Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

1138099

registered interest
date	10/07/2019
answering body	Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
answering dept id	10
answering dept short name	Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
answering dept sort name	Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
hansard heading	National Gallery: Conditions of Employment
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, what estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of employment tribunal decision, Ms A Braine and others v The National Gallery: 2201625/2018.
tabling member constituency	Dulwich and West Norwood
tabling member printed	Helen Hayes
uin	275798
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 15/07/2019 answer text <p>Following the decision of the Employment Tribunal, the National Gallery paid a total of £158,000 (inclusive of VAT) in backdated holiday pay to those individuals who were found by the Tribunal to have had ‘worker’ status while providing education services for the Gallery.</p><p> </p><p>In common with all publicly funded cultural institutions, the National Gallery operates independently and at arm’s length from Government. Arm’s Length Bodies are required to adhere to all relevant employment law, but their individual staffing structures and contractual arrangements are decisions to be taken solely by the gallery’s executive and trustees.</p><p> </p><p>I understand, however, that the National Gallery disputes the way in which aspects of this case have been characterised, including the notion that the employment tribunal was a test case for the ‘gig economy’ in the arts. More broadly, the 2017 Mendoza Review of Museums in England considered in detail the nature of employment in the museums sector; the Review Team found no evidence of widespread poor practice or insecure employment in the museums sector.</p> answering member constituency Taunton Deane answering member printed Rebecca Pow grouped question UIN 275799 275800 275801 question first answered 15/07/2019 15:05:34 answering member 4522 label Biography information for Rebecca Pow
tabling member	4510 label Biography information for Helen Hayes

1138101

registered interest
date	10/07/2019
answering body	Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
answering dept id	10
answering dept short name	Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
answering dept sort name	Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
hansard heading	Museums and Galleries: Conditions of Employment
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, what assessment he has made of the extent of (a) poor employment practice and (b) insecure work at publicly funded cultural institutions.
tabling member constituency	Dulwich and West Norwood
tabling member printed	Helen Hayes
uin	275799
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 15/07/2019 answer text <p>Following the decision of the Employment Tribunal, the National Gallery paid a total of £158,000 (inclusive of VAT) in backdated holiday pay to those individuals who were found by the Tribunal to have had ‘worker’ status while providing education services for the Gallery.</p><p> </p><p>In common with all publicly funded cultural institutions, the National Gallery operates independently and at arm’s length from Government. Arm’s Length Bodies are required to adhere to all relevant employment law, but their individual staffing structures and contractual arrangements are decisions to be taken solely by the gallery’s executive and trustees.</p><p> </p><p>I understand, however, that the National Gallery disputes the way in which aspects of this case have been characterised, including the notion that the employment tribunal was a test case for the ‘gig economy’ in the arts. More broadly, the 2017 Mendoza Review of Museums in England considered in detail the nature of employment in the museums sector; the Review Team found no evidence of widespread poor practice or insecure employment in the museums sector.</p> answering member constituency Taunton Deane answering member printed Rebecca Pow grouped question UIN 275798 275800 275801 question first answered 15/07/2019 15:05:34 answering member 4522 label Biography information for Rebecca Pow
tabling member	4510 label Biography information for Helen Hayes

1138102

registered interest
date	10/07/2019
answering body	Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
answering dept id	10
answering dept short name	Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
answering dept sort name	Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
hansard heading	Museums and Galleries: Conditions of Employment
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, what assessment he has made of the effect of the employment tribunal decision, Ms A Braine and others v The National Gallery: 2201625/2018 on other publicly-funded cultural institutions.
tabling member constituency	Dulwich and West Norwood
tabling member printed	Helen Hayes
uin	275800
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 15/07/2019 answer text <p>Following the decision of the Employment Tribunal, the National Gallery paid a total of £158,000 (inclusive of VAT) in backdated holiday pay to those individuals who were found by the Tribunal to have had ‘worker’ status while providing education services for the Gallery.</p><p> </p><p>In common with all publicly funded cultural institutions, the National Gallery operates independently and at arm’s length from Government. Arm’s Length Bodies are required to adhere to all relevant employment law, but their individual staffing structures and contractual arrangements are decisions to be taken solely by the gallery’s executive and trustees.</p><p> </p><p>I understand, however, that the National Gallery disputes the way in which aspects of this case have been characterised, including the notion that the employment tribunal was a test case for the ‘gig economy’ in the arts. More broadly, the 2017 Mendoza Review of Museums in England considered in detail the nature of employment in the museums sector; the Review Team found no evidence of widespread poor practice or insecure employment in the museums sector.</p> answering member constituency Taunton Deane answering member printed Rebecca Pow grouped question UIN 275798 275799 275801 question first answered 15/07/2019 15:05:35 answering member 4522 label Biography information for Rebecca Pow
tabling member	4510 label Biography information for Helen Hayes

