House of Commons - Trade and Industry

Select Committee on Trade and Industry Fifth Report

2 The process and consultation

9. ECGD's 'Mission and Status Review 1999-2000', published in July 2000,[10] set out a new approach to the conduct of its business and the development of its relationship with its customers and others with an interest in its operations. Key elements of the new strategy included greater openness and transparency in ECGD's operations, more focus on the needs of small and medium-sized exporters and investors and ensuring ECGD's policies and activities were consistent with the Government's objectives of promoting sustainable development, human rights, good governance and trade.[11] In December 2000 ECGD published a statement of business principles, which included the following:

— the promotion of a responsible approach to business, ensuring that ECGD activities take into account the Government's international policies including those on sustainable development, environment, human rights, good governance and trade;

— the provision of a customer oriented, efficient and professional service and commitment to continuous review and improvement;

— openness and honesty in all business transactions and the expectation of the same standards from others; and

— wide consultation during the development of services, taking account of the legitimate requirements and expectations of ECGD's customers and other interested parties.[12]

10. These principles were developed in policies on business integrity and transparency.

BUSINESS INTEGRITY

11. On business integrity, ECGD's stated objectives commit it to be objective, consistent, fair and honest in all dealings; to combat corrupt practices; to ensure, as far as is practicable, that its support for projects is predicated on compliance with applicable laws and regulations by all parties benefiting from that support; and to promote the implementation of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.[13]

TRANSPARENCY

12. On transparency, ECGD committed itself to consulting on major issues with all parties with a legitimate interest in its activities and being as open as possible in its operations, having regard to legitimate commercial and personal confidentiality. ECGD said that it would engage with all stakeholders to discuss ECGD's policies, products and practice, and expand the information it published regarding its financial performance, business activities and the application of its business principles.[14]

ECGD'S PUBLIC CONSULTATION GUIDELINES

13. ECGD's Public Consultation Guidelines, published in January 2002, state:

We are always looking to improve our standards of corporate governance and believe it is important that the UK taxpayer and other major stakeholders in ECGD should have the opportunity to comment on key issues/policies, as they arise, in order to inform our decision-making.

One of the main conclusions of the recent Review of ECGD's Mission and Status […] was that ECGD should undertake more consultation with customers and other parties who have an interest in what ECGD does. In addition, one of the objectives in the Business Principles which ECGD adopted in January 2001 was that we should consult, listen to and respond to relevant stakeholders on major issues and, in aiming to do this, engage with all stakeholders to discuss ECGD's policies, products and practice.[15]

14. The Mission Statement, these policies and guidelines were current during 2004 and have not been superseded. They are currently displayed on ECGD's web-pages.[16]

The May 2004 procedures

15. On 4 March 2004, ECGD wrote to its customers telling them "that as from 1 May [2004] all applications to ECGD will need to be made on new forms that will incorporate enhanced provisions in respect of bribery and corruption [and] we shall also be amending our policy documentation to reflect the new provisions". The letter added that "for cases where documentation is finalised after 1 May, we will be expanding the scope of our audit provisions to cover the contract award process and arrangements for paying agent's commission as well as the steps taken to prevent corruption".[17]

CONSULTATION ON THE MAY 2004 PROCEDURES

16. We established that no consultation took place on the May 2004 procedures before they were published. The CBI told us:

In 2000, there was what we thought was a fairly significant consultation process over some significant amendments to ECGD's anti-bribery and corruption provisions. It is not clear whether that was a consultation with a capital C but it certainly was a consultative process which involved ECGD's customers and trade bodies. There were, as a consequence of that discussion, amendments to ECGD's original proposed wording were made and were implemented in 2000. Between then and May 2004, we are not aware of any consultation, with or without a capital C, with ECGD's customers and trade bodies. So, when new provisions were announced, they did come, as far as we were concerned, as a complete surprise.[

The non-governmental organisations confirmed that they had not been consulted either about the May 2004 procedures.[19] Indeed, the Corner House told us that they had made unsuccessful "efforts to secure meetings and discussions, and also despite ECGD's position that the Corner House, together with Transparency International, are the two primary NGO stakeholders on anti-corruption, […] they brought those procedures in without consultation".[20]

17. The Government has advanced several reasons for not consulting interested parties on the May 2004 procedures. First, the Minister for Trade explained that "we had not envisaged [the] changes being introduced in May 2004 were of a nature to justify prior discussions with customers".[21] We note the main changes in the May 2004 procedures were that ECGD:

— extended the scope of the information it required from applicants to ensure that no improper agents' payments were being made to win contracts;

— took greater rights to inspect exporters' documents, particularly those relating to agents' payments; and

— required applicants to declare that they had not been involved in corrupt practices.[22]

18. In our view these were clearly significant changes affecting exporters and were of interest to the non-governmental organisations, one of whom, the Corner House, had already expressed an interest in the changes. We do not accept the Government's contention that the changes set out in the May 2004 procedures did not need to be discussed, before implementation, with exporters or with other interested parties.

