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 discussions he has had with counterparts in (a) the EU and (b) Governments of EU Member States on the potential consequences of the UK leaving the EU without a deal on carnet-free travel between the UK and the EU for musicians travelling for work purposes.
Answered by Margot James
We recognise that the temporary movement of goods such as musical instruments and equipment is important to the music industry.
As part of our wider preparations for EU Exit, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is working with the music industry to understand potential impacts and opportunities for touring musicians. The Department will continue to build on this engagement.
In the unlikely event of a No Deal scenario the UK will continue to recognise and facilitate ATA Carnets originating from the EU and, although there has been no direct engagement with the EU or other member states, the UK expects similar recognition and facilitations from EU signatories just as we do with non-EU signatories.
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, whether he has had discussions with the Home Secretary on preserving freedom of movement for people in the performance and production of creative works sector after the UK leaves the EU; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by Margot James
The Prime Minister has been clear that as we leave the EU, free movement of people will end. A new, skills-based immigration system will be introduced to ensure we continue to attract the talented people we need.
We know that continued access to international talent and skills is a key concern for the creative industries as we leave the EU. The UK recognises that mobility is important to the creative and cultural sector, with the inclusion of a specific reference to the importance of mobility for creative, cultural and sporting cooperation in the White Paper on the Future Relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union.
The government will set out further detail on the UK’s future immigration system in due course, taking into account the findings of the Migration Advisory Committee. Any future mobility arrangements agreed on a reciprocal basis with the EU will be consistent with ending free movement, and my department will continue to work closely with the Home Office to ensure the needs of the creative industries are heard.
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, whether the Government plans to remain part of Creative Europe after the current funding period concludes in 2020.
Answered by Margot James
The UK will always be a European country that advocates for cultural diversity as part of its global identity and is committed to continuing its contribution to and support of European culture. The Government has been clear that will be explore participation in any successor programme to Creative Europe.
Where EU funding programmes are to the UK and EU's joint advantage, we want to discuss continued participation as part of the negotiations. Ultimately, the decision on which programmes are in the UK’s interests will be decided as part of the future partnership negotiations, which are ongoing.
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.