RIO+20 ACHIEVEMENTS

The Parliamentary Information Office of the Parliamentary Yearbook is currently gathering news items for major features on sustainable energy and climate change in the next edition and has been monitoring progress at Rio+20 towards a greener future.


United Nations senior officials have highlighted the achievements made during the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) held from 20th to 22nd June in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, stressing that they represent a global movement of change in which governments, the private sector and civil society all contribute to achieve global prosperity while protecting the environment.


Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said at a General Assembly meeting on 28th June on the outcome of the Conference:


“Let me be clear. Rio+20 was a success, in Rio, we saw the further evolution of an undeniable global movement for change.”


More than 40,000 people – including parliamentarians, mayors, UN officials, chief executive officers and civil society leaders – attended Rio+20 from 20-22 June. The event followed on from the Earth Summit in 1992, also held in Rio de Janeiro, during which countries adopted Agenda 21 – a blueprint to rethink economic growth, advance social equity and ensure environmental protection.


World leaders attending the summit on sustainable development approved the agreements drawn up earlier in the week following negotiations by 193 countries.


In his remarks, Mr. Ban highlighted several parts of the Rio+20 outcome document, entitled ‘The Future We Want,’ which he hailed as “an important victory for multilateralism after months of difficult negotiations.”


These sentiments were echoed by the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman who welcomed the progress made towards a more sustainable future at Rio+20.


Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who led the UK delegation, set out the UK’s ambition to build on the Rio+20 agreement. Addressing the final plenary, he said:


“This week we have agreed to set Sustainable Development Goals. I want to see progress in agreeing these within the post-2015 development framework, so that – as at the original Rio conference – the environment and development are again part of a coherent whole. I would like to think that the ideas we have promoted here – governments, civil society, consumers and business working together and concepts like the green economy and natural capital – will be central to the way we all behave.


“We need to turn words into action. We need to work together to change behaviours, to change all our mindsets and put our world on a more sustainable footing. That’s why the UK Environment Secretary and I have been using the unique platform that Rio provides to talk to fellow leaders from around the world about how we turn these ideas into reality.”


Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman, who led talks in reaching the agreement, said:


“We came to Rio with a clear set of ambitious aims on totally new concepts such as Sustainable Development Goals and GDP+, and we should be positive that we have made good progress on all them.


“Rio+20 has shown that there is political ambition for change. Now we have to make sure that will is not squandered. We have already started to make headway in the talks held since the text was agreed, such as good progress towards deciding on the themes the Sustainable Development Goals should cover.”


Key points from the agreement for the UK are:


•    Agreement to establish Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The United Nations General Assembly will appoint a group of representatives from 30 countries by September to develop the goals, with our aim for these goals to focus on food, water and energy
•    Recognition of the importance of the green economy as a way to help nations to grow sustainably, and to help eradicate poverty
•    A call from all nations at Rio+20 for businesses to adopt ways of reporting on their sustainability performance, as championed by the UK delegation and businesses such as Aviva.
•    Recognition by all nations at Rio+20 of the importance of including the value of natural capital and social wellbeing into decision making will be given real force by having a UN commission undertake the work on GDP plus.
•    Oceans to be given greater prominence with a commitment to extend marine conservation to on the high seas.
•    A call for enhanced efforts to sustainably manage forests including reforestation, restoration and afforestation. The agreement highlights the importance of initiatives such as REDD+ in reducing emissions from deforestation.


The Deputy Prime Minister and Caroline Spelman have been working to implement the agreed text over the final three days of the summit.


A Natural Capital Summit was hosted by Nick Clegg with the leaders of nations including Norway, Denmark, Costa Rica and Gabon to announce that 50 countries and 50 global firms have made commitments to include the value of natural resources in their accounts as part of the World Bank’s 50/50 campaign.


