Select committee: Public Accounts Committee

Conclusion 19

Thirteenth Report - Preparedness for online safety regulation Published 21 Feb 2024 Addressed to HM Treasury
Conclusion (the committee's words)
Ofcom’s expenditure is subject to an overall budget cap set by HM Treasury. Treasury agreed to increase this cap to fund the upfront costs of the online safety regime, with the costs funded from Ofcom’s retention of Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 receipts, which it would have otherwise handed to the Exchequer.39 The Department told us that this arrangement will continue until the fee regime is in place.40 As at April 2023, Ofcom estimated that its cumulative costs in preparing for and implementing the regime could total £169 million over five years by the end of 2024–25.41 As part of this, the Department and Treasury agreed to provide Ofcom with £63 million for 2024–25, which was £3 million less than Ofcom had requested.42

From: Public Accounts Committee, Thirteenth Report - Preparedness for online safety regulation (HC 73), 21 February 2024

Government response

The government responded to the whole report on 3 May 2024 (deadline 21 April 2024).

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.

The government agrees with the Committee's recommendations on codes of practice deadlines, compliance monitoring, the fee regime and evaluation, and disagrees with those on complaint feedback and skills audits.

  • On codes of practice, the government agrees and states that Ofcom "is on track" to submit its illegal harms and protection of children Codes to the Secretary of State by 26 April 2025.
  • On feedback to complainants, the government disagrees, stating that the Act "does not empower Ofcom to adjudicate on individual complaints"; these should go to the provider.
  • On the fee regime, the government agrees. Ofcom will consult publicly in Summer 2024, with the aim of implementing the fees regime in the 2026-27 financial year.
  • On skills audits, the government disagrees, stating that both organisations "already have effective workforce planning processes", which fulfil the intent of the recommendation.

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error