Download Free Consultation On Reform Options Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Consultation On Reform Options and write the review.

This consultation document seeks views on proposals for implementing the key mechanisms under electricity market reform (EMR) - the Contracts for Difference (CfDs), the Capacity Market, and associated institutional and delivery arrangements. A package of draft secondary legislation is included to help illustrate the proposals. EMR is the Government's response to the challenges facing the electricity sector: a fifth of 2011 capacity has to close over the next ten years; the need to transform the generation mix to respond to climate change and to meet legally-binding carbon and renewable targets; the expectation that electricity demand will continue to increase over the coming decades. An estimated £110 billion investment is required over the next 10 years. CfDs will provide long-term revenue stabilisation to low-carbon plant, allowing investment to come forward at a lower cost of capital. The Capacity Market will provide a regular retainer payment to reliable forms of capacity (both demand and supply side), in return for such capacity being available when electricity supply is being squeezed. The National Grid will be the delivery body for EMR. The key mechanisms will be supported by: carbon price floor, a tax underpinning the price of carbon emissions in the UK; emissions performance standard, a regulatory backstop to the amount of CO2 emissions from new fossil-fuel power stations; action to promote electricity demand reduction; Ofgem's measures to improve wholesale market liquidity. The Energy Bill currently progressing through Parliament will introduce the powers to implement EMR.
Changes to the fees charged for using civil courts will mean hard-working taxpayers will no longer be left footing so much of the bill for operating them. At present around £100m of running costs have to be found from general taxes each year. Under the new proposals put out for consultation, the fees for civil courts (not criminal courts) will be adjusted to address the shortfall. The proposals include: Scrapping the £75 application fee for domestic violence injunctions; Increasing the fees for cases involving claims for money (for example, a claim for compensation) on a sliding scale, with a maximum fee of £1,870 - and considering moving in future to a system where the fee is calculated as a percentage of the amount under dispute in the court case; Introducing a percentage-based system for commercial proceedings (disputes whether a contract has been fulfilled) as well as charging a daily rate for the time they spend in court; Introducing a standard fee of £270 for civil cases which are not about claims for money (applying for someone to be declared insolvent or to repossess property for example) - instead of the current mixture of fees. Fees would stay the same for cases involving sensitive family issues including child contact, divorce financial disputes and adoption applications - as well as a reduction in the fee for local authorities to apply to take a child into care. People who cannot afford court fees do not have to pay - they can apply for waivers using the means-tested remissions system
In Lord Justice (Sir Rupert) Jackson's report, ’Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report', (ISBN 9780117064041, January 2010 109 recommendations are put forward to promote access to justice at proportionate costs. This consultation sets out the proposals that the Government is taking forward as a priority. These include Sir Rupert's package of proposals on the reform of conditional fee agreements (CFAs) and on damages-based agreements (DBAs or ’contingency fees'). Sir Rupert also puts forward two alternative packages of recommendations should the primary recommendations not be implemented. These packages would introduce more rigorous control over the level of success fees and ATE insurance premiums that can be recovered from the losing side. The Government considers that the radical reform proposed in Sir Rupert's primary recommendation is needed, but these alternative measures are included in this consultation so that those responding can consider other options. This consultation also covers three other proposals from Sir Rupert's report. The first is to ensure proportionality of total costs. The second is allowing lawyers to enter into damages-based agreements (DBAs) with their clients in litigation before the courts. The use of these agreements is currently not permitted in litigation. However, the Government agrees with Sir Rupert that allowing DBAs would give litigants greater choice in deciding the most appropriate funding method for their case, and could increase access to justice for claimants if CFAs become less attractive. The third concerns increasing the hourly rate recoverable by a successful litigant in person.
This new edition incorporates revised guidance from H.M Treasury which is designed to promote efficient policy development and resource allocation across government through the use of a thorough, long-term and analytically robust approach to the appraisal and evaluation of public service projects before significant funds are committed. It is the first edition to have been aided by a consultation process in order to ensure the guidance is clearer and more closely tailored to suit the needs of users.
