DOCSLIB.ORG

Private Finance Initiative

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Private Finance Initiative House of Commons Treasury Committee Private Finance Initiative Seventeenth Report of Session 2010–12 Volume II Additional written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be published 17 May and 18 July 2011 Published August 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited The Treasury Committee The Treasury Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of HM Treasury, HM Revenue and Customs and associated public bodies. Current membership Mr Andrew Tyrie MP (Conservative, Chichester) (Chairman) Tom Blenkinsop MP (Labour, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) John Cryer MP (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead) Michael Fallon MP (Conservative, Sevenoaks) Mark Garnier MP (Conservative, Wyre Forest) Stewart Hosie MP (Scottish National Party, Dundee East) Andrea Leadsom MP (Conservative, South Northamptonshire) Mr Andy Love MP (Labour, Edmonton) John Mann MP (Labour, Bassetlaw) Mr George Mudie MP (Labour, Leeds East) Jesse Norman MP (Conservative, Hereford and South Herefordshire) David Ruffley MP, (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds) John Thurso MP (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland, and Easter Ross) Mr Chuka Umunna MP (Labour, Streatham) was also a member of the Committee during the inquiry. Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/treascom. The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in printed volume(s). Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Chris Stanton (Clerk), David Slater (Second Clerk), Jay Sheth, Peter Stam and Daniel Fairhead (Committee Specialists), Phil Jones (Senior Committee Assistant), Caroline McElwee (Committee Assistant), Steve Price (Committee Support Assistant) and Nick Davies (Media Officer). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Treasury Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 5768; the Committee’s email address is [email protected] List of additional written evidence (published in Volume II on the Committee’s website www.parliament.uk/treascom) 1 North Yorkshire Waste Action Group Ev w1 2 Nick Collard Ev w4 3 British Medical Association Ev w9 4 Colin Raynor Ev w12 5 T Martin Blaiklock, Consultant, Infrastructure & Energy Project Finance Ev w16 6 Royal Institute of British Architects Ev w20 7 Lisa Smeaton Ev w22 8 John Sullivan Ev w23 9 Canmore Partnership Ltd Ev w23 10 KPMG LLP, John Laing Plc and Lloyds Banking Group Plc Ev w27 11 Professor Lewis Lesley, Technical Director, Trampower Ev w30 12 CBI Ev w31 13 Hogan Lovells Ev w35 14 Donald Roy Ev w38 15 Skanska Ev w39 16 Greg Dropkin and Sam Semoff on behalf of Keep Our NHS Public (Merseyside) Ev w43 17 Healthcare Audit Consultants Ltd Ev w47 18 J P Heawood Ev w51 19 BDO LLP Ev w53 20 Kent Police Ev w57 21 Dr Yseult Marique, University of Essex Ev w59 22 Professor Ron Hodges Ev w63 23 Edward Milner Ev w66 24 UK Contractors Group Ev w66 25 Andrew Barrie, Vice President Operations and Jon Mitchell, Development Director, KBR International Government Defence Ev w70 26 Dr Richard Thorne Ev w73 27 Meridiam Infrastructure Ev w73 28 PPP Forum Ev w77 29 Dundas & Wilson CS LLP Ev w81 30 The Foundation Trust Network Ev w86, w134 31 The International Project Finance Association Ev w87 32 Dr Andrew Edkins, Graham Ive and Alex Murray, University of London Ev w93 33 Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Ev w97 34 Oxon PFI Alert Group Ev w100 35 Frances Kelly Ev w101 36 Dr James Robertson Ev w101 37 Globalise Resistance Ev w103 38 Barclays Infrastructure Funds Management Ltd Ev w105 39 North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust Ev w112 40 Dr Chris Lonsdale, University of Birmingham Ev w115 41 The Specialist Engineering Contractors’ Group Ev w118 42 Dexter Whitfield, Director, European Services Strategy Unit and Adjunct Associate Professor, Australian Institute for Social Research, University of Adelaide Ev w120 43 Equility Capital Ltd Ev w126 44 Professor Allyson Pollock, Queen Mary, University of London Ev w129 45 Professor David Heald Ev w130 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [SO] Processed: [04-08-2011 07:57] Job: 012808 Unit: PG01 Treasury Committee: Evidence Ev w1 Written evidence Written evidence submitted by North Yorkshire Waste Action Group Executive Summary 1. NYWAG believe PFI is inflexible, expensive and inherently wasteful of public resources. In waste management, it tends to lead to large capital-intensive projects that lock Local Authorities (LAs) into long- term (~25 year) inflexible contracts. This locks out technical developments, discourages greener options and freezes out cheaper solutions such as providing services through a multiplicity of local providers who would create many more jobs. 2. In PFI there is a conflict of interest between the desire to make the best use of the skills and knowledge of the private sector, the inevitable self-interest of firms motivated by profit and the democratic wishes of local communities. Separation of responsibilities between waste management consultants and the eventual contractor could help address this issue. This is especially important where the public sector lacks sufficient experience to act as an informed customer. 