UK Parliament / Open data

Data Protection (Monetary Penalties) Order 2010

I had forgotten that there is a negative instrument as well as the affirmative one before us. As I said, it is quite a high figure and therefore it is only right to ask one or two questions. First, I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding us that there has been consultation on this. As the Explanatory Memorandum makes clear, some 53 per cent of the respondents supported the proposal, believing it to be a fair and proportionate approach. Some 32 per cent were against the maximum penalty, but they were not united because that percentage again split more or less half and half, some in favour and some against. Would the noble Lord expand a little on that? Secondly, I should like to know more about appeals, dealt with in Article 7 of the order. We are told that Section 49 and Schedule 6 have effect in relation to appeals, but I think the noble Lord explained that we go through the whole tribunal process even though there will be only something in the order of around eight cases a year. Thirdly, I have some concerns about the costs of implementing the civil monetary penalties, which are dealt with in paragraph 10.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum. It states that the costs, ""will be met by the recent increase in the notification fee from £35 per year to £500 a year for those data controllers with either a turnover of £25.9M and 250 or more members of staff, or, public authorities with 250 or more members of staff"." I am not clear from that whether those who do not meet the figures will pay just £35 a year, or will they not pay anything? Also, I do not see why we need quite such a large increase. A rise from £35 to £500 a year is quite a big percentage increase. The Minister is better at maths than I am, so he could tell me exactly what it is, or indeed he could look to his noble friend Lord McKenzie. I would guess that it is an increase of several hundred percentage points. I would be grateful to know why it was felt that such a large increase was necessary. No doubt the noble Lord will be given some advice on this before he comes to reply. That deals with the various questions I have on the order. Again, we on this side do not object to the order, but we would be grateful for responses to our particular points.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

717 c323-4GC 

Session

2009-10

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords Grand Committee
Back to top