Posted by Gleb Kanunnikau |
As his country goes into economic freefall, Belarus’s president plans to trade prisoners – including journalist Andrzej Poczobut – for cash.
It is often suggested that the European Union’s foreign policy toward Russia and Belarus is a joke – there are too many people involved and too many conflicting interests to conduct any kind of consistent policy. And after all, the EU’s main objective in the region is ensuring a steady supply of Russian oil and gas.
However, some people in Belarus, the ‘last dictatorship in Europe’, are paying close attention to what the European parliament says and does. For example, a routine discussion about the situation in Belarus in April, with MEPs participating via video conference link, may sound harmless to most people, but it was deemed a subversive and dangerous act by the Belarusian authorities.
When Andrzej Poczobut, a journalist for Gazeta Wyborcza (a leading Polish newspaper) and a Belarusian citizen, decided to attend said conference with MEPs in Minsk, Belarus, he was arrested on the way there and charged with defaming the president.
Two months later, he is still in prison, awaiting trial on 14 June, when the judge will likely pronounce him guilty. He is charged with insulting the president (Article 368 allows up to two years in prison for this ‘crime’), and offending the president (Article 367 – up to four years for that). His articles in Gazeta Wyborcza and even his blog posts on Livejournal.com are supposedly evidence of his misconduct.
Andrzej Poczobut is a brave and decent man, who has covered the Belarusian situation for Gazeta Wyborcza for a number of years, providing a crucial insight into the closed society that exists just east of the Polish border. He is also an activist in a local organization for Polish people, which is being persecuted by the Belarusian government, which labels them extremists and separatists. As someone who knows Andrzej and other native Poles living in the region, I must say that this is a blatant lie and an attempt to find internal enemies by our authoritarian government.
What has happened is something of an anomaly: normally, people find a way to avoid lengthy jail sentences for such offences. There’s always a way to escape abroad just prior to arrest. Most people heed the warning when the KGB confiscates their laptop and searches their home the first time. Or they decide that it probably is not worth it right after KGB agents in civil clothes rough them up once or twice. Most people certainly don’t write a blog post after being beaten up by KGB, saying ‘I’m not afraid and I’m not leaving the country – don’t count on me running away’. This was the last straw – the KGB doesn’t like being provoked.
It is easy to dismiss the story as yet another sad, but all-too-familiar episode – after all, Belarusian journalists have been jailed, harassed and even abducted before. This is just an unfortunate sidenote in the rapidly unfolding story of the demise of Belarus’s authoritarian state. But before you do dismiss it, consider that this is an atrocity even by Belarusian standards.
Never before in the history of Belarus have journalists faced jail terms of up to four years in prison. The last time a comparable trial was held, in 2002, two brave journalists, Mikola Markevich and Paval Mazhejka, were convicted for defamation against the president and spent two years under ‘restricted freedom’ conditions in a minimum-security work camp. Nine years and two bitterly contested presidential elections have passed since then; elections during which hundreds of activists were tortured and imprisoned, but journalists have been spared the worst of the repression, or so it seemed.
What has changed? Why the cruelty and such seemingly short-sighted eagerness to arrest an international journalist, thus spoiling the government’s relationship with the West? The background is simple and very gruesome.
Last week, as President Lukashenka called the rapidly deteriorating economic situation in Belarus a national emergency, his government submitted a request for emergency monetary assistance to the IMF. This is a last resort to get cash – Russia having recently stopped subsidizing the Belarusian economy – but it is also a risky step.
International institutions have repeatedly condemned political repression, lack of economic reform and resistance to privatization as the main reasons against providing loans to Belarus in the past. Despite the EU and US’s cautious policy of isolating Belarus, it has still managed to borrow heavily abroad to support its security apparatus and inefficient socialist economy. Its national debt ballooned from 27.6 to 45.5 per cent in just four years.
The economy collapsed this spring, with prices going up 100 to 150 per cent over the course of two months, and imports of even basic goods such as baby food, coffee, rice and buckwheat drying up almost entirely.