3. PFI projects are generally more costly; private debt always costs more than public debt and PFI incurs additional transaction and financing costs. In long PFI contracts managing the quality of service is difficult. 4. The psychological impact from greater transparency and visibility of debt would have reduced the use of PFI. Problems with lack of transparency render bringing PFI debt on to the balance sheet imperative. 5. Under PFI, public bodies are expected to develop interdependent relationships with suppliers that allow risk to be transferred. This often leads to asymmetrical relationships where the private body holds much of the power so risk isn’t transferred. Moreover, risk is often factored into the original cost so facilities cost markedly more than if funded directly. As the public sector wants the project to do the intended job, if the contractor faces real difficulties in meeting the PFI terms then the state is likely to bail them out. This implicit guarantee renders risk transfer to the private sector somewhat illusory 6. Observing the decision-making process locally makes us doubt whether PFI is a suitable vehicle for LAs, particularly for large projects where the LA has little or no experience (eg MSW incineration). There are also dangers in many LAs taking similar decisions at about the same time (a classical “bubble” situation). An immediate decision to remove PFI support for incineration projects would reduce this risk and save the taxpayer £billions. Introduction 1. NYWAG believe PFI is inflexible, expensive and wasteful of public resources. In municipal solid waste (MSW) management, it tends to lead to large capital-intensive projects that lock Local Authorities (LAs) into inflexible long-term contracts which lock out technical developments and discourage greener options This is particularly unfortunate as rapid technical progress is being made in MSW management in several competing technologies. This is contrary to the current opportunity to create an environmentally sound strategy for MSW management. This would reduce the amount of waste produced, maximize re-use and recycling and avoid incineration with its inflexibility, high capital costs and financial, environmental and health risks. 2. Our evidence derives largely from the perspective of MSW management following the Landfill Directive. While PFI may impact differently in other areas, some of the factors concerned are common. Strengths and weaknesses of public procurement methods 3. We cannot review all methods of public procurement. Instead we examine some of the tensions involved in using PFI: (a) There is a conflict of interest between the desire to make the best use of the skills and knowledge of the private sector, the inevitable self-interest of firms motivated by profit and the democratic wishes of local communities. Moving towards a “zero waste” economy requires public acceptance, making it crucial that LAs use waste management consultants guided by strong “green” central government policies to derive their waste strategies. Only after doing this with full public consultation should waste management firms be brought in. Separation of responsibility between those who design the strategy and those who implement it is essential. PFI doesn’t provide this safeguard. (b) In MSW management, some LAs have insufficient knowledge to design a viable, cost-effective strategy that meets local needs. When moving away from a landfill-based strategy, this makes them over-reliant on private sector advice but without the experience to act effectively as informed customers. Reliance on their PFI partner during public consultation risks a “sham” consultation with commercial interests playing too strong a role. (c) There is a democratic deficit. Small local (eg parish) councils can object strongly to major developments in their area but have no effective say in whether they go ahead. They (and local people) should be given a much stronger say. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 07:57] Job: 012808 Unit: PG01 Ev w2 Treasury Committee: Evidence 4. PFI projects cost more than direct-funded ones due to financing costs which a public sector alternative would not incur; Pollock et al (BMJ, 342: 1205–209, 2002) found that on average financing costs for NHS PFI schemes in three areas added 39% to total capital costs.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Guide to Construction Arbitration
