Jail reckless bankers, report urges
By Anonymous on Jun 19, 2013 02:03 am 18 June 2013 Last updated at 19:01 ET 
The commission was highly critical of the Treasury's officially arms-length ownership of RBS and Lloyds, dubbing it a "fig leaf" for government intervention
Senior bankers guilty of reckless misconduct should be jailed, a long-awaited report on banking commissioned by the government has recommended.
The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was set up by Chancellor George Osborne last year after a number of scandals involving the industry.
The cross-party group's fifth report attacked the lack of accountability of bankers and also said some bonuses should be withheld for up to 10 years.
The Treasury has welcomed the report.
It called it "a very impressive piece of work" and promised to provide a response before the summer recess.
"Where legislation is needed, we have said we will support it, and the banking bill currently before Parliament can be amended to ensure they are quickly enacted," a spokesman added.
The 571-page report also called on the government to review alternatives for selling off the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), including breaking it up, and demanded action to make the banking market more competitive.
Criminal liability "Too many bankers, especially at the most senior levels, have operated in an environment with insufficient personal responsibility," the report says.
"Senior executives were aware that they would not be punished for what they could not see and promptly donned the blindfolds.
"Where they could not claim ignorance, they fell back on the claim that everyone was party to a decision, so that no individual could be held squarely to blame - the Murder on the Orient Express defence."
The report advocated:
- senior bankers should be assigned clear personal responsibilities, with the legal onus on them to show they have done all that is reasonably required
- recklessly disregarding these responsibilities should be made a criminal offence - including a possible prison sentence
Continue reading the main story The commission explained
- The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was appointed in July 2012 following the Libor scandal and other episodes that damaged the reputation of banks in the UK
- It includes MPs and peers and is chaired by Andrew Tyrie, who also heads the House of Commons' Treasury Committee
- Members include the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby
- It heard evidence from major figures in the banking sector
- senior bankers - and anyone in a position to cause the bank serious harm, such as top traders - should adhere to a new set of banking standards set by regulators
- pay for bankers should be deferred for up to 10 years, with the ultimate payout linked to the long-term performance of the bank and of the employee's particular business area
- deferred pay and pension rights should also be cancellable if a banker misbehaves, or - in the case of senior managers - if the bank has to be bailed out
- banks should be legally required to put financial safety ahead of shareholder interests
"Why are there no banged-up bankers?" said Liberal Democrat peer Lord Oakeshott, who backed the committee's findings. "That's what most people want to know after the last five years of scandals and shame."
RBS conundrum The report called for more to be done to boost competition among banks, including two further investigations.
One, by a government panel of experts, would look at how to make it easier for people to transfer their bank accounts, while the other would be a full investigation of retail banking and small business lending by the Competition and Markets Authority.
Consumer watchdog Which? welcomed the proposals, saying it could herald "the big change in banking that consumers have been crying out for".
But the group said more needed to be done to change banking culture, and called for an independent code of conduct.
The committee also criticised the male-dominated culture on trading floors, saying banks should be required to publish their gender ratios and take action where there is a significant imbalance.
On RBS, the committee only said that the government should formally consider alternative options for the nationalised bank by September.
One alternative - backed by some but not all committee members - would involve splitting it between a "good bank" - an active High Street lender with a cleaned-up balance sheet - and a "bad bank" - a warehouse for all of the dud loans left over from last decade's debt bubble.
Another option, backed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and committee member Justin Welby, would split RBS up into a number of smaller regional banks.
Continue reading the main story What the Banking Reform Bill does
- The Ring-Fence: The High Street activities of each UK bank are to be put into a separate subsidiary from its riskier investment banking.
- Electrification: Regulators will be given the power to split up an individual bank altogether, subject to certain conditions, if the regulator deems that bank to be undermining the purpose of the ring-fence. Regulators will also review the entire UK banking industry each year to determine whether the ring-fence is proving effective.
- Deposit Guarantees: The Financial Services Compensation Scheme currently guarantees up to £85,000 of every deposit in a UK bank. Under the bill, if a bank goes bust, the FSCS will be paid out ahead of other people owed money by the bank. It means that the FSCS will be better able to recover the money it has guaranteed, which should reduce the potential bill for taxpayers if there is a shortfall.
- Loss Absorbency: The bill gives the Treasury the power to impose tougher requirements on banks to increase their ability to absorb losses, in particular by requiring a bank to borrow money from markets in a form that allows the bank to impose losses on the lenders if it gets into trouble.
- The Treasury has said the bill may be amended to include recommendations in the Banking Standards Commission's latest report
In any case, the committee cautioned against rushing to privatise the bank, which it said risked getting poor value for the taxpayer, and because the committee believed RBS first needed to be restructured, in order to make sure it played its key role in supporting the economy.
The report also called for an end to the government's purportedly "arms-length" ownership of RBS and Lloyds via the holding company UKFI - an arrangement set up under Gordon Brown and described as a "fig leaf" disguising the government's increasing interference in the running of the two banks, especially RBS.