1138283

registered interest
date	10/07/2019
answering body	Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
answering dept id	10
answering dept short name	Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
answering dept sort name	Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
hansard heading	Data Protection
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the operation of sections 17A and B of the Data Protection Act 2018 as inserted by the Data Protection, Privacy and Electronic Communications (EU Exit) Regulations 2019; how many times the provisions contained within those Regulations have been exercised; and what plans they have, if any, to review the exercise of those powers once the UK leaves the EU.
tabling member printed	Lord Freyberg
uin	HL17080
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/07/2019 answer text <p>The EU Withdrawal Act 2018 will retain the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in domestic law when the UK leaves the EU. The Data Protection, Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendments etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 use powers under that Act to correct deficiencies in the GDPR so that it remains operable in a purely domestic context. For example, the Regulations rename the GDPR as the ‘UK GDPR’, repatriate certain powers from the EU Commission to the Secretary of State and replace European terminology with UK equivalents.</p><p>Section 17A of the Data Protection Act 2018, as inserted by these Regulations, repatriates power from the EU Commission to the Secretary of State to make adequacy decisions for the purposes of Article 45 of the UK GDPR. Section 17B sets out the requirement for ongoing monitoring of adequate countries and for adequacy decisions to be reviewed at least every four years (maintaining the standards in Article 45 of the GDPR).</p><p>The EU Exit provisions of these Regulations have not yet been exercised because they only come into force on Exit Day.</p> answering member printed Lord Ashton of Hyde question first answered 19/07/2019 10:50:15 answering member 4247 label Biography information for Lord Ashton of Hyde
tabling member	2593 label Biography information for Lord Freyberg

1138286

registered interest
date	10/07/2019
answering body	Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
answering dept id	10
answering dept short name	Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
answering dept sort name	Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
hansard heading	Commonwealth Games 2022: Finance
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of the capital costs of the forthcoming Commonwealth Games in Birmingham; and how those costs will be split among (1) central government, (2) local and regional authorities, and (3) the Commonwealth and other sources.
tabling member printed	Lord Hylton
uin	HL17083
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/07/2019 answer text <p>The public funding for the 2022 Commonwealth Games was announced on 25 June 2019 and will be £778m. This funding will be split approximately 75%/25% between investment from central government (£594m) and Birmingham City Council and a number of its key partners in the region (£184m). Further funding will be raised from commercial revenue. This funding includes public contribution to the stadium and aquatics centre which are both currently subject to commercial negotiations.</p><p>A number of other infrastructure projects with funding from other sources will deliver benefits for the Games. These include a £496m development of 1,400 new homes at Perry Barr, which will include government funding of £165m from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, with the remainder coming from BCC and its partners, which will serve as the athletes’ village.</p> answering member printed Lord Ashton of Hyde question first answered 22/07/2019 13:45:32 answering member 4247 label Biography information for Lord Ashton of Hyde
tabling member	2018 label Biography information for Lord Hylton

1138287

registered interest
date	10/07/2019
answering body	Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
answering dept id	10
answering dept short name	Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
answering dept sort name	Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
hansard heading	Commonwealth Games 2022: Finance
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government whether staffing and other running costs of the forthcoming Commonwealth Games in Birmingham will be covered by (1) admission charges, (2) sponsorships, (3) advertising income, and (4) other means; and if not, who will be responsible for any deficit.
tabling member printed	Lord Hylton
uin	HL17084
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/07/2019 answer text <p>The budget for the 2022 Commonwealth Games that was announced on 25th June 2019 includes funding for staffing and running costs for the Organising Committee for the 2022 Commonwealth Games. In addition to public funding, commercial revenue will be raised from ticketing, sponsorship, merchandise and broadcast rights sales. The funding arrangements are as described in the Written Ministerial Statement of 25th June.</p> answering member printed Lord Ashton of Hyde question first answered 22/07/2019 13:46:23 answering member 4247 label Biography information for Lord Ashton of Hyde
tabling member	2018 label Biography information for Lord Hylton

1137792

registered interest
date	09/07/2019
answering body	Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
answering dept id	10
answering dept short name	Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
answering dept sort name	Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
hansard heading	Museums and Galleries: East Midlands
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, what steps he is taking to encourage more people to visit (a) museums and (b) art galleries in the East Midlands.
tabling member constituency	Mansfield
tabling member printed	Ben Bradley
uin	275242
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 16/07/2019 answer text <p>We want to ensure that East Midlands museums and galleries continue to thrive and engage with diverse audiences. To that end, museums and galleries in the region receive public funding from a variety of sources, including Arts Council England, National Heritage Lottery Fund, local authorities and others, as well as benefiting from a range of tax reliefs and grants. For instance, three regional museums and galleries in Derby and Nottingham were awarded funding from the £4 million DCMS/Wolfson Museums and Galleries Improvement Fund this year, and we look forward to seeing their projects take shape. East Midlands museums and galleries have continued to find innovative ways to use their buildings and objects to best effect and improve their audiences’ engagement and experience.</p> answering member constituency Taunton Deane answering member printed Rebecca Pow question first answered 16/07/2019 09:55:07 answering member 4522 label Biography information for Rebecca Pow
tabling member	4663 label Biography information for Ben Bradley

