who looks after the public interest ? June 18, 2009
Posted by Bradley in : governance , comments closedGovernmental (and quasi-governmental) statements and actions with respect to regulation are a bit confusing these days. Today, the Commission, in a communication about internet governance, makes the following statement:
It is also important to recognise that public attitudes have changed towards the concept of self-regulation in the wake of the financial crisis. When critical resources are concerned, whether they are banking systems or Internet infrastructure and services, there is now a higher and understandable expectation that governments will be more proactive than they may have been in the past in defending the public interest.
But of course, the public may be disappointed – many of those in charge are the same people who have been (and still are in some contexts) spreading the better regulation gospel.
uphill struggle for lecce framework June 16, 2009
Posted by Bradley in : Uncategorized , comments closedThe G8 finance ministers agreed the other day that:
For the market economy to generate sustained prosperity, fundamental norms of propriety, integrity and transparency in economic interactions must be respected.
But there’s regular evidence that this is an uphill struggle. Today the FSA announced the appearance in court of two lawyers charged with insider trading. Lawyers should surely know better (especially after O’Hagan) although they don’t seem to – insider trading is a pretty obvious breach of the law, and of propriety too.
departmental deck chairs June 8, 2009
Posted by Bradley in : Uncategorized , comments closedThe UK’s Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform is merging with the Department for Innovation Universities and Skills to create a new department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS). It’s not obvious what the point of this rebranding is. BERR isn’t even two years old – it replaced the old DTI in 2007. The reaction at science business isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement:
The announcement of the new department does not say if the remit of DBIS includes rearranging the canvas covered collapsible seating on the decks of large ‘unsinkable’ ocean-going liners at risk of hitting an iceberg.
real world social responsibility June 2, 2009
Posted by Bradley in : Uncategorized , comments closedI just got back to Miami from the Law and Society conference in Denver, where I talked about my paper on credit rating agencies and heard about a lot of interesting work on regulation and governance in general and the financial crisis in particular. At the hotel where I stayed, part of a large chain, they had one of those environmental programmes which invited guests to re-use towels and sheets. These programmes don’t seem to me to work perfectly – even if you hang up the towels they sometimes seem to get replaced, and the rooms aren’t always adapted well to the need to hang up a used wash cloth, for example. I don’t mean that such programmes aren’t genuinely intended to be environmentally friendly, but the PR may be more splashy than any real impact. So this makes me wonder (and not for the first time) how real much corporate social responsibility is.
(dis)trust in institutions May 28, 2009
Posted by Bradley in : Uncategorized , comments closedThe stories about MPs having designated one of their homes as a main residence for tax purposes and a different home as their main residence for the purposes of their parliamentary expense claims, about married MPs each claiming different homes as a second residence to maximise expense claims, second homes (which should be related to representation of constituents in some way, surely) miles from constituencies, and rent and salary payments to family members do seem to be in some ways a distraction from the real issues facing the country. But I think they do raise some very real questions about trust in institutions. How can people who seem to be very preoccupied with making sure they can manipulate the rules to their own best advantage be trusted to make sure that financial regulation works properly? It’s not clear how some of the possible reactions to the expenses scandals really respond to this underlying issue. How do fixed terms for MPs necessarily do much other than encouraging them to think about making sure they have profitable jobs after they leave?
Joan Smith complained this week in the Guardian that this was all really unfair to hardworking MPs. But a large number of commentators disagreed (some quite vehemently). Like it or not, MPs present themselves as representatives of their constituents’ interests and it doesn’t look good if they are able to maintain servants’ quarters and duck islands at taxpayer expense when the taxpayers worry about whether they will be able to keep up payments on a mortgage or feed their families.
multilingual eu news May 26, 2009
Posted by Bradley in : translation , comments closedSponsored by the Commission, to help create a European public sphere, a new EU news website was launched today in 10 languages.
libor twitters May 22, 2009
Posted by Bradley in : markets , comments closedOr, the BBA is now publishing Libor via twitter (and there’s a new libor website). The title of the press release describes libor as “the world’s most important number.” Others would disagree, arguing that the number is 350.
whether pringles are similar to potato crisps …. May 20, 2009
Posted by Bradley in : food , comments closedThe BBC story on the Court of Appeal decision on the rate of VAT applicable to Pringles (over-ruling the decision of the High Court, and encouraging deference to the decisions of VAT Tribunals on matters of fact) misses quite a lot of the fun (although it points out pretty clearly the bottom line for Procter & Gamble). Food products are zero rated for VAT, but this treatment does not apply to:
potato crisps, potato sticks, potato puffs and similar products made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch, and savoury products obtained by the swelling of cereals or cereal products; and salted or roasted nuts other than nuts in shell.
