This is the thirty-sixth report from the Committee of Public Accounts (HCP 332, session 2007-08, ISBN 9780215523525). It follows on from an NAO report (HCP 205, session 2007-08, Making Changes in Operational PFI Projects, ISBN 9780102951929). The Committee examined: staffing and management changes; the reasons for not putting larger changes out to competitive tender; the charging of management fees by SPVs (Special Purpose Vehicle), which are the separate companies created by the different companies involved in the PFI deal; the value for money of small changes. With PFI the public sector enter into long-term contractual arrangements with private sector companies to design, build, finance and operate a particular asset, such as a hospital or school. There are now over 500 operational projects with a combined capital value of £57 billion, with future payments amounting to £181 billion. With such long term contracts. changes will be needed to the services and assets provided under the PFI project. In 2006, £180 million was spent on changes. Major changes costing £100,000 or more accounted for 90 per cent of the total value of changes to PFI projects in 2006. The Committee has set out six conclusions and recommendations, including: in 2006, changes to operational PFI projects totalled £180 million, but many operational PFI contracts are under-managed; there are limits to the Treasury's capacity to control the allocation of resources to contract management at a local level; there is insufficient central support for contract managers; at present, 27 per cent of project changes over £100,000 are not subject to competition; management fees cost the taxpayer over £6 million a year; there are large differences in the cost of making similar minor changes to PFI projects.
3rd report Tackling inequalities in life expectancy in areas with the worst health and deprivation (Department for Health); 4th report Progress with VFM savings and lessons for cost reduction programmes (HM Treasury); 5th report Increasing rail capacity (Department for Transport); 6th report Cafcass's response to increased demand for its services (Department for Education); 7th report Funding the development of renewable energy technologies (Department for Energy and Climate Change); 8th report Customer first programme: delivery of student finance (Department for Business, Innovation and Science); 9th report Financing PFI projects in the credit crisis and the Treasury's response (HM Treasury); 10th report Managing the Defence budget and estate (Ministry of Defence); 11th report Community care grant (Department for Work and Pensions); 12th report Central Government's use of consultants and interims (Cabinet Office); 13th report Bilateral support to primary education (Department for International Development)
3rd report Tackling inequalities in life expectancy in areas with the worst health and deprivation (Department for Health); 4th report Progress with VFM savings and lessons for cost reduction programmes (HM Treasury); 5th report Increasing rail capacity (Department for Transport); 6th report Cafcass's response to increased demand for its services (Department for Education); 7th report Funding the development of renewable energy technologies (Department for Energy and Climate Change); 8th report Customer first programme: delivery of student finance (Department for Business, Innovation and Science); 9th report Financing PFI projects in the credit crisis and the Treasury's response (HM Treasury); 10th report Managing the Defence budget and estate (Ministry of Defence); 11th report Community care grant (Department for Work and Pensions); 12th report Central Government's use of consultants and interims (Cabinet Office); 13th report Bilateral support to primary education (Department for International Development)
The reports published as HC 470 (ISBN 9780215555106); HC 440 (9780215555144); HC 471 (9780215555205); HC 439 (9780215555243); HC 538 (9780215555434); HC 424 (9780215555496); HC 553 (9780215555502); HC 503 (9780215555571); HC 573 (9780215555595); HC 610 (9780215555656); HC 594 (9780215555717), session 2010-11
This report examines the progress on repaying taxpayer support and maintenance of financial stability following action taken in the 2007 crisis in the financial markets. Action included nationalisation, the purchase of a large number of shares in RBS and Lloyds, establishing sector-wide schemes to guarantee banks' debt-funding and protect their assets, and indemnifying the Bank of England against losses for providing temporary liquidity. The level of explicit support has gone down from nearly £1 trillion to £512 billion, and estimates of the size of the implicit subsidy vary - from as high as £100 billion to just below £10 billion in 2009 alone. The explicit subsidy includes the fees paid by banks for their use of the Credit Guarantee Scheme which, to date, have been at least £1 billion less than the benefit received by the banks. These subsidies enable private gains to be made at the expense of public risk, and some of these gains have been used to pay bonuses to staff and dividends to shareholders, rather than enhancing the financial sustainability of the sector. This causes the Committee and the wider public much concern. For the taxpayer to obtain value for money from exiting from the support depends heavily on a successful sale of the shares in RBS and Lloyds. The government shareholding is far greater than in previous share sales and will require extraordinarily careful handling to protect the taxpayers' interest. Regulatory and political uncertainty over the banking sector will remain until the Government has responded to the recommendations from the Independent Commission on Banking.
