The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals ……………………………………………………………Policy News Journal
Directors Duties 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 there be greater alignment between the rules governing public and private companies? What would be the consequences of this? Should additional duties be placed on companies to promote greater transparency, e.g. around the roles of advisors. If so, what should be published and why? What would the impact of this be on business behaviour and costs to business? How effectively have the provisions of the 1992 Cadbury report been embedded? How best can shareholders have confidence that Executives are subject to independent challenge? Should Government regulate or rely on guidance and professional bodies to ensure that Directors fulfil their duties effectively? What evidence is there that more diverse company boards perform better? How should greater diversity of board membership be achieved? What should diversity include, e.g. gender, ethnicity, age, sexuality, disability, experience, socio-economic background? 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? Composition of Boards
Written evidence should be submitted online via the Corporate Governance inquiry page by Wednesday 26 October 2016.
Terms of reference: Corporate Governance
Back to Contents
Civil Service Compensation Scheme – Government Response 28 September 2016
The Cabinet Office has published the Government response to the consultation on proposals to reform the Civil Service Compensation Scheme (CSCS). The Cabinet Office ran the consultation from 8 February 2016 until 4 May 2016 and looked to consult with individuals and unions who represent civil servants on the reform of the Civil Service Compensation Scheme. The Government consulted on making changes to the Civil Service Compensation Scheme so that it remains a suitable and appropriate tool. Under the current terms, staff may be incentivised not to put themselves forward for consideration of an exit package and early access to pension provisions are deemed to be out-dated. The consultation document set out the intention for a reformed Compensation Scheme to support both the ability of staff to exit the organisation with dignity and security and the need for the employer to retain those with the skills that will be required in the Civil Service of the future. The consultation set out the following principles: To align with wider compensation reforms proposed across the public sector including the Government’s manifesto commitment to prevent excessive pay-outs by ending six-figure exit packages; Supporting employers in reshaping and restructuring their workforce to ensure it has the skills required for the future; To increase the relative attractiveness of the scheme for staff exiting earlier in the process, and to maintain flexibility in voluntary exits to support this aim; To create significant savings on the current cost of exits and ensure appropriate use of taxpayers money; and To ensure any early access to pension provision remains appropriate. The consultation document outlined a range of options for how the Civil Service Compensation Scheme could be reformed to align with the principles above and included a preferred package of reforms: The standard tariff to be three weeks’ per year of service; Voluntary Exit capped at 18 months’ salary; Voluntary Redundancy capped at 12 months;
The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals
Policy News Journal
cipp.org.uk
Page 257 of 588
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker