Asked by: George Howarth (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, what steps his Department plans to take to encourage the collection of funds for the benefit of the consolidated fund by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) from all data controllers (a) who should have paid and (b) should pay (i) data notifications and (ii) registration fees to the ICO.
Answered by Margot James
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is an independent regulator. Funding for data protection activities is provided by the data protection charges, which are levied on data controllers in accordance with the Data Protection (Charges and Information) Regulations 2018 (previously the Data Protection (Notification and Notification Fees) Regulations 2000). The collection of the data protection charge (and previously the notification fee) is the responsibility of the ICO. The Data Protection Act 2018 sets out powers for the ICO to enforce collection of these charges, including penalties up to a maximum of 150% of the highest charge payable by a controller in that year (Part 5 section 158). The ICO is at liberty to use all funding generated by these charges for data protection activity.
As a body funded by public money, the ICO is subject to standard Cabinet Office Spend Controls and HMT’s Managing Public Money principles. Full details on the controls pertaining to the ICO’s expenditure are available in the Management Agreement between the ICO and DCMS.
Under the terms of this Management Agreement, the ICO is able to retain such funds as are necessary to meet any liabilities at the end of the financial year (such as creditors), or unspent funds up to a maximum of 3% of total annual data protection charge income (whichever is the greater). Any additional surplus would be remitted to the Consolidated Fund at the end of the financial year. This is the only scenario in which income from data protection charges would be remitted to the Consolidated Fund. As such, the data protection charge (previously notification fee) is not collected for the benefit of the Consolidated Fund, but rather to ensure the ICO is able to fulfil its important regulatory functions.
Information on the amount of surplus remitted to the Consolidated Fund is not available for 2008/09 or 2009/10. For 2010/11 and 2011/12, this information is published on page 50 of the 2011/12 Annual Accounts. From 2012/13 onwards, this information is available in note 5b of the ICO’s Annual Accounts for each year. Copies of the Annual Accounts for each year are available on the ICO’s website www.ico.org.uk.
Asked by: George Howarth (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, what limits his Department has been placed on the Information Commissioner's Office in respect of funds that it can use for its data protection activities; and what such excess funds have been remitted to the consolidated fund in each of the last 10 years.
Answered by Margot James
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is an independent regulator. Funding for data protection activities is provided by the data protection charges, which are levied on data controllers in accordance with the Data Protection (Charges and Information) Regulations 2018 (previously the Data Protection (Notification and Notification Fees) Regulations 2000). The collection of the data protection charge (and previously the notification fee) is the responsibility of the ICO. The Data Protection Act 2018 sets out powers for the ICO to enforce collection of these charges, including penalties up to a maximum of 150% of the highest charge payable by a controller in that year (Part 5 section 158). The ICO is at liberty to use all funding generated by these charges for data protection activity.
As a body funded by public money, the ICO is subject to standard Cabinet Office Spend Controls and HMT’s Managing Public Money principles. Full details on the controls pertaining to the ICO’s expenditure are available in the Management Agreement between the ICO and DCMS.
Under the terms of this Management Agreement, the ICO is able to retain such funds as are necessary to meet any liabilities at the end of the financial year (such as creditors), or unspent funds up to a maximum of 3% of total annual data protection charge income (whichever is the greater). Any additional surplus would be remitted to the Consolidated Fund at the end of the financial year. This is the only scenario in which income from data protection charges would be remitted to the Consolidated Fund. As such, the data protection charge (previously notification fee) is not collected for the benefit of the Consolidated Fund, but rather to ensure the ICO is able to fulfil its important regulatory functions.
Information on the amount of surplus remitted to the Consolidated Fund is not available for 2008/09 or 2009/10. For 2010/11 and 2011/12, this information is published on page 50 of the 2011/12 Annual Accounts. From 2012/13 onwards, this information is available in note 5b of the ICO’s Annual Accounts for each year. Copies of the Annual Accounts for each year are available on the ICO’s website www.ico.org.uk.
Asked by: George Howarth (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, (a) what process has been involved in setting funding limits on the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) in respect of funds that it can use for its Data Protection activities in each of the last 10 years; and if he will place in the Library copies of all records relating to such processes including any notes of meetings and communications between the Government and the ICO.
Answered by Margot James
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is an independent regulator. Funding for data protection activities is provided by the data protection charges, which are levied on data controllers in accordance with the Data Protection (Charges and Information) Regulations 2018 (previously the Data Protection (Notification and Notification Fees) Regulations 2000). The collection of the data protection charge (and previously the notification fee) is the responsibility of the ICO. The Data Protection Act 2018 sets out powers for the ICO to enforce collection of these charges, including penalties up to a maximum of 150% of the highest charge payable by a controller in that year (Part 5 section 158). The ICO is at liberty to use all funding generated by these charges for data protection activity.
