Call us for free on 0800 1777 522
Info Articles

NA Legal

Solicitors for Small & Medium Business

Parliamentary Committee Launches Corporate Governance Inquiry

After a number of high profile corporate governance failings, such as those relating to BHS and Sports Direct, the UK Parliament’s Business, Innovation, and Skills (BIS) Committee recently launched a corporate governance inquiry.


The inquiry will look at a number of key issues, but in particular will be focused on executive pay, directors’ duties, and the composition of boardrooms, including worker representation and gender balance in executive positions.

Terms of Reference

With regards to directors’ duties, the terms of reference of the inquiry include:

  • Is company law sufficiently clear on the roles of directors and non-executive directors, and are those duties the right ones? If not, how should it be amended?
  • Is the duty to promote the long-term success of the company clear and enforceable?
  • How are the interests of shareholders, current and former employees best balanced?
  • How best should the decisions of Boards be scrutinised and open to challenge?
  • Should additional duties be placed on companies to promote greater transparency, e.g. around the roles of advisors.
  • Should Government regulate or rely on guidance and professional bodies to ensure that Directors fulfil their duties effectively?

On the subject of executive pay, the inquiry will examine:

  • What factors have influenced the steep rise in executive pay over the past 30 years relative to salaries of more junior employees?
  • How should executive pay take account of companies’ long-term performance?
  • Should executive pay reflect the value added by executives to companies relative to more junior employees? If so, how?

With regards to the composition of boards, the areas to be examined include:

  • What evidence is there that more diverse company boards perform better?
  • How should greater diversity of board membership be achieved and what should diversity include?
  • Should there be worker representation on boards and/or remuneration committees? If so, what form should this take?
  • What more should be done to increase the number of women in Executive positions on boards?

Need for Good Corporate Governance

"Private enterprise and a respected business community is vital to the UK's future prosperity and contributes to the funding of our schools, hospitals, and infrastructure,” explained Chair of the BIS Committee, Iain Wright MP. “Irresponsible business behaviour and poor corporate governance ill serves workers, but it also tarnishes the reputation of business and undermines public trust in enterprise.”

“We need to look again at the laws that govern business and how they are enforced,” he added. “Good corporate governance shouldn't be a hindrance to business; it can contribute to companies' long-term prosperity and performance as well as showing to the world that a business is transparent, accountable and responsible.”

Reaction to the Inquiry

Both the Institute of Directors (IoD) and the TUC welcomed the launch of the inquiry.

Simon Walker, Director General of the Institute of Directors commented that the reputation of corporate Britain has not recovered from the financial crisis, and there are important questions that need to be addressed on issues including transparency, executive pay and board diversity.

Frances O’Grady, TUC General Secretary, described the inquiry as “important and timely” and said that the TUC was looking forward to contributing to the Committee’s discussions.

Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Contact Us

For expert legal advice on these issues, or other areas of commercial law, then contact our commercial lawyers today.

Intellectual Property is Increasingly Important to...
Public Inquiries in Birmingham

Related Posts


Call us for free on 0800 1777 522


Get In Touch Call or fill out the form below

Please let us know your name.
Please let us know your email address.
Please write a subject for your message.
Please let us know your message.
Invalid Input

 


We advise and represent transport businesses throughout the whole of the UK in all parts of England, Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland

Uk





Latest Blogs

We were approached by an operator who had received public inquiry paper several weeks earlier. The Operator instructed us to represent him at his inquiry listed for a hearing before the Traffic Commis...
We recently represented two companies who were both called to the same public inquiry. Although separate entities, the companies were closely connected because of having the same set of directors. One...
We were approached by a small business owner to represent them at the a public inquiry which had been called to consider their application for a new passenger vehicle operator’s licence.The person app...

IF YOU NEED HELP OR ADVICE WITH A TRANSPORT LAW ISSUE

Call us today for free on 0800 1777 522
Send us an enquiry online via our contact form HERE
Email us on contact@nalegal.co.uk

Latest Transport Law

Transport Law
We were approached by an operator who had received public inquiry paper several weeks earlier. The Operator instructed us to represent him at his inquiry listed for a hearing before the Traffic Commissioner’s (TC) only two weeks in advance.

