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.
As nationalised industries have been privatised in recent years, industry regulators have been appointed by government to encourage competition and protect consumer interests, with a range of powers including imposing penalties, levying fines, and creating secondary legislation. The Committee's report examines the accountability of these regulatory bodies, both to Parliament and the public interest, as well as their responsibility to those they regulate. The Committee concludes that effective regulation requires effective accountability which meets rational, well-defined objectives. Overall, the report finds that the accountability of regulators has improved over recent years, and the Committee makes 24 recommendations for further improvements relating to the four key elements by which this accountability is given effect: the overall regulatory framework, the duty to explain, exposure to scrutiny, and the possibility of independent review.
Drawing Special Attention To: School Governance (Contracts) (England) Regulations 2005; Waste Management Licensing (England and Wales) (Amendment and Related Provisions) (No. 2) Regulations 2005; Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Designated Area) Order 2005; Explanatory Information: Draft Dentists Act 1984 (Amendment) Order 2005; Gender Recognition (Disclosure of Information) (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Order 2005
Drawing Special Attention To: School Governance (Contracts) (England) Regulations 2005; Waste Management Licensing (England and Wales) (Amendment and Related Provisions) (No. 2) Regulations 2005; Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Designated Area) Order 2005; Explanatory Information: Draft Dentists Act 1984 (Amendment) Order 2005; Gender Recognition (Disclosure of Information) (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Order 2005
3rd report of Session 2005-06 : Drawing special attention to: School Governance (Contracts) (England) Regulations 2005; Waste Management Licensing (England and Wales) (Amendment and Related Provisions) (No. 2) Regulations 2005; Serious Organised Crime and
The depth and pace of EU integration has demonstrated the need for effective democratic parliamentary scrutiny and accountability of Government at Westminster. This is the first major inquiry into the European scrutiny system in the House of Commons for eight years. There is more that the Committee could do to look at the impact of new proposals. There should be a new requirement to appoint 'Reporters' to take the lead within Committees on EU issues, as well as a more coordinated approach to the Commission Work Programme. Whilst the system need not be scrapped as some have said, it must be enhanced. Many problems arise from the fact that new Members are appointed for each document. The Committee argues forcefully for a return to the permanent membership system, new powers and a change of name to reflect the Committees' core purpose: EU Document Debate Committees. The Committee also examined how EU business is taken on the floor of the House, and the procedures which apply to it. They set out a series of recommendations about the way debates are scheduled and conducted and put the case for a new session of 'EU Questions'. They also review working practices and the visibility of the House's scrutiny of the EU in the media. It concluded that now is the time to propose the introduction of a form of national veto over EU legislative proposals, and then to explore the mechanics of disapplication of parts of existing EU obligations, notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972
In this consultation paper, the Law Commissions of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are seeking views on the regulation of health care professionals in the UK and social workers in England. In their first joint consultation, the Commissions are asking how a new legal framework would: give the regulators increased flexibility in the use of their powers while ensuring public accountability; enable them to ensure proper standards of professional education, conduct and practice; and have at its heart a duty on the regulators to protect the public. It makes provisional proposals which seek to simplify and modernise the law and establish a streamlined, transparent and responsive system of regulation of health care professionals, and in England only, the regulation of social workers
In this report into the governance and regulation of the BBC, the Communications Committee finds too many different processes for varying types of complaint, making it very difficult for viewers, listeners and users of BBC content to know where to go to complain. The BBC needs to provide a clear overview of how the complaints process works and publish this in one place on its website and there needs to be a clearing house to direct people through the complaints process. The confusion is in part because the BBC Trust and Ofcom have 'overlapping jurisdiction' in several areas of content regulation, with the exception of issues of impartiality and accuracy and commercial references, which the BBC Trust regulates. In particular, the Committee wants the BBC and Ofcom to consider granting Ofcom the right to regulate the BBC on matters of impartiality and accuracy. In addition, creativity must not be allowed to be stifled by an overly bureaucratic 'compliance culture'. Best practice for programme making needs to be established to ease concerns that it isn't always clear to viewers what is reality, reconstructed and constructed footage. Greater clarity is needed on the governance role of the Non-Executives on the on the BBC Executive Board, who should be recruited from a wider range of backgrounds than they are presently. Terms of access for the NAO to the BBC must be agreed, ensuring that the NAO does not comment on any matters of broadcast content or journalistic integrity.
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.
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.