As a body funded by public money, the ICO is subject to standard Cabinet Office Spend Controls and HMT’s Managing Public Money principles. Full details on the controls pertaining to the ICO’s expenditure are available in the Management Agreement between the ICO and DCMS.
Under the terms of this Management Agreement, the ICO is able to retain such funds as are necessary to meet any liabilities at the end of the financial year (such as creditors), or unspent funds up to a maximum of 3% of total annual data protection charge income (whichever is the greater). Any additional surplus would be remitted to the Consolidated Fund at the end of the financial year. This is the only scenario in which income from data protection charges would be remitted to the Consolidated Fund. As such, the data protection charge (previously notification fee) is not collected for the benefit of the Consolidated Fund, but rather to ensure the ICO is able to fulfil its important regulatory functions.
Information on the amount of surplus remitted to the Consolidated Fund is not available for 2008/09 or 2009/10. For 2010/11 and 2011/12, this information is published on page 50 of the 2011/12 Annual Accounts. From 2012/13 onwards, this information is available in note 5b of the ICO’s Annual Accounts for each year. Copies of the Annual Accounts for each year are available on the ICO’s website www.ico.org.uk.
Asked by: George Howarth (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, what processes exist within the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) as regulator for dealing with concerns on the handling of data by the ICO as a data controller.
Answered by Margot James
Section 15 of the ICO’s service guide explains how they handle data protection concerns about the ICO. It explains that they will deal with such concerns in line with our usual procedures. There are also various options for redress should a complainant be dissatisfied with the ICO’s handling of a complaint against them. Part 5 section 166 of the DPA 2018 sets out a complainant’s powers to initiate a judicial review if they are not satisfied with the process followed by the ICO in handling an investigation into their complaint.
If, having exhausted the ICO's complaints procedure, an individual remains dissatisfied about any aspect of any service they have received from the ICO, or considers that the ICO has not acted properly or fairly, they can take the matter to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. Complaints to the Ombudsman must be made through the individual's MP. Further information about the Ombudsman’s service can be found on their website http:// www.ombudsman.org.uk.
Complainants can also go to the courts to claim compensation should the complainant feel that is appropriate.
The number and outcome of any DP complaints about the ICO as a data controller will be published in their datasets online.
The ICO haven’t taken any formal regulatory action against themselves as data controller.
Asked by: George Howarth (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, what enforcement action has been taken by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) as regulator against the ICO as a data controller for non-compliance by the ICO with its obligations under data protection legislation in each of the last five years.
Answered by Margot James
Section 15 of the ICO’s service guide explains how they handle data protection concerns about the ICO. It explains that they will deal with such concerns in line with our usual procedures. There are also various options for redress should a complainant be dissatisfied with the ICO’s handling of a complaint against them. Part 5 section 166 of the DPA 2018 sets out a complainant’s powers to initiate a judicial review if they are not satisfied with the process followed by the ICO in handling an investigation into their complaint.
If, having exhausted the ICO's complaints procedure, an individual remains dissatisfied about any aspect of any service they have received from the ICO, or considers that the ICO has not acted properly or fairly, they can take the matter to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. Complaints to the Ombudsman must be made through the individual's MP. Further information about the Ombudsman’s service can be found on their website http:// www.ombudsman.org.uk.
Complainants can also go to the courts to claim compensation should the complainant feel that is appropriate.
The number and outcome of any DP complaints about the ICO as a data controller will be published in their datasets online.
The ICO haven’t taken any formal regulatory action against themselves as data controller.
Asked by: George Howarth (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, what steps his Department has taken to ensure that the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has collected (a) all data notification fee income under the 1998 Data Protection Act and (b) registration fee income under the Data Protection Act 2018 from data controllers; and whether he has taken steps to ensure that such funds are allocated to the ICO rather than collected for the consolidated fund.
Answered by Margot James
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is an independent regulator. Funding for data protection activities is provided by the data protection charges, which are levied on data controllers in accordance with the Data Protection (Charges and Information) Regulations 2018 (previously the Data Protection (Notification and Notification Fees) Regulations 2000). The collection of the data protection charge (and previously the notification fee) is the responsibility of the ICO. The Data Protection Act 2018 sets out powers for the ICO to enforce collection of these charges, including penalties up to a maximum of 150% of the highest charge payable by a controller in that year (Part 5 section 158). The ICO is at liberty to use all funding generated by these charges for data protection activity.
