Correspondence between the Gambling Commissions and HM Treasury
Request
Please can you supply me with copies of all correspondence between the Gambling Commissions and HM Treasury between April 2025 and December 2025? Please include any documents shared between the Gambling Commission and HM Treasury during this period.
Response
Thank you for your request which has been processed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
In your email you have requested copies of all correspondence between the Gambling Commission and HM Treasury between April 2025 and December 2025, including any documents shared between the Gambling Commission and HM Treasury during this period.
In order to fulfil your request, we have performed a search for all Gambling Commission emails between @gamblingcommission.gov.uk and @hmtreasury.gov.uk email addresses. The results from this search were reviewed and any emails which were sent/received as part of a wider email circulation were discounted as these were not considered to be direct contact between the two organisations.
The Gambling Commission have a deeply embedded working relationship with HM Treasury. There is a huge amount of collaboration and crossover between the two bodies. This includes the Commissions duty to ensure that adequate controls are in place to prevent gambling businesses being used for money laundering and terrorist financing purposes, the implementation and administration of the Economic Crime Levy, as well as sharing commercial level detail for individual operators.
We advise HM Treasury on issues which effect the gambling industry. For example, the development of anti-money laundering (AML) policy. We are also a member of the AML Supervisors Forum (AMLSF) which shares good practice and ensures consistency in the approach to AML supervision. This is another way for us to share information with HM Treasury, other government bodies, law enforcement agencies and other AML supervisors. We have a responsibility to make an annual report to HM Treasury on how we carry out our functions as an AML supervisory authority for the gambling industry.
As such I can confirm that information falling within the scope of your is held by the Gambling Commission. However, due to the sensitive nature of the topics of discussion, we are minded that all information falling within the scope of your request is exempt from disclosure under sections 31, 36 and 43 of the FOIA. Our rationale for the application of these exemptions is as follows:
Section 31
Section 31(1) provides that information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice -
a) the prevention or detection of crime,
b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders,
c) the administration of justice.
Arguments in favour of disclosure:
- The Commission is a public body which is required to regulate the gambling industry in the public interest. There is therefore a public interest in members of the public having confidence the Commission is being open and honest with the information it holds so that it can be held to account.
- It is important that the public are assured that the Commission is carrying out its functions in ensuring that any individuals or organisations who are involved in providing gambling facilities to the public have undergone the necessary assessments and will uphold the licencing objectives ensuring that consumers are protected.
- Disclosure of the requested information could demonstrate to stakeholders and relevant parties how the Commission is ensuring adequate controls are in place to prevent gambling businesses being used for money laundering and terrorist financing purposes. Furthermore, this disclosure may encourage stakeholders to work with us and contribute to our programme of work, increasing confidence in the Commission as a regulator and its ability to uphold the law.
Arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption:
- The Commission has robust and effective processes and procedures in place which are utilised in the development and deployment of AML policy. The release of conversations regarding such issues will have a direct impact on our statutory functions, by disclosing information that could enable licensees to present themselves in such a manner to remain licensed whilst continuing with criminality. These procedures and processes have been put in place to minimise the risk of an operator using a gambling business for money laundering and terrorist financing purposes.
- The Commission considers that disclosure of the requested information would provide licensees with information that could be used to undermine and circumvent assessment and reduce the possibility of any non-compliance being detected by the Commission.
- There is an expectation of confidence in much of the Commission’s work, particularly when discussing areas of money laundering prevention. It is the impact on this work of the Commission which is more likely to be affected by disclosure.
- Since the Gambling Act was introduced a great deal of collective experience and insight has been developed, enabling HMT and the Commission to discharge their separate, but sometimes overlapping, functions both more effectively and more efficiently. This ongoing collaboration is vital in ensuring that operators understand the requirements of the regulatory framework and that where non-compliance and illegality occur, appropriate sanctions are applied to deter others and uphold the licensing objectives.
Weighing the balance
The Commission acknowledges that there is a public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of public authorities. However, disclosure of the information would be damaging to the Commission as a regulatory body which ultimately serves to protect the wider public interest.