As a result of the privatisation of many nationalised industries in the 1980s, independent sector-specific regulatory offices were established to regulate these industries to promote genuine competition and ensure companies did not exploit monopoly powers. Examples of these regulatory offices include Oftel (telecommunications), Ofgas (gas supply), Offer, (electricity), Ofwat (water services) and Postcomm (postal services). Other regulatory offices with slightly different regulatory remits include the Civil Aviation Authority, the Financial Services Authority, the Pensions Regulator, the Competition Commission and the Office of Fair Trading. The Committee's report examines the statutory remits of the UK economic regulators, their working methods and working relationships, the value for money they provide and the extent to which the regulators have successfully promoted competition and de-regulated where possible, as well as considering whether they should be given an additional statutory duty to facilitate the competitiveness of UK firms. Overall, the Committee concludes that the legislation is working well, but that a greater standardisation of remits should be introduced over time to ensure all regulators are statutorily required to follow best practice. In most sectors, regulators have played an important role in helping to promote competition, with the exception of the water industry. The report explores possible reasons for the lack of competition in this sector, and urges Ofwat to take account of the general comments made by the Competition Appeal Tribunal on its access regime. It highlights the need for greater parliamentary oversight over regulatory bodies and recommends that a Joint Committee of both Houses be set up, or failing this, that a sessional Select Committee be established in the House of Lords.
This statement is the thirtieth in the series. It describes the EU Budget for 2010 as adopted by the European Parliament; and sets out details of the United Kingdom's gross and net contributions to the EU Budget over the financial years 2004-05 to 2009-10, together with estimates for 2010-11 and projections from 2011-12 to 2014-16, and over the calendar years 2004 to 2009, together with the estimate for 2010. It also includes details of recent developments in EU financial management and the fight against fraud
This paper contains the draft Terrorist Asset-Freezing Bill, explanatory notes and an impact statement. The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to resolution 1373 (2001) adopted by the Security Council of the United Nations on 28 September 2001 relating to terrorism and resolution 1452 (2002) adopted on 20 December 2002 relating to humanitarian exemptions. Resolution 1373 includes a requirement that member states must (a) prevent the financing of terrorist acts, including the freezing of funds and economic resources of persons who commit or attempt to commit, terrorist acts or participate in or facilitate such acts, and (b) prohibit their nationals and those within their territories from making funds, financial services or economic resources available to such persons. Resolution 1452 introduces exemptions to permit payments necessary to meet basic humanitarian needs (such as payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, public utility charges and legal fees and expenses).
In 2004, the Government announced 110 Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets for 17 Departments covering the period 2005-08. PSA targets express the priority outcomes that Departments are seeking to achieve nationally and internationally, and cover key aspects of the Government's social, economic and environmental policy. Large sums of public money are devoted to the programmes designed to deliver them. This NAO report summarises the results of its examination of the data systems used by six government departments to monitor and report progress against their 2005-08 PSA targets, covering a total of 65 data systems. The six Departments are: the Cabinet Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Education and Skills, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Ministry of Defence and HM Treasury. Findings include that 75 per cent of the data systems used are broadly appropriate, but less than half of these were fully fit for purpose. Most required some action to strengthen measurement or reporting arrangements. A companion volume (HCP 127-II, session 2006-07, ISBN 0102944083) is available separately which contains the NAO's detailed findings.
