UK To Miss Fiscal Targets

The UK coalition government is unlikely to meet either its deficit or debt target, a new report has warned, also claiming that there is confusion as to what the government has actually achieved so far.

The report, "A Distorted Debate: the need for clarity on Debt, Deficit and Coalition Aims" was composed by Ryan Bourne and Tim Knox for the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS). The authors re-evaluate the coalition's stated aims for the economy in light of recent figures.

The report points to the fact that, when the coalition entered office in 2010, its aim was to eliminate the current structural deficit by the end of the current parliament, which is scheduled for dissolution in 2015. It also pledged to stem the increase in public debt as a proportion of GDP.

However, according to the report, these pledges now seem increasingly unachievable. The deficit has fallen by around a quarter since 2010, but the cyclically-adjusted deficit had only been reduced by 13% by the end of 2011/12. Spending cuts have not financed this. Only 6% of the planned current spending contraction has so far been implemented, the report shows. Instead, the great majority of the reduction in the deficit was found to have come from cuts to investment spending and tax hikes.

The debt picture is not much better. In nominal terms, the official national debt is forecast to rise by GBP605bn (USD957bn) over the life of this parliament. This means it will have increased from 53% of GDP in 2009/10 to 76% of GDP in 2014/15. Poor growth figures and higher than expected government borrowing in July indicate that it is even less likely that debt will be put on a downward path until the next parliament. The result is that the coalition's mandate will not be met on unchanged policy, the report warns.

The rest of the report also makes for grim reading for the coalition. Polling taken for the report show that there is confusion over what the coalition has achieved so far. The report blames politicians and journalists, who it says have at times suggested that the government is reducing the national debt. In fact, only 39% of the public correctly identified that it is the budget deficit that has been reduced since 2010, compared with 28% who believe this to be untrue.

Commenting on his report's release, Ryan Bourne said: “The polling results show two things: that the public is unclear about what the coalition’s ambitions are, and is unclear about what the coalition has achieved in terms of the public finances since 2010. Despite what many people think, it was never the coalition’s ambition to reduce the national debt within this Parliament. What’s more, it’s becoming increasingly probable that, on current policy, neither of the coalition’s original fiscal mandates are going to met."

"With the recent dreadful borrowing figures, now would be a good time for the coalition to restate the scale of our fiscal problems, and to set out how they will be addressed. Only by having a clear knowledge of the problems and solutions on offer from the different parties will the electorate be able to make an informed choice in 2015.”

Source: http://www.tax-news.com/news/UK_To_Miss_Fiscal_Targets____57041.html

. 

Britain's vicious circle of political failure

Parliament needs more than a five-year refurbishment to fix Britain's politics. We need to strip back Britain's politics and start again.

Just as the economy continues to drag along, failing to recover from the aftershocks of the 2008 financial crisis, so Britain's politics does too. Three years have passed since the 2009 expenses scandal, but public confidence in our elected leaders remains at rock bottom.

This was an opportunity for parliament to reform itself. There have been some positive steps forward – the select committees MPs use to scrutinise suspect figures from elsewhere in public life (Rupert Murdoch, Bob Diamond etc) have been improved, for example – but other measures have proved disappointing. They may even prove to have backfired.

The introduction of epetitions was supposed to spark a great revival of direct democracy. Voters assumed 100,000 signatures would lead to an instant change in direction from ministers. They are now discovering what MPs have known for a long time: that the debate in parliament they get as a result of a six-figure petition is a very different proposition from an actual policy shift. Voters feel less empowered, not more. Hardly a positive step.

Another great hope was the opportunity to recall misbehaving MPs. Such a move would strengthen democratic accountability because it would mean that, if enough constituents felt strongly enough, a member of parliament would be held up to answer for their actions long before the next general election (the next one is still nearly three years away, remember).

What the coalition eventually came up with was deeply disappointing to radical reformers. Oh no, Nick Clegg explained to MPs, the idea wasn't to actually give voters real power. This punitive measure could only be employed if an MP was jailed for a period of less than one year (they get kicked out anyway if they're jailed for over 12 months). Anything less than a custodial sentence and it would be up to the Commons' standards and privileges committee to set up the possibility of a by-election.

Advocates argue this is not something to be afraid of. The public can be trusted, they insist. Of course there will be instances when partisan-motivated recall attempts are mounted – the 'vexatious' kind so feared by Clegg and co – but these can either be rejected or accepted by the electorate. There is nothing to fear but fear itself.