Caroline Spelman held talks with world leaders including Presidents and Prime Ministers to discuss how to take forward work on Sustainable Development Goals, which led to a developing consensus on the themes that SDGs should cover – including food, water and energy that the UK has pushed for.


Rio+20 has also been used as an opportunity for many bilateral meetings with other nations to discuss environmental projects, trade, and ways to boost growth and create jobs in the UK.


The Parliamentary Information Office of the Parliamentary Yearbook will continue to report on environmental issues and their impact on the UK as we go through the months ahead.


Web: Parliamentary Information Office


Email: parliamentaryyearbook@blakemedia.org

Coalition partners take sides on House of Lords reform

Reform of the House of Lords has turned into a parliamentary showdown for the UK's coalition government.

The government wants a smaller and mostly-elected second chamber in Parliament - a cherished goal for Liberal Democrats who have tried to up the pressure on their sceptical coalition partners.

But many Conservatives remain opposed and will vote no.

A two-day debate began in Westminster on Monday. MPs will vote on a timetable for the bill on Tuesday.

Here are the views of two coalition members on either side of the argument.

One is as a Tory MP who earned his seat in Westminster through the ballot box, but he doesn't think peers should do the same.

The other is a Lib Dem who owes his place in the Lords to an appointment, but thinks its high time we scrapped the system.

Simon Hart, Conservative MP for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire

 

I support reform of the House of Lords, but not an elected one. A strange point to get excited about but it's suddenly triggered a surge of principle.

 

The Lords is a curious place, made up of curious people. But it does deliver what it is meant to. It improves and revises some of our ideas in the Commons. It cannot overrule us, as we are elected and they are not, and it provides a degree of objectivity, wisdom and experience that we are so often accused of lacking our end of the building.

So here we all are getting worked up about how it should look and not, it seems, worrying about what it should do. The next few weeks will be dominated by lengthy debates on the finer constitutional arguments - and yet across the country jobs are in jeopardy, businesses are struggling and the Euro crisis grows more threatening.

I've supported some incredibly hard decisions about reducing the size of the armed forces and the police, yet how does the creation of 450 new paid politicians look if you are serving soldier wondering if your regiment is to be scrapped, or a Dyfed-Powys Police officer worried about pension reforms?

We said we would reduce the cost of politics and yet the "new Lords" (and all the accompanying staff and expenses) will be paid a great deal more than our servicemen and set us back an estimated £500 million, over four times what it costs now.

Are we not charged with fixing the economy as an absolute priority? Doesn't pursuing political ideology in the midst of recession look just a bit self indulgent?

I was elected as a Conservative and have always felt happy to support the Party whose principles got me here in the first place. I am not a rebel and have only once failed to support the government on a flagship measure (VAT on static caravans, a crucial industry in west Wales).

But on this issue I will sadly have to vote no. This will cost money that we do not have and use time we cannot afford. It will create divisions we do not need. It will deliver nothing we really want and it will destroy a system that, despite many failings, has stood the test of time. To do that for the public good is one thing, but to do it purely for political expediency is not a good enough reason for me.

Lord German, former Welsh Liberal Democrat leader

One hundred years is too long to wait.

If someone said that a plan had been discussed for 100 years, and during your lifetime had been agreed by everyone then you might be forgiven for thinking it was about time it got sorted.

The plan is a simple one: that the people who make the laws which govern us all should be elected by the people. Now after one hundred years of green papers, white papers, command papers and a Royal commission we have a government bill to put things right. To ensure that the overwhelming majority of members of our House of Lords are elected.

 

That is not to say that my colleagues in the House of Lords are doing a bad job. They are doing an excellent job - but they are ultimately responsible to no-one except perhaps to the political party which put them there. The public has no say in the way we make our decisions and that cannot be right.

All the major parties know that this situation cannot continue and that's why it found its way into the manifestos at the last general election. Our House of Lords clearly does not represent the people.

