This report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons (HCP 282, session 2007-08, ISBN 9780215521675), focuses on regional accountability. The Governance of Britain Green Paper (Cm. 7170, ISBN 9780101717021) put forward proposals for improved democractic accountability and scrutiny of the delivery of public services in the English regions. The Committee, in this report, has concluded that there is clear evidence of an accountability gap at regional level. Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), although accountable to ministers, still conduct many activities that are not subject to a regular, robust scrutiny, and the Committee believes more should be done to monitor the delivery of services. With this in mind, the Committee recommends the establishment of a system of regional select committees, with one select committee for each of the administrative regions in England, with the exception of London. Further, the Committee recommends that up to two regional grand committee meeting should take place in each session for each of the 8 regions. To avoid an adverse impact on House Members' other commitments, membership of regional committees should consist of 10 Members in total. This report therefore sets out a desirability of establishing new structures within the House of Commons to improve regional accountability and Parliamentary scrutiny.
The chairmanship of the Office for Legal Complaints is one of the posts which are subject to (non-binding) pre-appointment scrutiny by select committees. Elizabeth France was recruited to the position on 10 October 2008, and the Justice Committee took oral evidence from her on 21 October.
Making the voice of the West Midlands Heard : The work of the Committee, and the future for the region, third report of session 2009-10, report, together with formal minutes [and written Evidence]
The Home Affairs Committee says that, faced with the prospect of funding cuts, the police service will have to fundamentally re-think the way in which it provides back-office functions in order to support the front-line. It says across the board the service needs more support from Government to allow the service to find new ways of maximising service levels and efficiency, such as involving the private sector, or exploring force mergers. Although figures show overall rises in both the number of police officers and the number of police staff employed across the service over the past five years this varied significantly across forces with 13 forces reporting a reduction over the same period. On the basis of provisional financial information from the Government, some forces are planning to cut officer numbers in the next financial year. The position after 2011 is unclear as the Government has given no indication of funding settlements after that, but all forces believe they will have to make significant spending cuts. The Committee believes it may be time to review the entire means by which money is allocated to forces, as the distribution of the police national grant is seen as a barrier to maximising resources. It has become clear to the Committee that voluntary mergers can enable forces to make substantial savings. And in the right circumstances, the private sector can provide the police with expertise they may lack, value for money in service delivery and a source of up-front investment.
The document contains written evidence submitted to the Committee in relation to its scrutiny of the Government's proposals for the creation of elected regional assemblies in England, as set out in the draft Bill (Cm 6285, ISBN 0101628528) published in July 2004. This draft Bill seeks to implement the policy proposals contained within the Government's White Paper (Cm 5511, ISBN 0101551126) published in May 2002, as part of its overall agenda of constitutional reform and devolution. Written evidence includes memoranda from the Electoral Commission, the Greater London Authority, the Trades Union Congress (TUC), the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the Association of Police Authorities; as well as from a number of regional bodies, local councils and local government bodies, charities and regional business organisations.
The South East Plan contains an annual target fro new homes that provides a benchmark which can be reviewed. Sub-regions will have their own targets that allow local circumstances to be taken into account, but the regional overview is valuable to ensure consistency and to enable review of the regional target as a whole. It is important that any review of housing targets in the South East takes into account the range of numbers put forward, their underlying reasons, and the consequences of not meeting any decided targets. The economic downturn has meant that fewer homes are being built and there are concerns that the lack of infrastructure provision alongside housing development is stopping schemes from making progress. The Committee recommends that the Government review the funding mechanisms currently available for this infrastructure. It feels it is important that the Homes and Communities Agency is given the resources it needs in future years. The Committee also acknowledges that while focusing development on brownfield land is important to stimulate regeneration there must be care that concentrating development in such areas does not have adverse effects such as using up urban land or valuable urban greenspace. The Committee also recommends that greater attention be paid to alternative models for providing housing land; that the region provides the right mix of homes and that the Government stick to its timetable for the Code for Sustainable Homes ensuring that all housing has a zero carbon rating by 2016.
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.
National Policy Statements (NPS) are a key component of the new planning system for nationally significant infrastructure projects, introduced by the Planning Act 2008. The Act stipulates that a proposal for a National Policy Statement will be subject to public consultation and allows for parliamentary scrutiny before designation as national policy by the Secretary of State. The draft Ports National Policy Statement (Department for Transport, 2009) has been welcomed by many organisations as a good start which can be built upon. The Committee has recommended a number of modifications and expects the Department will improve the draft as a result of the consultation and scrutiny processes. The Committee has reservations regarding the Government's 2007 policy for ports and the lack of guidance on location for port development in the NPS but this, of itself, does not make the NPS unfit for purpose. But the Committee cannot recommend designation at this stage on two counts. Firstly, a key, related policy statement - the National Networks NPS - has yet to be published. Secondly, the organisation likely to be one of the principal decision-makers for port development - the Marine Management Organisation - has yet to be established and so has been unable to comment on guidance that will be of great importance to its role. These are fundamental flaws in the consultation process and the Ports NPS should not be designated until they are rectified.
