Copies of all OSR reports, briefings and internal memoranda relating to ‘Costs of Gambling harm’

FOI reference: FOI-2024-2281

You asked

Please can you supply me with copies of all OSR reports, briefings and internal memoranda relating to case 2024/021 (‘Costs of Gambling harm’)?

We said

Thank you for your FOI requesting copies of all OSR reports, briefings and internal memoranda relating to case 2024/021 (‘Costs of Gambling harm’). 

Please see the associated download which includes the case briefing document, a first draft response and meeting notes between OSR and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) from a meeting on 22 May 2024. These are documents created by OSR that were intended for internal use only. As such the documents may include OSR interpretation of conversations that OHID may not agree with.

Any personal data within this document has been redacted under section 40(2): where the information constitutes personal data and is therefore exempt under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).   

We have withheld a single sentence of the briefing document named ‘concerns with reports on the social and economic costs associated with gambling harms, published by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (2023)’ prepared by OSR staff for their Director General. This sentence has been withheld under s.36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA. This section states that the information is exempt if, in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person, it would inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation. We have concluded that this individual sentence contains a candid statement from a third party about the personal reactions of that third party. As such it relates to personal impact and not the substance of the case or the regulatory judgment, and moreover is not essential to the meaning of the paragraph.  

OSR’s regulatory powers rely on their ability to work with the statistical system and foster productive, effective relationships in which producers feel able to raise issues in a free and frank manner. If this sentence were to be released it would likely result in damage to OSR’s relationship with the third party that would impact future casework and regulatory assessments prejudicing OSR’s ability to be an effective regulator. 

The use of the exemption is subject to a public interest test.  

The argument in favour of disclosure is transparency of the recorded information used to make OSR casework regulatory decisions. However, the paragraph itself does not aid public understanding of the casework judgement decision-making process, and did not impact the decisions made by the DG in this case. 

Arguments in favour of withholding the information are to ensure OSR maintain a safe space for current and future discussion with producers in the course of their regulatory work. Without this, producers may be unwilling to engage productively in their discussions with OSR regarding the realities and challenges of producing the statistics subject to investigation. In turn, this would lead to poorer decision-making and potentially inaccurate conclusions from regulatory investigations.  

On balance, we have concluded that the sentence should be withheld because it is a) not in any way central to the OSR judgement; but b) disclosure may inhibit the openness of future discussions about regulatory issues.