Judicial review allows individuals, businesses and others to ask the court to consider whether, for example, a government department has gone beyond its powers, a local authority has followed a lawful process or an arms-length body has come to a rational decision. As such, it is a crucial check to ensure lawful public administration. The expansion of judicial review has, in the government's view, led to abuse of the system. The earlier consultation "Judicial Review: Proposals for Reform" (ISBN 9780101851527), introduced changes to the time for bringing planning or procurement challenges and offered a way for courts to filter out unmeritorious challenges. This follow-up review seeks further reform in areas such as: the courts' approach to cases which rely on minor procedural defects; rebalancing financial incentives; speeding up appeals to the Supreme Court in a small number of nationally significant cases and planning challenges. Also this paper looks at the potential reform as to who can bring judicial review and whether alternative mechanisms exist to resolve disputes. The paper also includes a proposal in relation to the payment of legal aid providers in judicial review cases.
This is a unique reference source of high level comparative information on aspects of tax administration system design and practice covering the world’s major revenue bodies.
Capacity remuneration mechanisms (or simply capacity mechanisms) have become a fact of life in member states' energy markets and are one of the hottest topics in the wider European regulatory debate. Concerned about the security of electricity supply, national governments are implementing subsidy schemes to encourage investment in conventional power generation capacity, alongside already heavily subsidized renewable energy sources. With the increasingly connected European electricity markets, the introduction of a capacity mechanism in one country not only tends to distort its national market but may also have unforeseeable consequences for neighbouring electricity markets. As these mechanisms are adopted by member states with limited supra-national coordination as well as consideration for the cross-border impact, they tend to cause serious market distortions and put the future of the European internal electricity market at risk. This second edition will take stock of how capacity mechanisms have actually worked so far and consider the consequences they have for the European internal electricity market. It will include a detailed overview of national capacity mechanisms, their implications for the EU internal market, and will outline the nature of market failures which are likely to occur in the European electricity markets. This edition is intended to serve as a point of reference for regulators and policy-makers on how to design optimal capacity mechanisms in Europe. It will be an invaluable resource for anyone interested in energy market design, regulation, and competition issues.
This book empirically examines health care financing reforms and popular responses in three major cities in East Asia: Shanghai, Singapore, and Hong Kong. It adopts a new revised version of the theory of historical institutionalism to compare and explain the divergent reform paths in these three places over the past three decades. It also examines forces that propel institutional change. The book provides three detailed case studies on the development of health care financing reforms and the politics of implementing them. It shows that health care systems in Shanghai, Singapore, and Hong Kong were the products of Western presence in the nineteenth century. It illustrates how greater attention is paid to the roles played by ideas, actors, and environmental triggers without abandoning the core assumptions that political institutions and policy feedback remain central to impact health care financing reforms. It shows that health care financing reform is shaped by a complex interplay of forces over time. It also provides the most updated material about health care financing reforms in Shanghai, Singapore, and Hong Kong. The central argument of this book is that health care financing reform is both an evolving process responding to changing circumstances and a political process revealing an intricate interplay of power relationships and diverse interests. It shows that institutional changes in health care financing system can be incremental but transformative in nature. It argues that social policies will continue to develop and welfare states will continue to adapt and evolve in order to cope with new risks and needs. This book sheds new lights on understanding the politics of health care financing reform and sources and modes of institutional change.
According to the report The Implications For Access To Justice Of The Government's Proposals To Reform Judicial Review HC (868), the number of judicial reviews has remained remarkably steady when the increase in the number of immigration judicial reviews (now handled by the Upper Tribunal) is disregarded. The report covers: procedural defects and substantive outcomes; legal aid for judicial review cases; interveners and costs; capping of costs (protective costs orders); alternatives to the Government's judicial review reforms; judicial review and the public sector equality duty.