This is the endgame for Lukashenka, who knows that his economic system won’t survive without massive aid from abroad, and who is trying to maintain internal stability with borrowed funds. His hope is that he will be able to win economic concessions and additional aid from the West by holding political prisoners hostage and avoiding larger internal reforms. When in 2007 dozens of political prisoners were released and criminal cases against them dropped, this was part of the EU’s plan for normalizing relationships with Belarus after the brutal and flawed presidential elections of 2006. Belarus was promised alleviating of political and economic sanctions and participation in international partnerships programmes.
If Belarusian authorities manage to get new loans, the agony of the Belarusian people will continue, but hopefully many people who are serving political sentences will be released. Here’s hoping that international pressure will help to overturn the decision in Andrzej’s case and he will be able to go home soon to his daughter and wife.
Andrzej’s newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza hosts a campaign to free Andrzej and provides some background about his case here: wyborcza.pl/poczobut/0,114034.html
Gleb Kanunnikau is a designer and trainer, who has worked on web projects in the media and education in former USSR and eastern Europe since 2006.
Thursday 23 June 2011
Define Feminism: a poem
found in the New Internationalist
Posted by Mari Marcel Thekaekara | My daughter and I, and my husband and sons, have had frequent conversations about feminism.
I realize I am a bundle of contradictions as I tell my annual batch of British development students to be ultra careful in India. To cover up for their own safety. I hate doing it because saying ‘wear long loose clothes’ goes against everything; it’s a step away from saying ‘wear a burqa or hijab’.
And I argue with a Muslim man that to say that women tempt men is ludicrous. If a man covets a five-year-old girl, is he the sinner or she? I ask him. So where’s the logic behind covering a girl child in black burqa from head to toe? He smiles, but his beautiful wife and daughter have recently moved into hijab, though their grandmothers in Kerala walked free and unencumbered. Am I a hypocrite?
What about culturally appropriate attire, ask my activist friends who don’t like scantily clad women walking around villages. There’s scope for a full-length article here. But for now I thought I’d share my daughter’s thoughts. She who insists she cannot write.
This then is from Tahira, born in 1983 with a different perspective from that of her mother who lived with sexually inappropriate remarks through the 1970s and 1980s, when few people talked about sexual harassment. And most women had to grin and bear it.
Us (Non)Feminist (Wo)Men
I’m not sure I’d call myself a feminist
Said my best friend (with a little moue of distaste), and my sister in law agreed.
They’re both
Intelligent, accomplished, and independent women.
Of course I’m a feminist
Said my beautiful, commonsensical mother
But please
Change into a kurta and out of those jeans before you leave.
It’s an elitist preoccupation
Said my activist scholar brother as he
Cleared the table
And started washing the dishes (while I propped up my feet)
Well, I guess I am a feminist!
Said my startled, future husband, and
Epiphany over,
He paid the bill and held the door for me.
……
Please don’t be chivalrous – it’s sexist!
Said the woman to my father,
Looking pointedly at
The door he held open, at a fancy Oxford conference.
My mostly loquacious father,
Who holds doors for absolutely everyone, (regardless of their genitalia,)
Said nothing, shrugged,
And preceded her in hurt bewildered silence.
Please don’t be so ethnocentric
I want to tell the woman from Oxford,
Don’t you realize
Chivalry’s a western cultural construct? (backpedal, quickly now, you don’t want to be racist).
Don’t sacrifice politeness for political correctness,
And start to second guess each thoughtful gesture.
That’s what I want to tell my father
He is clearly a feminist (according to me)
………
She’s exhausted, so she tells them, she’s impure and menstruating.
And is banished to the anteroom and the solitude she craves.
With an impish little smile,
She lies down on the matting, no one can touch her now for three whole days (Mission Accomplished!)
The audience chants Vagina! as I slip into the corridor,
To check His father’s eaten the dinner I cooked that morning.