19. Secondly, in response to our question about the lack of consultation on the May 2004 procedures John Weiss, at the time Deputy Chief Executive of ECGD, explained in his evidence to us that "in 2000, when we were first introducing anti-bribery procedures, we did act somewhat similarly to 2004 in that we gave notice of our intentions to introduce these new procedures" but "in 2000 we actually went out to the trade associations and asked for their feedback before we introduced them".[23] As far as we have established, the package, on which feedback was sought in 2000, did not foreshadow in detail the May 2004 procedures. Nor, would it appear, did the May 2000 exercise encompass the non-governmental organisations. We do not consider that the apparently limited consultative exercise four years previously in 2000 could obviate the need to consult on the package which was put forward by ECGD in 2004. Moreover, since 2000 ECGD had published its ECGD's Public Consultation Guidelines in January 2002 which contained a clear commitment to more consultation with customers and other parties.

20. Thirdly, the Minister pointed out that "ECGD had introduced some of the enhancements to its anti-bribery procedures in 2002 and 2003 without prior discussion with customers. This had not given rise to particular concerns and it was not thought at the time that the position would be different in 2004."[24] The Government conceded that with "hindsight" it was mistaken in its view,[25] and the Minister considered that this is "a complex difficult area with a range of conflicting opinions about the process here."[26]

21. We consider that the fact that changes to the procedures on bribery had been introduced in 2002 and 2003 with no consultation but without adverse reaction does not justify ECGD's approach to the May 2004 procedures. In our view what it shows is that ECGD had on two earlier occasions introduced changes apparently oblivious to its Public Consultation Guidelines and its commitment to greater consultation with customers and other parties. Nor do we accept the Minister's suggestion that the correct course was only clear with the benefit of hindsight. In our view the problem was the absence of foresight. ECGD's Public Consultation Guidelines set up an expectation, commendable in our view, that ECGD will consult on substantial changes to its policies, products and practices. There must be a presumption that ECGD will consult on changes. In our view the Government should have considered the cumulative effect of the changes since 2000 and, if it had, it would have concluded in the light of the Guidelines that a full prior consultation exercise was necessary.

22. We go further than the Minister when he said this is a difficult area with a range of conflicting opinions. Having taken evidence from exporters and the non-governmental organisations we consider that positions of the main interested parties—the exporters and the non-governmental organisations—are not only polarised but each side also contains elements of inconsistencies within it. The exporters' representatives, for example, have repeatedly declared they are "against any form of bribery and corruption"[27] but, in our view, they are not prepared to follow this through to its logical conclusion as the effect of implementing their representations on the procedures would be to blunt ECGD's attempts to implement Government policy on bribery and corruption. On the non-governmental organisation side, we found a reluctance to face up to the fact that the consequence of meeting their proposals in full might require the transformation of ECGD into a regulatory and investigative authority.[28] We consider that the common ground between the main interested parties is neither extensive nor firm. In these circumstances comprehensive consultation serves a clear purpose: it allows all concerned to put their views and to comment on each other's key arguments in public; and it enables the Government to take account of the representations and to set out a considered response.

23. We make no criticism of the non-governmental organisations when they seek to influence government—just as we make no criticism of the bodies that represent exporters for doing the same—but we were concerned to be told by John Weiss from ECGD that "the May 2004 procedures were actually heavily grounded in a report that the non-governmental organisations had put in at the end of 2003".[29] It is hardly surprising that exporters did not react positively to the May 2004 procedures. We consider that ECGD made a serious error when it failed to seek the views of exporters before proceeding with the May 2004 procedures. We conclude that it was inequitable for the Government to proceed with the May 2004 procedures without seeking the views of exporters and others through a consultation exercise.

