Building Societies (Funding) and Mutual Societies (Transfers) Bill; Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, Government amendments: Greater London Authority Bill, Government response: Pensions Bill, regulatory reform: draft Regulatory Reform (Financial Services and Markets Act 2000) Order 2007; draft Regulatory Reform (Game) Order 2007
Building Societies (Funding) and Mutual Societies (Transfers) Bill; Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, Government amendments: Greater London Authority Bill, Government response: Pensions Bill, regulatory reform: draft Regulatory Reform (Financial Services and Markets Act 2000) Order 2007; draft Regulatory Reform (Game) Order 2007
11th report of Session 2006-07 : Building Societies (Funding) and Mutual Societies (Transfers) Bill; Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, Government amendments: Greater London Authority Bill, Government response: Pensions Bill, regulato
Government of Wales Bill; Childcare Bill; Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill (HL); Violent Crime Reduction Bill - Government Response; Proposal for the Regulatory Reform (Registered Designs) Order 2006
Government of Wales Bill; Childcare Bill; Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill (HL); Violent Crime Reduction Bill - Government Response; Proposal for the Regulatory Reform (Registered Designs) Order 2006
17th report of Session 2005-06 : Government of Wales Bill; Childcare Bill; Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill (HL); Violent Crime Reduction Bill - Government response; Proposal for the Regulatory Reform (Registered Designs) Order 2006
Armed Forces Bill; Education and Inspections Bill; International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill; Government of Wales Bill - Government Response; Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill - Government Response; Draft Regulatory Reform (Registered Design) Order 2006
Armed Forces Bill; Education and Inspections Bill; International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill; Government of Wales Bill - Government Response; Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill - Government Response; Draft Regulatory Reform (Registered Design) Order 2006
23rd report of Session 2005-06 : Armed Forces Bill; Education and Inspections Bill; International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill; Government of Wales Bill - Government response; Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill - Government
The report of the Leader's Group examining the working practices of the House of Lords and the operation of self-regulation was published today (Tuesday 26 April). Recommendations in the report include changes to enable the Lords better to fulfil its core functions of scrutinising government, testing out and reviewing legislation, and debating important issues. The report also suggests ways in which the House of Lords could make the most of its unique strengths and resources, including its Members' skills and experience.
The Public Bodies Bill (HL Bill 25, ISBN 9780108478765) proposes to create a number of delegated powers by which the Government can abolish, merge, modify the constitution, functions or budgetary arrangements or a body or authorise delegation of a body's functions to a third person or body. Several other committees have expressed concern about the extreme breadth of the delegated powers proposed, and this report outline's three significant human rights issues arising from the Bill. First is the independence and impartiality of bodies protecting and promoting human rights. The inclusion of bodies such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Children's Commissioner, the Inspectorate of Prisons and the Legal Services Commission in the schedules to the Bill may undermine their functional or perceived independence. Secondly, the Committee is concerned that the abolition or reform of other bodies which serve a particular decision making function may undermine the right to procedural fairness. Thirdly, the breadth of delegation proposed in the Bill appears wholly inappropriate, and the excessive use of delegated powers may reduce the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny for human rights compatibility of proposed legislation.
The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill contains provisions to increase the scope of regulatory reform powers (following a review undertaken by the Better Regulation Task Force) in order to tackle red tape and unnecessary regulatory burdens, building on the powers of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. The Committee examines the provisions of the Bill as brought to the Lords in May 2006 (HLB 109, session 2005-06; ISBN 0108422399) which it finds to have been changed significantly since the Bill was first introduced into the Commons in January 2006. Although the Committee finds that the Bill proposes the greatest delegation of power to Ministers that it has seen, it does not find the regulatory reform provisions inappropriate, although it questions whether the 2001 Act could not itself have been amended. The provisions relating to consolidation, simplification and implementation of Law Commission recommendations are found to be unsuitable for delivery by delegated legislation and it is suggested that primary legislation subject to special procedure would be a better option to legislate for such purposes.