Mindspace uncluttered,
I enjoy the rest of Eve Ensler’s brilliant, hilarious, feminist play
She swore she’d never be a passive victim (the girl I’d love if I were lesbian).
I want to shout applause and vehemently agree,
But I’ve shamed myself to silence,
As (earlier that day) we sat frozen as she confronted her molester alone (we were like strangers on a bus)
……
I want to tell my friend
That she can call herself a feminist, define it on her own terms
And continue
To wear a bra and want a boyfriend
I fundamentally believe
In equity and equality, so I’m definitely a feminist
But that isn’t
All that I am (the whole is greater than the parts)
I tell my morning mirror that I’m equanimously feminist,
Without boxing myself into black and white pigeon holes
That demarcate boundaries,
Imposed by other people’s misconceptions and insecurities.
Posted by Mari Marcel Thekaekara | My daughter and I, and my husband and sons, have had frequent conversations about feminism.
I realize I am a bundle of contradictions as I tell my annual batch of British development students to be ultra careful in India. To cover up for their own safety. I hate doing it because saying ‘wear long loose clothes’ goes against everything; it’s a step away from saying ‘wear a burqa or hijab’.
And I argue with a Muslim man that to say that women tempt men is ludicrous. If a man covets a five-year-old girl, is he the sinner or she? I ask him. So where’s the logic behind covering a girl child in black burqa from head to toe? He smiles, but his beautiful wife and daughter have recently moved into hijab, though their grandmothers in Kerala walked free and unencumbered. Am I a hypocrite?
What about culturally appropriate attire, ask my activist friends who don’t like scantily clad women walking around villages. There’s scope for a full-length article here. But for now I thought I’d share my daughter’s thoughts. She who insists she cannot write.
This then is from Tahira, born in 1983 with a different perspective from that of her mother who lived with sexually inappropriate remarks through the 1970s and 1980s, when few people talked about sexual harassment. And most women had to grin and bear it.
Us (Non)Feminist (Wo)Men
I’m not sure I’d call myself a feminist
Said my best friend (with a little moue of distaste), and my sister in law agreed.
They’re both
Intelligent, accomplished, and independent women.
Of course I’m a feminist
Said my beautiful, commonsensical mother
But please
Change into a kurta and out of those jeans before you leave.
It’s an elitist preoccupation
Said my activist scholar brother as he
Cleared the table
And started washing the dishes (while I propped up my feet)
Well, I guess I am a feminist!
Said my startled, future husband, and
Epiphany over,
He paid the bill and held the door for me.
……
Please don’t be chivalrous – it’s sexist!
Said the woman to my father,
Looking pointedly at
The door he held open, at a fancy Oxford conference.
My mostly loquacious father,
Who holds doors for absolutely everyone, (regardless of their genitalia,)
Said nothing, shrugged,
And preceded her in hurt bewildered silence.
Please don’t be so ethnocentric
I want to tell the woman from Oxford,
Don’t you realize
Chivalry’s a western cultural construct? (backpedal, quickly now, you don’t want to be racist).
Don’t sacrifice politeness for political correctness,
And start to second guess each thoughtful gesture.
That’s what I want to tell my father
He is clearly a feminist (according to me)
………
She’s exhausted, so she tells them, she’s impure and menstruating.
And is banished to the anteroom and the solitude she craves.
With an impish little smile,
She lies down on the matting, no one can touch her now for three whole days (Mission Accomplished!)
The audience chants Vagina! as I slip into the corridor,
To check His father’s eaten the dinner I cooked that morning.
Mindspace uncluttered,
I enjoy the rest of Eve Ensler’s brilliant, hilarious, feminist play
She swore she’d never be a passive victim (the girl I’d love if I were lesbian).