There is a strong public interest in preserving the processes that the Commission has in place to assess good practice and consistency in the approach to AML supervision. The public trust that the Commission has robust processes in place to monitor its operators, so that when they use the services provided by an operator, they are confident that there has been sufficient scrutiny of that operator to ensure that they are protected. If this information were released it would undermine that confidence.
We consider that the public interest is better served by withholding this information, ensuring that consumers are protected through our processes rather than releasing information about our processes which in our view will not benefit the public as a whole.
Section 36
Section 36 of the FOIA provides that, information is exempt if, in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person, disclosure of the information under this Act - (2)(b) would, or would be likely to, inhibit –
a. the free and frank provision of advice, or
b. the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation.
The view of the qualified person is that disclosure in this instance would be likely to inhibit the ability of Commission officials and others in expressing views and deliberating issues, which would in turn impair the quality of decision making and the provision of advice to and from HMT.
Having acknowledged that the information within the scope of your request is exempt from disclosure, section 36 FOIA requires that we consider a public interest test to identify whether there is a wider public interest in fulfilling this request opposed to maintaining the exemption.
Arguments in favour of disclosure:
- It is recognised that there is a legitimate public interest in promoting the transparency of the Commission and in making information available to the public.
- Further to this, the quality of advice and the content of deliberations by officials may improve if there was an expectation that the information would be made publicly available.
Arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption:
- Disclosure of the material falling within the scope of your request would be likely to prejudice free and frank communications and advice between Commission officials. There is a need for a safe space for Commission officials to have free and frank exchanges with HMT in order for the Commission to assure itself, and therefore Government, that decision making is effective.
- Many of the discussion topics between the Commission and HMT (including the implementation and administration of the Economic Crime Levy) remain under ongoing discussion.
- There is an anticipation of confidence as a member of AMLSF, allowing the members to be candid with each other. This confidence derives from the expectation of the members that any frank comments made will be treated in confidence.
- Disclosure would impact the ability of Commission colleagues to discuss live issues in the future, exchange informal views and advice and reach decisions, free from external interference and distraction.
- Premature publication of these discussions could lead to an incomplete and confusing picture emerging and would be likely to cause prejudice to ongoing work of the Commission.
Weighing the balance
Whilst the Commission aims to be open and transparent, there is a need to preserve the confidentiality of developmental discussions, and to be mindful of the sensitivities of information that is held. Further to this, there is no outstanding public interest in releasing this information whilst the discussions are still ongoing.
Having weighed these issues, the view of the qualified person is that the public interest is best served through maintaining this exemption.
There is very little that providing this information would do in terms of the public interest whilst disclosure would be likely to impact the future work of HMT and the Commission.
Section 43
In fulfilling your request, we would effectively be releasing the detailed financial and commercially sensitive information of individual operators and the wider gambling market. This information relates to operator performance and is not otherwise in the public domain.
Section 43(2) of the FOIA provides that information is exempt information if: its disclosure under the FOIA would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it).
Having acknowledged that information within the scope of your request is exempt from disclosure; section 43 FOIA requires that we consider a public interest test to identify whether there is a wider public interest in fulfilling this request opposed to maintaining the exemption.
Arguments in favour of disclosure:
- It is recognised that there is a legitimate public interest in promoting the transparency of the Commission and in making information available to the public. Further to this, in understanding the performance of the gambling industry
- There is a legitimate public interest in members of the public having confidence the Commission is being open and honest with the data it holds so that it can be held to account.
Arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption:
- Releasing the requested information would enable individuals to calculate the Gross Gambling Yield (GGY) and other financial details of individual licensees. Licensed operators have a reasonable expectation that this level of detail would not be published on an individual basis.
- An extensive range of aggregated or anonymised data is already available to the public to give a necessary level of understanding of the gambling industry. Operators have a reasonable expectation that such information would not be published on an individual basis.
- Detail of individual companies does not contribute to the understanding of overall performance of the industry as a whole.
- Releasing this information would be likely to provide competitors with a commercial advantage as they would be able to see the position of competing operators.
- We consider that disclosing the information could discourage licensees from freely providing information to the Commission in future, which would likely prejudice the Commission’s ability to monitor and regulate its licensees.
- Providing operator specific information regarding the information requested could lead to comparisons being made between operators, leading to unjustified inferences being made without the full context.