In response to the Treasury Committee's inquiry, Barclays, HSBC and Santander all made a public commitment to continue to provide basic bank holders with unrestricted access to cash machines. In this report, the Treasury Committee makes clear its intent to write to the other providers of basic bank accounts asking for similar clarification and urges RBS and Lloyds TSB to remove their restrictions. Restricting access to cash machines could compromise the network. In certain areas, more than a third of ATMs could be placed at risk if other providers of basic bank accounts were to take similar action or to remove themselves from the LINK system. The Committee understands the need for banks to control costs and that in this instance the financial benefits to Lloyds and RBS appear relatively small. Those affected, though, would be amongst the most vulnerable people in society. In the longer run, both the way services are offered to customers and the charges they pay need reform to secure greater banking competition
This report focuses on the work of Yorkshire Forward, its use of resources (forecast to be around £360 million in 2009-10) and how the regional strategies it has developed benefit the region's population of over 5 million, especially in the current economic climate. Yorkshire Forward has led the development of three Regional Economic Strategies (RESs). Although developed by Yorkshire Forward it is felt that it is important that the RES is owned by the region and Yorkshire Forward is commended for its consultative and collaborative approach. It is important that full account is taken of the region's diversity and it will need to be ensured that this is reflected in the new Integrated Regional Strategy, but this should not mean that sub-regional concerns are put ahead of a balanced approach to the interests of the region as a whole and should not detract from Yorkshire Forward's original core economic focus. The Committee is also concerned about the impact of budget cuts and a reduction in funding on the work of Yorkshire Forward and they recommend that Yorkshire Forward's budget not be decreased further
The main report is available (ISBN 9780215038579) and additional written evidence is contained in Volume 3, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/transcom
The Government needs to show real commitment to dealing with the impact that HS2 will have on our countryside and wildlife. It is imperative that an infrastructure project on such a large scale implements proper environmental safeguards and ensures that impacts are minimised. That won't happen if HS2 Ltd can avoid implementing safeguards if they consider them to be 'impracticable' or 'unreasonable'. There needs to be a separate ring-fenced budget for these safeguards and for compensation, separate from the rest of the HS2 budget, to prevent the environment being squeezed if HS2 costs grow. The Government's aim of 'no net biodiversity loss' on HS2 is not good enough - it should aim for environmental gains that the Government promised in its white paper on the Natural Environment. In any case, the Government can't demonstrate it will cause no net harm because it has still not surveyed 40% of the land to be used. Ancient woodland should be treated with particular care. HS2 will damage some woodlands, and where that happens, compensation measures should be much higher than the level indicated in the calculation that HS2 Ltd will use. The HS2 Hybrid Bill will be given its second reading on 28 April, after which it will be referred to a dedicated select committee to examine 'petitions' against it. The Committee criticises the procedure's failure to fully address the requirements of EU and national directives on environmental assessments, which it wants to be at least partly rectified in the forthcoming Parliamentary proceedings
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
The public sector spends nearly GBP 125 billion, or ten per cent of GDP, each year purchasing goods and services in the UK economy. This report focuses on whether the rules and practices relating to procurement of goods and services by public authorities hinder or help UK manufacturers in obtaining public contracts.
This report considers the case for Parliament to be able to initiate and conduct inquiries into serious and significant matters of public concern. It takes up the recommendationmade by this committiee's predecessor Committee (in the Government by Inquiry Report) that there should be a parliamentary mechanism for initiating inquiries. These would take the form of Parliamentary Commissions of Inquiry, composed of parliamentarians and others. In the Report, the committee examines the justification for creating Parliamentary Commissions of Inquiry in particular, that they would enable Parliament to hold the Executive to account more effectively. Then it covers some of the practical issues involved in setting up inquiries of this nature: how Parliament could instigate an inquiry, its composition, and its operation and powers. The committee concludes that it is crucial, in constitutional sense, that Parliament has the necessary powers and abilities to scrutinise the Executive and hold it to account. Proper parliamentary scrutiny should include the ability to establish and undertake inquiries into significant matters of public concern. Parliament has, in the past, conducted investigationsof this kind and as the great forum of the nation, should be expected to do so. The committee's recommendation for Parliamentary Commissions of Inquiry would promoteeffective parliamentary accountability by creating a process for Parliament to initiate inquirieswhere it rather than the Executive sees fit.
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.
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 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.