I want to shout applause and vehemently agree,
But I’ve shamed myself to silence,
As (earlier that day) we sat frozen as she confronted her molester alone (we were like strangers on a bus)
……
I want to tell my friend
That she can call herself a feminist, define it on her own terms
And continue
To wear a bra and want a boyfriend
I fundamentally believe
In equity and equality, so I’m definitely a feminist
But that isn’t
All that I am (the whole is greater than the parts)
I tell my morning mirror that I’m equanimously feminist,
Without boxing myself into black and white pigeon holes
That demarcate boundaries,
Imposed by other people’s misconceptions and insecurities.
Tuesday 21 June 2011
More jobless than jobs
Thurrock tops Eastern league with more than 10 unemployed people chasing each job
5:01pm Monday 13th June 2011
THURROCK has the highest ratio of unemployed job seekers to vacancies in the Eastern region.
The borough has an average of 10.7 applicants per job, with 4,354 people claiming Job Seeker’s Allowance chasing 408 vacancies.
This is higher than the average in Southend, the neighbouring unitary authority, which has an average of 6.3 applicants per job.
Thurrock’s ratio is more than twice the average for Essex, which is 4.6.
The borough’s Tory MP, Jackie Doyle-Price, said the coalition is investing heavily in a work programme to ease unemployment.
She said: “People do not always work where they live.
“People who live in Thurrock often work in Kent, London and elsewhere in Essex so fewer vacancies in Thurrock does not mean fewer job opportunities for Thurrock people.
“The key issue though is to increase job opportunities and to make sure that work pays.
“The coalition Government is investing heavily in the work programme to make sure that those who can work are able to. Unemployed people will be given access to training programmes to equip them with skills and the benefits system is being reformed so that people are no longer trapped into being dependent on welfare.”
She added: “By tackling Government borrowing more money will be available to encourage the private sector to invest and that will lead to more jobs and I look forward to witnessing the creation of new jobs locally through for example the expansion at Lakeside and the continued investment at London Gateway.”
The unemployement figures were revealed at the GMB congress in Brighton on Friday.
The conference heard there are 5.8 unemployed workers chasing each unfilled job vacancy across the country as a whole, and 10.1 in London.
5:01pm Monday 13th June 2011
THURROCK has the highest ratio of unemployed job seekers to vacancies in the Eastern region.
The borough has an average of 10.7 applicants per job, with 4,354 people claiming Job Seeker’s Allowance chasing 408 vacancies.
This is higher than the average in Southend, the neighbouring unitary authority, which has an average of 6.3 applicants per job.
Thurrock’s ratio is more than twice the average for Essex, which is 4.6.
The borough’s Tory MP, Jackie Doyle-Price, said the coalition is investing heavily in a work programme to ease unemployment.
She said: “People do not always work where they live.
“People who live in Thurrock often work in Kent, London and elsewhere in Essex so fewer vacancies in Thurrock does not mean fewer job opportunities for Thurrock people.
“The key issue though is to increase job opportunities and to make sure that work pays.
“The coalition Government is investing heavily in the work programme to make sure that those who can work are able to. Unemployed people will be given access to training programmes to equip them with skills and the benefits system is being reformed so that people are no longer trapped into being dependent on welfare.”
She added: “By tackling Government borrowing more money will be available to encourage the private sector to invest and that will lead to more jobs and I look forward to witnessing the creation of new jobs locally through for example the expansion at Lakeside and the continued investment at London Gateway.”
The unemployement figures were revealed at the GMB congress in Brighton on Friday.
The conference heard there are 5.8 unemployed workers chasing each unfilled job vacancy across the country as a whole, and 10.1 in London.
Interesting but sad news article
(c) Sky News 2011, 9:31, Tuesday 21 June 2011
Some 65 "repossession hotspots" have been identified by housing charity Shelter as unemployment levels rise and more homeowners find themselves in negative equity.
Corby in the East Midlands was found to have the highest rate of at-risk homeowners with some 7.56 per 1,000 - nine times higher than the lowest rate in West Dorset of 0.83.
The Northamptonshire town has the highest proportion of homeowners who have been issued with a possession order for their home over the last 12 months, according to the research.