24. Finally, the Government appeared to imply that because ECGD "gave two months' notice of the intention to bring in the new regime"[30] this was a substitute for consultation. In our view a consultation exercise has to be clearly labelled as such, views have to be sought and the outcome has to be open. The publication of the May 2004 procedures did not fulfil any of these criteria. ECGD's letter of 4 March 2004 informed exporters of a fait accompli and told them "if you have questions, or would like further information on any of the new provisions" they should contact a named official.[31] It did not seek views on the merits or operation of the May 2004 procedures. More importantly, consultation should be carried out in accordance with the Cabinet Office's 'Code of Practice on Consultation', which sets out the basic principles for conducting effective consultations.[32] We do not consider that the publication of the May 2004 procedures two months before they were due to come into operation met the requirements of the Code, not least its requirement to allow "a minimum of 12 weeks for written consultation".[33] We recommend that all ECGD's future consultation exercises are carried out in accordance with the Cabinet Office's Code of Practice on Consultation.

25. Nor do we accept the contention ECGD made in its evidence to us that it "introduced procedures perhaps too quickly" and "should have given longer for […] discussions with industry before bringing the new measures into play and then we would not have had a need to think about interim arrangements".[34] In our view this misses the point. Giving parties longer to acclimatise themselves to a decision of Government is not, in our view, the same as consultation. Nor are ad hoc discussions with interested parties about the workability of a proposal; they can be useful in the preparation of proposals for consultation, or can form part of a consultation exercise, but they are not an alternative to consultation. We consider that the package which culminated in the May 2004 procedures should have been subject to consultation meeting the terms of the Cabinet Office's guidance on consultation.

REACTION TO THE MAY 2004 PROCEDURES

26. ECGD's letter of 4 March 2004, informing exporters of the May 2004 procedures, explained that the new provisions were "in the main being introduced to reflect lessons learned by ECGD and to ensure that we continue to play our part in the Government's drive to root out wrongdoing in international business transactions".[35] According to ECGD, the May 2004 procedures were welcomed by some non-governmental organisations[36] but a number of major users of ECGD's facilities objected to the terms of the May 2004 documentation, on which, as we have noted, they had not been consulted.[37] ECGD were surprised by the difficulties exporters faced.[38] Although they did not carry out a full survey, the trade bodies estimated "that the majority, if not all, of the CBI's and BExA's members who were actively involved in major export campaigns were not content with the provisions".[39] The initial focus of the opposition came from aerospace and defence manufacturers, although other sectors were affected.[40] Their concerns were echoed by trade associations such as BExA, the CBI and the Society of British Aerospace Companies, and the British Bankers Association also raised concerns. At the time, the CBI did not see any need for ECGD's new rules, and told ECGD:

All exporters are aware of the obligation in your policies that they should comply with all laws applicable to the insured transactions. We believe that emphasising this fact is all that is necessary for you to do in connection with this issue.[41]

27. In the face of these objections, ECGD initially indicated that the new measures would stand.[42] The CBI then lobbied the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt MP, and requested that the new procedures be suspended until ECGD and its customers had resolved their problems.[43] Andy Scott, Director, International and UK Operations, at the CBI pointed out:

As we have already stated, we make no criticism of the exporters' associations for representing their members' views to Government. It is for government to consider those views and to decide how to react. In this case the CBI said that the then Secretary of State had acknowledged that "some aspects of wording and some legal definitions may be able to be clarified" and invited the CBI to take on a coordinating role to represent the various customers and the banks, and to work with ECGD to "get this right". The Secretary of State stated that the principles of ECGD's anti-corruption measures were not for discussion, but ECGD was willing to discuss specific issues where legal clarification was required.[45] In his evidence to us the Minister, Mr McCartney, took a different line. He said that the discussions with the CBI, whilst within the principle outlined, "were aimed at making the procedures workable",[46] and he identified "the requirement for applicants to make a no-corruption declaration in respect of all of their affiliates, whether or not they controlled them".[47] We consider that, if the Government had concluded that the May 2004 procedures were unworkable, it should have withdrawn them, rather than wait until December 2004.

