FOI reference: FOI-2025-2604
You asked
Could I please make the following request:
1. Please can you provide copies of all correspondence (and related memoranda) between the Office for Statistics Regulation and the Gambling Commission between 1 January 2024 and the present date?
2. Please can you supply me with copies of all correspondence between the Office for Statistics Regulation and the organisation, Gambling with Lives?
We said
Thank you for your request.
Correspondence in scope of your request up to the 18 July 2024 can be found in the response to FOI-2024-2153, which was previously answered by OSR on 16 August 2024.
An identical FOI release by the Gambling Commission covers some correspondence held by OSR in answer to your first question over the same period.
The remaining correspondence between the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) and the Gambling Commission can be found in the associated download named FOI_2025_2604_Correspondence_with_OSR_Gambling_Commission.
The remaining correspondence between the OSR and the organisation, Gambling with Lives (GwL) can be found in the associated download named FOI_2025_Correspondence_with_OSR_and_Gambling_with_Lives.
Personal data has been redacted from both releases under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
Some of the requested information has been withheld, as this would likely prejudice the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation, therefore engaging s.36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA.
OSR's ability to conduct well-researched investigations into the trustworthiness, value, and quality of statistics is reliant on obtaining honest views from primary users of those statistics, and those directly impacted by them. The prospect of such candid views being shared would have a chilling effect on future discussions, where stakeholders would either not engage with OSR, or would be inhibited in their engagement. This, in turn, would lead to poorer decision-making. In a time where the misuse of statistics is rife and can cause widespread misinformation, the protection of safe spaces to obtain a realistic picture of topics of concern is pivotal to OSR producing accurate, evidence-based conclusions for their regulatory work.
This exemption is subject to a public interest test. The argument in favour of disclosure is the promotion of the transparency of the recorded information used to make OSR casework regulatory decisions. However, OSR already practice transparency in this space. Information provided by GwL that has resulted in regulatory action has either been made public already (in the letter from Ed Humpherson to Tim Miller on 2 October 2024), or will be made public upon completion of OSR's review into the Gambling Survey of Great Britain. There is little remaining public interest in the verbatim candid views of a small charity that formed part of the research process.
Arguments in favour of withholding the information are to ensure OSR maintain a safe space for current and future discussion with stakeholders in the course of their regulatory work. This would damage public trust in OSR to effectively regulate statistics. Without this trust, the public would no longer benefit from independent regulation and scrutiny of official statistics produced by government.
In connection with this, we also find the exemption found under Section 41 of FOIA to be engaged, as some information was obtained from another person with the expectation of confidence.
Some of the withheld information was also collected as part of research piece, with a view to publish a final findings report. Release of this information would likely prejudice this research prior to publication of the report. Therefore, Section 22A of FOIA is engaged in relation to this information. The public interest test falls in favour of withholding this information until the point of publication, as this is feeding into live research that has yet to reach a conclusion. We require time and space to undertake and finalise a thoroughly researched and balanced investigation. Ad hoc, partial release of findings at this stage would not meet this objective and is likely to mislead the public on the outcome of the research.