For ministerial fear of the no-holds-barred recall proposal is actually damaging Britain's democracy. The message this whole sorry saga sends out is that the voters cannot be trusted: the fate of misbehaving politicians is better left to the judgement of a secretive committee of MPs rather than the disinfectant of public scrutiny. I've spoken to members of the standards and privileges committee who insist that the punishments they impose are fair and just – and certainly not lenient towards those of their parliamentary colleagues who have broken the Commons' rules. Put simply, that is not the point: from the public's perspective any such work conducted behind closed doors is inherently suspicious.

Now a Sunday newspaper has reported that the coalition is considering abandoning its recall bill altogether. This has dismayed Zac Goldsmith, one of the radical Tory reformers who hasn't been particularly impressed by the government's proposals. Still, better this than nothing, he believes. "This was a key promise after the endless scandals around expenses. It is also the one promised reform that will directly empower people and keep politicians on their toes," he told the Mail on Sunday. "If it is dropped now, voters will rightly wonder if they can believe anything they are promised by political parties."

The electoral reform referendum was defeated, Lords reform has been abandoned and boundary changes are being fought by an impromptu coalition of Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Recall was all the coalition's constitutional reform agenda had left, but now even this proposal appears endangered. The result is a sorry mess which has failed to provide any answers to the great British political malaise. Just as the double-dip recession continues to blight the UK, so the political process continues to stagnate.

The coalition may have started off brightly with a real injection of optimism, but it has proved singularly ineffective in achieving really significant changes to the way Britain does its politics. Our hung parliament, arguably the result of voter disaffection, has made meaningful changes impossible. As the recall farrago shows, it is probably making things worse. What are the chances that a second hung parliament will follow in 2015? How can Britain's politicians get themselves out of this mess?

As the recall saga shows, a better question might be to ask how willing they collectively are to even try.

Source: http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2012/08/26/britain-s-vicious-circle-of-political-failure

Debate on Scotland's future must be on issues not procedure.. says Gordon Brown

GORDON Brown insisted yesterday that the debate about Scotland’s future was “upside down and back to front”.

The former prime minister said discussions about independence have become mired in squabbles over the precise wording of the referendum question.

And he argued that the focus should be on the big issues, such as jobs, education and health.

In a speech to the Scottish Parliament, Brown said the independence debate focused too much on “process and procedures, not principles”.

He insisted: “The referendum campaign should start from where Scottish people are and what they believe.”

Brown said the real question was “whether our beliefs and aspirations are best realised through an independent state separated from Britain, or by working through both the Scottish Parliament and the UK”.

He added: “We should ask whether the nationalists are right that the Union holds Scots back...

“Or whether in fact Scots have been, and are, right to try to shape the Union, not just as a political or a social union, but as a union for social justice – trying to make the Union, for millions of people, the best and most ambitious insurance policy in the world.”

Brown said Scotland was two years from a “make or break” decision which would affect people’s jobs, pensions for the old and prospects for the young.

And he insisted that the countdown to the vote should not begin with “an endless succession of ‘insider’ Holyrood and Westminster arguments about procedures”.

Brown said: “With its current focus on process and not on principles, the debate about Scotland’s future is about the minutiae of process and not about fundamental beliefs.

“We should not neglect the biggest issue of all – what we Scots aspire to as a people.”

Kirkcaldy MP Brown was giving the Campbell Christie memorial lecture at Holyrood, part of the Parliament’s Festival of Politics.

He hailed the former Scottish Trades Union Congress general secretary’s contribution to Scottish public life.

And he returned strongly to the theme of his speech to the Edinburgh Book Festival two weeks ago - that Scots benefit from the “pooling and sharing of resources” across the UK.

Brown hit out at the SNP Government over its plans to allow Scots universities to charge English students fees which Scots youngsters do not have to pay.

He said: “I don’t think it is right that you have a situation, where we believe in the principles of social justice, that you have fees free to Scottish students and anybody from the rest of the European Union but we charge someone from England.

“There should be a negotiation about it, because it seems to me not in tune with the principles I support about social justice.”

Brown argued that Scotland was defined by its commitment to social justice. He said the nation believed in educational opportunities for all, the equal worth of every individual and a “moral core” where we support one another.

And he stressed that Scottish ideas of social justice had helped shape, and could continue to help shape, the Union.

Brown said: “As the life of Campbell Christie shows, these beliefs have come together in a very practical way in the strength of the Scottish commitment to social justice.”

He said Scotland had led the world in schooling for all, campaigned for the right to work and opposed the Poll Tax. He praised “the anti-poverty priorities of the first Scottish Parliament” and “the work of Scottish churches in the poorest countries of the world”.

Brown added: “Because of the insistent Scottish demand for social justice, we have not only shaped what Scottish civic authorities, the Scottish Office and now the Scottish Parliament does at home.

