| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
an online certificated bailiff register allowing debtors to check bailiffs’ certification status;
an extension to the certification process to ensure that all bailiffs provide a Criminal Records Bureau check with their application; and
minimum training requirements and competences for inclusion in the certification process.
These measures will contribute to the development of the more permanent solution of full independent regulation in 2012.
Part 3 of the 2007 Act makes a number of important reforms to bailiff law which will remove archaic and complex legislation. The majority of these reforms received cross-party support during its passage. The changes will
help debtors, creditors, bailiffs and the police understand what their rights and responsibilities are when debts are enforced. Provisions under the Act will clarify the existing law and introduce a comprehensive code governing, among other things:
when and how a bailiff can enter somebody’s premises;
what goods they can and cannot seize and sell; and
what fees they can charge.
This will provide clarity for debtors and certainty for creditors and be underpinned by independent regulation of the enforcement industry. Regulation will not only improve the efficiency and effectiveness of both civil and criminal enforcement but it will also offer protection to vulnerable debtors, who genuinely cannot pay, and reduce the scope for abuse of the system. A formalised structure to regulate the industry would raise standards of professionalism within the industry and give the public greater confidence in it.
We will produce a consultation paper which will set out the Government’s intentions for a package of measures which will address concerns that have been raised about the behaviour of bailiffs, the fees charged and proposals for the regulation of the bailiff industry. It will also set out draft regulations on seizure of goods, and allow for detailed consideration of a standardised fee structure. The intention is to commence this consultation exercise with a view to implementing the changes in April 2012.
This will allow business, local authorities, courts, creditors, the enforcement industry and the advice sector a substantial period of time to adequately prepare for and introduce the change.
Office for Judicial Complaints (Annual Report 2007-08)
The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Mr. Jack Straw): With the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice, I have today published the annual report of the Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC). The OJC provides support to the Lord Chief Justice and myself in our joint responsibility for the system of judicial complaints and discipline.
I welcome the publication of this report, the second produced by the OJC, which publishes details of the work undertaken by the office over the last year and the complaints which it has dealt with.
The OJC’s 2006-07 report marked the first occasion on which comprehensive details of complaints received about Judicial Office Holders had been made available to the public in this manner. I am pleased to note that the OJC continues to build on this foundation and believe that this report highlights the continued progress made by the OJC in delivering a high quality, effective and transparent service to all of its customers.
The Lord Chief Justice and I are keen to ensure that the disciplinary process for judicial office holders is both transparent and accountable. To that end, we have agreed that, from today, where a judicial office holder has been removed from office following disciplinary procedures, there should now be a presumption that both the identity of that judicial office holder, and the reason for their removal, should be made public. While mindful of this presumption, we will nonetheless continue to make decisions about disclosure on a case-by-case basis.
Where a judicial office holder has been subject to a lesser sanction than removal this presumption does not apply. However, we will continue to give consideration to the disclosure of relevant information in cases that have attracted a high degree of interest from the public and media.
Copies of the report are available in the Libraries of both Houses, the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office. Copies of the report are also available on the Internet at: http://www.judicialcomplaints.gov.uk/publications/publications.htm.
Transport
UK Air Passenger Demand and CO2 Forecasts, 2009: Errata
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The Department for Transport is today publishing an errata to “UK Air Passenger Demand and CO2 forecasts 2009”, which was published in January. Copies of the errata have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. This follows its identification of an input error to the 2009 GDP growth rate for the “PBR Nov 2008 GDP forecast” sensitivity test. The 2009 GDP growth rate was entered as +1%, when it should have been -1%. GDP growth rates for later years, the central case forecasts and other sensitivity tests are unaffected.
This sensitivity test is relevant to those who are preparing evidence for the Stansted G2 public inquiry. The Department for Transport is, therefore, taking steps to alert participants to the minor corrections so they can use them in forming their evidence.
The air passenger demand and CO2 forecasts, and net benefits of a third runway at Heathrow and a second runway at Stansted, have been re-estimated for this sensitivity test with this input error corrected.
Table 4.4 (page 96) of “UK Air Passenger Demand and CO2 forecasts 2009” presents the net benefits of a second runway at Stansted and a third runway at Heathrow under a range of sensitivity tests.
The net benefit of a second runway, with associated terminal capacity, at Stansted in the central case was £10.0 billion. Under the “PBR Nov 2008 GDP forecasts” sensitivity test, the net benefit was £8.7 billion. With the input error corrected the net benefit under this sensitivity test falls to £8.6 billion. This revised estimate is:
i. well within the range of net benefits reported in table 4.4 (page 96) of “UK Air Passenger Demand and CO2 forecasts 2009” (£4.3 billion - £11.3 billion).
The net benefit of a third runway and sixth terminal at Heathrow, in the central case, was £5.5 billion. In the “PBR Nov 2008 GDP forecasts” sensitivity test, the net benefit was £5.4 billion. With the input error corrected the net benefit under this sensitivity test falls to £5.1 billion. This revised estimate is:
i. well within the range of net benefits reported in table 4.4 (page 96) of “UK Air Passenger Demand and CO2 forecasts 2009” and in table 10 (page 35) of “Adding Capacity at Heathrow Airport—Impact Assessment” (£0.9 billion - £9.7 billion); and,
ii. at the upper end of the range of net benefits reported in annex B of “Adding Capacity at Heathrow Airport—Consultation Document” (£4.4 billion—£5.2 billion).
This shows that correcting this error does not materially affect the conclusions that follow from the results presented in “UK Air Passenger Demand and CO2 forecasts 2009”. I can also confirm that the error does not materially affect the evidence presented in the Heathrow
impact assessment (including that presented for the tests limiting Heathrow runway capacity). Therefore, and as I have already reached a decision over Heathrow, the Department for Transport is not issuing an errata to the Heathrow impact assessment.
| Index | Home Page |