eu citizens initiatives.. January 26, 2012
Posted by Bradley in : governance , add a commentesma consults on draft technical standards on short selling and credit default swaps January 25, 2012
Posted by Bradley in : consultation , add a commentThe consultation on draft technical standards on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps began yesterday and lasts until February 13. The Commission seems to have given ESMA over 4 months to provide the advice (from the end of November to the end of March) but it took ESMA two months to develop its consultation and it plans to use 6 weeks or so to finalise its advice. That leaves 2.5 weeks for public input. This is a bit of a contrast to the general lengthening of consultation periods the Commission announced at the beginning of the month.
uk consultation on registration of lobbyists January 20, 2012
Posted by Bradley in : consultation, transparency , add a commentThe Consultation Document is here. The document proposes that a body independent of Government and the lobbying industry should manage the register (a new arm’s length body?). The appropriate definition of lobbying is a central issue. Here are some of the questions posed by the document:
Should in-house lobbyists be covered? Many large companies have employees whose main duties are to lobby on behalf of that company. The Government proposes that only those lobbying on behalf of third parties should be covered by the Register. Given that is clear whose interests they represent, it is not evident that an extension of the register to in-house lobbyists would provide any additional transparency.
Should lobbyists or firms acting on a pro bono basis have an exemption from the duty to register?
Should organisations which engage in lobbying on behalf of interest groups such as Think Tanks and Charities be required to register? If so, how might this be captured in the definition of lobbying or lobbyist?
The Government does not wish to discourage the normal activity between constituents and MPs. Should there be an explicit exemption included in any definition?
critique of uk e-petitions system January 19, 2012
Posted by Bradley in : transparency , add a commentThe House of Commons Procedure Committee has published a report which critiques the Government’s implementation of e-petitions. Here’s an example of the problems the committee identified:
It is wrong for the Government to raise petitioners’ expectations of the e-petitions process to unrealistically high levels. E-petitions may be an easy way to raise awareness of an issue, to receive a response from the Government to a particular concern, or even to have a matter debated in Parliament. They are not, and should not be claimed to be, an easy way to change Government policy or legislation… We recommend that the Government should remove the sentence “e-petitions is an easy way for you to influence government policy in the UK” from its e-petitions website and replace it with a statement that more accurately reflects reality. We propose: “epetitions are an easy way for you to make sure your concerns are heard by Government and Parliament”.
new year, new consultation in the eu January 4, 2012
Posted by Bradley in : consultation , add a commentThe Commission announced yesterday that it is lengthening the consultation procedure from 8 to 12 weeks. And, probably to encourage registration: lobbyists who are registered on the transparency register will get early alerts about proposed initiatives:
The Commission has also introduced an alert service for upcoming initiatives: Organisations that sign up for the Transparency Register, can subscribe to this alert service to get early information on the roadmaps for new initiatives in their fields of interest about one year before there (sic) adoption.
Of course those who aren’t lobbyists aren’t supposed to be on the Transparency Register, and they don’t get the early heads up either. So it’s a bit of a mixed bag. Let’s make life easier for lobbyists if they agree to let us watch them. But it doesn’t seem to do much to encourage more general citizen participation in consultations (which seems to be what the public statements suggest will happen):
The President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, said: “A key part of getting our policies right is listening to the people who will be affected by them. By keeping our consultations open longer we will strengthen the voice of the citizens, businesses and organisations that help us shape our policies for the benefit of all.”
independent review of terrorist asset freezing act 2010 December 15, 2011
Posted by Bradley in : transparency , add a commentDavid Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has published his first report. There’s a lot in this report, including a very clear description of the background and of the statute. Reading the report it isn’t very clear that there’s much clarity about what the freezing of assets is really achieving. The report notes, for example, that the Treasury’s list of designated persons “has a distinctly haphazard look” (para. 10.12).
