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 printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

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

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

1006667

registered interest
date	13/11/2018
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: Copyright
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Ashton of Hyde on 12 November (HL11086), which stated that "Complaints about charges for re-use by museums and galleries may be referred to the Information Commissioner for a binding decision”, whether this is consistent with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)’s Guide to RPSI, which states that it “can issue a decision notice, unless the complaint concerns charges above marginal cost, in which case we make a non-binding recommendation”, and the ICO’s Decision Notice FS50619465 of 4 April 2017, which states that it can “only make recommendations in respect of any charges levied under the RPSI.
tabling member printed	Lord Freyberg
uin	HL11447
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 26/11/2018 answer text <p>The Information Commissioner’s (ICO) guidance summarises the general issue of charging for re-use, but does not go into specific details beyond this.</p><p> </p><p>Regulation 19 of RPSI states that in the case of bodies subject to regulations 15 (3) (a) or (b), complaints about re-use charges are subject to recommendation only by the Information Commissioner and appeals against recommendations can lead to a binding decision at tribunal.</p><p> </p><p>Museums and galleries’ charging falls under regulation 15 (3) (c), meaning that the usual redress route of a binding decision by the Information Commissioner applies.</p><p> </p><p>The ICO have confirmed they will be updating their guidance to make this clear.</p> answering member printed Lord Ashton of Hyde question first answered 26/11/2018 12:11:06 answering member 4247 label Biography information for Lord Ashton of Hyde
tabling member	2593 label Biography information for Lord Freyberg