“We have, over many decades, shaped the Union, trying to make it a social justice union – to make it fairer and better in the future.

“It is a social justice union founded on the pooling of risks and resources in a way unparalleled anywhere in the world – so that every Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish citizen should have the same political, economic and social rights.”

Brown said neighbouring countries did not automatically develop common economic rights. But UK citizens had common rights to “a British minimum wage, British pensions, British disability benefits, British child support, help for the unemployed, and common standards of workers’ protection”.

Brown went on: “The Union is based, not just on common political rights, but common social and economic rights.

“There are good principled reasons why we scrapped the Scottish and English Poor Laws and replaced them with a British welfare state – good, principled reasons why we have common pensions across Britain, why workers have the same equal rights to unemployment insurance and benefits.

“We recognise that by unity across frontiers, and by pooling and sharing resources, we can get a better deal for all.”

Source: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/independence-debate-must-be-on-issues-not-1278833

The United Kingdom Parliament : Tax in Developing Countries: Increasing Resources for Development

A report published today by the International Development Committee highlights the importance of tax collection in developing countries, and recommends that the UK's aid programme should increase its focus on supporting tax authorities.

This is equally valid for all forms of taxation, including VAT, personal income taxation and corporate taxation. It is also essential that taxes are paid on a fair and equal basis by local companies and individuals as well as foreign investors.

The UK already does work in this area; for example, the Department for International Development (DFID) provided a very successful programme of support to the Rwandan Revenue Authority over a ten-year period. But the International Development Committee recommends that this sort of work should be given higher priority within the UK's future aid programmes.

The Committee's Chairman, Rt Hon Sir Malcolm Bruce said:

"The aim of development work is to enable developing countries to escape from over-reliance on aid.. Supporting revenue authorities is one of the best ways of doing this: it represents excellent value for money, both for the countries concerned and for UK taxpayers. That is why we are urging the Government to do more."

On a recent visit to Afghanistan the Committee was told by the Minister for Mines that UK advice and assistance had dramatically increased the revenue from the mining sector and this could increase many times over in the coming years.

The report also recommends that the Government should conduct an analysis of the impact of its new tax rules on developing countries as a matter of urgency.

The Controlled Foreign Companies (CFC) rules are designed to discourage UK-owned corporations from using tax havens. Traditionally these rules have applied to all UK-owned corporations - both those operating in the UK and those operating overseas. Under the new rules, however, this will apply only to corporations operating in the UK, making it easier for those operating in developing countries to use tax havens.

A number of NGOs have campaigned vigorously against the changes, with ActionAid estimating that developing countries may lose up to £4 billion in tax revenues as a result. The UK Government does not accept this estimate, but does not deny that there will be some cost to developing countries. The Committee recommends that the Government should conduct its own analysis, and - subject to the outcome - should consider reversing the change.

Rt Hon Sir Malcolm Bruce MP, Chair of the Committee, commented:

"The Government is committed to supporting economic growth in developing countries to reduce their dependency on aid. While this is clearly the right thing to do, it would be deeply unfortunate if the Government's efforts were undermined by its own tax rules.

Some estimates claim that the revised CFC rules will cost developing countries up to £4 billion. We do not know if this estimate is correct, but the Government cannot legitimately refute the £4 billion figure unless it is prepared to conduct its own analysis. That is what we are urging it to do."

The Committee also received evidence which argued that the Government should require UK-owned companies to report their financial information on a country-by-country basis, rather than on an aggregate basis. The Government is reluctant to act unless other EU countries do likewise, but the Committee believes that it should act unilaterally. Doing so would help to expose tax evasion in developing countries.

Rt Hon Sir Malcolm Bruce added:

"The Government is rightly seeking to support the link between private sector growth and development. An important part of this is ensuring that the correct amount of tax is paid.

Country-by-country reporting would help to achieve this, and the cost to companies would be very modest. We took evidence on this from companies including Rio Tinto and Glencore: Rio Tinto is already reporting on a country-by-country basis voluntarily, and Glencore is also open to the idea." 

Source: http://www.4-traders.com/news/The-United-Kingdom-Parliament-Tax-in-Developing-Countries-Increasing-Resources-for-Development--14470480/

Bob Diamond Responds To Criticism In UK Parliament Treasury Committee LIBOR Report

Former Barclays CEO Bob Diamond has hit back at claims that he was "highly selective" in his evidence to MPs.

Mr Diamond said that he was disappointed and strongly disagreed with several of the committee's statements.

"On July 4, I appeared before the Committee voluntarily and on short notice.

"I answered every question that was put to me to me truthfully, candidly and based on information available to me.