It is closely followed by Barking and Dagenham and Newham in London; Knowsley, Merseyside and Thurrock, Essex.
A possession order is an advanced stage of the repossession process which means a homeowner is at serious risk of losing their home.
The study by the housing and homelessness charity identified 65 of 324 local authorities as repossession hotspots.
Shelter warns that the figures reflect a need for homeowners across the country to prepare for higher mortgage repayments when interest rates rise as expected later this year.
A recent report by the Financial Services Authority said banks are masking the true scale of the threat, with experts predicting repossessions will hit 45,000 next year.
The findings of the charity's report correspond with these areas having higher and increasing rates of unemployment.
The average rate of unemployment in the local authorities with the highest rates stood at 9.6%, compared to 5.3% in those with the least.
And unemployment has risen, on average, by 3.3% over the last three years in the most at risk areas, compared to a 1.4% increase in the lowest, Shelter said.
The study also identified clusters of local authorities - Tyneside, Kent coastal towns (Thurrock, Medway, Swale) and The Wash (South Holland, Fenland, Peterborough) - among those in the highest risk group.
It also highlighted a red "ribbon" of repossessions across northern England from the Mersey in the west to the Humber estuary in the east.
The results are based on analysis of the latest Ministry of Justice figures on the rates of claims leading to possession orders per 1,000 households for each local authority, published in May 2011.
Campbell Robb, chief executive of Shelter, said: "This research paints a frightening picture of repossession hotspots across the country where homeowners are literally on the brink of losing the roof over their head.
"We know only too well that the combined pressures of high inflation, increased living costs and stagnant wages are really taking a toll on people.
"All it takes is one thing like job loss to tip people over the edge and into the spiral of debt and repossession and ultimately homelessness."
Some 65 "repossession hotspots" have been identified by housing charity Shelter as unemployment levels rise and more homeowners find themselves in negative equity.
Corby in the East Midlands was found to have the highest rate of at-risk homeowners with some 7.56 per 1,000 - nine times higher than the lowest rate in West Dorset of 0.83.
The Northamptonshire town has the highest proportion of homeowners who have been issued with a possession order for their home over the last 12 months, according to the research.
It is closely followed by Barking and Dagenham and Newham in London; Knowsley, Merseyside and Thurrock, Essex.
A possession order is an advanced stage of the repossession process which means a homeowner is at serious risk of losing their home.
The study by the housing and homelessness charity identified 65 of 324 local authorities as repossession hotspots.
Shelter warns that the figures reflect a need for homeowners across the country to prepare for higher mortgage repayments when interest rates rise as expected later this year.
A recent report by the Financial Services Authority said banks are masking the true scale of the threat, with experts predicting repossessions will hit 45,000 next year.
The findings of the charity's report correspond with these areas having higher and increasing rates of unemployment.
The average rate of unemployment in the local authorities with the highest rates stood at 9.6%, compared to 5.3% in those with the least.
And unemployment has risen, on average, by 3.3% over the last three years in the most at risk areas, compared to a 1.4% increase in the lowest, Shelter said.
The study also identified clusters of local authorities - Tyneside, Kent coastal towns (Thurrock, Medway, Swale) and The Wash (South Holland, Fenland, Peterborough) - among those in the highest risk group.
It also highlighted a red "ribbon" of repossessions across northern England from the Mersey in the west to the Humber estuary in the east.
The results are based on analysis of the latest Ministry of Justice figures on the rates of claims leading to possession orders per 1,000 households for each local authority, published in May 2011.
Campbell Robb, chief executive of Shelter, said: "This research paints a frightening picture of repossession hotspots across the country where homeowners are literally on the brink of losing the roof over their head.
"We know only too well that the combined pressures of high inflation, increased living costs and stagnant wages are really taking a toll on people.
"All it takes is one thing like job loss to tip people over the edge and into the spiral of debt and repossession and ultimately homelessness."
