Tag: Lord Chadlington

  • Lord Chadlington – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Lord Chadlington – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Chadlington on 2016-01-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in tackling problem gambling.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    This Government wants to ensure that people are protected from being harmed or exploited by gambling. We welcome the ongoing work of the Responsible Gambling Strategy Board (RGSB), the Gambling Commission and the Responsible Gambling Trust (RGT) to identify the causes of problem gambling and to implement effective deterrents and treatments.

  • Lord Chadlington – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Lord Chadlington – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Chadlington on 2016-01-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice exempts sports betting around televised sporting events from the 9pm television watershed.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    Televised gambling advertising in the UK is governed by the Advertising Codes which are maintained by the Broadcast Committee for Advertising Practice. This is supplemented by a self-regulatory industry code, the Industry Code for Socially Responsible Gambling. An enhanced version of the industry code will come into effect in February 2016. New measures include a commitment that gambling operators will no longer advertise sign-up offers on television before 9pm.

  • Lord Chadlington – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Lord Chadlington – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Chadlington on 2016-01-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to introduce regulation for the social gaming industry.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    Social gaming is already covered by existing consumer protection legislation and other regulatory bodies. The Gambling Commission published the attached report on social gaming in January 2015. The Commission concluded that there was no compelling reason to impose additional regulation on the social gaming sector given that it is already subject to extensive consumer protection legislation.

    The Government will continue to keep this issue under review to ensure that appropriate protections remain in place.

  • Lord Chadlington – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Lord Chadlington – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Chadlington on 2016-01-18.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to publish an updated policy on fixed odds betting terminals.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    On 21 January the Government published its evaluation of the £50 regulations introduced in April 2015, which is attached.

    The evaluation indicates that a large proportion of players of FOBTs may now be making a more conscious choice to control their playing behaviour and their stake level. We will now consider the findings of the evaluation before deciding if there is a need for further action.

  • Lord Chadlington – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Lord Chadlington – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Chadlington on 2016-01-25.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the European Court of Human Rights ruling on 12 January in Barbulescu v Romania on an employer’s right to access an employee’s private emails in the UK.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    The Government has made no assessment of the judgment The case raises the important question of whether the Applicant had a reasonable expectation that his communications would not be monitored; and could reasonably expect privacy when communicating from the Yahoo Messenger account that he had registered at his employer’s request, and where there was a strict company policy prohibiting use of work systems for personal purposes. The Applicant alleged interference with his article 8 rights and that the interference was not foreseeable or proportionate. But the Court held that there was nothing to indicate that the domestic authorities failed to strike a fair balance between the applicant’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8 and his employer’s interests, and that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

    The attached ICO’s employment practices code sets out guidance in relation to workplace monitoring. The code is already clear that employers should have policies in place explaining how they expect their IT systems to be used, including setting out the extent to which, if any, the IT system can be used for personal use. Even where no such policy is in place, it is reasonable in certain circumstances for employers to monitor an employee’s use of the IT systems to ensure compliance with any policy or to ensure that employees are not abusing the use of the system. Such monitoring may include accessing non-work communications but this should only be done in exceptional circumstances.