"I categorically refute any suggestion to the contrary.

"I take particular issue with the attacks on Barclays' culture and character.

"Barclays, one of the only major UK financial institutions that did not need a rescue from the UK Government, is a tremendous institution with an over 300-year tradition of supporting economic growth and the communities in which we live and work.

"I am proud of what we accomplished over the 16 years I was employed there and our prudent management of the institution helped avoid the fates that befell other UK banks in 2009.

"The picture being presented today of what Barclays stood for under my watch could not be further from the truth.
"There is no question that the behaviour of a small group of traders related to Libor manipulation was reprehensible and not in keeping with Barclays' high standards.

"At the same time, it should be recorded that broader issues with Libor have been a subject of discussion among regulators for years, and there is little dispute that Barclays was both aggressive in its investigation of this matter and engaged in its cooperation with the appropriate authorities.

"Looking forward, it's clear that thoughtful analysis and regulation of issues affecting the banking industry are required and I have no doubt that Barclays is committed to being part of the solution."


Source: http://www.mondovisione.com/media-and-resources/news/bob-diamond-responds-to-criticism-in-uk-parliament-treasury-committee-libor-repo/

OLYMPIC BOOST TO UK ECONOMY

Following the announcement by UKTI of the series of Global Business Summits to take place during the London Olympics, the Parliamentary Yearbook has been closely following progress and achievements as the conferences take place

During the six weeks of the Games, the British Business Embassy hosted 17 global business summits at Lancaster House, following the annual Global Investment Conference on July 26. Each was targeted at individual sectors or countries.

The series of global business summits at the British Business Embassy is the largest and most ambitious set of trade and investment events ever held in this country.

Over 3,000 Government Ministers, business leaders and policy-makers from the UK and around the world came through the doors of Lancaster House. These events allowed businesses and Governments to exchange views and ideas, discuss local and international economic challenges, develop strong global partnerships for future growth and showcase the best of British business to the world.

Ministers last week vowed to capitalise on the success of the Olympics by working with UK firms to realise an international business legacy that could be worth £13bn to the UK economy in future years.

This builds on the substantial investment decisions we have seen in recent weeks, with £14bn of business deals announced at a time when the eyes of the world have been on the UK.

During the Olympics the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Chancellor, Business Secretary and 35 other ministers have welcomed around 3,000 business leaders and global figures so far, including over half of the FTSE 100 companies and hundreds of international buyers, investors and policy makers, to 12 Global Business Summits at Lancaster House.

Speakers have included IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde, designer Stella McCartney and Apple designer Sir Jonathan Ive. Further events will continue into September, with the total number of attendees set to reach 4,000. A programme of 75 business seminars around the UK is also underway.

Last Friday, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Brazilian Vice President Michel Temer jointly hosted a Brazil Business Summit bringing UK and Brazilian businesses together to forge new trading partnerships, including multi-million pound opportunities to help deliver the Rio 2016 Games. Already, Aecom UK has won an international competition to design the Rio 2016 Olympic Park Master Plan, Populous designed the Sochi stadium, and a number of British companies including Atkins have won around £600m contracts for Qatar 2022 in related infrastructure development and planning.

At the event, Asyst International + Rhealeza, a Brazilian multinational providing a range of ICT services, will announce plans to create 700 UK jobs over the next three years. Bristol firm Viper Subsea will announce that it has secured a major contract for the supply of underwater components for use in a deep-water development the Santos Basin, offshore Brazil. And the UK Intellectual Property Office will announce the appointment of a UK Intellectual Property Attache to Brazil to support UK firms doing business in this fast growing market.

Overall, hosting the Olympics is forecast to deliver around £13bn in economic benefit to the UK in the coming months and years as businesses take advantage of the unique opportunities provided.

This includes £1billion of extra sales for businesses taking part in the British Business Embassy programme, £4 billion of high value overseas opportunities for UK firms in markets including Brazil, Russia and China, £6billion of inward investment and a £2.3billion boost to tourism.

Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, said:

“It’s not only our athletes who have shown themselves to be world-class, British businesses have played a key role in delivering our most successful games in history.

“Producing the most spectacular show on earth has given UK companies the skills and expertise to support Brazil as the baton is passed to Rio 2016.

“We have identified huge opportunities for UK firms to work on the next Olympic games in Sochi and Rio - a golden boost to British businesses that will create jobs and support economic growth.”

Business Secretary, Vince Cable, said:

“Team GB has seen exceptional success at the Olympics in the last few weeks and, at a time when the international spotlight is firmly upon us, we have also seen huge levels of investment by businesses.