Having looked at the Draft Deregulation Bill in some detail and taken evidence from a wide range of witnesses, the Committee does not think it is appropriate for Ministers to be given power to scrap legislation by order on the subjective test that it is 'no longer of practical use'. There is a risk that to give Ministers that power would undermine effective Parliamentary scrutiny. It was also felt unnecessary when the Law Commissions currently have the power to put forward outdated Bills for abolition anyway. The Law Commissions will need to make changes to their working practices in order to produce more frequent and more responsive Statute Law (Repeals) Bills. The Government should work with the Law Commissions to streamline the process for bringing forward these Bills. As for the duty on regulators to have regard to economic growth, whilst this is supported in principle, it is important that it is not used by Government to undermine the independence of regulators in the way it is implemented. It might be helpful if that provision were explicitly included in the Bill
In autumn 2008, Britain's banking system came perilously close to collapse. To avert catastrophe, the Government was forced to step in with multi-billion pound bailouts. Many factors led to this crisis including failings in financial supervision and fuzzy allocation of responsibilities for preventing and managing systemic crises. The draft Financial Services Bill (printed as chapter 5 of 'A new approach to financial regulation: the blueprint for reform' (Cm. 8083, June 2011, 9780101808323) is aimed at preventing such a potentially calamitous systemic failure of the financial sector occurring again. It proposes far reaching changes to the regulatory structure, replacing the tripartite system of financial regulation with a twin peaks model. The Joint Committee's recommendations are intended to ensure that the new regulatory authorities have the right objectives, powers and responsibilities and systems of accountability which will be essential to make them effective.
The report Banking Reform: Towards The Right Structure (HL 126 & HC 1012) welcomes the Government's acceptance of the principle that its proposed framework for ring-fencing requires reinforcement. The Commission sees no merit in the proposition that the first reserve power will create uncertainty for banks or put at risk their attempts to raise funds for lending. That power will be a source of uncertainty only for those minded to take actions that conflict with the objectives of the ring-fence. It is important that the regulator's powers to break-up a bank should be used only afterwards, by an independent reviewer. The Government should make explicit provision in the Bill to enable the regulator to require a bank to divest itself of a specified division or set of activities, which would fall short of the requirements of the first reserve power. It is essential that the timetable for the progress of the current Bill allows adequate time not only f
The Government review of public bodies focused on whether a body's functions were necessary, and if it thought they were, whether it had to be delivered at arm's length from Government. The review was poorly managed: no meaningful consultation; the tests used were not clearly defined; and no proper procedure for departments to follow. The Bill giving the power to bring about these changes was equally badly drafted. Now the Government faces the much larger challenge of successfully implementing these reforms. The Cabinet Office should issue clear guidance on how to manage this transition. The Committee has developed, with the National Audit Office, its own guidance which departments could use. The Government wanted to increase accountability by bringing functions previously discharged by public bodies back in to central departments, thus making ministers directly responsible for the decisions taken. But stakeholders and civil society play an important role providing challenge and criticism to public bodies on a day to day basis and it is easiest for them to perform this role when they have a clearly identified body to engage with, not a homogenous central department. There is a way to meet both demands: set these bodies up as executive agencies. There is a need for a simplified system for public bodies so that it is clear to everyone who is responsible for what, and how much input it is right for the Government to have. The review represents a missed opportunity to reassess what functions public bodies are needed to perform.
The Commission's report examines the options for ensuring adequate post-legislative scrutiny of Acts of Parliament, in the light of the recommendation of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution (in their 14th report, HCP 173-I, session 2003-04; ISBN 0104005416). The main focus of the report is on primary legislation, but it also considers delegated legislation and European legislation. Issues discussed include: existing forms and benefits of post-legislative scrutiny in the UK Parliament and in other jurisdictions (including Canada, Australia, Germany, France and the EU); the experience of pre-legislative scrutiny; and options for post-legislative scrutiny mechanisms. A number of consultation questions are given, and responses should be received by 28th April 2006.
