The rural broadband programme is designed to help get superfast broadband to areas, predominately rural, where commercial broadband infrastructure providers currently have no plans to invest. The Department provides grant funding to 44 bodies (local authorities or groups of authorities) to subsidise them to procure superfast broadband for their areas, and a framework contract for local bodies to use. But the procurement approach failed to deliver meaningful competition. The Department appointed only two bidders - BT and Fujitsu - to the framework contract. By June 2013 all of the 26 contracts agreed by local bodies had gone to BT and, following Fujitsu's March 2013 announcement that it would not be bidding for any more local contracts, BT is likely to win the remaining 18. The Department's assumptions in its 2011 business case about the respective capital contributions of the public and private sectors were wildly inaccurate. BT is committing £207 million less in capital funding than anticipated, while local authorities are contributing £236 million more. BT will eventually benefit from owning assets created from £1.2 billion of public funding. The lack of transparency over BT's costs is a serious risk to value for money, particularly as BT is now the single supplier. The Department has allocated a further £250 million to increase coverage of superfast broadband in 2015-19, but does not yet have a clear plan for reaching 100% coverage. Ofcom's review of the broadband market presents an ideal opportunity to reconsider whether the regulatory regime is doing enough to promote competition.
While strong Armed Forces remain the bedrock in safeguarding national interests new kinds of power projection are now required, both to make the use of force ('hard power') more effective and in some instances to replace it with the deployment of what has been labelled 'soft power'. Soft power involves getting what a country wants by influencing other countries to want the same thing, through attraction, persuasion and co-option. The information and digital revolution has transformed international relations and foreign policy, meaning that the UK must win over new and wider audiences to its point of view. The UK must change the way it interacts with other nations and communities, and is well-equipped to do so. Soft power methods of exercising international influence must now be combined with older approaches in order to secure and promote the UK's interests and purposes. To ensure that the exercise of soft power takes its place at the core of government policy-making, the Committee calls for the creation of a new strategic unit at the heart of Government. Its purpose would be to assist the Prime Minister in ensuring all Departments understand the importance of soft power and of upholding the UK's reputation, and in swiftly counteracting any potentially damaging policies or messages. While investing in soft power takes time to produce results, the Committee makes a number of recommendations including that BBC World Service's budget is not reduced any further in real terms and that the British Council is properly resourced to encourage the UK's creative industries
A constructive relationship between the three arms of government - the executive, legislature and judiciary - is essential for the effective functioning of the constitution and the rule of law. In recent years the character of these relationships has changed. The Committee has thus taken the opportunity of their annual examination of the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor as a starting point of an assessment of the impact of the changes. After an introduction there are three main sections that examine: the executive and the judiciary; parliament and the judiciary; judiciary, media and the public.
Since the Games, the same political impetus and agreed deadlines no longer exist and many aspects of legacy are in danger of faltering, whilst some have fallen by the wayside. There is confusion on the timeframes and targets involved in delivery and a lack of clear ownership of legacy as a whole. The committee recommends that a minister be given overall responsibility for the Olympic legacy, enabling greater co-ordination across Whitehall departments. It also believes the Mayor of London should be given control over further development of east London and the Olympic Park in Stratford. There is also a warning over the geographic disparity in the economic benefits stemming from the Games. While London and the south-east of England benefited with nearly 15,000 additional jobs, just seven were created in the North East. London 2012 may have promised to "inspire a generation" but the committee says it found "little evidence [of a] step change" in sports participation levels across the UK. UK Sport, the body that invests approximately £100m in high-performance athletes and teams each year and decides funding levels for Olympic and Paralympic sports, is also criticised. The committee believes not enough is being done by UK Sport to help both team and emerging sports. The 'no compromise' approach of UK Sport has delivered medals for Team GB and has clearly improved top-end importance. This approach, however, has an inherent bias against team sports, and fails to help emerging sports, some of which, such as handball and volleyball, generated real enthusiasm at London 2012.
The report The Inquiries Act 2005: Post-legislative Scrutiny (HL143) finds that the government is not using the legislation passed in the Inquiries Act 2005 enough, and is setting up inquiries with inadequate powers. The Committee urges the government to set up a Central Inquiries Unit to make the most of any lessons learned from past inquiries, and make the best use of collective knowledge and proficiency in this field. The unit would be a new center of expertise, which would enable future inquiries to hit the ground running while also being more efficient, more streamlined and less costly to the public. Overall the Inquiries Act 2005 is robust and effective, but the government is not using it in the way it should be. By setting up public inquiries outside of the Act, the government is creating inquiries which have inadequate powers to do their job. On 6 March 2014, the Home Secretary announced a judge-led inquiry into undercover policing, but did not say
This report includes within its definition of infrastructure not only large and mid-range facilities, but also data, expertise and national capabilities such as those in Public Sector Research Establishments (PSREs), for example, the British Geological Survey and the Institute for Animal Health. On PSREs, the Committee expresses concern that the ability of PSREs and National Laboratories to deliver national objectives is being eroded by underfunding. While the Committee is broadly positive about the state of scientific infrastructure in the UK, the Committee warns that a lack of a clear long term strategy and investment plan, with a clear commitment to engagement with international projects, is impairing the UK's ability to remain internationally competitive over the long term. The Committee also found a 'damaging disconnect' between capital investment and funding for operational costs, i.e. that building important large scale infrastructure has been budgeted for, but the costs to keep it running have not. One example cited in the report is the ISIS centre in Oxfordshire, a world-leading base for neutron research. ISIS cost £50 million to build, and has recently doubled in size through a government-funded £145 million investment. Despite this, there was not the budget available to run the site at full capacity, and that it was only being used to two thirds of its potential. This resulted in hundreds of potential experiments not happening, industrial projects losing out and a missed opportunity for UK research.
