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.
In 2012 the House of Commons introduced a new 'core task' for all select committees that focused on public engagement as a distinctive and explicit factor of their work. This report focuses on how the select committees have responded to the new core task. Three core conclusions emerged: a) there has been a significant shift within the select committee system to taking public engagement seriously and this is reflected in many examples of innovation; b) this shift, however, has not been systematic and levels of public engagement vary significantly from committee to committee; and c) a more vibrant and systematic approach to public engagement is urgently needed but this will require increased resources, a deeper appreciation of the distinctive contribution that select committees can make and a deeper cultural change at Westminster. This report therefore details innovations in relation to the use of social media, the structure of inquiries and innovative outreach. Public engagement has not yet been fully embedded into the culture of parliament but there is evidence of significant 'cracks and wedges' that can now be built-upon and extended during the 2015-20 Parliament. Clearly the focus of the committee and the topic of the inquiry will have some bearing on the approach to engagement adopted but a more expansive and ambitious approach across the board is to be encouraged. This report leads to a ten-point set of inter-related recommendations but they can all be connected in the sense that the existing social research demonstrates a clear desire on the part of the public to 'do politics differently'.
This joint report by the Home Affairs Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee examines the Government's proposals to reform the law on corporate manslaughter, as set out in the draft Bill (Cm 6497, ISBN 010164972X) published in March 2005 for consultation. The report supports the introduction of the draft Bill to address the need for a statutory offence to shift the basis of liability for corporate manslaughter away from the requirement of identifying a 'directing mind' of a guilty company, since this 'identification principle' has made prosecutions of large companies almost impossible under the current common law. Issues discussed include: the application of the offence of corporate manslaughter in relation to corporations, government departments and police forces; issue of causation; the law of negligence, relevant duty of care and contractual relationships; management failure, the role of senior managers and gross breach; the removal of Crown immunity; territorial application of the offence; corporate sanctions; individual liability for directors; powers of investigation and prosecution, including the requirement to obtain the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before a private prosecution can be brought; and cost issues.
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.