This document sets out the Government's response to the public consultation on the draft Climate Change Bill (Cm. 7040, ISBN 9780101704021) and to the reports of the following Parliamentary Committees during session 2006-07: the Joint Committee on the Draft Climate Change Bill (HLP 170-I/HCP 542-I, ISBN 9780104011379); the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (HCP 534-I, ISBN 9780215034892); and the Environmental Audit Committee (HCP 460, ISBN 9780215035561). The Climate Change Bill seeks to introduce a clear, credible and long-term framework to support emissions reductions in the UK, designed to maximise the social and economic benefits and minimise costs, and also sets out an international precedent, reinforcing the UK's position as a consistent leader in the field of climate change and energy policy. This document explains the main changes the Government intends to make to the Bill, taking into account the consultation responses and the recommendations of the three Parliamentary Committees, and key elements of the Bill include: putting into statute the UK's domestic targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through domestic and international action by at least 60 per cent by 2050, and 26 to 32 per cent by 2020, against a 1990 baseline; secondary legislation to set binding limits known as carbon budgets on aggregate carbon dioxide emissions over five year periods; and the creation of a new independent body, the Committee on Climate Change, to advise on setting carbon budgets.
In the biggest shake-up of the electricity market since privatisation, the Energy Bill will introduce a new system of long-term contracts to give power companies a guaranteed price for the low-carbon electricity they produce. This is intended to reduce the risk of investment in projects with high up-front capital costs, such as nuclear reactors and offshore wind farms. Initial consultation last year led investors to believe that the "Contracts for Difference" (CfD) would be guaranteed by the State - therefore lowering the cost of capital. But the Treasury has apparently intervened to ensure that the contracts are not government guaranteed. The new model for contracts will spread the liability across various energy companies instead; raising concerns that the plans are now too complex and possibly not legally enforceable. The MPs are calling on the Government to use its AAA-credit rating to underwrite the new contracts in order to keep the costs of energy investment down for consumers. The Committee heard that the spending cap set by the Treasury - which limits the green levies that can be passed on to consumers in energy bills - could introduce an "unacceptable" level of risk to companies who are looking to build new wind, solar, wave or tidal power plants, creating uncertainty amongst investors about which projects will receive support. This is already having an impact of investment decisions and could paradoxically push-up energy costs for consumers. The Committee says that the Government must come up with a stronger contract design before the Bill is expected to be introduced to Parliament in the autumn
This is the 23rd edition of the Companion as approved by the Procedure Committee. The Companion is the House's basic procedural manual and this edition incorporates a range of procedural changes agreed by the House in the 2 1/2 years since the previous edition was published at the start of the present Parliament in 2010.
There has been repeated criticism in recent years from a variety of sources about both the quantity and quality of legislation. The Committee's inquiry into Ensuring standards in the quality of legislation has considered these criticisms, analysed the core problems and causes of bad quality legislation, and looked to provide solutions for both the Government and Parliament to improve the quality of legislation. The Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland Assembly and National Assembly for Wales have adapted the Westminster model in order to improve the quality of their legislation; it is now the turn of Westminster to look at their processes and adapt them for use here. The Committee has concluded that it would be beneficial for Parliament and the Government to work together to agree standards for what makes good legislation, and as a starting point for discussion publishes a draft Code of Legislative Standards with the report. The Committee also recommends the creation of a Joint Legislative Standards Committee to provide oversight of the Cabinet's Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee's approach to and use of the finalised Code of Legislative Standards, to ensure that the quality standards set out in the Code of Legislative Standards are met. The Committee considers that these recommendations would also improve the quality of constitutional legislation, in particular, by requiring the Government to adopt an agreed test to identify constitutional legislation and thereby improve Parliament's scrutiny of it
This report, from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, presents the first inquiry into the Governance of Britain, all issued as Command Papers and published in 2007: (Cm. 7170, ISBN 9780101717021; Cm. 7175, ISBN 9780101717526; Cm. 7192, ISBN 9780101719223; Cm. 7210, ISBN 9780101721028; Cm. 7231, ISBN 9780101723121; Cm. 7235, ISBN 9780101723527; Cm. 7239, ISBN 9780101723923). It considers Parliament's role in scrutinising the proposed legislative programme, including arrangements for publication and debate as well as wider consultative strategies. The Committee has set out a number of conclusions and recommendations, including: the Committee believes that the use of plain English in the Draft Legislative Programme is to be commended, and the Government should consider extending the approach to programmed Bills on a trial basis; that the Government's main non-legislative plans should be included in the Draft Legislative Programme, alongside the list of proposed bills, in order that a full programme of government is available for scrutiny; that there is a benefit to be derived from the presentation of the Government's legislative programme as a whole and that the Draft Legislative Programme should be published earlier in the year, preferably before Easter, so that select committee scrutiny and public consultation can be carried out more effectively; that the Draft Legislative Programme should be the subject of a separate debate in Parliament.