“Our task now is to drive home the message that Britain is open for business, and to enhance the conditions that companies need to invest and grow.”

Foreign Secretary, William Hague, said:

“The extraordinary success of the 2012 Olympics has proved to the world that British events, products and services are second to none.

“We are making this message clear to partners in Brazil and the region in the months and years ahead, working with businesses of all sizes and sectors to help them get ahead of the competition on the international stage.

“Boosting our trading links with nations around the world is vital to securing the sustainable economic growth we need and this is a challenge the whole Government is committed to meeting.”

Trade and Investment Minister, Lord Green, said:

“The Games have provided a golden opportunity to enhance our status as a leading business partner and destination for investment.”

“At the British Business Embassy we have so far hosted 3,000 business people from large and small firms alike. The connections they have made will deliver real economic results.

“We are now working hard, alongside firms around the country to follow up the contacts, networks, announcements and momentum created by the Games.”

The Government's international Olympic business legacy programme, including the Host2Host programme, Suppliers Directory and British Business Club have been delivering benefits for UK companies since the programme commenced in 2007.

Following the Olympics, initiatives to promote UK businesses will include:

·         ‘Great Britain Delivers’ - a multi-media showcase taking the message to the world that the UK can deliver major global projects on time and on budget.

·         Further British Business Embassy programmes at major international events including the Sochi Winter Olympics in 2014 and subsequent Games, including the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow in 2014.

·         Trade missions to countries set to host the Olympics, Winter Olympics and the FIFA World Cup in the coming years, including Brazil, Russia and Qatar, to export the expertise and skills of UK firms. An estimated £1.5bn worth of contracts have been identified flowing from Sochi 2014 and Rio 2016.

Business groups and senior business figures taking part in British Business Embassy events have voiced their support for the programme and the importance of securing a business legacy from the Olympics.

John Cridland, CBI Director-General, said:

“British business has played a huge part in delivering a fantastic Olympic Games. We now want to build on that achievement, and the talent and skills that have underpinned it, to create a legacy which helps the UK to secure growth and new jobs in the years ahead.”

John Walker, National Chairman, Federation of Small Businesses, said:

“The FSB is pleased that the British Business Embassy events have been selling ‘Brand GB’ as a strong and innovative brand to global business. It is important that the Government builds on the Olympic legacy created by encouraging big business to support small businesses in the supply chain to encourage innovation and boost exporting.”

Graeme Leach, Chief Economist at the Institute of Directors, said:

“The Olympics has been a fantastic show, and it is now crucial that we get as much economic benefit from it as possible. Bringing visitors to the UK is a good way to make money in the short term, but it is the big contracts to bring investment in and sell British goods abroad that are the real prize. It is good news for business that so many foreign delegations and business leaders have come to London to see us set out our stall. We know our athletes are world-beaters, and now it is time to show that our companies are, too.”

Starting with the Global Investment Conference when the Prince of Wales hosted delegates in the garden of Clarence House, the events have seen highlights from the Duchess of Cambridge bringing together creative industries in a royal reception to a life sciences summit attended by 15 Health Ministers from around the world.

As a result of this unprecedented drive to promote UK businesses to international investors, UK Trade and Investment is engaging with hundreds of companies on their overseas export plans, and supporting foreign investors with inward investment opportunities into the UK.

The Parliamentary Information Office will continue to monitor and report on progress as we go through the weeks ahead and provide a full report on achievements at the end of the series of conferences

Web: Parliamentary Yearbook

Email: parliamentaryyearbook@blakemedia.org

UK trade: Tourism slumped during London Olympics

LONDON - The Olympics brought less tourist money to recession-hit Britain than officials expected, a trade group said Monday, with a majority of tourist businesses reporting losses from last year.

A survey of more than 250 tour operators, hoteliers and visitor attractions found that tourist traffic fell all over Britain, not just London, said UKinbound, a leading trade association representing British tour operators, shops and hotels. The survey said 88 per cent of British tourism-oriented businesses reported some losses during the games compared to the same period last year.

"As an industry we knew the games would have a negative impact on international visitor numbers to London but the impact on the rest of the U.K., combined with domestic visitors staying away, has been deeply disappointing," said Rita Beckwith, chief executive of London's City Cruises, a member of UKinbound.

Officials are still tallying up the total number of tourists who came to - or avoided - London this summer. The capital normally sees about 1.5 million tourists on average in August, but UKinbound and other trade groups say a significant number have chosen to steer clear of London, and even the rest of Britain because they thought it would be too busy.

The official visitor figures won't be available until September.

Tourism officials say that international Olympics visitors to London, including athletes, officials and tourists, totalled about 300,000. Domestic spectators from Britain made up the majority of people visiting games venues.