Weighing the balance
Whilst the Commission aims to be open and transparent, there is a need to preserve the confidentiality of information relating to licensed operators and to be mindful of the commercial sensitivities of information that is held. Looking at all the circumstances of the case and the nature of the request, in our view there is more than a 50% chance that prejudice to the Commercial Interests of licensees would be caused by disclosure and the Commission’s view is that the public interest is best served through maintaining this exemption.
Review of the decision
If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your Freedom of Information request you are entitled to an internal review of our decision. You should write to FOI Team, Gambling Commission, 4th floor, Victoria Square House, Victoria Square, Birmingham, B2 4BP or by reply to this email.
Please note, internal review requests should be made within 40 working days of the initial response. Requests made outside this timeframe will not be processed.
If you are not content with the outcome of our review, you may then apply directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have already exhausted the review procedure provided by the Gambling Commission.
It should be noted that if you wish to raise a complaint with the ICO about the Commission’s handling of your request for information, then you are required to do so within six weeks of receiving your final response or last substantive contact with us.
The ICO can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s Office (opens in new tab), Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.
Information Management Team
Gambling Commission
Internal Review Request
I would like to appeal against the decision in case 202500295 to withhold correspondence between the Gambling Commission and HM Treasury between April and December 2025.
While I accept that certain information would need to be redacted, applying FOI exemptions to all correspondence is excessive.
There is a particular public interest in disclosing the nature of information provided by the Gambling Commission to HM Treasury in relation to its examination of gambling duties in the preparation for last year's Budget statement, given the significant increases to the rates of Remote Gaming Duty and General Betting Duty for online sports betting that were announced. During an IAGA webcast on 12th January, the Commission's CEO, Andrew Rhodes stated that the Commission provided a range of data and information to HM Treasury. During this webcast, Mr Rhodes indicated that the duty increases announced created an increased risk of illegal gambling activity in Great Britain.
Given the potential consequences arising from the duty increases, it is in the public interest for the information provided by the Gambling Commission to HM Treasury to be placed in the public domain.
I will submit a more precise FOI request but wanted to make an appeal to this decision to hopefully avoid a similar response.
Internal Review Response
I am writing to you further to your Freedom of Information request dated 12/01/2026 which we responded to on 10/03/2026, and your subsequent request for an internal review received on 20/03/2026.
We have now concluded our review and our findings are detailed below.
This internal review was conducted by someone who was not involved in the processing of your original request.
In your initial email you requested copies of all correspondence between the Gambling Commission and HM Treasury (HMT) between April 2025 and December 2025. You also asked us to include any documents shared between the Gambling Commission and HM Treasury during this period.
In our initial response, we advised that in order to determine if information was held falling within the scope of your request, we performed a search for all Gambling Commission emails between @gamblingcommission.gov.uk and hmtreasury.gov.uk email addresses. The results from this search were reviewed and any emails which were sent/received as part of a wider email circulation were discounted as these were not considered to be direct contact between the two organisations. The remaining information was identified as falling within the scope of your request, however, we determined that this was not disclosable and that the following exemptions applied to the information:
- FOIA / S(31) - Law enforcement,
- FOIA / S(36) - Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs,
- FOIA / S(43) - Commercial interests.
Within your appeal, you have questioned the Commission’s decision to apply FOIA exemptions to the entirety of the information identified as falling within the scope of your request. As such, we have concentrated our internal review on these elements of our initial response.
Internal Review
Our relationship with HMT and information sensitivity:
Within our initial response, we explained that the Gambling Commission have a deeply embedded working relationship with HMT.
We explained that there is a huge amount of collaboration and crossover between the two bodies, including the Commissions duty to ensure that adequate controls are in place to prevent gambling businesses being used for money laundering and terrorist financing purposes, the implementation and administration of the Economic Crime Levy, and sharing commercial level detail for individual operators. We explained that the Commission advise HMT on issues which effect the gambling industry, such as the development of anti-money laundering (AML) policy.
As a member of the AML Supervisors Forum (AMLSF), we also share good practice which ensures consistency in the approach to AML supervision. This is another way for us to share information with HMT, other government bodies, law enforcement agencies and other AML supervisors. We have a responsibility to make an annual report to HMT on how we carry out our functions as an AML supervisory authority for the gambling industry.