The Marine Bill was designed to establish a new UK-wide strategic system of marine planning to balance conservation, energy and resource needs, based on the principle of sustainable development and working with the devolved administrations. The Committee reports here reservations about the framework nature of the draft Bill. It was felt that too much of its policy is contained in secondary legislation or guidance. That there are significant areas of confusion of responsibility - between UK and international, especially EU, obligations; between devolved adminstrations; the many agencies and other bodies who will be involved in delivering the proposals in the Bill.
The Government published a draft Bill on the Recall of MPs, with the aim of restoring faith in the political process after the expenses scandal. But the restricted form of recall proposed could reduce public confidence in politics by creating expectations that are not fulfilled. Under the Government's proposals, constituents themselves would not be able to initiate a recall petition. Furthermore, the circumstances that the Government proposes would trigger a recall petition are so narrow that recall petitions would seldom, if ever, take place. The Committee believes that the new House of Commons Committee on Standards, which will include lay members, already has the sanctions it needs to deal with MPs who are guilty of misconduct, including recommending the ultimate sanction of expulsion from the House of Commons in cases of serious wrongdoing. The Committee argues that the option of expulsion must be actively considered and that the House must be prepared to act. The Committee recommends: that the Government replace the requirement for a single designated location for signing the recall petition with a requirement for multiple locations; that people with an existing postal vote should automatically be sent a postal signature sheet in the event of a recall petition; that constituents in Northern Ireland should have the same options for signing a recall petition as constituents elsewhere in the UK, rather than being restricted to signing by post
Banking reform is the second key pillar of the Government's programme for reform of the financial sector to address the weaknesses exposed by the financial crisis of 2007-09. The first pillar of this programme, reform of financial services regulation, has been legislated in the Financial Services Act that received Royal Assent in December 2012 (2012 Ch. 21, 9780105421122). The Government is now legislating to reform the structure of the UK banking system, through the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill (HCB 130, session 2012-13, ISBN 9780215053794) which implements key recommendations of the Independent Commission on Banking, including ring-fencing retail deposits from wholesale banking activities and depositor preference. This document accompanies introduction of the Bill and includes the Government response to the first report of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards (PCBS), which conducted pre-legislative scrutiny on the draft Bill. The response explains where the Government has amended the Bill and includes and impact assessment for the Bill, along with the opinion of the independent Regulatory Policy Committee
The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill (HCB 111, session 2005-06; ISBN 0215706676) contains provisions to increase the scope of regulatory reform powers to give Ministers a wide and general power to amend, repeal and replace primary and secondary legislation, including that recently approved, as well as to change the common law by Order. This document sets out the Government's response to the Committee's report (HCP 878, session 2005-06, ISBN 0215027361) which highlighted concerns that the proposed safeguards in the Bill are unlikely to provide a sufficient counterbalance to the increased Ministerial powers.
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.