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 It was also felt unnecessary when the Law Commissions currently have the power to put forward outdated Bills for abolition anyway.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
The focus of this report is on the voluntary or not-for-profit organisations which are charities, and other organisations with charitable, philanthropic and benevolent purposes, many of which raise funds from the public including campaign groups. The Draft Bill aims to modernize charity law, allowing many campaigning and social justice groups to attain charitable status. In England and Wales 188,739 charities are registered with the Charity Commission, with a total income of £32 billion raised by the major charities. There are 471 charities, 0.29 per cent of those registered, which represent 45 per cent of the total income, two-thirds of charities actually have an income of £10,000 or less. The Joint Committee sets out 54 recommendations and conclusions, among them are: that the Bill should include a definition of religion; that there should be an additional charitable purpose of promoting religion, racial harmony and advancement of culture; that an account should be taken of the loss of assets to a charity, if it loses charitable status; that an independent review should look at the burden of regulation that charities face; that the Charity Commission should inform the charities the reason for any investigation and that compensation and costs can be awarded against the Commission.
The draft Bill and White Paper were included in Cm. 7342-I,II,III (ISBN 9780101734226) which follows the Green paper issued in July 2007, Cm. 7170 (ISBN 9780101717021) and various other Governance of Britain papers
High street betting shops and casinos alike are currently allowed a maximum of four B2 (FOBT) gaming machines, which allow stakes up to £100 and a £500 prize. Casinos, should instead be permitted to operate up to twenty B2-type gaming machines. Limiting the number of B2 machines in betting shops has encouraged them to cluster in some high streets in order to satisfy customer demand. Local Authorities should have the power to permit more than the four B2 machines per shop if they believe it will help with clustering. The Committee also recommends that any local authority be able to make the decision as to whether or not they want a casino. As a step towards this, existing 1968 Act Casino licences should be made portable, allowing operators to relocate to any local authority provided that they continue to be constrained by the need to obtain local authority approval, a premises licence and planning permission. The failure to set remote gambling taxation at a level at which online operators could remain within the UK has led to almost every online gambling operator moving offshore whilst most are still able to advertise and operate into the UK. The Committee further recommends the Gambling Commission should introduce a new licence fee structure which reduces the current anomaly where small, independent bookmakers pay much higher fees per shop than large chains. Particularly given the absence of a significant UK-regulated online sector or any Regional Casinos, the Gambling Commission remains an overly expensive, bureaucratic regulator.
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
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
UK is a globally competitive location for shipping. The maritime sector earns £8.8 - £11.8 billion for the economy and supports 214,000 jobs. The Government's new maritime strategy poses the right questions about UK shipping but does not yet provide compelling answers on a range of key points. In particular, it is unclear how the Government plans to address the looming skills gap whereby the UK will have 5,000 fewer deck and engineering officers than the UK's maritime sector is predicted to require by 2021. The Committee recommends that the Government: make an explicit commitment to address fully a significant looming shortfall in UK trained seafarers partly through the Tonnage Tax, SMaRT funding and apprenticeships; commission an independent review of the MCA to evaluate how far a ongoing budget cuts may weaken the UK's ability to enforce compliance with international shipping regulations, undermine its status as a high-quality flag nation and shrink its influence within the International Maritime Organisation.; review the support the UK provides through its oversight of the Red Ensign Group to a number of competing registries of crown dependencies and UK overseas territories to raise the standards of the vessels which fly under the this flag; implement stronger seamanship qualifications by 2016 for the crew of all transfer vessels taking staff to and from offshore wind farm installations (and to call for voluntary compliance with these higher standards before that deadline); and support London International Shipping Week 2015 but showcase shipping around the country
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.
The Government's progressive work on tackling violence against women and girls abroad is not translating into its domestic policy, despite its Violence against Women and Girls Action Strategy and the Home Secretary's personal commitment to the issue. The Committee warns that failure to provide adequate refuge spaces and specialist services for victims of violence against women and girls demonstrates the difficulty for the Government in fulfilling its international obligations under the Convention when decisions over commissioning of certain services has been devolved. The Committee also expresses alarm at the prevalence of violence against women and girls across many cultures in the UK today, and heard troubling evidence from many minority groups that represent women with particular needs. The portrayal of women as victims of violence is deeply embedded in cultural stereotypes, in the depiction of women in the media and in how women are treated in the asylum system. This has to stop The Committee's recommendations include that: schools should play a greater role and include issues of violence against women and girls within the PSHE curriculum; whilst the Government has taken steps to engage with the media and with public awareness campaigns to counteract the sexualised portrayal of women, noting that the BBC declined invitations to give evidence to this inquiry, the media themselves should do more; the Government look again at the payment of universal credit to couples because of its concerns that it could put women subject to domestic violence at risk.
This is a draft Bill and white paper on proposals to change the House of Lords into a more democratically elected second chamber. A cross-party Committee met seven times from June to December 2010 and considered all reform issues related to the House of Lords. Agreement was reached on a large number of issues but differences in opinion remain on the size of the elected element and the type of electoral system. The Government now wants to take the discussion forward to a debate on the detail. Proposals include an 80 percent elected House of Lords but a wholly elected House of Lords has not been ruled out. The Draft Bill sets out elections using the Single Transferable Vote system but it is recognised that a case can be made for other proportional systems too. Other proposals, name, size, functions, powers and term length are some of several issues discussed.
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
Offers a standard work of reference both in the UK and overseas. The work provides an account of all the latest policy developments in the UK, and contains material and detail on most aspects of British life. This edition focuses in particular on the environment, including a new chapter that examines the concept of sustainable development, an introduction on tourism and the environment, and a colour section devoted to Britain's action on the environment, both in the UK and globally.
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
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.