So in many ways this is a small change. Making sure the people of Wales have a fair share of the voices and views in the House of Lords is just one wrong that will be put right. The south-east of England is hugely over represented and Wales does not get the number of members it deserves.

The House of Lords does a very good job checking and revising the laws of our land and holding the government to account. It can spend more time on issues than the House of Commons - and continually makes our laws better and more fit for purpose. It has the time to look in great detail, and analyses the government's plans. No law in our country can take effect until both Houses have agreed.

None of this will change. The government's proposed changes will give the new House (perhaps to be called by a different name such as the Senate) exactly the same powers as now.

And for the first time Wales will get its right share of members, using a system of fair voting so that diverse opinions are reflected in the new chamber.

Wales will have a new democratic voice in our Parliament. About time too.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-18767196

Enfeebled, yes, but parliament is still the best judge of scandal

Poor parliament. Its powers stripped by the European Union, the courts and the devolved assemblies. Its proceedings controlled by the executive. Its members so mocked by the media and the public it appears that the British loathe the sight of their politicians, and wish only for an escape from representative democracy.

As soon as a crisis begins, the cry goes up for an outside agency to take charge: for the unelected officials of the Bank of England to acquire more powers; for the Office for Budget Responsibility to deliver accounts of the national debt politicians cannot be trusted to provide. As soon as a scandal emerges, offended parties call for lawyers to hold "independent" inquiries and judicial reviews.

Bob Diamond's condescension to the Treasury select committee demonstrated the ignominy into which parliament has fallen. Diamond would never have dared address a judge by his or her first name. But the gilded banker felt no qualms about calling the gelded members "Jesse", "Andrea", "Michael", "David" and "Andy". If he had been before a judge, Diamond – or should that be "Bob" or maybe "Bobby"? – would have made sure that his evidence was beyond reproach.

As it was, when Andrew Tyrie, the committee chairman, asked: "Is it true the FSA [Financial Services Authority] was concerned about your appointment as chief executive and sought assurances there would be a change of culture?" Diamond replied: "I got very strong support for my appointment to chief executive." Maybe the £120m he pocketed between 2005 and 2012 clouded his memory, but letters from the FSA in Tyrie's possession showed that it was concerned about Diamond's promotion and wanted assurances from the Barclays board that its aggressive culture would change.

Add in the sight of George Osborne and Ed Balls turning the ruin of the hopes of millions into an excuse to abuse each other, and the case against parliament seems complete.

But you cannot escape politics, nor should you want to. Although, like many others, I want a judge to investigate the worst riot of capitalism since 1929, I know that the history of judicial investigations into politically sensitive scandals is mixed. They are like psychoanalysis: the process is revealing, but the conclusions are banal.

 

The evidence to the Leveson inquiry produced an exposé that tabloid journalism will never live down. But if you imagine that Lord Justice Leveson's findings will force Jeremy Hunt to resign, remember the dashed expectations of all those who thought that Lord Justice Hutton's inquiry into the Iraq war would force the resignations or Tony Blair and Geoff Hoon.

Or consider Lord Franks's report on the Falklands war of 1982. The judge itemised all the blunders that allowed the Argentinian junta to invade. But he could not bring himself to hold a single minister responsible in his concluding comments. "For 338 paragraphs he painted a splendid picture, delineated the light and the shade, and the glowing colours in it," said James Callaghan in the Commons debate on the Franks report. But "when Franks got to paragraph 339 he got fed up with the canvas he was painting, and chucked a bucket of whitewash over it".

When they sit alone in their study, investigating judges must wonder what right they have to bring down politicians. Britain is a democracy, not a judgocracy. It is the job of MPs to end the career of ministers. If they do not, the voters can remove them at an election. Who are judges to interfere?