28. The CBI convened an 'ECGD Solutions Group' comprising representatives of the main trade associations and ECGD's main customers to negotiate with ECGD.[48] Negotiations between ECGD and the CBI-led Solutions Group continued during the summer of 2004. Whilst initially ECGD rebutted criticism of the May 2004 procedures and refused to consider amending them, following the CBI's appeal to the Secretary of State ECGD gradually conceded ground on the main elements of its new anti-corruption measures.[49]

The December 2004 procedures

29. On 5 November 2004 ECGD published revised procedures which relaxed some of the new requirements with effect from 1 December 2004.[50] ECGD's letter of 5 November to exporters explained:

30. When the December 2004 procedures were published the non-governmental organisations were critical of what they saw as a watering down of ECGD's standards and the lack of public consultation prior to the revision. In their Report published in April 2005 our predecessors' assessment of the December 2004 procedures concurred with that of the non-governmental organisations:

31. In our view the Government's attempts to get the anti-bribery procedures back on track were probably flawed from the outset. When the Solutions Group was set up, ECGD may have expected that "clarifications" to the May 2004 procedures were all that was required but the changes that eventually emerged from the Group cannot in our view be described as clarifications, they were wholesale revisions. We consider that, if it was the then Secretary of State's intention that the changes to the May 2004 procedures were "clarifications", she should have laid down parameters for the Solutions Group or, when the Group moved to consider revisions to the May 2004 procedures, halted its work and looked for an alternative route to a solution. Again ECGD ignored its own Public Consultation Guidelines, which, in our view, provided a way out that should have satisfied all parties: a full consultation on the May 2004 procedures with all interested parties.

32. Instead, having produced the May 2004 procedures which could be perceived—and we give no view on whether this view was justified or not—as in tune with the non-governmental organisations' approach, the Government proceeded to work itself into a position that was the mirror image of its position in May 2004. By November 2004 with the assistance of, or led by, the Solutions Group, from which the non-governmental organisations had been excluded, the Government produced a revised set of procedures—the December 2004 procedures—that were acceptable to exporters but not to the non-governmental organisations. Transparency International (UK) told us that "we only had the consultation on these procedures as a result of a settlement [in January 2005] to an action for Judicial Review brought by the Corner House", which started in November 2004, and commented that it did not "say much for transparency".[53]

33. One other feature of the Solutions Group gives us concern. Large companies, particularly from the aerospace and defence sectors, appear to have predominated. Small and medium size exporters had little or no voice, which casts doubt on ECGD's commitment to its policy to put more focus on the needs of small and medium-sized exporters and investors (see paragraph 9 above). Their views should have been represented by the Export Guarantees Advisory Council, one of whose main areas of responsibility is to provide advice on "ECGD's marketing and product development policies and whether these adequately address the needs of small and medium sized firms as well as ECGD's existing customer base".[54] As we discuss at paragraph 48 below, the Advisory Council, however, played a diminishing role during 2004. We are concerned that, as was the case with its policy on consultation with interested parties, ECGD's promise to focus on needs of small and medium-sized exporters and investors was largely ignored during the formulation of both the May and December 2004 procedures.

34. In its evidence to us the Government accepted that the outcome of the subsequent consultation in 2005-06 "is now a better balanced package of measures than we had either in May 2004 or December [2004]. It is sort of positioned somewhere between the two, but it is actually better balanced and is a good outcome."[55] We are therefore surprised to find that the Government has continued to maintain that the changes made to the May 2004 procedures as a result of the work of the Solutions Group did not justify a full consultation.[56] In our view the changes made to the May 2004 procedures as a result of the work of the Solutions Group more than justified a full consultation on the anti-bribery procedures. We are concerned that the Government has still not conceded this point and invite it to reconsider, particularly since it concedes that the ex post facto measures are an improvement.

Judicial Review sought by the Corner House

35. On 19 November 2004 one non-governmental organisation, the Corner House, sought Judicial Review of ECGD's decision to proceed with the changes without undertaking public consultation on its proposals.[57] On 13 January 2005, the first day of the court hearing, ECGD agreed to carry out the consultation demanded by the Corner House, and to pay all costs associated with the proceedings. As a consequence of the agreement, ECGD published documents relating to its negotiations with the exporters' representatives which began after the intervention of the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It also undertook to put its revised procedures to public consultation.[58]

Conclusions on consultation

36. We consider that ECGD's response to the legal action is clear evidence of the failure of ECGD to meet its business principles for greater openness and transparency and its own guidelines for consultation. We consider that the crucial error that ECGD made was to proceed with the May 2004 procedures without any consultation. It then compounded the problem by embarking on what turned into a one-sided dialogue with one interested party, the exporters, which excluded another, the non-governmental organisations. Without the efforts of the Corner House the less effective December 2004 procedures would have superseded the May 2004 procedures. We consider that both exporters and the non-governmental organisations have a clear interest in ECGD's bribery rules and we recommend that all parties, including small and medium-sized exporters, be consulted before future changes are made to the bribery rules, other than insubstantial amendments.