Saturday 18 June 2011
Reform of the bailiff industry by tomtubby
The bailiff industry is desperately in need of reforming. Over 10 years ago in March 2000, Professor Jack Beatson QC issued a Consultation Paper, the primary aim of which was to consider the extent to which bailiff law could be reformed and therefore simplified and made more transparent. He noted that the law is of “considerable antiquity” and that there are 17 different forms of seizure of goods, governed by 59 separate items of legislation.
Following the responses, Professor Beatson published a 107 page report for the Lord Chancellor entitled: Independent Review of Bailiff Law. This report took into consideration the recent Human Rights Act and he provided many recommendations for change.
Since the publication of the Independent Review of Bailiff Law in June 2000, none of the recommendations have yet been implemented although, in July 2007 the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 was introduced and Part 3 of this Act, which relates to bailiffs and enforcement, contains some of the recommendations made by Professor Beatson. However, Part 3 is yet to be implemented.
A further Consultation paper entitled “Regulation of Enforcement Agents” was issued in 2007 seeking views on the options for the future regulation of enforcement agents. The responses were published in March 2008 and these recommended that bailiffs should be regulated by one body; the Security Industry Authority (SIA). However, the report confirmed that the SIA would not take on the role of dealing with complaints against bailiffs.
In 2008, the Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw asked for a comprehensive review of the enforcement provisions contained in Part 4 of the TCE Act. Specifically, the Secretary of State wanted a reassessment of whether the new law provided for in the Act in relation to enforcement remained appropriate in the current economic climate. Following this review, in March 2009, the Government confirmed that they would not be extending bailiffs powers of entry and the use of force by enforcement agents. Regular viewers to the Bailiff and High Court Enforcement Officers section of the Consumer Action Group forum will be aware that in 2007, a thread was started entitled: Bailiff Petition; Stop them getting a legal right to forced entry. This thread attracted nearly 1,000 responses and received 97,000 viewers!!
In 2009, some measures were implemented to “prepare the ground for long-term reform of the enforcement industry” and this included an on-line certificated bailiff register allowing debtors to check bailiffs’ certification status and an extension to the certification process to ensure that all bailiffs provide a Criminal Records Bureau check with their application to become a bailiff. The bailiff register can be accessed in the Bailiff and High Court Enforcement Officers section of the Consumer Action Group forum and has proved very useful indeed in that it has been viewed approximately 36,000 times.
Last year we had a change of Government and, in March 2010 the Secretary of State announced that the new Coalition Government were committed to “providing more protection against aggressive bailiffs” and that they were looking at options for public consultation on this commitment to include the better regulation of bailiffs, the powers of bailiffs, their costs and how complaints should be dealt with. They confirmed that they intended publishing the Consultation paper in Spring 2011.
Also, last year, the government announced that the SIA is to be abolished and this has naturally led to much confusion as to the future regulation of bailiffs.
This month, the Ministry of Justice confirmed that the public Consultation is due to begin in July 2011 and will end in October 2011. This consultation will focus on regulation of the bailiff industry and of implementing Part 3 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act. This part of the Act should refine the current law and bring in a comprehensive code on issues of enforcement. It aims to abolish complex and archaic legislation to ensure that bailiffs carry out their work in a transparent, fair and honest way and provide clarity for debtors. In particular, subject to consultation, regulations under the Act should address the matter of:
when and how a bailiff can enter premises
what goods they are able to seize and sell; and
what fees they are able to charge
The government has also confirmed that Part 3 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act will not be introduced until a regulator has been appointed.
According to a House of Commons briefing paper dated January 2011, it states that it is the Governments view that independent regulation of the enforcement industry will not only improve efficiency and effectiveness of both civil and criminal enforcement but it will also offer protection to vulnerable debtors and reduce the scope for abuse of the system. Furthermore, in 2009, Lord Bach confirmed that it was the Governments “long-term intention for all enforcement agents who are not Crown employees to be overseen by an independent regulatory body”. He also confirmed that (at that time) the Governments preferred option was the Security Industry Authority.