Therefore, due to the sensitive nature of the topics of discussion, I uphold our decision that the information falling within the scope of your request is exempt from disclosure under sections 31, 36 and 43 of the FOIA.
I have detailed my reasons for upholding our decision as follows.
Section 31 – Law Enforcement
Section 31(1) provides that information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice –
a) the prevention or detection of crime,
b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders,
c) the administration of justice.
Within our initial response, we recognised that there is a legitimate public interest in promoting accountability and transparency of public authorities and disclosure of the requested information could demonstrate to stakeholders and relevant parties that the Commission was active in its regulatory functions. Furthermore, increasing confidence in the Commission as a regulator and its ability to uphold the law.
However, due to the Commission’s robust and effective processes and procedures, which are utilised in the development and deployment of AML policy, the release of conversations regarding such issues will have a direct impact on our statutory functions, by disclosing information that could enable licensees to present themselves in such a manner to remain licensed whilst continuing with criminality. These procedures and processes have been put in place to minimise the risk of an operator using a gambling business for money laundering and terrorist financing purposes.
As previously explained, since the Gambling Act was introduced, a great deal of collective experience and insight has been developed which has enabled HMT and the Commission to discharge their separate, but sometimes overlapping, functions both more effectively and more efficiently. This ongoing collaboration is vital in ensuring that operators understand the requirements of the regulatory framework and that where non-compliance and illegality occur, appropriate sanctions are applied to deter others and uphold the licensing objectives.
In conclusion I uphold the application of the S31 exemption for part of the information that falls within the scope of your request.
Section 36 – Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs
In our response we advised that the information that we hold that falls within the scope of your request was exempt from disclosure and the s36 Prejudice to the Effective Conduct of Public Affairs exemption was engaged.
The view of the qualified person is that disclosure in this instance would be likely to inhibit the ability of Commission officials and others in expressing views and deliberating issues, which would in turn impair the quality of decision making and the provision of advice to and from HMT.
We advised that the release of this information would impact on the ability of Commission colleagues and HMT to have free and frank discussions to support effective decision making, without external distractions or interference, and that release of this information could have a negative impact on the work of the Commission.
Disclosure of this information would inhibit future discussions between Commission staff and HMT as colleagues should have confidence that these discussions can take place openly and honestly, and disclosure could impact on future engagement and limit the willingness of staff to record and exchange free and frank views.
Although we acknowledge that there is a public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of discussions between the Commission and HMT, it is our view that withholding the information falling within the scope of your request better serves the public interest by protecting the Commission’s decision-making process.
In conclusion I uphold the application of the S36 exemption for part of the information that falls within the scope of your request.
Section 43 - Commercial Interests
Finally, in our response we also advised that in disclosing this information into the public domain, we would effectively be releasing the detailed financial and commercially sensitive information of individual operators and the wider gambling market. This information relates to operator performance and is not otherwise in the public domain.
Whilst the Commission aims to be open and transparent, there is a need to preserve the confidentiality of information relating to licensed operators and to be mindful of the commercial sensitivities of information that is held. Similar to the other exemptions applied, we consider that disclosing the information could discourage stakeholders from freely providing information to the Commission in future.
In relation to commercial sensitivity, releasing the requested information would enable individuals to calculate the Gross Gambling Yield (GGY) and other financial details of individual licensees. Operators have a reasonable expectation that such information would not be published on an individual basis. Detail of individual companies also does not contribute to the understanding of overall performance of the industry as a whole.
In conclusion I uphold the application of the S43 exemption for part of the information that falls within the scope of your request.
Looking at all the circumstances of the case and the nature of the request, there is more than a 50% chance that prejudice to the Commission would be caused by releasing all of the information held falling within the scope of your request.
After reviewing your request and our response, we uphold our original decision to engage the exemptions detailed in relation to your request.
If you are not content with the outcome of your review, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure provided by the Gambling Commission. The ICO can be contacted at www.ico.gov.uk or at:
Information Commissioner’s Office Wycliffe House Water Lane Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF.
Yours sincerely,
Information Management Team
Gambling Commission