    Global Arbitration Review The Guide to Construction Arbitration General Editors Stavros Brekoulakis and David Brynmor Thomas QC Third Edition © Law Business Research The Guide to Construction Arbitration Third Edition Editors Stavros Brekoulakis and David Brynmor Thomas QC Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd This article was first published in October 2019 For further information please contact [email protected] arg © Law Business Research Publisher David Samuels Account Manager Bevan Woodhouse Editorial Coordinator Hannah Higgins Head of Production Adam Myers Deputy Head of Production Simon Busby Copy-editor Claire Ancell Proofreader Rakesh Rajani Published in the United Kingdom by Law Business Research Ltd, Meridian House, 34-35 Farringdon Street, London EC4A 4HL, UK © 2019 Law Business Research Ltd www.globalarbitrationreview.com No photocopying: copyright licences do not apply. The information provided in this publication is general and may not apply in a specific situation, nor does it necessarily represent the views of authors’ firms or their clients. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any legal action based on the information provided. The publishers accept no responsibility for any acts or omissions contained herein. Although the information provided is accurate as of September 2019, be advised that this is a developing area. Enquiries concerning reproduction should be sent to Law Business Research, at the address above. Enquiries concerning editorial content should be directed
    [Show full text]
  • Employers and Other Organisations Involved in Trailblazers
    Employers and other Organisations Involved in Trailblazers Accountancy – Led by organisations including Baker Tilly, BDO, Costain, Dains, Deloitte, Government Finance Profession, , Ernst & Young, Flemmings, Grant Thornton, Hall and Woodhouse, Harvey & Son, Hazlewoods LLP, Health Education East of England, Kingston Smith, KPMG, Lentells Chartered Accountants, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, NHS Employers, PwC, Solid State Solutions and Warrington and Halton Hospital NHS Foundation Trust with the Association of Accounting Technicians (AAT), Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA), Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA), Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW). This has developed standards for Professional Accounting Technician and Professional Accountant. Accountancy (Phase 4) – Led by organisations including Derby Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Selby Jones Ltd; Shapcotts; Skills for Health Academy (North West); Bibby Ship Management; Jackson Stephen LLP; HFMA; Civil Service; Spofforths LLP; Norse Commercial Services Ltd; Norbert Dentressangle; Charles Wells Limited; TaxAssist Accountants; Mazars; Armstrong Watson; MHA Bloomer Heaven developing standards for Assistant Accountant. Actuarial –Led by organisations including Aon Hewitt, Barnett Waddingham, Grant Thornton, KPMG, Mercer, Munich Re, PwC and RSA with the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries. This has developed a standard for Actuarial Technician. Adult Care – Led by organisations including Barchester Healthcare, Caretech Community Services, Creative Support, Hand in Hands, Hendra Health Care (Ludlow), Hertfordshire County Council, Housing and Care 21, Oxfordshire County Council, Progressive Care, Surrey County Council, West England Centre for Inclusive Living, Woodford Homecare. This will develop the standards for Lead Practitioner in Adult Care, and Leader/Manager in Adult Care.
    [Show full text]
  • UK Certification Authority for Reinforcing Steels
    Pembroke House, 21 Pembroke Road UK Certification Sevenoaks, Kent, TN13 1XR Tel: 00 44 1732 450000 Authority for Fax: 00 44 1732 455917 Reinforcing Steels Email : [email protected] Website: www.ukcares.com Tel: 01732 450000 Ref.: CC7619LB 31 October 2013 TO ALL SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONALS CARES Sustainability Scheme enables sustainable procurement and construction The rapidly increasing demand for greener buildings and infrastructure provides both challenges and opportunities in relation to the structural materials used, especially reinforcing steel. Accurate, accessible and timely information on the environmental and social impact of using different materials is increasingly important for designers, contractors and procurers to satisfy green building rating systems. These systems award credits based on the environmental impact of materials and for materials responsibly sourced, aiming to encourage the use of materials with lower environmental impacts over their lifecycle, and to recognize and encourage the specification of responsibly sourced structural materials. The CARES Sustainability Scheme provides a means by which approved firms in the reinforcing steel supply chain are able to declare product and organisational level sustainability performance, and achieve credits in the green building rating systems such as BREEAM and LEED. BREEAM is the UK’s most prominent green building rating system. The CARES Sustainability Scheme has been assessed, by BRE Global, against the requirements for responsible sourcing credits within BREEAM New Construction 2011 and has achieved entry into Tier 4 of Table 10- 2 in the Mat 03 issue [Responsible sourcing of materials]. The key features and benefits of the CARES Sustainability Scheme are summarised as follows, with further details and endorsements of the Scheme available on the CARES website, www.ukcares.com.