This National Audit Office report highlights progress across government in fulfilling most of its initial commitments to promote the transparency of public information. However, government needs a better understanding of costs, benefits and use to assess whether transparency is meeting its objectives of increasing accountability, supporting service improvement and stimulating economic growth. The Government has significantly increased the amount and type of public sector information released. Twenty-three out of 25 commitments by central government, due by December 2011, had been met by that month. However, the assessment of value for money is underdeveloped. While the Cabinet Office has identified six types of potential benefits from open data, it is not yet using this framework to evaluate the success and value for money of its various transparency initiatives. The new Open Data Institute will have a role to improve evidence on economic and public service benefits of open data. Levels of public interest in the different types of information released vary. More than four-fifths of visitors to the Government website data.gov.uk leave the site immediately without accessing any further link. In some sectors, data that would better inform accountability or choice is either not held or not yet made available. The Government estimates that public data already contributes £16 billion annually to the UK economy. Despite announced new transparency commitments to stimulate additional economic growth, the ability to maximise economic growth from traded data is constrained by current arrangements to charge for data, and limited understanding of potential benefits.
Royal assent, 13 March 2014. An Act to authorise the use of resources for the years ending with 31 March 2008, 31 March 2009, 31 March 2010, 31 March 2011, 31 March 2012, 31 March 2013, 31 March 2014 and 31 March 2015; to authorise the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund for the years ending with 31 March 2013, 31 March 2014 and 31 March 2015; and to appropriate the supply authorised by this Act for the years ending with 31 March 2008, 31 March 2009, 31 March 2010, 31 March 2011, 31 March 2012, 31 March 2013 and 31 March 2014
In December 2005 the Government launched a "Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy", which was intended to stimulate debate and show how the Common Agricultural Policy should change in 10-15 years. This report examines the proposals and finds them a lost opportunity. The Government should have directed the debate towards scrapping the existing CAP and replacing it with a Rural Policy for the European Union. There should thus be a new Vision document, launched in a more subtle way so that allies for reform can be enlisted. The credibility of the document depends on the Government providing full and detailed evaluation of the impact of proposals on biodiversity, the environment, markets for agricultural goods and individual farm enterprises. This should be done by mid 2008. The long-term justification of the expenditure of taxpayers' money is the provision of public benefit. These public goods should be measurable and capable of evaluation.
Every year some 330 million tonnes of waste are produced in the UK. The direct costs of managing this waste-£2.5 billion annually for English household waste alone-are dwarfed by the costs of using new resources to replace discarded materials. The Government should, as a priority, set out a timetable with significantly raised targets for reducing the total amount of waste produced. The waste strategy focuses disproportionately on domestic waste, which contributes less than 10 per cent of all waste, while omitting firm targets for the commercial and industrial sectors which produce around a quarter of all waste. Defra must rectify this urgently. Funding cuts to services designed to help businesses manage their waste well are premature and should be re-evaluated and ways to extend such services to a wider range of organisations should be considered. Far too small a proportion of waste is re-used, recycled, composted or used to produce energy. Nearly half of all waste is still sent to landfill sites where it contributes to climate change, producing 3 per cent of the country's greenhouse gases and 40 per cent of its methane emissions. The Committee notes the so-called "Primark effect" which has led to large increases in the amount of clothing sent to landfill sites. Food waste is another significant component of waste sent to landfill sites and householders, food producers and retailers need to do more to reduce the amount of food discarded unnecessarily. Waste should only be used for energy recovery if it is not possible to re-use, recycle or compost it.
Royal assent, 26 March 2013. An Act to authorise the use of resources for the years ending with 31 March 2010, 31 March 2011, 31 March 2012, 31 March 2013 and 31 March 2014; to authorise the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund for the years ending with 31 March 2013 and 31 March 2014; and to appropriate the supply authorised by this Act for the years ending with 31 March 2010, 31 March 2011, 31 March 2012 and 31 March 2013
In its report examining the work and performance of the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS), set up 18 months ago, the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee finds that the department has not yet found its feet and it is too early to say if it will achieve the Prime Minister's ambitious targets. The DIUS annual report is 'impenetrable' and 'peppered with jargon', and the Committee fears that the jargon may be a substitute for having a clear idea about where DIUS is going and how it will achieve the Prime Minister's goals to make Britain one of the best places in the world for science, research and innovation. Examples of innovation in DIUS's own operations were disappointing, and the Committee also has doubts about the way DIUS presents figures and calls for the statistics in future annual reports to be reviewed independently. The Committee also expresses concern about the approach of the Government's new Chief Scientific Adviser to his role as a champion of evidence-based science, and draws attention to Professor Beddington's evidence on homeopathy in which he did not take the opportunity to restate the importance of scientific process and to emphasise the need for balance of scientific evidence. The customary, strong public voice from the Government Chief Scientific Adviser advocating policy based on evidence-based science must not become muted. The Committee also recommends that DIUS: develops a consistent method for ensuring policy is soundly based on evidence; faces up to and addresses the criticisms it received in the Capability Review; shows clearly how £1.5 billion in efficiency savings it has promised will be generated.