1137941

registered interest
date	09/07/2019
answering body	Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
answering dept id	10
answering dept short name	Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
answering dept sort name	Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
hansard heading	Data Protection
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government which third countries have been recognised by the EU as providing adequate data protection.
tabling member printed	Lord Freyberg
uin	HL17040
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/07/2019 answer text <p>The European Commission has so far made a full finding of adequacy in respect of: Andorra, Argentina, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Israel, Jersey, New Zealand, Switzerland and Uruguay. The Commission has made partial findings of adequacy in respect of Japan, Canada and the USA. You can find more information about these decisions on the Information Commissioner’s website.</p><p> </p><p>When the UK leaves the EU the power to make adequacy decisions will be repatriated to the Secretary of State. In February 2019 Parliament passed a Statutory Instrument (SI) setting out the criteria and process. The SI recognises and effectively rolls over all existing adequacy decisions that have been made by the EU as well as recognising EU states themselves as adequate. The SI also replicates the EU adequacy regime in UK law with a number of technical changes to make it work properly. The factors that the Secretary of State would need to take into account in reaching an adequacy decision include the rule of law, respect for human rights, and other relevant legislation in the third country being assessed.</p> answering member printed Lord Ashton of Hyde grouped question UIN HL17041 HL17042 question first answered 19/07/2019 10:49:47 answering member 4247 label Biography information for Lord Ashton of Hyde
tabling member	2593 label Biography information for Lord Freyberg

1137942

registered interest
date	09/07/2019
answering body	Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
answering dept id	10
answering dept short name	Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
answering dept sort name	Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
hansard heading	Data Protection
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government which (1) businesses, (2) territories of, or (3) specified sectors within, third countries have been recognised by the EU as providing adequate data protection.
tabling member printed	Lord Freyberg
uin	HL17041
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/07/2019 answer text <p>The European Commission has so far made a full finding of adequacy in respect of: Andorra, Argentina, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Israel, Jersey, New Zealand, Switzerland and Uruguay. The Commission has made partial findings of adequacy in respect of Japan, Canada and the USA. You can find more information about these decisions on the Information Commissioner’s website.</p><p> </p><p>When the UK leaves the EU the power to make adequacy decisions will be repatriated to the Secretary of State. In February 2019 Parliament passed a Statutory Instrument (SI) setting out the criteria and process. The SI recognises and effectively rolls over all existing adequacy decisions that have been made by the EU as well as recognising EU states themselves as adequate. The SI also replicates the EU adequacy regime in UK law with a number of technical changes to make it work properly. The factors that the Secretary of State would need to take into account in reaching an adequacy decision include the rule of law, respect for human rights, and other relevant legislation in the third country being assessed.</p> answering member printed Lord Ashton of Hyde grouped question UIN HL17040 HL17042 question first answered 19/07/2019 10:49:47 answering member 4247 label Biography information for Lord Ashton of Hyde
tabling member	2593 label Biography information for Lord Freyberg

1137943

registered interest
date	09/07/2019
answering body	Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
answering dept id	10
answering dept short name	Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
answering dept sort name	Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
hansard heading	Data Protection: EU Law
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government what factors they will take into account when making data adequacy decisions after Brexit.
tabling member printed	Lord Freyberg
uin	HL17042
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/07/2019 answer text <p>The European Commission has so far made a full finding of adequacy in respect of: Andorra, Argentina, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Israel, Jersey, New Zealand, Switzerland and Uruguay. The Commission has made partial findings of adequacy in respect of Japan, Canada and the USA. You can find more information about these decisions on the Information Commissioner’s website.</p><p> </p><p>When the UK leaves the EU the power to make adequacy decisions will be repatriated to the Secretary of State. In February 2019 Parliament passed a Statutory Instrument (SI) setting out the criteria and process. The SI recognises and effectively rolls over all existing adequacy decisions that have been made by the EU as well as recognising EU states themselves as adequate. The SI also replicates the EU adequacy regime in UK law with a number of technical changes to make it work properly. The factors that the Secretary of State would need to take into account in reaching an adequacy decision include the rule of law, respect for human rights, and other relevant legislation in the third country being assessed.</p> answering member printed Lord Ashton of Hyde grouped question UIN HL17040 HL17041 question first answered 19/07/2019 10:49:47 answering member 4247 label Biography information for Lord Ashton of Hyde
tabling member	2593 label Biography information for Lord Freyberg