With the uncertainty over the future of the SIA and mindful that the Government are looking to cut costs, recent alternative draft proposals have been submitted to all members of the Enforcement Law Reform Group and to the Ministry of Justice for consideration. In my opinion, one such proposal deserves very serious consideration. This was submitted by the Bailiffs and Enforcement Agents Council (BEAC) and had been originally proposed by Mr Keith Banbury in 2007 when he was Chief Executive of the British Parking Association.
Recently, the proposal was revised by members of the working paper who include Lord Lucas of Crudwell and Dingwall and now provides for an independent regulatory body that will also manage complaints from the public and can be funded by the industry.
To confuse matters, the British Parking Association has also recently issued their own proposal to regulate bailiffs and wheel clampers. Personally, I do not consider that this proposal has much merit.
The bailiff industry itself is of course very keen to seek the agreement of the Ministry of Justice for self regulation. Frankly, in my opinion the bailiff industry should not be allowed to regulate itself and some form of independent external regulation is essential for the future credibility of the industry.
The public consultation on the implementation of Part 3 of the TCE Act will begin in July 2011 and end in October 2011. It is anticipated that Part 3 will then be implemented in early 2013. The timing of this consultation is very disappointing indeed as such an important consultation should not be conducted during the summer holiday period when it is difficult for organisations to collate opinions and for cross industry sources to meet.
There are many items within Part 3 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act that are of very serious concern indeed to the advice sector and it is most important that this sector respond to the consultation document with their concerns and recommendations. I intend posting a copy of the consultation paper in the “Sticky” section of the Bailiff and High Court Officers area of the Consumer Action Group forum as soon as it is made available and I will naturally try to answer as many questions as possible that may arise.
As a member of the Enforcement Law Reform Group I will of course be responding to the consultation paper as a representative of the advice sector and in doing so, I will be taking into consideration the concerns that may be raised by members of the public in the Bailiff and High Court Officers section of CAG.
This public consultation will be the last opportunity to stop Part 3 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 from being implemented as it currently stands. There will not be another opportunity to have good bailiff law and to protect vulnerable debtors from aggressive bailiffs and this consultation will give the public the opportunity to influence change.
Tom tubby
Following the responses, Professor Beatson published a 107 page report for the Lord Chancellor entitled: Independent Review of Bailiff Law. This report took into consideration the recent Human Rights Act and he provided many recommendations for change.
Since the publication of the Independent Review of Bailiff Law in June 2000, none of the recommendations have yet been implemented although, in July 2007 the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 was introduced and Part 3 of this Act, which relates to bailiffs and enforcement, contains some of the recommendations made by Professor Beatson. However, Part 3 is yet to be implemented.
A further Consultation paper entitled “Regulation of Enforcement Agents” was issued in 2007 seeking views on the options for the future regulation of enforcement agents. The responses were published in March 2008 and these recommended that bailiffs should be regulated by one body; the Security Industry Authority (SIA). However, the report confirmed that the SIA would not take on the role of dealing with complaints against bailiffs.
In 2008, the Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw asked for a comprehensive review of the enforcement provisions contained in Part 4 of the TCE Act. Specifically, the Secretary of State wanted a reassessment of whether the new law provided for in the Act in relation to enforcement remained appropriate in the current economic climate. Following this review, in March 2009, the Government confirmed that they would not be extending bailiffs powers of entry and the use of force by enforcement agents. Regular viewers to the Bailiff and High Court Enforcement Officers section of the Consumer Action Group forum will be aware that in 2007, a thread was started entitled: Bailiff Petition; Stop them getting a legal right to forced entry. This thread attracted nearly 1,000 responses and received 97,000 viewers!!
In 2009, some measures were implemented to “prepare the ground for long-term reform of the enforcement industry” and this included an on-line certificated bailiff register allowing debtors to check bailiffs’ certification status and an extension to the certification process to ensure that all bailiffs provide a Criminal Records Bureau check with their application to become a bailiff. The bailiff register can be accessed in the Bailiff and High Court Enforcement Officers section of the Consumer Action Group forum and has proved very useful indeed in that it has been viewed approximately 36,000 times.