In May 2012 HM Treasury published its report on the use of off-payroll arrangements in central government ("Review of the tax arrangements of public sector appointees", Cm. 8350, ISBN 9780101835022). This showed that over 2,400 staff, each earning more than £58,200 a year, were being paid 'off-payroll' - a practice which generates suspicions of complicity in tax avoidance and which fails to meet the standards expected of public officials. The review's recommendations should go some way to reducing the prevalence of the practice, yet the scope of the review was limited in scope to central government and did not cover other public services, like Local Government, the NHS and the BBC. Some doubts about the Treasury's proposals remain. The Review stated that off-payroll arrangements can be used in 'exceptional circumstances' but does not clarify what these exceptional circumstances are. It also recommended that departments seek assurance that those staff who remain off-payroll are paying the appropriate amount of tax, but did not specify how departments could or should do this. Ultimately, whether those paid off-payroll are paying the right amount of tax is dependent on HM Revenue & Customs properly enforcing tax rules to ensure employees pay tax as employees. However, HM Revenue & Customs has progressively reduced its enforcement of the legislation designed to eliminate the avoidance of tax and National Insurance Contributions through the use of intermediaries, such as personal service companies, putting at risk any deterrent effect the rules might have on tax avoidance
This report concludes that the Government must employ a basket of measures, covering all tenures of housing, if sufficient finance is ever to be available to tackle the country's housing crisis. For decades, successive Governments have failed to deliver sufficient homes to meet demand. The country faces a significant housing shortfall, and the financial crisis has amplified the problem. 232,000 new households are forming each year in England, and yet in 2011 fewer than 110,000 new homes were completed. The Committee sets out four key areas for action, which, taken together, could go a long way to raising the finance needed to meet the housing shortfall: large-scale investment from institutions and pension funds; changes to the financing of housing associations, including a new role for the historic grant on their balance sheets; greater financial freedoms for local authorities; new and innovative models, including a massive expansion of self build housing.
The Budget sets out the Government's plans for taxation, public spending and economic growth for the coming year. Details announced include: an annual growth rate of 2.5 per cent for 2006-07 with a forecast of 2.75 to 3.25 per cent for 2007-08; an inflation rate of two per cent this year; and public sector borrowing on course for a 16 billion surplus over the economic cycle ending in 2010-11, with net borrowing set at 37 billion for this year and 36 billion next year, falling to 23 billion in the year to 2010-11.