Restaurants and shops have complained that these games visitors did not spend as much money on food and shopping as typical summer tourists.

"The people who came to the games really didn't do very much sightseeing, didn't do very much shopping, didn't do very much eating out," said Miles Quest, a spokesman for the British Hospitality Association.

London's hotels have hit about 80 per cent occupancy, which is not higher than typical August rates, Quest added.

There were some positive signs. Visa, the only credit card accepted at the Olympics venues, reported that international visitors to Britain spent more than 450 million pounds ($705 million) on their cards during the first week of the games, up by 8 per cent on the same time last year.

Around 12.7 million pounds were spent on Visa cards in London restaurants last week, an increase of almost 20 per cent on a year ago.

Read it on Global News: Global News | UK trade: Tourism slumped during London Olympics 

News Summary: UK reviewing LIBOR practices

QUICK REVIEW: Britain's financial regulator on Friday is looking for quick answers from the banking industry on the London interbank offered rate (LIBOR), the interest rate index that has been subject of a global scandal

THE REQUEST: Martin Wheatley, managing director of the Financial Services Authority, said Friday he wants industry responses by Sept. 7 on how LIBOR is regulated and calculated so that proposals can be included in legislation now pending in Parliament.


THE OUTLOOK: LIBOR, which has come under scrutiny since Barclays bank admitted manipulating rates, is determined by a self-policing system, whereby banks make a judgment of the rate at which they could borrow from other banks. The rate sets benchmarks for hundreds of trillions of dollars of contracts globally, including mortgages and commercial loans.


Source: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-08-10/news-summary-uk-reviewing-libor-practices

Committee launches inquiry into leadership and standards in the police

The Home Affairs Committee is today launching an inquiry into leadership and standards in the police service.

• Home Affairs Committee

In December 2011, the Home Secretary announced plans to establish a professional body to further professionalise policing, which will be known as the College of Policing.

The College of Policing is intended to create opportunities to open up the leadership of the police service, to harness greater diversity and experience at a senior level and to equip the service with new skills.

This inquiry will look at the current situation in the police service and will investigate how the leadership of police forces must adapt in the new landscape of policing to improve standards, eliminate corruption and deliver a more diverse and effective service, and how new institutions should contribute to that aim.

Terms of reference

The Committee invites responses addressing some or all of the following terms of reference and other relevant matters.

• What powers, responsibilities and resources should be given to the College of Policing?
• What lessons can be learnt from other professional bodies within the UK and from police professional bodies in other countries?
• Is it possible for one institution to balance responsibilities for: representing police services; setting and upholding standards; testing and rewarding; training; and guarding public interests?
• Would it be preferable to create two separate institutions to provide delivery functions and professional representation?
• How will the professional body interact with HMIC; the IPCC; ACPO; and other institutions in providing leadership and setting standards for police forces?
• What role should the College of Policing have in recruitment and training?
• What role could the College have in recruiting non-police officers to senior roles within the police service?
• Are police recruitment processes fair and open and how could they be improved?
• Is the Metropolitan Police Force over-represented in senior positions?
• Are there specific challenges facing the leaders of the Metropolitan Police Force, which the College of Policing should address?
• Should the professional body be responsible for civilian police employees?
• How should the College of Policing be funded?

Comment from the Chair

Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP, Chair of the Committee, said:

"As the landscape of policing is being redrawn we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to open up our police service so that it really represents the communities it serves and to build on the brilliant professionalism our forces already display.

The Home Affairs Committee is launching this inquiry so that we can make sure that everyone—the public and the police—has a real say in whether a College of Policing is the right body to bring our police forces up to date and up to scratch. We will be looking at the current make-up of leadership in police, in particular the practices within the Metropolitan Police Service which produces the vast number of chief constables.

We will be asking what tools the College will need to train up our future policing leaders and what teeth it needs to ensure that the standards we expect are met."

Written evidence is invited from interested parties. The deadline for the submission of written evidence is Friday 5 October 2012.

Source: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/home-affairs-committee/news/120808-new-inquiry---leadership/

Olympic images projected on Parliament

The Houses of Parliament building will provide the backdrop for an audio-visual night-time display of sporting heroes, past and present, during the Olympics and Paralympics this summer.

The audio-visual display will run every evening on a 15-minute loop from 9.30pm to midnight between 27 July and 12 August.

A reworked display for the Paralympics will run from 8pm to midnight between 29 August and 9 September, with the exception of 3 to 6 September when the House is sitting.

The display is designed to be seen and heard from the River Thames walkway on the opposite bank to Parliament.

