1-20 of 29 results for subject:Databases
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.176 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.006 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Databases
- We searched for
- subject_t:Databases OR subject_t:"Data banks" OR subject_ses:90822
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the extent to which their methodology for valuing raw data assets on government balance sheets differs from private sector practices.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the extent to which their methodology for valuing raw data assets on government balance sheets differs from private sector practices.
The UK Government follows standards as set by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), which are the same standards used by the majority of private sector bodies (for more information please see the Companies Act 2006). Raw data is an intangible asset and would therefore be covered by IAS 38 Intangible Assets. The UK government follows IAS 38 as adapted for the public sector. The Government Financial Reporting Manual 2018-19 sets out these interpretations and adaptations.
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any Government controlled data sets are cited as capital assets on the Whole of Government Accounts; and if so, which ones.
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any Government controlled data sets are cited as capital assets on the Whole of Government Accounts; and if so, which ones.
The UK follows standards as set by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). Data sets are an intangible asset and would therefore be covered by IAS 38 Intangible Assets. The UK government follows IAS 38 as adapted for the public sector. The Government Financial Reporting Manual 2018-19 sets out these interpretations and adaptations. The latest available publication of Whole of Government Accounts 2016-17 reports government’s intangible assets as totalling £34.5 billion at 31 March 2017. HM Treasury does not collect information on the value of data sets within this total or where they are held. The accounting policy used by the Whole of Government Accounts in recognising intangible assets is as follows (per page 82 of the 2016-17 accounts): “Intangible assets are recognised if it is probable that they will result in future economic benefits to the government and if their cost can be measured reliably. Intangible assets are initially recognised at cost and subsequently valued based on current value in existing use. Where no active market exists, intangible assets are revalued using indices or another suitable model.”
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there is an internationally accepted methodology for valuing raw data assets on government balance sheets; and if not, what consideration they have given to developing one with international partners.
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there is an internationally accepted methodology for valuing raw data assets on government balance sheets; and if not, what consideration they have given to developing one with international partners.
The UK follows standards as set by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), which is an internationally recognised standard setter. The UK Government applies International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) as adapted and interpreted for the public sector. Data sets are an intangible asset and would therefore be covered by IAS 38 Intangible Assets. The UK government follows IAS 38 as adapted for the public sector.
Under this standard, raw data would be unlikely to meet the definition of a recognisable asset. The government is unlikely to diverge from IFRS accounting standards in the Whole of Government Accounts
To ask Her Majesty's Government what percentage of HM Treasury's data is hosted (1) in the UK, and (2) overseas.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what percentage of HM Treasury's data is hosted (1) in the UK, and (2) overseas.
Over 99.9% of HMT data is hosted in the United Kingdom.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what percentage of the Department for International Development's data is hosted (1) in the UK, and (2) overseas.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what percentage of the Department for International Development's data is hosted (1) in the UK, and (2) overseas.
The percentage of DFID Data hosted in the UK and Overseas is detailed below:
(1) Percentage of DFID data hosted in the UK is 96.5%.
(2) Percentage of DFID data hosted overseas is 3.5%.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to Written Answer by Lord Bates on 9 March (HL6657), whether the review findings have found the existing practices of police forces are legal and are within the rules laid down by the Information Commissioner and data protection law.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to Written Answer by Lord Bates on 9 March (HL6657), whether the review findings have found the existing practices of police forces are legal and are within the rules laid down by the Information Commissioner and data protection law.
Findings from the review of use and Retention of Custody Images will be provided to The Science and Technology Committee in due course and copies of the review made available in the Libraries of both Houses.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bates on 9 March (HL6657), in the light of the fact that the findings of the review of the retention of custody images are now over a year late, whether they will provide an exact date that the...
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bates on 9 March (HL6657), in the light of the fact that the findings of the review of the retention of custody images are now over a year late, whether they will provide an exact date that the...
The review of the use and Retention of Custody Images is scheduled to be published alongside the Biometrics Strategy.
An exact date cannot be announced until pre-publication procedures are completed.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the report on the review of the retention of custody images will be made public.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the report on the review of the retention of custody images will be made public.
The Review of the use and Retention of Custody Images has concluded and will be published in due course.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bates on 21 January (HL4964) on police facial recognition technology, whether the outcome of their review of that report will be laid before Parliament for scrutiny.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bates on 21 January (HL4964) on police facial recognition technology, whether the outcome of their review of that report will be laid before Parliament for scrutiny.
Copies of the Custody Image Review will be provided to The Science and Technology Committee and made available in the Libraries of both Houses.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bates on 12 November 2015 (HL3286), whether the review of the retention of custody images by police forces has now been completed and reported; if so, what are the recommendations of that review and how they will be...
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bates on 12 November 2015 (HL3286), whether the review of the retention of custody images by police forces has now been completed and reported; if so, what are the recommendations of that review and how they will be...
The Review of the use and Retention of Custody Images has now concluded. The report has been submitted to Ministers and they will consider the recommendations. The outcome of this will be made public in due course.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in ensuring that management and statistical information concerning asylum claims on grounds of sexuality and gender identity are recorded accurately and comprehensively by the Home Office, and when that data will be published.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in ensuring that management and statistical information concerning asylum claims on grounds of sexuality and gender identity are recorded accurately and comprehensively by the Home Office, and when that data will be published.