Lord Heseltine, 'No stone unturned: in pursuit of growth' (available at http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/docs/n/12-1213-no-stone-unturned-in-pursuit-of-growth) made 89 wide-ranging recommendations to the Government, across areas of public policy that affect economic growth. Today, the Government announced it is accepting the overwhelming majority of these recommendations and setting out how the Government is addressing the priorities Lord Heseltine identified, equipping the UK to compete and thrive in the global race. At the heart of this is action to reverse excessive centralisation, freeing local areas from Whitehall control and giving businesses and local leaders the power and the funding to do what they need to achieve their potential. The Government will create a new Single Local Growth Fund from 2015 that will include the key economic levers of skills, housing and transport funding, with full details set out at the forthcoming Spending Round. It will also harness the power of competition to get the best from places, negotiating a local Growth Deal with every Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), with the allocation of the Single Local Growth Fund reflecting the quality of their ideas and local need. This is a something-for-something deal and local areas will be challenged to put in place the right governance across local authorities, pool resources, and find match funding from the private sector. £2.6 billion has already been allocated through the Regional Growth Fund, forecast to deliver and safeguard 500,000 jobs and £13 billion of private investment
This report examines the impact on Scotland of the current economic crisis, specifically the recapitalisation of two of its largest banks: Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and the newly merged Lloyds TSB and Halifax Bank of Scotland. Evidence suggests that customers are not being fairly treated by the very banks being supported by taxpayers' money to the tune of hundreds of billions of pounds. The Committee is disappointed that both banks and the Minister consider it a necessary evil to reward to certain bank executives with enormous bonuses when thousands of rank and file employees face redundancy. They are not convinced that there has been a change of culture within banks as a result of the crisis and are concerned that front-line staff are still being pressured to sell potentially unsuitable products such as loans and credit cards to customers at pre-crisis levels. Furthermore, small and medium sized businesses vital to the Scottish economy have experienced extreme difficulties in the past eighteen months in accessing the finance necessary to keep themselves afloat. This inquiry specifically covered the effect of the banking crisis on jobs, services to the public and small business lending in Scotland; the effect of the failure of Scottish banks and building societies on the international reputation of Scotland's banking sector and the effectiveness of measures put in place by the UK Government
These notes relate to the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (chapter 11, ISBN 0105412058) which contains provisions to implement the main recommendation of the review undertaken by Gus O'Donnell ('Financing Britain's future: review of the Revenue Departments', Cm 6163, ISBN 0101616325) published in March 2004. This was to create a new government department integrating the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise and to be called HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). The Act also establishes a prosecutions office on a statutory basis to undertake all the new department's prosecutions in England and Wales, to be called the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office (RCPO).
This report looks at progress on improving accessibility since 2003 and ways of improving accessibility. Problems with transport provision and the location of services can reinforce social exclusion by preventing people from accessing key local services and undermines government policies to tackle worklessness, increase participation in education, reduce crime and narrow health inequalities. Insufficient progress has been made since the 2003 Social Exclusion Unit's Making the Connections report, many findings of which are relevant today. There is evidence that accessibility is worsening, driven by tight budgets in central and local government. Accessibility statistics show travel times to key services steadily increasing over time, particularly for access to hospitals. The Department for Transport needs to focus more closely on improving accessibility as well as on supporting the economy. Existing transport funding could be better coordinated and directed to 'accessibility'-focused initiatives, which will have a swifter impact on people's well-being than large infrastructure projects. The social value of transport and accessibility needs to be explicitly considered in policy-making and in the planning system and should no longer be seen as a second-order criterion.The Committee believes it will take time for any improvements to make a noticeable difference. Their recommendations focus on improving how government operates rather than funding. Central government cannot abdicate its role in coordinating action across departmental silos and helping local authorities and service providers to share best practice. Accessibility planning, introduced by Making the Connections, has had limited success and needs to be re-energised.
A Treasury led 'dash for gas' could make the UK's carbon targets under the Climate Change Act unachievable. The Committee is calling on the Government to restore investor confidence in the future direction of energy policy by setting a clear decarbonisation objective in the forthcoming Energy Bill to clean up the power sector by 2030. Ongoing policy uncertainty could mean that the UK loses out on millions of pounds of green investment. Global competition for green growth is fierce and the UK is competing with other countries to secure renewables investment. The Committee heard a variety of suggestions to boost take-up of energy efficiency measures in its inquiry on the Autumn Statement and received suggestions for new environmental taxes that could be implemented to help deliver the Coalition Agreement commitment to increase the proportion of tax revenues accounted for by environmental taxes
The Barnett Formula is the mechanism used by the United Kingdom Government to allocate more than half of total public expenditure in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Formula has been used for the last thirty years to determine the annual increase in allocation (the increment). Each year these increments are added on to the previous year's allocation (the baseline) to create what is now a significant block grant of funds. The Formula accounted for almost £49 billion of public spending in 2007-08. Despite the political changes within the United Kingdom the Formula has continued to be used and has never been reviewed or revised. The Formula was only intended to be a short term measure and should no longer be. A UK Funding Commission should be established to assess relative need in the UK's regions and advise on a new method of distributing funding to reflect those needs. The baseline has never been reviewed to take account of changing population patterns; this means that the grant provides funds without reference to the needs of each of the countries and regions of the UK. There should be a link between the grant of funds made to each of the administrations and their actual per capita funding needs. The Committee's research suggests that England and Scotland have markedly lower overall needs per head of population than Wales and Northern Ireland. The Committee suggest that the UK Funding Commission undertake an assessment of relative need now and in the future and that they undertake periodic reviews as well as publish annual data about the allocation of funding between the devolved administrations.