Source:  http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2012/august/olympic-images-on-parliament-/

UK coalition in crisis over parliamentary reform

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's coalition government suffered its worst crisis to date on Monday when the junior partner in the two-party administration rebelled after its ally in power, the Conservatives, killed its plans to reform the House of Lords.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, said the coalition formed in 2010 had now entered new territory, though he said he would not bring down the government by withdrawing his party's overall support.

Stung by the humiliation of announcing the demise of a reform his party has championed for over a century, Clegg said his party would retaliate - by opposing boundary changes to Britain's constituencies that would have benefited the Conservatives in an election in 2015.

The rebellion is a potentially serious blow to Prime Minister David Cameron who is trying to hold the coalition together at a time when public anger at the sickly state of the economy is high and the opposition Labour party is ahead in the polls.

"The Conservative party is not honoring the commitment to Lords reform and, as a result, part of our contract has now been broken," Clegg told reporters at a hastily convened news conference. "We are in slightly new territory."

Steven Fielding, a politics professor at Nottingham University, said Clegg's rebellious riposte was probably the only way he could have responded.

"It probably guarantees the coalition will continue, but probably not as the vital force we saw in 2010," he said.

The development means that the House of Lords - the unelected upper chamber of the British parliament - is unlikely to be reformed anytime soon despite widespread criticism that most of its members are political appointees and that the so-called hereditary peers owe their seats to an accident of birth.

Although the chamber does not have the power to initiate new legislation, it scrutinizes new laws and can seriously delay them or propose serious changes to them.

The scuppering of Lords reform, a key plank of the coalition agreement struck in May 2010 with Cameron's Conservatives, is particularly damaging for Clegg as it fuels the perception that the Liberal Democrats have gained little from going into government with a party that was not their ideological ally.

Clegg said his working relationship with Cameron was "fine" but the strains of the row over Lords reform could usher in what some Liberal Democrats have warned could be a chain reaction of disagreements between the coalition partners.

That could reduce Cameron's already limited room for maneuver as he grapples with spending cuts and a $2.5 trillion economy which has contracted for the past three quarters.

'STAGGER ON'

However, neither governing party is eager to sink the coalition and spark an election during a recession, and while polls show both parties are unpopular.

Fielding said Clegg had probably done enough to fend off internal dissent and secure the coalition's immediate future.

"In terms of how it is presented to the public, it looks grubby, incoherent, very divided, a bit of a mess," he said.

"But I think (Clegg's) statement keeps it going inside the Commons, I think they'll stagger on."

Clegg's party has been seeking to replace the Lords with a voter-chosen chamber since 1911, a prize they hoped was within their grasp when they returned to power for the first time since participating in a national government during World War Two.

But 91 rebel Conservative lawmakers last month forced Cameron to drop a crucial vote on reforming the House of Lords in the biggest rebellion against Cameron's leadership.

"Clearly I cannot permit a situation where Conservative rebels can pick and choose the parts of the contract they like, while Liberal Democrat MPs (members of parliament) are bound to the entire agreement," Clegg said.

Dropping Lords reform is especially difficult for his party because he backed an unpopular proposal to increase university tuition fees as part of the coalition deal, a move that saw the Liberal Democrats hemorrhage support in opinion polls.

By blocking boundary changes to the constituencies that elect lawmakers to the House of Commons, Clegg is potentially seriously damaging Cameron's future electoral prospects as the changes were widely forecast to benefit his party.

Jeremy Hunt, a Conservative minister, said Clegg's announcement was disappointing but said the coalition would remain focused on its economic program.

"There isn't a cigarette paper between us on that. That is what we are focused on getting the gold medal for. Nothing is going to change that focus," he told Sky television.

The two parties have publicly said they aim to continue their partnership up to the next general election in 2015.

Source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/48534263

Inquiry launch: Regenerative medicine

The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee have launched an inquiry into regenerative medicine - methods to replace or regenerate human cells, tissues or organs in order to restore (or establish) normal function.

• Call for evidence: Regenerative medicine ( PDF 72 KB)
• Inquiry: Regenerative medicine
• Science and Technology Committee (Lords)

The UK is a world leader in many areas of regenerative medicine and the Committee say in its call for evidence that as well as the potential medical benefits - which might include improvements in the treatment of chronic diseases - regenerative medicine has the potential to generate economic growth for the companies developing therapies and the UK economy.

The Committee will consider whether the UK is in a position to support the translation of knowledge from world-leading research in the field of regenerative medicine to treatments, and to benefit from the associated commercial opportunities.