COST

37. The CBI also made the point that the exercise in agreeing ECGD's revised anti-bribery and corruption procedures cost business many thousands of pounds and staff hours in a diversion away from core business activity.[59] We agree. The Solutions Group appears to us to have been a waste of money and effort for business—and for the taxpayer—and underlines our view that a full consultation carried out in the first half of 2004 was the best way to proceed.

The "interim arrangements"

38. The adverse reaction which ECGD faced to the May 2004 procedures was such that its major customers and all the banks "that do ECGD financing business had said they could not work with the May procedures".[60] ECGD did not withdraw the May 2004 procedures but offered a set of alternative arrangements to their customers, the "interim arrangements". There were not, however, a formal set of procedures that ECGD announced or published[61] and their legitimacy is open to question. John Weiss from ECGD explained what happened from May 2004:

Clive Jones, Chairman of the CBI's Export Finance Committee and a member of BExA's Council, took a different view of the arrangements after May 2004:

39. We consider it unacceptable for ECGD to run anti-bribery procedures from May 2004 which allowed customers to select whether they followed the old or new arrangements. We are not surprised that, with a choice on offer, of the £955 million cover that ECGD provided between May and December 2004, 95% (£900 million) of the business was under the so-called interim arrangements and only 5% (£55 million) was subject to the May 2004 procedures.[65] We consider that for the public to have confidence in the anti-bribery rules it is essential that ECGD apply a consistent set of procedures uniformly to all their customers. To do otherwise undercuts the policy behind the procedures. Where the procedures offer applicants options—for example, to invoke the Special Handling Arrangements which we consider below—these must be published and set out clearly and they must not be so extensive as to undermine the principles underpinning the arrangements. This was not the case from May 2004. We consider it was unacceptable and unfair to allow applicants for ECGD services to decide for themselves whether they followed the pre- or post-May 2004 anti-bribery procedures. In our view, once it became clear that the bulk of cover was being provided under the pre-May 2004 procedures, the May 2004 procedures served little purpose and Government should have withdrawn the May 2004 procedures.

The March 2005 and subsequent consultation exercises

40. On 18 March 2005 ECGD started consultation on the revised procedures and invited views on two questions:

Do the changes made to ECGD's anti-bribery and corruption procedures in December 2004 have the effect of ensuring that, so far as practicable, (1) taxpayers' money is not used to support transactions tainted with bribery and/or corruption; and (2) an undue burden is not placed on exporters and/or banks?[66]

Responses were sought by 18 June 2005. By the deadline ECGD had received 28 written responses to the consultation and had met with a number of respondents.[67]

OCTOBER 2005: ECGD'S INTERIM RESPONSE

41. On 21 October 2005 ECGD published an 'Interim Response to ECGD'S Consultation on Changes to ECGD'S Anti-Bribery and Corruption Procedures Introduced in December 2004'[68] and invited further representations by 18 November 2005. ECGD explained that:

The representations received during the initial consultation period, which ended on 18 June 2005, showed clearly that interested parties had detailed and wide-ranging views. After carefully considering these, ECGD has reached a settled view on the appropriate underlying principles. On the key specific issues covered by the consultation, ECGD has identified certain provisional conclusions on which it is inviting comment from interested parties during a further round of consultation.[69]

42. ECGD received a further 11 written submissions by the 18 November 2005 deadline and held a further meeting with the CBI. During this consultation BAE Systems pointed out an inconsistency in the proposed requirements on exporters to give undertakings to the "best of our knowledge and belief". The Government issued a letter on 5 December 2005 to all consultees to clarify the issue and inviting further comments.[70] Written responses to that letter were received from nine consultees; and a further letter explaining the Government's settled view on the issue was sent to all consultees by ECGD on 23 December 2005.[71]

MARCH 2006: ECGD'S FINAL RESPONSE

43. 'The Government's Final Response to ECGD's Consultation on Changes to its Anti-bribery and Corruption Procedures Introduced in December 2004' was published on 16 March 2006.[72] ECGD proposed that the revised procedures would come into operation on 1 July 2006.