There were several serious issues that the TC indicated he wanted to examine at the hearing and was threatening regulatory action against the Operator Company. The Operator had approached another firm of solicitors, who informed him that the likely outcome of the hearing would be loss of repute and licence revocation.

We provided the Operator with advice about immediate steps to be taken in preparation for the hearing. We requested the operator send us a number of documents critical to the success of his inquiry. A consideration of those document showed significant—but not insurmountable—shortfalls in maintenance standards and legal requirements.

The operator had recently appointed a new Transport Manager (TM) with an excellent reputation in his field. The TM worked along with us in analysing the Company’s compliance systems to create better compliance systems and improve the of the Company’s mindset about such.

We prepared extensive written representations and sent these to the TC in advance of the hearing along with supporting documentation.

We recommended that both the Operator (Director) and his Transport Manager attend the hearing. As expected the TC questioned the Operator and TM extensively about the various issued raised. We guided and advised the Operator and TM throughout the hearing. Following our final submissions, the TC decided not to revoke the licence or disqualify the Operator Company. The Operator was issued with a warning and a very short suspension of one vehicle until it had a further maintenance inspection and remedial work done. The Operator was allowed to keep the rest of his fleet working with minimal disruption to the business. The Operator was thrilled with our services and has since instructed us at least one other transport matter.
Transport Law
We recently represented two companies who were both called to the same public inquiry. Although separate entities, the companies were closely connected because of having the same set of directors. One of the companies (the Operator) had years previously been issued with a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence. The other company had recently applied for the same kind of licence (the Applicant).

Over the previous year, the directors had decided to progressively move most of the Operator’s business interests to its sister company the Applicant. Without understanding the potential consequences, and before being granted its operator’s licence, the Applicant began using the Operator’s heavy goods vehicle. The Operator company had not informed the Traffic Commissioner (TC) of its change in business arrangements and of the apparent change of entity (though the companies were actually wholly owned subsidiaries of another company – see below).

The Public Inquiry was convened because of changes at this business group and a fundamental misunderstanding of the operator’s licence regime, and that there had been what appeared to be a change of entity involving the companies.

The TC needed to be satisfied as to whether the companies were not unfit to hold an operator’s licence due to relevant activities and convictions, and about the events relating to a change in the circumstances of the licence holder. The Operator risked revocation of its licence. The Applicant was at risk of not having its licence granted.

In advance of the inquiry, and to start building their case, we obtained as much information as we could about the businesses and provided each company comprehensive legal advice. We examined the companies’ compliance systems and made recommendations about immediate and longer-term changes that needed to be implemented. On our recommendations, the companies invested time and resources into their maintenance and other systems

As a result of our preliminary work and advice, the companies were fully prepared for the public inquiry hearing. In particular, to answer questions and provide evidence about the apparent change of entity.

At the hearing we demonstrated that the companies were running professional and competent businesses. With specific reference to the issue of the apparent change of entity, the TC accepted that Section 3(4) of the Goods vehicle (licencing of operators) Act 1995 was relevant and that this was not a typical “change of entity” case – because of the companies being subsidiaries. We were able to persuade the TC that the issues that lead to the inquiry arose out of ignorance rather than an attempt to mislead or gain financial advantage

The TC granted the new licence to the Applicant with the Operator company voluntarily surrendering its licence. The directors were delighted with the outcome of the public inquiry hearing and that they managed to avoid the damaging consequences they feared.
Transport Law

We were approached by a small business owner to represent them at the a public inquiry which had been called to consider their application for a new passenger vehicle operator’s licence.

The person applying for the licence had a long background of work in the transport industry as a driver but had never before operated his own transport business. One of the key issues was that the nominated transport manager was also nominated some other licences and the Traffic Commissioner was concerned whether this meant that the transport manager would be able to properly carry out their duties on so many licences at once.