Search results

In this brief paper the authors consider the duties owed by professional indemnity insurance brokers to their insured clients. Given the prevalence of claims for financial mis‐selling this is an important issue of concern to all authorised advisers. Any failure to obtain or maintain cover leading to uninsured loss will naturally attract the potential attention of the broker’s own insurers. The authors summarise what the law expects of brokers in standard situations.

Section 1(1) of the Financial Services and Markets Act (the Act) provides: ‘the body corporate known as the Financial Services Authority (“the Authority” [the FSA]) is to have the functions conferred on it by or under this Act’.

‘Fitness and propriety’ is a key qualifying condition of authorisation under the Financial Services and Markets Bill. Blandly stated, it is probably uncontroversial as a condition of authorisation. How, in practice, fitness and propriety should be demonstrated to, inquired into and verified by the Financial Services Authority raise more difficult issues. This paper looks at the way in which these practical issues have been addressed by the courts and other regulatory regimes in the past. While past experience does not form a model for future guidance on these topics, it is a useful starting point from which to consider the draft Bill's approach to such matters. Since this paper was written, the Financial Services and Marketing Bill has been amended. The current version can be viewed at: www.parliament.the‐stationery‐office.co.uk

This is not a summary of the day's proceedings. It is merely a list of salient points which I had not heard made with such clarity of force on other occasions. Some are controversial; but since the meeting I have taken the opportunity, while editing the proceedings, to check that reasonable evidence is available to substantiate all those quoted.

On 1 February 1985 an invited audience of representatives from a wide variety of library and information organisations attended a seminar on software evaluation sponsored by the British Library and held at Information House, the headquarters of Aslib, the Association for Information Management.

The wide availability of relatively cheap computing power has led many librarians and information officers to expect that the procurement of a microcomputer and database software will answer all of their needs for information management and retrieval. They then anticipate that this equipment will also serve all of the administrative needs of the information unit. This simplistic view is seen to ignore many of the hard realities of automation, and neglects the vital need for systems analysis and design. The author examines the ways in which microcomputers are currently used in libraries, and suggests some practical considerations for those about to embark on automation projects.

Computing has become the classic example of the philosophy that ‘small is beautiful’ — currently known as the Felicity Kendall syndrome. As the hardware has become smaller so it has, paradoxically, become more powerful; and, more important still, the price has come down in, if anything, an even greater ratio. The progression can be summed‐up — if a certain well‐known company will excuse the plagiarism — by the acronym 3M: mainframe, mini, micro.

Considers the position of women in the computing industry and the impact of new technology on women employed in information handling occupations. Examines the role of traditional attitudes to women, education and training, this is of particular importance as the computer industry faces a skill crisis in the 1990s. Trends would seem to suggest that although women have the potential to take up new opportunities in computing, they fail to see computing as an attractive option and are technically ill‐equipped to do so.

This paper is based on a talk given by Philip Ryley and John Virgo to the Association of Pension Lawyers at their annual conference in Bournemouth in November 1998. In it the authors provide an outline of some of the key legal issues that have arisen out of the pensions mis‐selling litigation.

This paper is confined to an overview on the disciplinary and appeal procedures contained in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The paper will not deal with market abuse, civil remedies, intervention or criminal prosecutions. It will, however, deal with discipline procedure and the appeal process. It is important to remember, when reading this paper, that the financial services industry still awaits the publication of the draft Enforcement, draft Supervision and draft Authorisation Manuals. The current expected publication date is August 2000. In addition, it is necesssary to distinguish between disciplinary measures affecting individuals and measures affecting businesses. This paper adopts the definitions in the Act and so the use of ‘authorised person’ refers to a business entity, and the use of ‘approved person’ refers to an individual. [Editor's note: A few days after this paper was written the draft Enforcement manual was published. The manual can be viewed at www.fsa.gov.uk.]