I have no way of knowing whether Leveson will break with tradition by forcing Hunt out, or instead apply the customary coat of whitewash. But there is a second restriction on "independent" inquiries he is already observing. If an investigating judge wants to change the law, he has to persuade the despised politicians to change it for him. During the Leveson inquiry, there was a telling, and alarming, moment when the judge explained to Michael Gove his plans for a new press regulator. Membership would be voluntary, but if a newspaper refused to join, the courts might hit it with "exemplary damages", he said, because the paper could have had the libel or privacy action resolved "very easily" under the Leveson system.

The journalists he imagined defying him and receiving "exemplary" punishment were not the Peeping Toms of the tabloids but the staff of Private Eye, who expose corruption in the City, media, government and the law rather than find pleasure from making Sienna Miller cry. I had forgotten, until Leveson reminded me, that the legal establishment has always been the enemy of serious journalism. I was as struck by the judge's reaction to Gove's reply. The minister implied that Leveson was 30 years behind the times. Every web page was now a newspaper. Everyone who wrote online was now a journalist. Were all of them to submit to the judge's new regulator or face "exemplary" punishments? A truculent note entered Leveson's voice as Gove contradicted him. He realised that for his controls to work, politicians must approve them, and the politician in front of him would not.

People who hate all politicians end up hating themselves. By all means hate this minister or that party, but remember the difference between politicians and judges, journalists, bankers and European commissioners. The electorate can remove its elected representatives. Say that power does not matter because "they're all the same" or "only in it for themselves" and you are denying the possibility of democratic renewal.

In their small way, the Commons select committees have been making the possible real. The public accounts committee (PAC) has responded to the crisis by pushing the permanent secretary at Revenue & Customs into taking early retirement because of his sweetheart deals with the vulture capitalists of Goldman Sachs.

The PAC and the other parliamentary committees could do much more, but they need help. The American equivalent of the PAC has 120 staff. A British committee is lucky to have just one clerk. Those who would deny our representatives resources because they think that all politicians are crooks are only serving the interests of Bob Diamond and his kind.

Leaving all other considerations aside, the prime minister establishes "independent" public inquiries, while select committees are free to examine what they will. When the prime minister refuses to initiate a judicial investigation into the banking scandal or any other scandal, we are where we always have been: stuck with parliament. A poor thing, but our own.


Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/08/nick-cohen-bob-diamond-barclays

UK Parliament to vote on structure of bank probe

LONDON — Britain's House of Commons is set to vote Thursday on how it wants to investigate the banking industry in the wake of the scandal of interest rate manipulation at Barclays.

Prime Minister David Cameron is seeking approval for his plan for what he calls a "swift and decisive" investigation to wrap up by the end of the year.

Opposition Labour Party leader Ed Miliband has called for a longer inquiry led by a judge, though he has suggested this could follow the shorter probe backed by Cameron.

The debate has been highly partisan. On Wednesday, Cameron said Labour politicians "want to talk about absolutely everything apart from their record of 13 years in government."

Miliband has accused Cameron of failing to understand the depth of public concern. Miliband's proposal was defeated in the House of Lords, but the Commons has the last word.

Parliament has been stirred into action by the rate-setting scandal disclosed last week which cost Barclays bank $435 million in fines.

British regulators also announced last week that Barclays and three other big U.K. banks had agreed to a settlement of complaints that they had sold interest-rate protection products, some of them complex plans linked to derivatives, to borrowers who didn't understand or need them.

"People want to know that crime in our banks and financial services will be pursued and punished like crimes on our streets," Cameron said Wednesday. "As well as people being held accountable, the public want rapid action to make sure that this cannot happen again."

Cameron stoked partisan emotions earlier in the week by saying he wanted to see Ed Balls, a Labour politician who was a Treasury minister in the previous Labour government, put on trial.

"No one would like to see him in the dock of a courtroom more than me, but the job here is to get on with it, find the answers, and put them into law," Cameroon said.

Miliband argues that a parliamentary inquiry into banks wouldn't restore confidence.

"However able or distinguished they are, politicians investigating bankers will not command the consent of the British people," he said.