The report makes a number of recommendations, including:
The Treasury should issue and present to Parliament a statement of policy regarding ts approach to designation under TAFA 2010, in order to ensure that the power is used in a consistent and principled manner. That statement should deal, in particular, with: (1) the factors that may lead the Treasury to conclude that the statutory tests for designation (in particular, the necessity test) are satisfied;(2) the factors that in a case where the statutory tests are satisfied may inform the Treasury’s exercise of its discretion to designate (or to retain a designation in force). It should also confirm that no designation will be made, or retained in force, without consideration of whether designation would be proportionate bearing in mind the anticipated effect on private and family life (Article 8 ECHR) and property rights (Article 1 of the First Protocol).
The report also makes recommendations about improving procedures for designation and review, and for licensing and compliance (for example to reduce the humiliation suffered by designated persons) and about increasing transparency.
public administration select committee on the big society December 14, 2011
Posted by Bradley in : governance , add a commentConclusions of today’s report:
The substantial change expected to result from the Big Society project, namely the devolution of power to communities and citizens will not occur overnight: if successful, as witnesses suggested, it will take a generation. The Government’s Big Society statements have, so far, failed to communicate this point effectively. There is public confusion with the policy agenda, eighteen months into this administration. Confusion also still exists among many service providers. Early examples, such as the Work Programme, have caused the charitable sector to express serious reservations about the implementation of the Government’s ambitions in practice.
To bring in charities and voluntary groups to deliver public services, the government must take steps to address the barriers they experience in the contracting and commissioning system, which means developing a plan to address roles, tasks, responsibilities and skills in Whitehall departments. We recommend:
a) A single Big Society Minister, who has a cross-cutting brief, to help other Ministers to drive through this agenda once they begin reporting progress against the aims of Open Public Services White Paper, from April 2012.
b) An impact assessment, applied to every Government policy, statutory instrument, and new Bill, which asks the simple question: “what substantively will this do to build social capital, people power, and social entrepreneurs?”
Unless this is done, the Big Society project will not succeed
corporate jotwell: december 2011 December 12, 2011
Posted by Bradley in : jotwell , add a commentThis month I am recommending Kimberly Krawiec’s paper: Don’t ‘Screw Joe the Plummer’: The Sausage-Making of Financial Reform.
uk government consults on gender and insurance December 9, 2011
Posted by Bradley in : financial regulation, gender , add a commentThe UK is consulting on its proposed response to the Test-Achats decision. The announcement of the consultation states:
The Consultation document seeks views on the Government’s legal interpretation of the judgment and the accompanying draft regulations that amend the Equality Act. It also seeks comments on the Government’s impact assessment and requests additional data that would contribute to a better understanding of the impact on consumers and insurers. Finally, it asks for views on some of the key issues arising from the judgment, such as the scope of indirect discrimination.
what price corporate responsibility? November 30, 2011
Posted by Bradley in : truth , add a commentThe House of Commons International Development Committee has published a report which is quite critical of BAE Systems’ delay in making payments it promised to make as part of a settlement with respect to “improper book-keeping” with the Serious Fraud Office in 2010:
The Settlement Agreement did not require BAE Systems to make the ex gratia payment by a specified date. We recognise that the payment could not have been made before the conclusion of the Court proceedings on 21 December 2010. Nevertheless, we are concerned that the payment for the ‘benefit of the people of Tanzania’ remained outstanding more than eight months after the Court hearing and that BAE Systems envisaged spreading payment over a period of years, describing the payments as ‘our money’. Following our evidence session, we wrote to the Chairman of BAE Systems, urging the company in the strongest possible terms to pay immediately the full £29.5 million ex gratia payment to the Government of Tanzania in accordance with the proposals made by that Government and endorsed by DFID. Finally, the company agreed. We welcome this decision announced in a letter to the Committee Chair dated 19 August 2011 to make the payment to the Government of Tanzania and subsequent confirmation that it had made arrangements for the payment.
BAE of course believes in corporate responsibility:
Maintaining high standards of business conduct is essential to enhance our overall business performance, build trust, and maintain and improve our reputation with stakeholders.
Its Code of Conduct states that:
To be Trusted we must deliver on our commitments.
Just not all of them, apparently. Or at least not very speedily.