This report sets out key company law developments during the period April 2003 to March 2004 and activities undertaken by the DTI, Companies House and the Insolvency Service to promote an effective corporate and insolvency framework in support of company enterprise. It also contains statistical tables including details of companies registered at Companies House and of legal proceedings brought by the Department.
This report by the National Audit Office, made under sections 156 and 157 of the Finance Act 1998, examines the conventions and assumptions underlying the Treasury's fiscal projections within the 2006 Budget (HCP 968, session 2005-06; ISBN 0102937311).
The Climate Change Levy package is the second biggest element in the UK Climate Change Programme, and savings appear to have been significant; but were strongly front-end loaded and have eased off since soon after its introduction. The Levy will reduce annual UK CO2 emissions by 12.8 million tonnes by 2010. But these savings have come mainly from the effect its announcement had on raising awareness of the potential for energy savings, and most of these savings were the result of actions taken before the tax actually came into operation. The Levy itself has had relatively little effect on business emissions, especially in the case of SMEs and large but non-energy intensive organisations. The Government believes that Climate Change Agreements (CCAs) will reduce annual CO2 emissions by an additional 7 million tonnes by 2010. Complying with CCAs has galvanised business interest in finding energy savings, and that key to this has been the incentive of the tax discount they offer. The exemptions on the Climate Change Levy for 'green electricity' and combined heat and power have had minimal effect on the construction of new renewables and CHP capacity, essentially because they are worth too little money. The CCL package does not impose a damaging economic burden on UK business overall, and is encouraging greater resource productivity and stimulating energy efficient industries. The CCL has not worked quite as expected. Instead of rationally seeking to reduce their costs through increased energy efficiency, businesses appear to have needed an extra stimulus to change their approach to energy use. This has profound implications for climate change policy more widely. If even large companies require additional policies to drive behavioural change, this must be all the more true for small businesses, public bodies, and private households.
The National Audit Office was invited by HM Treasury to review the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the FSA has used its resources. The main conclusions cover five main areas: 1) performance management, where the FSA is developing useful tools to manage its performance but needs to enhance its grip on cost information and streamline the Outcomes Performance Report; 2) working with other UK regulators - the FSA has good relationships but should focus on working collaboratively with the Office of Fair Trading; 3) international influence and representation, where it is generally effective but should sharpen its communication to stakeholders; 4) financial crime - combating financial crime has received less attention than other areas of FSA's responsibilities but it has recently restructured to enhance its efforts in this area; 5) financial capability of consumers - the FSA is a world leader in this but it should focus on the costs of low financial capability and develop a medium term strategy.
A report that recommends a reform of the way, financial liabilities arising from private finance projects (PFPs) are treated in public accounts. It also deals with the growth in the secondary market for PFPs where investors sell on their stake in a project, in many cases once the construction period of that project has been completed.
This is the 31st report on senior salaries (Cm. 7556, ISBN 9780101755627) and is presented by the Review Body on Senior Salaries established in 1993. The Review Body provides independent advice to the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor and the Secretaries of State for Defence and Health on the remuneration of holders of judicial office; senior civil servants; senior officers of the armed forces; senior managers in the NHS (chief executives, executive directors) and other equivalent public appointments. The publication is divided into 5 chapters, with 9 appendices. The chapters cover the following areas: Chapter 1: Introduction and economic evidence; Chapter 2: The senior civil service; Chapter 3: Senior officers in the armed forces; Chapter 4: The judiciary; Chapter 5: Very senior managers in the National Health Service. There are 19 recommedations set out over these 5 chapters, including: that senior civil service base pay be increased by 2.1%; that permanent secretaries' base pay be increased by 2.1%; that the MoD produce further evidence on the job evaluation exercise of the senior military, including 4-star officers; that administrations in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland make collection of information in job weight a priority and continue work with the judiciary to collect meaningful data to show whether job weight at different levels is changing over time; that from 1 April 2009 the pay for Very Senior Managers in the NHS should increase by 2.4%. The publication sets out in various tables the recommended salaries for the above holders.