'Special measures' The committee also criticised the failure of regulators to spot the risks building up in the financial system prior to 2008, demanding "the replacement of mechanical data collection and box ticking by a much greater emphasis on the exercise of judgement".
Senior regulators should be personally accountable, ultimately to Parliament, for their oversight of the banks.
The report recommended that each bank's board should be required to institute procedures to protect whistle-blowers - employees who want to flag up misconduct to the regulators
The Financial Services Authority, which was the overall banking regulator up to and during the financial crisis, has been split into two separate units - the Financial Conduct Authority, which polices banker behaviour, and the Bank of England's Prudential Regulation Authority, which ensures the banks do not take excessive risks.
If either regulator spots a pattern of shoddy standards at a bank, the commission said that the two should be able to put the bank into "special measures", meaning the bank would be formally required to deal with any shortcomings identified in its general culture or systems.
The committee repeated its demand that the chancellor allow regulators to set a more conservative "leverage ratio" for the banks.
The leverage ratio is the minimum amount of loss-absorbing capital that a bank must hold, as a percentage of its total loans and investments.
Mr Osborne has said the limit should be set at 3%, in line with a new international requirement from the Basel committee of central bankers. But the committee has the figure should be much higher.
Read in browser » 
NHS watchdog faces 'cover-up' claim
By Anonymous on Jun 19, 2013 03:14 am 19 June 2013 Last updated at 00:01 ET 
Investigations have focused on maternal and infant deaths at Furness General Hospital in Barrow
The healthcare regulator in England may have "deliberately" covered up knowledge of its own failings, according to a report due out later.
The review looked the Care Quality Commission's response to complaints about several deaths of newborn babies at Furness General Hospital in Cumbria.
It identifies a "dysfunctional working relationship" within the organisation.
The CQC admits giving "false assurances to the public" in 2010 but said there was no evidence of a cover-up.
The investigation was carried out by consultancy firm Grant Thornton on behalf of the CQC.
In 2008, nine-day-old Joshua Titcombe died from a treatable infection after being born in the maternity ward of Furness General Hospital.
His death, and those of three other babies and two mothers, led to growing concerns about care standards and sparked a complaint to the CQC.
More than 30 families have taken legal action against Furness General Hospital relating to baby and maternal deaths and injuries.
A police investigation into the death of Joshua Titcombe at the hospital is continuing.
The trust has said that, given the ongoing investigation, it would be "inappropriate to comment on individual cases".
But it has said there was "no denying that the trust has let women and their families down in the past" and that a new trust board was "determined to learn from it".
'False assurances' An independent report due to be published later - but obtained by Radio 4's Today programme - shows the CQC not only failed to launch an investigation when it was first told about the deaths, but went on to register the University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust as safe in 2010.
The report also found evidence that an internal review by the regulator into what went wrong was destroyed at the request of a senior manager.
The individual concerned denies that an instruction was given to delete the report.
The CQC admits it provided "false assurances to the public" in 2010 but it says there is no evidence of a systemic cover-up.
It said in a statement the report revealed "just how poor" the CQC's oversight of the trust was.
"This is not the way things should have happened. It is not the way things will happen in the future," it said.
CQC chairman David Prior said the publication of the report "draws a line in the sand for us".
"What happened in the past was wholly unacceptable.
"The report confirms our view that at a senior level the organisation was dysfunctional. The board and the senior executive team have been radically changed."
'Serious allegation' Shadow health minister Jamie Reed called on ministers "to order an urgent investigation into the questions raised by this report".
"It would be indefensible for the CQC, the regulator charged with keeping our hospitals safe, to attempt a cover-up designed to mask its own failings," he said.
"My constituents who use this hospital deserve much better and the government needs to provide answers on every aspect of this serious allegation."
It is not the first time the regulator has come under fire since its creation in 2009.
Widespread concerns prompted ministers to scrutinise the CQC's performance and recommend a raft of changes including the creation of a new hospitals chief inspector post and a ratings system.
The CQC itself has made many changes, including appointing a new chief executive and chairman.
Action against Medical Accidents chief executive Peter Walsh said the report was "a vindication of what local people affected by failings by the trust and by regulators have been saying".
"It underlines the need for a fully independent and wide-ranging inquiry into how, even in the aftermath of Mid Staffordshire, the regulatory system utterly failed to protect patients and sought to cover up," he added.
"It is vital that the new leaders of the CQC ensure it is a robust, proactive and honest regulator."
The CQC was created in April 2009 following the abolition of three specific bodies covering health, mental health and social care.
Read in browser » Taliban hit US base after talks news
By Anonymous on Jun 19, 2013 02:13 am 18 June 2013 Last updated at 18:48 ET 
Four US soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan, hours after the US announced direct talks with the Taliban, reports say.
The soldiers were killed by "indirect fire" from insurgents at Bagram air base, US officials said.