Miliband wants an inquiry like the current probe of Britain's media industry, led by a judge with a senior lawyer questioning witnesses under oath.

Members of Cameron's Conservative Party ceaselessly note that Labour was in power when two big British banks were rescued by taxpayers and that former Prime Minster Gordon Brown of Labour had boasted of the "light touch" financial regulation when he was Treasury chief.

Miliband counters that Conservatives, including Cameron, were demanding even lighter regulation before the 2008 crash.

Source: http://www.bradenton.com/2012/07/05/4103747/uk-parliament-to-vote-on-structure.html

Read more here: http://www.bradenton.com/2012/07/05/4103747/uk-parliament-to-vote-on-structure.html#storylink=cpy

So

Read more here: http://www.bradenton.com/2012/07/05/4103747/uk-parliament-to-vote-on-structure.html#storylink=cpy

 

Fourth Of July Fireworks In The U.K.: Barclays' Diamond To Face Parliament

In Tuesday’s Forbes Markets Desk video, Halah Touryalai and I discussed Bob Diamond’s resignation as Barclays chief executive, just a day before he testifies in front of Parliament over the bank’s involvement in manipulating interest rates:

Barclays may have thought it was wrapping up a cross-border investigation into rate-rigging when it agreed to settle with three regulators for more than $450 million June 27, but it turns out the firm’s problems were just beginning.

Bob Diamond, who was head of Barclays Capital at the time the Libor-rate manipulation is said to have occurred and subsequently became CEO of the entire bank, is set to testify before Parliament Wednesday, a day after resigning.

The resignation itself was said to be forced by the Bank of England and Financial Services Authority, after the resignation of Chairman Marcus Agius Monday proved insufficient to sate the regulators, who may not have clean hands in the matter, based on reports that the BoE may have suggested the bank rein in its Libor submissions when they consistently came in at the upper end of the range from the banks surveyed.

Diamond, who no longer has his place at the helm of Barclays to protect, may not have any incentive to pull any punches when it comes to whether regulators had any role in the wide-ranging scheme to keep the Libor rate low, which had roots in more banks than just Barclays. Those banks — including UBS, Royal Bank of Scotland and JPMorgan Chase among others — are undoubtedly watching the developments at Barclays with great interest.

Wednesday’s hearing, before Parliament’s Treasury Select Committee, begins at 2 p.m. in London Wednesday, 9 a.m. in New York.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2012/07/03/fourth-of-july-fireworks-in-the-u-k-barclays-diamond-faces-parliament/

UK may hold bank bosses to account for rogue staff

LONDON--U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron Monday announced that a full parliamentary committee of inquiry will be held into the banking scandal that saw Barclays PLC (BCS) last week pay a $453 million settlement for manipulating the interbank lending rates.

The committee of inquiry will be led by Andrew Tyrie, who is the chairman of parliament's Treasury Select Committee, and will have the power to take evidence under oath.

"It will have full access to papers, officials and ministers, including ministers and special advisers from the last government," Mr. Cameron told lawmakers in the House of Commons, the lower house in the U.K.


parliament. "This is the right approach because it will be able to start immediately, it will be accountable to this house and it will get to the truth quickly so we can make sure this never happens again."

Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne will announce further details of the committee of inquiry later Monday.

News of the parliamentary inquiry comes after Barclays said it would launch an independently led audit of its business practices. The bank's Chairman Marcus Agius also Monday confirmed he would resign, taking responsibility for last week's multi-million dollar settlement of an interest-rate manipulation probe.

Source: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/uks-cameron-to-set-up-full-parliamentary-committee-inquiry-into-banking-20120702-00740

Goldman Ex-Banker Shakes Up ‘Basket Case’ U.K. Hospital

In the hands of England’s government-run health system, Hinchingbrooke Hospital was called “a basket case” in Parliament. Ali Parsa wants to show that private enterprise can do a better job than the state in providing medical care.