Some of the questions the Committee are asking are:

• How does the UK rank internationally in regenerative medicine? What are the UK’s strengths and weaknesses in the field? Who are the major funders?
• Is the science being translated into practical applications? What treatments are available on the NHS and privately? What is the potential for regenerative medicine in the next 5-10 years?
• What regulatory barriers and challenges to innovation are there in this inter-disciplinary field? How can these be overcome?
• What is the current and potential value of the sector to the UK economy?
• Is the Government doing enough to attract investment in companies working in this area? What business models are most appropriate to support development in this area?
• What can the UK learn from international competitors about supporting the development and commercialisation of regenerative medicine? What risks do UK citizens face when travelling to other countries for regenerative treatments?

Commenting, Lord Krebs, Chair of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, said:

"Regenerative medicine is a most exciting area of medicine which is rapidly developing and could  potentially deliver real improvements in health care. The UK has an excellent track record of research in this area, but we want to find out if Government is doing enough to address regulatory barriers and challenges to innovation in this field.

Regenerative medicine has the potential not only to lead to significant improvements in the treatment of chronic diseases, such as diabetes and certain kinds of blindness, but also to be a driver of growth for the pharmaceutical sector, thus contributing to the growth of UK Plc.

We welcome evidence from anyone with experience or knowledge of the sector."

Source: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/science-and-technology-committee/news/regenerative-medicine-inquiry-launch/

Coalition 'ready to drop Lords reform'

Backbench Tory rebels' bid to scupper the government's Lords reform proposals appear to have succeeded, after a report suggested David Cameron is ready to drop the proposals for good.

The Telegraph newspaper's report that the reforms have been shelved is likely to trigger further dissent within the coalition, as Liberal Democrats have viewed the reform as a fundamental part of their policy agenda.

Plans to replace the existing Lords with an 80% elected second chamber had sparked a massive rebellion among Conservative MPs worried about the primacy of the Commons.

Ninety-one opposed the Lords reform bill in its second reading debate, meaning the legislation only passed because of opposition support.

It was Labour's decision to oppose the critical programme motion limiting the time the bill could take on the floor of the Commons which proved critical, however. Once it became clear government whips could not pass the motion it became clear the bill was unlikely to survive unchanged.

Initially coalition leaders had hoped to persuade Tory rebels to back a slimmed-down version of the plan which saw the remaining hereditary peers axed. Now even that seems to have been abandoned.

Tory right-winger John Redwood called for Lords reform to be replaced with a "repeal bill" scrapping "vexatious laws and regulations".

"Now there's an idea that should appeal to ministers from both coalition parties, but I don't see them limbering up for it," he commented on his blog.

Instead Lib Dems are likely to have their disappointment at the failure of Lords reform muted by other political concessions in the coalition's midterm negotiations, which are expected to lead to a relaunch in the autumn.

Many in the coalition's junior party are likely to be deeply frustrated by the setback, however. Earlier this week the Earl of Glasgow, a Lib Dem hereditary peer, complained that defeat would make the Lib Dems look "rather foolish".

"I don't think it's going to get through," he said.

"It's going to be another constitutional humiliation for Nick Clegg and, therefore, the party."

Chris Rennard, the former Lib Dem chief executive and another of the party's peers, insisted that there was "no substitute for democracy" but accepted that party leader Nick Clegg needed to regroup quickly.

"What Nick will need to do as deputy prime minister is to show what a difference the Liberal Democrats have made and why a majority for either Conservatives or Labour at the election would be a disaster," blog Lib Dem Voice quoted him as saying.

Conservatives accept their opposition to Lords reform could cost them another of the coalition's constitutional changes - the reduction in the size of the Commons from 650 to 600 MPs and equalisation of constituency sizes.

The move is expected to give the Tories around an extra 20 MPs but hurt Labour and the Lib Dems. Senior Liberal Democrats have already warned there will be "consequences" for boundary changes if Lords reform does not go ahead.


Source: http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2012/08/03/coalition-ready-to-drop-lords-reform

UK FSA sees delay in CRD4 implementation

LONDON, Aug 1 (IFR) - The implementation of the Basel 3 framework into European law is likely to be delayed past the deadline of January 1 2013 set by the global regulations, the UK Financial Services Authority said in a statement on Wednesday.

A delay in the European Parliament plenary vote on the so-called CRD4 and the recent statement by the Rapporteur of the European Parliament, as well as the discussion of the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers, mean that it is clear the legislation will not be adopted earlier than autumn 2012, the FSA said.

No alternative date has been communicated by the EU institutions over the proposals for banks' and investment firms' capital rules, the FSA added.

The UK regulator is set to keep the situation under active review and expects all banks to do the same.

Source: http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/idINL6E8J1K9I20120801