CONSULTATION ON CHANGES TO THE SPECIAL HANDLING ARRANGEMENTS

44. The Government's conclusions on all the major issues which had arisen in the course of the Consultation were contained in the Final Response. It decided, however, to extend the consultation ending on 7 April 2006, in order to seek the views of consultees on its proposals for special arrangements for the handling of information about the identities of agents to be supplied to ECGD ("the Special Handling Arrangements"). These arrangements were intended to minimise the risk of inadvertent disclosure of this information.[73]

45. The deadline was extended by ECGD to 30 April 2006, following requests from a number of consultees to be given more time. ECGD received eight written representations by the revised deadline and "clarificatory meetings" were also held with two consultees— BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce—who subsequently submitted written representations.[74]

46. We examine the Special Handling Arrangements in more detail at chapter 3.

47. We received no representations criticising the consultation exercises which ECGD undertook after March 2005. We consider them to have been thorough and comprehensive and also responsive—for example, in the consultation on the Special Handling Arrangements in March-April 2006 in response to the reasonable request of consultees for additional time. At the end of the process we concur with the assessment of Ms Drew from the Corner House:

The Export Guarantees Advisory Council

48. Finally in this chapter, we examine the role of the Export Guarantees Advisory Council. Its statutory purpose is to give advice to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, at his request, in respect of any matter relating to the exercise of his functions under the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991.[76] The Advisory Council's role was radically changed in 2000 in line with the conclusions of the Mission and Status Review (see paragraph 9 above).[77] Since then the Advisory Council has had a broad remit from the Secretary of State to provide advice on the principles that should guide the pursuit by ECGD of the aims and objectives set out in its Mission Statement, and how these principles should inform its business policies.[78] The Council explained in its memorandum that it followed ECGD's consultation on its anti-bribery and corruption procedures "with interest", "was given proper opportunity to contribute" and was "able to provide advice on the relevant procedures as policy was being formulated".[79] The Council endorsed the procedures set out in the Final Response.[80]

49. We asked the Government what part the Advisory Council played in advising on earlier procedures. John Weiss from ECGD replied:

50. We have examined the minutes of the meetings of the Advisory Council in 2003 and 2004 and they bear out Mr Weiss's account. It is also consistent with the evidence and conclusions of our predecessors in their Report published in April 2005:

51. From the minutes of their meetings the Advisory Council had a general discussion about bribery and corruption in January 2004[84] and were kept informed of developments at their meetings in 2004.[85] We note that at its meeting in October 2004 the Advisory Council commented that "the key lesson for ECGD was to avoid the problems encountered on this issue by consulting more widely before introducing new policies".[86] From Mr Weiss's response and the minutes it appears that during the summer of 2004 ECGD had sidelined the Advisory Council in favour of the Solutions Group. In contrast in 2005, we note that the Advisory Council reviewed and discussed submissions to ECGD's March 2005 consultation exercise at its meeting on 25 August 2005 and made a number of detailed points to the Government.[87] The Council's comments were taken into account by the Government in preparing its response to the consultation.[88]

52. In our view the Government made a serious error in failing to draw the Export Guarantees Advisory Council into the formulation of the May and December 2004 procedures. As well as having expertise on points of detail the Advisory Council was in a position to give a perspective on the broader issues such as the role of ECGD. We invite the Government to set out the improvements that it proposes to make to the way it involves the Export Guarantees Advisory Council in any future consideration of changes to ECGD's policy and practices. In line with our predecessors' Report in April 2005, we recommend that the Secretary of State alter the terms of reference he has set for the Advisory Council, to include asking them to advise ECGD when proposed changes in ECGD's policies, products or practice should be subject to consultation. This should not, in our view, remove the need for the Government itself to consider or initiate consultation exercises but we consider it would help to remind the Government of its responsibility.

10 ECGD, Review of ECGD's Mission and Status, Cm 4790, July 2000 Back

12 As set out at www.ecgd.gov.uk/index/pi_home/pi_bp.htm Back

13 As set out at http://www.ecgd.gov.uk/index/pi_home/pi_bp_bi.htm. Back

14 As set out at http://www.ecgd.gov.uk/index/pi_home/pi_bp/pi_bp_transparency.htm. Back

15 As set out at http://www.ecgd.gov.uk/index/pi_home/pi_pc.htm#PublicConsultation-Commitment Back

16 See preceding footnotes. Back

17 Letter from John Weiss, ECGD, to all customers, 4 March 2004, http://www.ecgd.gov.uk/index/lc_home.htm Back

18 Q 21 Back

19 Q 96 Back

20 Q 97 Back

21 Q 102 Back

22 ECGD Press release,1 April 2004, http://www.ecgd.gov.uk/news_home.htm?id=6095 Back