Parsa, an ex-Goldman Sachs Group Inc. banker, wants to change how U.K. hospitals are run, right down to the meals served to patients. He’s chief executive officer of Circle Holdings Plc (CIRC), which in February became the first for-profit firm to take over a National Health Service hospital when it began managing Hinchingbrooke in Huntingdon, England. Circle last month raised 46 million pounds ($72.3 million) in part to help the company pursue contracts to manage more NHS sites.

“People told us you can never run a hospital a different way; you can never change the way NHS staff work,” Parsa, 47, says in an interview at the company’s London headquarters. “We have fundamentally changed them.”

As the U.S. debates what role government should have in health care, the U.K. is slowly putting some pieces of its 64- year-old state-run health system into private hands to try to improve patient care and reduce costs. Prime Minister David Cameron says more choice and competition are needed to improve the NHS. Instilling a profit motive in a government-owned hospital means patient needs won’t come first, said Allyson Pollock, a researcher at Queen Mary, University of London who opposes privatization.

“It’s immoral, it’s obscene,” she said in an interview. “It’s a system that’s going to be built on greed, not need. It’s the antithesis of everything that we worked for for 64 years.”

Emergency-Room Waits

From a medical point of view, Parsa appears to be doing something right. Emergency-room waits at Hinchingbrooke, 70 miles north of London, have improved from the county’s worst to its best and lengths of stay for people getting non-urgent orthopedic care have dropped 38 percent, freeing up beds. The company says serious incidents, such as medication errors or patient falls, fell by 80 percent in May. Circle also will save 1.5 million pounds on purchasing this year.

Circle’s bid for the 10-year contract to run Hinchingbrooke beat 18 others. The company gets the first 2 million pounds of profit from any surplus, and a percentage above that amount, which the union that represents hospital workers has said will benefit the company and its shareholders at patients’ expense. Circle must also fund the first 5 million pounds of any loss, a risk at a hospital that already has 40 million pounds of debt.

Patient Perks

Circle isn’t new to the NHS. Its two-year-old private hospital near Bath serves as many NHS patients as private patients -- at NHS prices. Circle has run the U.K.’s largest treatment center in Nottingham since 2008. The company plans to open another private hospital in Reading in August or September and has sites for more clinics.

Parsa says it’s possible not only to provide quality care and a pleasant patient experience for rich and poor patients alike, but to make money in the process. At the core of the business strategy is increased efficiency, primarily through shorter hospital stays. Patient perks, like inexpensive parking and food prepared by a chef from a Michelin-starred eatery, ensure that hospital beds stay full with more rapid turnover.

In Bath, Circle hired a hotel manager and chef from nearby Lucknam Park Hotel & Spa, a five-star country house hotel. People from the local village of Peasedown celebrate their birthdays in the hospital cafe, says Shelagh Meldrum, the hospital manager. No wonder: A recent lunch served to patients consisted of scallops and crab salad over dill and cucumber, followed by a gently grilled salmon main course and lemon posset for dessert.

Stock Performance

Taxi driver Dave McGlennon had a cyst removed from a finger last year at the hospital. A high point: the food. “I had a ham and cheese omelette with potato wedges” after surgery, McGlennon says. “It was to die for.”

Financially, Circle has yet to succeed. The company had revenue of 75 million pounds last year and has lost money every year since it was founded in 2004. Circle’s stock has plunged 51 percent to 75 pence since its June 2011 initial public offering, giving the company a market value of 98 million pounds.

The publicly traded company owns 50.1 percent of a partnership that operates the hospitals and clinics. Parsa and institutional investors Lansdowne Partners, BlackRock Inc. (BLK) (BLK), Odey Asset Management and Invesco Perpetual are among the shareholders. Employees, including doctors, own the other 49.9 percent.

Source: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-01/goldman-ex-banker-shakes-up-basket-case-u-dot-k-dot-hospital