We are still looking into the feasibility of publishing figures on the number of asylum applications by sexual orientation of the applicants. Any plans to publish will be subject to the data being of appropriate quality, in accordance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have carried out to determine whether the police facial recognition database complies with the Data Protection Act 1998; and what were the findings of that review.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have carried out to determine whether the police facial recognition database complies with the Data Protection Act 1998; and what were the findings of that review.
There is no facial recognition database as such. The Police National Database (PND) includes photographs of persons taken on their arrest. These images can be uploaded onto the PND by police forces. Full face images of a suitable size and quality are then enrolled in the facial image recognition gallery within the PND, which can be searched using automated facial recognition software. As set out by the Code of Practice on the Operation and Use of the PND, chief police officers are responsible for the development and implementation of appropriate procedures and systems so that personal data is processed in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 and other relevant legislation and guidance.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many faces have been uploaded onto the police facial recognition database since the ruling against the Metropolitan Police Service in 2012; which police forces made those uploads; and how many faces each force has uploaded.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many faces have been uploaded onto the police facial recognition database since the ruling against the Metropolitan Police Service in 2012; which police forces made those uploads; and how many faces each force has uploaded.
There is no facial recognition database as such. The Police National Database (PND) includes photographs of persons taken on their arrest. These images can be uploaded onto the PND by police forces.
Full face images of a suitable size and quality are then enrolled in the facial image recognition gallery within PND, which can be searched using automated facial recognition software. Information on the number of facial images loaded by forces since June 2012 is not readily available
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bates on 2 November (HL2849) on the review of retention of custody images by police forces, what are the specific operational and legal issues raised in the evidence-gathering stage, how they plan to address each issue, and what...
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bates on 2 November (HL2849) on the review of retention of custody images by police forces, what are the specific operational and legal issues raised in the evidence-gathering stage, how they plan to address each issue, and what...
The review is ongoing, and is anticipated to report before the Christmas recess. Specific stakeholders consulted as part of the review include the Biometrics Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, the Surveillance Camera Commissioner, the National DNA Database Ethics Group, the National Police Chiefs Council , the College of Policing and local police forces. The report can be expected to address the operational and legal issues and risks, and set out plans for implementation.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bates on 2 November (HL2849) on the review of retention of custody images by police forces, with which specific stakeholders they have discussed that issue and whether each has submitted evidence.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bates on 2 November (HL2849) on the review of retention of custody images by police forces, with which specific stakeholders they have discussed that issue and whether each has submitted evidence.
The review is ongoing, and is anticipated to report before the Christmas recess. Specific stakeholders consulted as part of the review include the Biometrics Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, the Surveillance Camera Commissioner, the National DNA Database Ethics Group, the National Police Chiefs Council , the College of Policing and local police forces. The report can be expected to address the operational and legal issues and risks, and set out plans for implementation.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bates on 2 November (HL2849) on the review of retention of custody images by police forces, whether they have carried out legal and risk assessments; if so, whether they will publish those assessments; and if not, why not.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bates on 2 November (HL2849) on the review of retention of custody images by police forces, whether they have carried out legal and risk assessments; if so, whether they will publish those assessments; and if not, why not.
The review is ongoing, and is anticipated to report before the Christmas recess. Specific stakeholders consulted as part of the review include the Biometrics Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, the Surveillance Camera Commissioner, the National DNA Database Ethics Group, the National Police Chiefs Council , the College of Policing and local police forces. The report can be expected to address the operational and legal issues and risks, and set out plans for implementation.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bates on 2 November (HL2849) on the review of retention of custody images by police forces, when the review will be completed, and when the guidance will be published.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bates on 2 November (HL2849) on the review of retention of custody images by police forces, when the review will be completed, and when the guidance will be published.
The review is ongoing, and is anticipated to report before the Christmas recess. Specific stakeholders consulted as part of the review include the Biometrics Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, the Surveillance Camera Commissioner, the National DNA Database Ethics Group, the National Police Chiefs Council , the College of Policing and local police forces. The report can be expected to address the operational and legal issues and risks, and set out plans for implementation.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the review of the framework within which police forces use and retain custody images is yet complete; if so, what advice has been circulated to police forces as a result; and if not, why not.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the review of the framework within which police forces use and retain custody images is yet complete; if so, what advice has been circulated to police forces as a result; and if not, why not.
The review has not yet been completed. It is important that the issues identified by the review are properly tested with operational decision makers, so as to appropriately balance the protection of personal data and privacy with the public protection benefits and the operational need.
Due to the complexity of the operational and legal issues raised in the evidence gathering stage and the number of important stakeholders, this work is yet to be completed.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to seek to amend the Dublin Regulation (European Union Regulation 604/2013) and the Eurodac system.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to seek to amend the Dublin Regulation (European Union Regulation 604/2013) and the Eurodac system.
The Government has no plans to change the way in which we apply the current Dublin and Eurodac Regulations. The right of initiative to propose amendments to the Regulations lies with the European Commission: any proposals are subject to negotiation by Council and the European Parliament.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the proposed timetable for the passage of a new communications data bill through both Houses in order to meet the present legislation's sunset deadline of December 2016.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the proposed timetable for the passage of a new communications data bill through both Houses in order to meet the present legislation's sunset deadline of December 2016.
The Government are committed to introducing a Bill on investigatory powers early next year, so that it can receive Royal Assent before the sunset clause in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act comes into effect at the end of 2016. In order to meet that timetable and allow the full parliamentary scrutiny, we intend to bring forward a draft Bill for consideration in the autumn, which will be subject to full pre-legislative scrutiny, including by a Joint Committee of both Houses.