Asked by: Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the report by the Actors' Trust, Spotlights and Shadows: Mapping the people and pressures of stage and screen, published on 16 March.
Answered by Baroness Twycross - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
We welcome the publication of Spotlights and Shadows: Mapping the People and Pressures of Stage and Screen by the Actors' Trust and recognise the importance of the issues it raises. We are actively engaged on many of the issues highlighted in the report, and are working with industry and partners to promote safer, more inclusive working environments across the acting profession.
The Government is clear that bullying, harassment and discrimination have no place in any workplace. We support sector-led initiatives, including the work of the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority, which plays a key role in establishing consistent standards on behaviour, reporting, and wellbeing. In addition, the Government’s national loneliness strategy, including campaigns to reduce stigma and encourage people to seek support, applies to those in creative sectors. Initiatives such as public awareness campaigns and the Better Health: Every Mind Matters platform promotes social connection, peer engagement, and community participation.
We are also committed to improving access and opportunity. Through the Opportunity Mission and a refreshed £9 million creative careers service, we are working with industry to broaden pathways into the sector, particularly for those from underrepresented backgrounds. A £75 million Screen Growth Package launching in April 2026 will also boost independent content and skills development, and DCMS will appoint a Creative Freelance Champion to act as an advocate for freelancers within Government and on the Creative Industries Council.
Asked by: Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative - Life peer)
Question
To ask The Senior Deputy Speaker why a tensile barrier has been present around the statue of the 1st Earl of Chatham in the content lobby of the House of Lords in recent weeks; who placed that barrier there; and for how long it is intended to remain there.
Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I am informed that the tensile barrier has been placed in front of the statue of the Earl of Chatham to prevent any damage during public tours of the Palace of Westminster. While it has not been possible to identify who has placed them there on each occasion, the relevant teams have been reminded to alert visitors not to touch the statues and for the barriers to be removed once public tours have concluded. The tensile barrier originally in front of the statue will be replaced with a rope barrier as soon as is practical.
Asked by: Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent on 18 February (HL14450), what was the cost to existing operational budgets of (1) the rebranding of government communications from 'HM Government' to 'UK Government', and (2) any work to explore the redesigning of the Lesser Arms used in government communications.
Answered by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
Any costs associated with routine updates to branding guidance are covered by existing staff costs. The redesign of the Lesser Arms to accommodate the Tudor Crown cost £4,950.
Asked by: Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask His Majesty's Government what discussions they have had with the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland about ending the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme; and whether the new Places of Worship Renewal Fund will be subject to the Barnett formula.
Answered by Baroness Twycross - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
I wrote to Angus Robertson MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, regarding the closure of the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme. DCMS officials have also met with counterparts in the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland to discuss the closure and confirm Barnett consequentials were applied as a proportion of overall departmental settlements.
At the Spending Review 2025, HM Treasury agreed budgets for Departments for a three-year period for Resource DEL, and a four-year period for Capital DEL. The Department then completed a Business Planning process to allocate this funding to programmes. This included £92 million (£23 million per year) for the Places of Worship Renewal Fund.
At Spending Reviews, the Devolved Governments generally receive Barnett consequentials as a proportion of overall departmental settlements, not specific funding lines or programmes. Barnett consequentials were confirmed taking into account the overall DCMS allocation, which includes funding for the Places of Worship Renewal fund. Decisions on the allocation of this funding are then for the Devolved Governments to take.
Asked by: Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask His Majesty's Government, for the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme, in each year since 2001 (1) what the total budget was, (2) how much was claimed by listed places of worship, and (3) whether the total grant amount available was exhausted before the end of the scheme year.
Answered by Baroness Twycross - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
Data for years prior to 2014 is no longer available.
Between 2012 and March 2025, the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme had an annual budget of £42 million. Recorded spending shows the following annual spend against the total budget: 2014/15 (£20,151,149), 2015/16 (£27,563,903), 2016/17 (£31,323,039), 2017/18 (£33,200,829), 2018/19 (£34,533,968), 2019/20 (£35,798,654), 2020/21 (£27,251,724), 2021/22 (£27,634,699), 2022/23 (£29,667,865), 2023/24 (£29,215,586). In 2024/25, the amount claimed was £42,468,941, of which £469,000 was paid from the 25/26 budget. In the 2025/26 financial year, the budget was £23 million. This has been fully allocated to applicants.
Asked by: Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they plan to seek a redesign of the Lesser Arms used in government communications; and if so, what discussions they plan to have with (1) the Royal Household, and (2) the College of Arms, about the matter.
Answered by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
The Government Communication Service routinely reviews its branding guidance to ensure it remains effective, accessible and fit for purpose across all channels, including digital platforms.
Any costs associated with routine updates to branding guidance are covered by existing operational budgets. We continue to engage with relevant stakeholders, including the Royal Household, in accordance with standard protocols.
Asked by: Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they plan to seek a redesign of the Lesser Arms used in government communications; and if so, what is the maximum budget they have allocated for those plans.
Answered by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
The Government Communication Service routinely reviews its branding guidance to ensure it remains effective, accessible and fit for purpose across all channels, including digital platforms.
Any costs associated with routine updates to branding guidance are covered by existing operational budgets. We continue to engage with relevant stakeholders, including the Royal Household, in accordance with standard protocols.
Asked by: Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they plan to seek a redesign of the Lesser Arms used in government communications; and if so, whether they plan to hold a public consultation about the matter.
Answered by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
The Government Communication Service routinely reviews its branding guidance to ensure it remains effective, accessible and fit for purpose across all channels, including digital platforms.
Any costs associated with routine updates to branding guidance are covered by existing operational budgets. We continue to engage with relevant stakeholders, including the Royal Household, in accordance with standard protocols.
Asked by: Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative - Life peer)
Question
To ask The Senior Deputy Speaker what is the current estimated cost of changing the typeface for the printed version of the House of Lords Official Report from a serif to a sans-serif typeface.
Answered by Lord McLoughlin
The Senior Deputy Speaker has asked me, as Chair of the Services Committee, to respond on his behalf. The suggested redesign of the printed version of the House of Lords Official Report, in which the change in font is one element, has not been finalised or approved, so there are as yet no formal quotes from the third-party supplier, but the expectation is that costs would be low. The House of Lords Services Committee will be provided with the estimated costs before any final decisions are taken.
Asked by: Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative - Life peer)
Question
To ask The Senior Deputy Speaker, further to the Written Answer by Lord Gardiner of Kimble on the 6 January (HL13198), how many individual comments were received; and, of those comments, how many were (1) in favour of, and (2) opposed to, changing the typeface for the printed version of the House of Lords Official Report from a serif to a sans-serif typeface.
Answered by Lord McLoughlin
The Senior Deputy Speaker has asked me, as Chair of the Services Committee, to respond on his behalf. In total, 20 individual responses were received on the total redesign package, offering varying views on different aspects. Specifically on the proposed change of font, which was covered in nine of the responses, two were in favour, three did not offer a preference and four preferred the current font. Some concerns were also raised about the front page and the suggested design was amended accordingly. The redesign remains a work in progress and will be reviewed again by the House of Lords Services Committee alongside further consultation with Members before any decision is taken.