    [Show full text]
  • Government's Response
    House of Commons Liaison Committee Civil Service: lacking capacity: Government response to the Committee’s First Report of Session 2013–14 First Special Report of Session 2013–14 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 1 April 2014 HC 1216 Published on 2 April 2014 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £5.00 Liaison Committee The Liaison Committee is appointed to consider general matters relating to the work of select committees; to advise the House of Commons Commission on select committees; to choose select committee reports for debate in the House and to hear evidence from the Prime Minister on matters of public policy. Current membership Rt Hon Sir Alan Beith MP (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Chair) The Chair of the following Select Committees are members of the Liaison Committee: Administration – Rt Hon Sir Alan Haselhurst MP (Conservative, Saffron Walden) Backbench Business – Natascha Engel MP (Labour, North East Derbyshire) Business, Innovation and Skills – Mr Adrian Bailey MP (Labour/Co-op, West Bromwich West) Communities and Local Government – Mr Clive Betts MP (Labour, Sheffield South East) Culture, Media and Sport – Mr John Whittingdale MP (Conservative, Maldon) Defence – Rt Hon James Arbuthnot MP (Conservative, North East Hampshire) Education – Mr Graham Stuart MP (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness) Energy and Climate Change – Mr Tim Yeo MP (Conservative, South Suffolk) Environmental Audit – Joan Walley MP (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent North) Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
    [Show full text]
  • New Peers Created Have Fallen from 244 Under David Cameron’S Six Years As Prime Minister to Only 37 to Date Under Theresa May
    \ For more information on DeHavilland and how we can help with political monitoring, custom research and consultancy, contact: +44 (0)20 3033 3870 [email protected] Information Services Ltd 2018 0 www.dehavilland.co.uk INTRODUCTION & ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 2 CONSERVATIVES ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Diana Barran MBE .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 The Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Garnier QC ........................................................................................................................... 5 The Rt. Hon. Sir Alan Haselhurst.................................................................................................................................. 7 The Rt. Hon. Peter Lilley ................................................................................................................................................ 8 Catherine Meyer CBE ................................................................................................................................................... 10 The Rt. Hon. Sir Eric Pickles ........................................................................................................................................ 11 The Rt. Hon. Sir John
    [Show full text]
  • Led by Organisations Including ABP, Dunbia, Tulip, Dawn Meats, WM Perry
    Abattoir, Red Meat Slaughter And Primary Processing – Led by organisations including ABP, Dunbia, Tulip, Dawn Meats, W M Perry Ltd, C H Rowley Ltd, Peter Coates (Alrewas) Ltd, JA Jewett (Meat) Ltd, BW & JD Glaves & Sons Ltd, Euro Quality Lambs Ltd, A Wright & Son, Fowler Bros Ltd, C Brumpton Ltd Accountancy – Led by organisations including Baker Tilly, BDO, Costain, Dains, Deloitte, Government Finance Profession , Ernst & Young, Flemmings, Grant Thornton, Hall and Woodhouse, Harvey & Son, Hazlewoods LLP, Health Education East of England, Kingston Smith, KPMG, Lentells Chartered Accountants, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, NHS Employers, PwC, Solid State Solutions and Warrington and Halton Hospital NHS Foundation Trust with the Association of Accounting Technicians (AAT), Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA), Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA), Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW). Accountancy (Phase 4) – Led by organisations including Derby Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Selby Jones Ltd, Shapcotts, Skills for Health Academy (North West), Bibby Ship Management, Jackson Stephen LLP, HFMA, Civil Service, Spofforths LLP, Norse Commercial Services Ltd, Norbert Dentressangle, Charles Wells Limited, TaxAssist Accountants, Mazars, Armstrong Watson, MHA Bloomer Heaven. Actuarial – Led by organisations including Aon Hewitt, Barnett Waddingham, Grant Thornton, KPMG, Mercer, Munich Re, PwC and RSA with the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries. Adult Care – Led by organisations including Barchester Healthcare, Caretech Community Services, Creative Support, Hand in Hands, Hendra Health Care (Ludlow), Hertfordshire County Council, Housing and Care 21, Oxfordshire County Council, Progressive Care, Surrey County Council, West England Centre for Inclusive Living, Woodford Homecare.
