI Response

The UKGC confirmed that it does hold the requested information, but that it is "not stored in a central location." To answer the request, it claimed it would need to manually review records from "current and previous reporting managers."

The Commission invoked Section 12 of the FOIA, which allows public authorities to refuse requests where the cost of compliance would exceed £450. This figure is estimated to represent 18 hours of staff time.

The response stated: "We estimate that it would take in excess of 18 hours to determine appropriate material and locate, retrieve and extract any relevant information... as there is a high volume of records which may contain relevant information and would need to be reviewed individually."

The regulator invited the requester to submit a narrower request, which it might be able to answer within the time limit.

Significance for Regulatory Oversight

The Commission's response prevents any public scrutiny of its policies regarding remote and international work. It leaves key questions unanswered about the prevalence of such arrangements, the seniority of staff involved, and the potential tax, legal, and security implications of having regulatory staff based in different jurisdictions.

For a regulator that demands high standards of data management and transparency from the gambling operators it licences, the admission that its own internal HR data is not easily accessible is significant. It highlights a potential weakness in the organisation's own administrative systems and prevents a full understanding of its operational structure.

D

Written by

Research & Data Lead

PhD in Public Policy, London School of Economics. Member of the Royal Statistical Society. Published in the Journal of Gambling Studies and Addiction Research & Theory.

Dr. Chen holds a PhD in Public Policy from the LSE and has 8 years of experience in quantitative research, including 3 years as a Research Fellow at the Responsible Gambling Trust analysing operator self-exclusion data.

Tags

UKGC Freedom of Information FOI regulatory transparency remote working public body

More Insights