Last year we had a change of Government and, in March 2010 the Secretary of State announced that the new Coalition Government were committed to “providing more protection against aggressive bailiffs” and that they were looking at options for public consultation on this commitment to include the better regulation of bailiffs, the powers of bailiffs, their costs and how complaints should be dealt with. They confirmed that they intended publishing the Consultation paper in Spring 2011.
Also, last year, the government announced that the SIA is to be abolished and this has naturally led to much confusion as to the future regulation of bailiffs.
This month, the Ministry of Justice confirmed that the public Consultation is due to begin in July 2011 and will end in October 2011. This consultation will focus on regulation of the bailiff industry and of implementing Part 3 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act. This part of the Act should refine the current law and bring in a comprehensive code on issues of enforcement. It aims to abolish complex and archaic legislation to ensure that bailiffs carry out their work in a transparent, fair and honest way and provide clarity for debtors. In particular, subject to consultation, regulations under the Act should address the matter of:
when and how a bailiff can enter premises
what goods they are able to seize and sell; and
what fees they are able to charge
The government has also confirmed that Part 3 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act will not be introduced until a regulator has been appointed.
According to a House of Commons briefing paper dated January 2011, it states that it is the Governments view that independent regulation of the enforcement industry will not only improve efficiency and effectiveness of both civil and criminal enforcement but it will also offer protection to vulnerable debtors and reduce the scope for abuse of the system. Furthermore, in 2009, Lord Bach confirmed that it was the Governments “long-term intention for all enforcement agents who are not Crown employees to be overseen by an independent regulatory body”. He also confirmed that (at that time) the Governments preferred option was the Security Industry Authority.
With the uncertainty over the future of the SIA and mindful that the Government are looking to cut costs, recent alternative draft proposals have been submitted to all members of the Enforcement Law Reform Group and to the Ministry of Justice for consideration. In my opinion, one such proposal deserves very serious consideration. This was submitted by the Bailiffs and Enforcement Agents Council (BEAC) and had been originally proposed by Mr Keith Banbury in 2007 when he was Chief Executive of the British Parking Association.
Recently, the proposal was revised by members of the working paper who include Lord Lucas of Crudwell and Dingwall and now provides for an independent regulatory body that will also manage complaints from the public and can be funded by the industry.
To confuse matters, the British Parking Association has also recently issued their own proposal to regulate bailiffs and wheel clampers. Personally, I do not consider that this proposal has much merit.
The bailiff industry itself is of course very keen to seek the agreement of the Ministry of Justice for self regulation. Frankly, in my opinion the bailiff industry should not be allowed to regulate itself and some form of independent external regulation is essential for the future credibility of the industry.
The public consultation on the implementation of Part 3 of the TCE Act will begin in July 2011 and end in October 2011. It is anticipated that Part 3 will then be implemented in early 2013. The timing of this consultation is very disappointing indeed as such an important consultation should not be conducted during the summer holiday period when it is difficult for organisations to collate opinions and for cross industry sources to meet.
There are many items within Part 3 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act that are of very serious concern indeed to the advice sector and it is most important that this sector respond to the consultation document with their concerns and recommendations. I intend posting a copy of the consultation paper in the “Sticky” section of the Bailiff and High Court Officers area of the Consumer Action Group forum as soon as it is made available and I will naturally try to answer as many questions as possible that may arise.
As a member of the Enforcement Law Reform Group I will of course be responding to the consultation paper as a representative of the advice sector and in doing so, I will be taking into consideration the concerns that may be raised by members of the public in the Bailiff and High Court Officers section of CAG.
This public consultation will be the last opportunity to stop Part 3 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 from being implemented as it currently stands. There will not be another opportunity to have good bailiff law and to protect vulnerable debtors from aggressive bailiffs and this consultation will give the public the opportunity to influence change.
Tom tubby
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)