    [Show full text]
  • Construction Newsletter
    Construction update Newsletter Issue 2 2015 Welcome to issue 2 of the 2015 QBE Construction Newsletter With summer here and temperatures Solar radiation set to rise in certain areas of the Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the UK with just under 116,000 cases diagnosed annually. Construction workers are country employers need to be aware the most-at-risk group for this type of cancer. The construction of the effects of solar radiation, industry accounts for 55% of all skin cancer registrations and 58% particularly on a workforce that is of all skin cancer related deaths. Where outdoor tasks cannot be eliminated, it is important to exposed throughout the working minimise the risk to the worker. day. We take a look at some of the What employers can do: measures you can implement to • Educate workers on the dangers of the sun protect your workforce. • In situations where it is not possible to avoid people working in direct sunlight and shade cannot be provided, consider rotating There is good news for the UK construction sector with research workers to minimise potential exposure to direct sunlight forecasting that output will rise by 15% over the next nine months, Ensure workers on site are not working topless. Clothing although capacity is already stretched in London and we are • designed for work outdoors in sunny, hot weather should be seeing an increase in local labour costs as a result. worn. The clothing should be quick drying, high wicking and Apprenticeships are to be given the same legal status as university have a UV protection rating of 30+ degrees in a move by the government which they hope will drive • Hats and neck covers should always be worn.
    [Show full text]
  • One Nation Again
    ONE NATION AGAIN ANDREW TYRIE MP THE AUTHOR Andrew Tyrie has been Conservative Member of Parliament for Chichester since May 1997 and was Shadow Paymaster General from 2003 to 2005. He is the author of numerous publications on issues of public policy including Axis of Instability: America, Britain and The New World Order after Iraq (The Foreign Policy Centre and the Bow Group, 2003). The One Nation Group of MPs was founded in 1950. The views expressed in this pamphlet are those of the author and not necessarily of the whole group. One Nation Group, December 2006 Printed by 4 Print, 138 Molesey Avenue, Surrey CONTENTS Acknowledgements 1 One Nation Conservatism 1 2 The History of the Concept 7 3 One Nation Conservatism renewed 15 4 Conclusion 27 Bibliography One Nation members ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the members of the One Nation Group of Conservative MPs whose entertaining and stimulating conversation at our weekly gatherings have brightened many a Westminster evening, particularly during the long years in which the Party appeared to have succumbed to fractious squabbling and representing minority interests. I would also like to thank The Hon Nicholas Soames MP, David Willetts MP and the Rt Hon Sir George Young MP for their comments on an earlier draft; Roger Gough who put together the lion’s share of historical research for this paper; the helpful team in the House of Commons Library; and my ever patient secretaries, Miranda Dewdney-Herbert and Ann Marsh. Andrew Tyrie December 2006 CHAPTER ONE ONE NATION CONSERVATISM The Tory Party, unless it is a national party, is nothing.1 The central tenet of One Nation Conservatism is that the Party must be a national party rather than merely the representative of sectional interests.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulatory Reform – the New UK Regime: Law-Now Alerts, Tools and Latest News
    Regulatory reform – the new UK regime: Law-Now alerts, tools and latest news Law-Now alerts and other tools Chart: International, European and UK institutions (the 2013 position) (3/07/13) Law-Now: “ The Banking Standards Report: The new offence of reckless misconduct ” (18/07/13) Law Now: “ The Government responds to the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards Report ” (12/07/13) Law-Now: “ Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards Final Report ” (25/06/13) Click here to access archived Law-Now alerts and other tools Latest news Topics covered UK FSCS reform UK The Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 (Commencement No. 4) Order 2014/823 (C.32) This Order brings into force certain provisions of the Act relating to the competition functions given to the Payment Services Regulator (established under this Act) concurrently with CMA (established under the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013). This is the fourth commencement order to be made under the Act. (Date in force: 1/04/14) (27/03/14) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/823/pdfs/uksi_20140823_en.pdf The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Consumer Credit) (Transitional Provisions) (No. 2) Order 2014/835 This Order makes various supplemental and transitional provisions in consequence of provisions made by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (No.2) Order 2013/1881) (“the RAO Amendment No. 2 Order”). Article 2 amends the RAO Amendment No. 2 Order. Part 20 FSMA provides an exemption from the need for authorisation for members of professional bodies who carry on regulated activity which is merely incidental to the provision of professional services; such regulated activity must be the only regulated activity the member firm undertakes.