As a body funded by public money, the ICO is subject to standard Cabinet Office Spend Controls and HMT’s Managing Public Money principles. Full details on the controls pertaining to the ICO’s expenditure are available in the Management Agreement between the ICO and DCMS.
Under the terms of this Management Agreement, the ICO is able to retain such funds as are necessary to meet any liabilities at the end of the financial year (such as creditors), or unspent funds up to a maximum of 3% of total annual data protection charge income (whichever is the greater). Any additional surplus would be remitted to the Consolidated Fund at the end of the financial year. This is the only scenario in which income from data protection charges would be remitted to the Consolidated Fund. As such, the data protection charge (previously notification fee) is not collected for the benefit of the Consolidated Fund, but rather to ensure the ICO is able to fulfil its important regulatory functions.
Information on the amount of surplus remitted to the Consolidated Fund is not available for 2008/09 or 2009/10. For 2010/11 and 2011/12, this information is published on page 50 of the 2011/12 Annual Accounts. From 2012/13 onwards, this information is available in note 5b of the ICO’s Annual Accounts for each year. Copies of the Annual Accounts for each year are available on the ICO’s website www.ico.org.uk.
Asked by: George Howarth (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, what assessment his Department has made of the effect of multiple providers investing in full-fibre networks in the same areas on digital services in (a) suburban areas and (b) towns.
Answered by Margot James
The Government is interested in the effect that greater transparency of build plans might have on accelerating the commercial rollout of full fibre networks. As a first step, the Future Telecoms Infrastructure Review committed the Government to discuss with BT and Ofcom how transparency measures might be introduced. The Government will consider next steps, including whether any legislation is required, following those discussions.
Asked by: George Howarth (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, with reference to the Future Telecoms Infrastructure Review, published in July 2018, whether he has plans to bring forward legislative proposals to ensure transparency in the proposals for full fibre network build plans.
Answered by Margot James
The recommendations of the Future Telecoms Infrastructure Review (FTIR) were based on analysis of UK and global broadband markets, as well as extensive engagement with stakeholders. The FTIR concluded that the most effective way to deliver nationwide full fibre coverage by 2033 is to promote network competition wherever possible. The FTIR expects around a third of the country to be able to support three or more gigabit capable networks and a further half of the country to be able to support two gigabit capable networks. This includes the majority of suburban areas and towns. The FTIR recognised that the remainder of the country will be made up of areas that can only support a single network and that some areas, likely to be largely remote rural areas, will be too costly for the market to deliver alone. For the latter, likely to be around 10% of premises in the UK, the Government will pursue a strategy to support deployment of full fibre starting at the same time as the market deploys to commercially viable areas.
Asked by: George Howarth (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, what assessment he has made of the effect of the building of multiple open access full fibre networks in the same locations on the Government’s target of nationwide full fibre by 2033.
Answered by Margot James
The recommendations of the Future Telecoms Infrastructure Review (FTIR) were based on analysis of UK and global broadband markets, as well as extensive engagement with stakeholders. The FTIR concluded that the most effective way to deliver nationwide full fibre coverage by 2033 is to promote network competition wherever possible. The FTIR expects around a third of the country to be able to support three or more gigabit capable networks and a further half of the country to be able to support two gigabit capable networks. This includes the majority of suburban areas and towns. The FTIR recognised that the remainder of the country will be made up of areas that can only support a single network and that some areas, likely to be largely remote rural areas, will be too costly for the market to deliver alone. For the latter, likely to be around 10% of premises in the UK, the Government will pursue a strategy to support deployment of full fibre starting at the same time as the market deploys to commercially viable areas.
Asked by: George Howarth (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, for what reason the Government has encouraged multiple full fibre infrastructure providers to build competing networks in the same areas.
Answered by Margot James
The recommendations of the Future Telecoms Infrastructure Review (FTIR) were based on analysis of UK and global broadband markets, as well as extensive engagement with stakeholders. The FTIR concluded that the most effective way to deliver nationwide full fibre coverage by 2033 is to promote network competition wherever possible. The FTIR expects around a third of the country to be able to support three or more gigabit capable networks and a further half of the country to be able to support two gigabit capable networks. This includes the majority of suburban areas and towns. The FTIR recognised that the remainder of the country will be made up of areas that can only support a single network and that some areas, likely to be largely remote rural areas, will be too costly for the market to deliver alone. For the latter, likely to be around 10% of premises in the UK, the Government will pursue a strategy to support deployment of full fibre starting at the same time as the market deploys to commercially viable areas.