Bagram, near the Afghan capital Kabul, is the largest military base for US troops in Afghanistan.
A condition for the talks, due to take place in the coming days in Qatar, was for the Taliban to renounce violence.
Read in browser » Brazil sends troops to quell protest
By Anonymous on Jun 19, 2013 03:05 am 19 June 2013 Last updated at 02:33 ET 
Brazil's government says it will deploy soldiers to five major cities to control a wave of protests which has seen a quarter of a million people demand better public services.
The soldiers will be sent to Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais, Bahia, Ceara and the capital, Brasilia.
All of the cities are hosting games in Fifa's Confederations Cup.
The announcement comes after riot police and protesters clashed in fresh protests on Tuesday in Sao Paulo.
Read in browser » Food labels system to be rolled out
By Anonymous on Jun 18, 2013 07:10 pm 18 June 2013 Last updated at 19:10 ET By Nick Triggle Health correspondent, BBC News 
A new consistent system of front-of-pack food labelling is to be introduced in the UK, the government says.
A combination of colour coding and nutritional information will be used to show how much fat, salt and sugar and how many calories are in each product.
But as yet only just over 60% of foods will be covered by the system because it will remain voluntary.
The announcement comes after a decade of debate about the issue and has been welcomed by consumer groups.
The introduction of a consistent system has proved problematic partly because of the difficulty of getting industry leaders to agree on the labels and because mandatory regulations require agreement on a European level.
The problems have resulted in a variety of different systems being introduced.
The unveiling of new labels comes after a public consultation last year and months of talks with the food industry.
The final design of the food labelling which is being introduced
The deal has been welcomed by campaigners, who have argued a clear and consistent system of food labelling would help combat obesity.
One of the key steps has been the inclusion of colour coding.
Research by the Food Standards Agency has shown that consumers prefer traffic light labelling because it offers key information "at a glance".
Over the next 18 months the new labels will be rolled out across many of the major food groups.
They include retailers such as Tesco, Sainsbury's, Asda, Morrisons, the Co-operative and Waitrose, which will display the labels on their own brand foods, as well as manufacturers Mars, Nestle, PepsiCo and Premier Foods.
'Big step forward' Public health minister Anna Soubry said: "By having all the major retailers and manufacturers signed up to the consistent label, we will all be able to see at a glance what is in our food - this is why I want to see more manufacturers signing up and using the label."
Richard Lloyd, of consumer group Which?, said it was a "big step forward".
Charlie Powell, director of the Children's Food Campaign, also said the move was pleasing.
But he added: "There are now no excuses - all food companies should follow suit and the government should name and shame any which drag their feet."
He also urged ministers to do more to protect children from junk food marketing.
Among the major names not to have signed up are Coca-Cola and Cadbury - both of which released statements saying they felt the use of guideline daily amounts was a better system.
Andrew Opie of the British Retail Consortium, said of the new labels: "This is great news for consumers.
"A consistent scheme across all the major supermarkets means wherever we shop we will see the same front-of-pack labelling.
"That will help improve understanding of the label and make healthier choices easier."
Read in browser » Refugee numbers 'highest since 1994'
By Anonymous on Jun 19, 2013 12:43 am 18 June 2013 Last updated at 22:15 ET 
The war in Syria could displace another two million people by the end of 2013
The UN says 7.6 million people became refugees in 2012, with the total number now higher than at any time since 1994.
A report from the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) says that Syria is "a major new factor" driving up refugee numbers.
The report say 55% of all refugees come from five countries: Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, Sudan and Syria.
It also found that developing countries now hosted 81% of the world's refugees, 11% more than a decade ago.
"These truly are alarming numbers. They reflect individual suffering on a huge scale and they reflect the difficulties of the international community in preventing conflicts and promoting timely solutions for them," said UNHCR chief Antonio Guterres.
Mr Guterres said that the figure of 7.6 million meant there was a new displaced person every 4.1 seconds. "Each time you blink another person is forced to flee," he said.
The UNHCR says the figures are based on data from the agency itself as well as from governments and other NGOs.
Afghanistan remained the world's biggest source of refugees, a position it has now held for 32 years, with 95% of Afghan refugees located in either Iran or Pakistan.
Somalis were the second biggest group of refugees in 2012, followed by Iraqis. Syrians were the fourth biggest group.
The figures do not, however, reflect the additional one million people who have fled Syria in the last six months.
The UN says if current trends persist, a further two million people will have left Syria by the end of this year. In the next few days it is expected to ask European countries to take at least some of them in.
The report also says there has been a marked rise in displacement from Mali and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Mali's army, heavily backed by France, has been fighting Islamist and ethnic Tuareg rebels this year. Islamists seized control of the north of the country after a military coup last year.
In the Democratic Republic of Congo, some 800,000 people have fled since fighting broke out last year between government forces and the M23 rebel movement.
Read in browser » 
No comments:
Post a Comment