    [Show full text]
  • Accountability Mechanisms of the Bank of England and of The
    STUDY Requested by the ECON committee Monetary Dialogue Papers, September 2020 Accountability Mechanisms of the Bank of England and of the European Central Bank Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies Directorate-General for Internal Policies Author: Rosa M. LASTRA EN PE 652.744 - September 2020 Accountability Mechanisms of the Bank of England and of the European Central Bank Monetary Dialogue Papers September 2020 Abstract This paper analyses the accountability mechanisms of the European Central Bank and of the Bank of England and focuses on parliamentary accountability for the monetary policy functions. The paper suggests ways to improve the Monetary Dialogue between the ECB and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (European Parliament). This document was provided by Policy Department A at the request of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON). This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. AUTHORS Rosa M. LASTRA, CCLS, Queen Mary University of London ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSIBLE Drazen RAKIC EDITORIAL ASSISTANT Janetta CUJKOVA LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN ABOUT THE EDITOR Policy departments provide in-house and external expertise to support EP committees and other parliamentary bodies in shaping legislation and exercising democratic scrutiny over EU internal policies. To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe for updates, please write to: Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies European Parliament L-2929 - Luxembourg Email: [email protected] Manuscript completed: September 2020 Date of publication: September 2020 © European Union, 2020 This document is available on the internet at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/econ/econ-policies/monetary-dialogue DISCLAIMER AND COPYRIGHT The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament.
    [Show full text]
  • Paying for the Party
    PX_PARTY_HDS:PX_PARTY_HDS 16/4/08 11:48 Page 1 Paying for the Party Myths and realities in British political finance Michael Pinto-Duschinsky edited by Roger Gough Policy Exchange is an independent think tank whose mission is to develop and promote new policy ideas which will foster a free society based on strong communities, personal freedom, limited government, national self-confidence and an enterprise culture. Registered charity no: 1096300. Policy Exchange is committed to an evidence-based approach to policy development. We work in partnership with aca- demics and other experts and commission major studies involving thorough empirical research of alternative policy out- comes. We believe that the policy experience of other countries offers important lessons for government in the UK. We also believe that government has much to learn from business and the voluntary sector. Tru, stees Charles Moore (Chairman of the Board), Theodore Agnew, Richard Briance, Camilla Cavendish, Robin Edwards, Richard Ehrman, Virginia Fraser, Lizzie Noel, George Robinson, Andrew Sells, Tim Steel, Alice Thomson, Rachel Whetstone PX_PARTY_HDS:PX_PARTY_HDS 16/4/08 11:48 Page 2 About the author Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky is senior Nations, the European Union, Council of research fellow at Brunel University and a Europe, Commonwealth Secretariat, the recognised worldwide authority on politi- British Foreign and Commonwealth cal finance. A former fellow of Merton Office and the Home Office. He was a College, Oxford, and Pembroke College, founder governor of the Westminster Oxford, he is president of the International Foundation for Democracy. In 2006-07 he Political Science Association’s research was the lead witness before the Committee committee on political finance and politi- on Standards in Public Life in its review of cal corruption and a board member of the the Electoral Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit: Initial Reflections
    Brexit: initial reflections ANAND MENON AND JOHN-PAUL SALTER* At around four-thirty on the morning of 24 June 2016, the media began to announce that the British people had voted to leave the European Union. As the final results came in, it emerged that the pro-Brexit campaign had garnered 51.9 per cent of the votes cast and prevailed by a margin of 1,269,501 votes. For the first time in its history, a member state had voted to quit the EU. The outcome of the referendum reflected the confluence of several long- term and more contingent factors. In part, it represented the culmination of a longstanding tension in British politics between, on the one hand, London’s relative effectiveness in shaping European integration to match its own prefer- ences and, on the other, political diffidence when it came to trumpeting such success. This paradox, in turn, resulted from longstanding intraparty divisions over Britain’s relationship with the EU, which have hamstrung such attempts as there have been to make a positive case for British EU membership. The media found it more worthwhile to pour a stream of anti-EU invective into the resulting vacuum rather than critically engage with the issue, let alone highlight the benefits of membership. Consequently, public opinion remained lukewarm at best, treated to a diet of more or less combative and Eurosceptic political rhetoric, much of which disguised a far different reality. The result was also a consequence of the referendum campaign itself. The strategy pursued by Prime Minister David Cameron—of adopting a critical stance towards the EU, promising a referendum, and ultimately campaigning for continued membership—failed.
    [Show full text]