This report is a call to action for the incoming Government in May 2015. The world is being transformed by a series of profound technological changes dominated by digital - a 'second machine age'. This is already having a significant impact on the UK; over the next two decades some economists have estimated that 35% of current jobs in the UK could become automated. Digital technology is changing all our lives, work, society and politics. It brings with it huge opportunities for the UK, but also significant risks. This demands an ambitious approach which will secure the UK's position as a digital leader. The Committee recommends that the new Government establishes a single and cohesive Digital Agenda. The potential value in doing so is significant; the Government estimated that the digital sector alone was worth an estimated £105 billion in gross value added to the UK in 2011. A report by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research in 2013, meanwhile, found that the size of the digital economy was almost double official estimates. Whatever the difficulties in quantifying the value, it is clear that digital is already a substantial driver for growth and will become much more so. Digital technology is transforming much more than just one sector of the economy - the whole economy has become digitised. It would therefore be a mistake to take the 'digital sector' as our sole focus of interest. Digital technology is pervasive across all aspects of life, so much so that the 'digital economy' is becoming synonymous with the national economy. The UK cannot afford to miss the opportunity or shirk the challenges this presents.
Trade in services across the EU remains subject to a large number of restrictions, limiting choice for consumers and businesses, holding back growth, output and employment. The Commission has proposed a Directive which seeks to encourage greater cross-border trade in services by providing a legal framework that will eliminate obstacles to: the freedom for service providers to establish their business in any Member State; and the free movement of services between Member States. This report concentrates on the free movement of services between Member States. Under the Country of Origin Principle, a business which provides services in the Member State in which it is established is qualified to provide services on a temporary basis in any other Member State according to the regulations of its home Member State. Despite a substantial number of exceptions to the application of the Principle, the Directive has been criticised. The Committee, though, finds that the draft Services Directive does not pose a threat to the health and safety of employees or consumers, nor to environmental standards, nor to consumer protection. Services of general economic interest should not be excluded from the Directive. The draft Directive offers opportunities for small businesses in all 25 Member States of the European Union. The Services Directive is essential to remove unnecessary and unjustified obstacles to trade and to flexible markets thereby making the European Union more competitive in a global economy.
The Government proposes introducing legislative tests to determine if an Limited Liability Partnership member is an employee or truly a partner. Failing these tests would make the member liable for income tax and National Insurance Contributions (NIC) as an employee and the LLP would pay employer NICs. Nearly all the evidence received by the Committee was that the legislative tests failed to achieve the policy objective. Many suggested that existing case law could be used instead. A delay in implementation until April 2015 would allow for further consultation to target the legislation better and for businesses to adapt to the changes. The Committee also raised concerns that the proposed changes to tax arrangements for LLPs would apply only to UK registered LLPs and not those conducting business here but formed outside the UK. The Committee is content in principle with proposed measures to counter shifting of profit to corporate members of partnerships to minimise tax liability and highlights the extent of this practice in the Alternative Investment Fund Management (AIFM) Sector. But the Committee wants to see the legislation drafted more precisely. And it is concerned that the Government's revised estimates of the tax yield from these measures, and particularly the additional £1.92bn in 2015-2019 from the AIFM sector, show that the Government's original estimates of tax yield were very wide of the mark.
This report provides an overview of the work of the European Union Committee in session 2013-14. It highlights some of the key policies examined through scrutiny work and inquiries, reflects on the Committee's work with the EU institutions and other national parliaments, and gives a forward look at the work being undertaken in session 2014-15.
In Transparency Of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning And Trade Union Administration Bill (HL 62), the Select Committee on the Constitution raises significant concerns about the content and handling of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill. The Bill, which regulates lobbying and sets rules on expenditure by persons or bodies other than political parties at elections, is due for its second reading in the Lords on 22 October 2013. The report says that effective parliamentary scrutiny is of manifest importance for legislation of constitutional significance. The Committee questions whether the significant lowering of the cap on expenditure at general elections by third parties is justified, given the fundamental constitutional right to freedom of political expression. There has been a lack of consultation by the Government on the proposals, including with the Electoral Commission, as well as the lack of
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.