This document outlines the Government's programme of reform to renew the UK's system of financial regulation. It believes that weaknesses were inherent in the tripartite approach whereby three authorities - the Bank of England, the Financial Services Authority and the Treasury - were collectively responsible for financial stability. The Government will create a new Financial Policy Committee (FPC) in the Bank of England with primary statutory duty to maintain financial stability. The FPC will be given control of macro-prudential tools to ensure that systemic risks to financial stability are dealt with. This macro-prudential regulation must be co-ordinated with the prudential regulation of individual firms. Operational responsibility for prudential regulation will transfer from the FSA to a new subsidiary of the Bank of England, the Prudential Regulation Authority. The third development is the creation of a dedicated Consumer Protection and Markets Authority (CPMA) with a primary statutory responsibility to promote confidence in financial services and markets. Protection of consumers will be delivered though a strong consumer division within CPMA. The document also covers: the issue of market regulation; co-ordination of the regulatory bodies in a potential crisis; the next steps, including public consultation, legislative passage and operational implementation. The Government will, after considering responses, produce more detailed proposals - including draft legislation - for further consultation in early 2011, with a view to having legislation on the statute book within two years.
This consultation seeks the views of intersted parties and the general public on the Government's proposed approach to terrorist asset freezing. In particular it is interested in responses to the following: (1) does the draft bill set out the most effective way of meeting UN obligations and protecting national security whilst also ensuring sufficient safeguards in respect of human rights? (2) views on the current operation f the UK's asset freezing regime under the Terrorism orders; (3) does the regulatory impact assessment accurately reflect the costs and benefits of the regime? This paper discusses the UK's current approach to counter-terrorist finance, the international framework, the UK approach to terrorist asset freezing, implementation, and draft legislation. It includes the draft bill, expalanatory notes to the bill, and a regulatory impact assessment.
The overwhelming scientific consensus is that the earth is warming because of human activities. Adaptation will be necessary even if mitigation efforts are markedly increased, because we are already locked in to climate change as a result of historic greenhouse gas emissions. Projections show that it is likely that global average temperatures will rise by 2 degrees C, and there is the potential for a 4 degree C rise by the end of the century. UK projections suggest warmer, drier summers and warmer wetter winters. The consequences are likely to be profound, even devastating with more extreme events - floods, drought and heat waves - coupled with sea level rises. Policies and practice on water management, coast protection, and nature conservation will need to change. This report explores how institutions should adapt their policies to a changing climate and offers a ten point check list to be followed by all organisations. The Commission found many institutions are poorly prepared to adapt to climate change and many have simply not started to consider it. The Commission makes recommendations designed to help institutions develop their capacity to respond to this challenge. In contrast to climate change mitigation (where local actions have global benefits), adaptation is primarily about local action with local consequences that may differ markedly in different parts of the UK.
The abolition of the Regional Development Agencies removed the main source of match funding for ERDF sponsored projects, and the economic downturn has curbed alternative options for match funding even further. There is a pressing need to spend each region's ERDF allocation before 2015, but unless ministers take urgent steps to deliver on the Government's promise to make it easier for projects to secure match funding through the Regional Growth Fund, there is a significant risk that value for money will suffer and ERDF will not make the impact it could to help rebalance the UK's economy. The Committee endorses a number of sensible rule changes that will govern the next ERDF round (2014-20) currently proposed and related proposals to give Member States the power to tailor the size of their Operational Programme areas - which could permit Local Economic Partnerships in England to take responsibility for managing EU funds. MPs also challenge the current allocation system where even the wealthiest Member States receive some ERDF funding when a portion of what they pay in originally gets recycled back to them. The cross party group of MPs calls for this 'circular money flow' to end, and for England to retain this portion of funding to deliver its own regional policy. The Government would have to guarantee the same level of funding across the EU's 7 year funding cycle. This change would not affect the Government's contribution to ERDF for the poorer Member States. Lastly, MPs challenge the Government to evaluate the value for money of ERDF funded projects
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.