On the question whether Pringles are similar to potato chips, Lord Justice Jacob said that:
This sort of question – a matter of classification – is not one calling for or justifying over-elaborate, almost mind-numbing legal analysis. It is a short practical question calling for a short practical answer.
And Lord Justice Mummery said:
it is vital to recall why the Tribunal was required in the first place to answer the question whether the goods in question are “made from” the potato. It was not in answer to a scientific or technical question about the composition of Regular Pringles, or in response to a request for a recipe. It was for the purpose of deciding whether the goods are entitled to zero rating. On this point the VAT legislation uses everyday English words, which ought to be interpreted in a sensible way according to their ordinary and natural meaning. The “made from” question would probably be answered in a more relevant and sensible way by a child consumer of crisps than by a food scientist or a culinary pedant.
It’s pretty clear that Pringles are treated as being the equivalent of potato chips in my house – however they are made.
considering retrospectivity May 20, 2009
Posted by Bradley in : fundamental rights , comments closedIn the same week that the Select Committee on the Constitution published a report critical of provisions for retrospective legislation in the Banking Act 2009 (the statute allows for orders with retrospective effect where the Treasury considers it desirable), the House of Lords wrote about retrospectivity. The case involved a doctor with Nigerian qualifications who went to the UK for a clinical attachment and then applied for leave to remain as a postgraduate doctor. After she made the application, but before a decision on the application was taken, the immigration rules were changed to provide that persons with foreign medical qualifications were not eligible for permanent leave to remain in the UK. The immigration rules are rules which can create legal rights but as executive statements they are not subject to the same sort of presumption against retrospectivity that applies to statutes. The House of Lords held that changes in the immigration rules took effect when they said they took effect and new rules could be applied to applications pending at the time they came into effect.
The Law Lords were very critical of the fact that the Home Office declined to refund the application fee in these circumstances. Lord Hope of Craighead stated:
Fair dealing, which is the standard which any civilised country should aspire to, calls out for the fee to be repaid.
Lord Scott of Foscote:
So what benefit did the appellant receive for her £335? The answer is ‘None’. She paid her money on what turned out to be a false and misleading prospectus. The least that the Secretary of State can be expected to do is to return her fee.
Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury also said that it was not “fair dealing” for the fee to be retained. The language of fair dealing and misleading prospectus has some resonance in these days of financial turmoil. This week, one can’t help reading them without thinking of the parliamentary expenses scandal and Gordon Brown’s announcement that he proposes to do away with self-regulation by the parliamentary gentleman’s club. Brown’s use of the gentleman’s club term is a bit ironic here (I think unintentionally so), as fair dealing is supposed to be one of the things gentlemen believe in.
what single market? May 19, 2009
Posted by Bradley in : eu , comments closedThe ECJ (Grand Chamber) held today that Member States of the EU are allowed to require pharmacies to be owned and operated by pharmacists. The Court appeared to adopt a rather romantic view of the pharmacist as a professional, saying:
It is undeniable that an operator having the status of pharmacist pursues, like other persons, the objective of making a profit. However, as a pharmacist by profession, he is presumed to operate the pharmacy not with a purely economic objective, but also from a professional viewpoint. His private interest connected with the making of a profit is thus tempered by his training, by his professional experience and by the responsibility which he owes, given that any breach of the rules of law or professional conduct undermines not only the value of his investment but also his own professional existence.
Restricting ownership in this way was justified because requiring pharmacies to employ pharmacists (rather than to be owned by pharmacists) might not adequately ensure the independence of the employed pharmacists which might prejudice the health of customers. News reports suggest that DocMorris, the Netherlands based operation which has been making inroads into the German market, will need to focus on franchising rather than ownership as a result (as well as on mail order). But if the concern is really about the professional independence of the pharmacist, doesn’t franchising risk interfering with this too?