Forty-first report of Session 2010-12 : Documents considered by the Committee on 14 September 2011, including the following recommendations for debate, Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy; Financial management: prevention of Fraud
The Model Rules of Professional Conduct provides an up-to-date resource for information on legal ethics. Federal, state and local courts in all jurisdictions look to the Rules for guidance in solving lawyer malpractice cases, disciplinary actions, disqualification issues, sanctions questions and much more. In this volume, black-letter Rules of Professional Conduct are followed by numbered Comments that explain each Rule's purpose and provide suggestions for its practical application. The Rules will help you identify proper conduct in a variety of given situations, review those instances where discretionary action is possible, and define the nature of the relationship between you and your clients, colleagues and the courts.
Suitable for students, veterinarians, and technicians, this title explains the when, why, where and how of biopsy collection and submission of samples. It includes over 140 illustrations of which 78 are color photographs of clinical and histopathological lesions.
Forty-second report of Session 2010-12 : Documents considered by the Committee on 12th October 2011, including the following recommendations for debate, financial services: prudential requirements; application of the Schengen acquis in Bulgaria and Romani
The Office of Rail Regulation (the Regulator) is the independent economic and safety regulator of the rail industry in England, Scotland and Wales. The Regulator's duties include promoting economy and efficiency in the rail industry with much of its work focusing on Network Rail, the owner and monopoly provider of the national rail network, including track, signalling and stations. Network Rail does not face normal commercial pressures from investors and lenders to improve efficiency as it is a not-for-dividend company without shareholders, financed by debt guaranteed by the Government. It is therefore the role of the Regulator to hold Network Rail to account for its performance and to incentivise it to become more efficient. The Regulator sets efficiency targets when it determines the limits on fees Network Rail can charge train operators for use of tracks, stations and depots. Sir Roy McNulty's recent review of the rail industry showed that the rail industry continued to fail to achieve effective value for money. The Committee states that the Regulator did not exert sufficient pressure on Network Rail to improve its efficiency, and that there is an absence of effective sanctions for under-performance in the system and should enforce a stronger link between performance and bonus payments to Network Rail's senior managers. The relationship between Network Rail, the Regulator and their advisors appears to the Committee to be too cosy. Network Rail should be more accountable for its use of public money, and more transparent in its operations. The Committee sets out 11 conclusions and recommendations.
The Efficiency and Reform Group (the Group) was established within the Cabinet Office in May 2010 to lead efforts to cut government spending by £6 billion in 2010-11. Its long term aim is to improve value for money across government by strengthening the central coordination of measures to improve efficiency. The imperative to make savings in the short term has involved the Group imposing new controls on departments, such as moratoria on certain expenditure. Sustained efficiency improvements, though, will need a much deeper change to both the culture and institutional structure of government. The Group also needs to clear up confusion over who is accountable for what in terms of improving value for money, especially in defining its responsibilities and those of the Treasury and individual departments. The Group's actions have resulted in efficiency savings of £3.75 billion across departments in 2010-11. It should continue to describe any future spending reductions accurately and explain any impact on services. The scale of the challenge to deliver efficiencies is huge: the Government intends that half of the £81 billion reduction in spending planned over the next three years should come from efficiencies rather than through cuts to services or delays to important projects. Many of the efficiencies must be achieved in areas where the Group currently has a limited influence, or by local bodies, where it has none. The Group should set out how it will operate to ensure that its approach can be replicated across the wider public sector.
Around half of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's budget is spent in foreign currencies. In 2008, the Treasury removed the protection it had previously provided to the Department against exchange rate fluctuations. The FCO did not have the expertise or experience to effectively manage the risk of a fall in exchange rates, and that the Treasury imposed poor value for money conditions on forward purchasing foreign currency. As a result of a decline in the value of sterling, in September 2009 the FCO faced an overspend of £91 million on its 2009-10 budget (£72 million centrally and £18.8 million overseas), out of its total budget of £1.6 billion. It made drastic cuts to reduce this overspend. The FCO did well to reduce spending so quickly, which enabled it to live within its budget. However, many of the spending cuts made were short term in nature, and involved simply delaying or stopping some activities, rather than making lasting efficiency improvements. Not enough was done to monitor and measure the impact of the cuts and there is a risk that such short term cuts can lead to increased spending in the future. The FCO needs to achieve sustainable reductions in running costs of £100 million over the next four years, and sees the overseas estate as a potential source of these efficiencies and income. But in the past, high charges have had the unintended consequence of discouraging other government departments from sharing premises.
This report examines the first year of implementation of the MPs' expenses scheme, and proposals for improving service levels in the future. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) was established in the wake of the 2009 crisis in public confidence on MPs' expenses. IPSA established itself quickly and introduced a functioning expenses system on time in May 2010. Since then, IPSA has also been paying the salaries of MPs and their staff. Expenses have been paid within the rules, and MPs have been reimbursed accurately. In 2010-11, IPSA paid out over £118 million in total, comprising £98.6 million in salaries for MPs and their staff, and £19.5 million in MPs' expenses. IPSA assesses that 99.7% of all claims made by MPs are within the rules it has set. But its expenses scheme is expensive to administer and is not yet demonstrating value for money. Overall, 38% of claims submitted in 2010-11 were for less than the average cost IPSA incurs to process them. The Committee is also concerned about the lack of clear, easily accessible guidance for MPs and their staff, and the cumbersome nature of some processes, such as payment card reconciliation. There are two remaining issues which IPSA needs to address. Public confidence could be improved further if IPSA made clearer public statements about approved claims being wholly within the rules. And salaries should be separated from true expenses.