1. The Civil Enforcement Review arose out of Government's commitment to improve access to, and the efficiency of, civil justice in England and Wales. It is based on the premise that creditors who have established a legitimate claim should be able to pursue it through a straightforward and accessible system, and if necessary enforce a judgment by the most appropriate means. In addition, debtors who genuinely do not have the means to pay should be protected from the oppressive pursuit of their debts.
2. Enforcement has a crucial role to play in the criminal and civil justice systems and in a modern, democratic society; there must be ways to enforce payments due, such as, taxes, VAT and other duties, child support debts, council tax arrears, non-domestic rates, and road traffic and criminal fines. People ordered to pay a court judgment, criminal penalties, and compensation awards, or to comply with the terms of a community sentence, have little or no incentive to do so if they know there is no effective means of enforcing it. Unless there is prompt and effective enforcement the authority of the courts, the effectiveness of penalties, and public confidence in the justice system are all undermined. An adequate regulatory mechanism, unified law and fairer fee structure are needed for all enforcement agents to enable straightforward effective warrant enforcement and offer protection to vulnerable debtors who genuinely cannot pay.
3. The package of legislative proposals in this White Paper covers the provision of information for, and improvements to, court-based methods of civil debt and commercial rent recovery and a single law, regulatory regime and fee structure for all warrant enforcement agents.
4. The Review began in March 1998; the Report of the First Phase of the Enforcement Review was published in July 2000. It contained 40 proposals: split into those requiring primary legislation, those requiring secondary legislation, those requiring updated guidance, and areas where change was not recommended.10 Secondary legislative changes, delivered through the Civil Procedure Rules, came into effect in March 2002.11
5. The Second Phase of the Review has focused on proposals for primary legislation. As part of the Review Professor Jack Beatson QC of Cambridge University provided a report to the Lord Chancellor, Independent Review of Bailiff Law, published in July 2000. The report made 46 recommendations and called for a single new piece of legislation to regulate bailiffs. It set out the rights and remedies for creditors and debtors, recommended that debtors receive written warnings, and guidance is provided on forcible entry.13
6. Another area of the Review concerned section 13 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and Administration Orders (AOs). AOs seek to protect vulnerable debtors with multiple debts and although not, strictly speaking, a part of the enforcement system, they are relevant to it. Whilst there are some aspects of section 13 that would be welcome, its implementation in its current form would be unworkable and is therefore not a viable option. The Lord Chancellor's Department (LCD) will publish a paper on options for change later in the year.
7. The Review included distress for rent, an enforcement method that is not court based and is available only for unpaid (mostly commercial) rents. LCD issued a consultation paper, Distress for Rent, in May 2001, proposing the abolition of distress for rent as a remedy in the residential sector, and the introduction of a modified procedure for the commercial sector. A report of the responses to this consultation is available.14
8. On 6 March 2001, the Lord Chancellor broadened the scope of the Review enabling it to look at structures for, and the regulation of, all civil enforcement agents. Meaning that bailiffs, sheriffs' officers and approved enforcement agencies could come within a new system of regulation common to all types of warrant enforcement. As a result of this broadening of the Review, the Green Paper, Towards Effective Enforcement, published in July 2001, addressed issues that previous reports had found difficult because of their complexity and interdependence.15 It considered the case for a common regulatory regime, powers and legislation to replace the many different elements of bailiff law and the need for common fee principles across all areas of warrant enforcement. It noted that any proposed new structure must set out clearly the powers for effective enforcement on behalf of creditors whilst incorporating satisfactory safeguards to ensure fairness to debtors.
9. By linking all these issues, the Green Paper identified the need for progress on a broad front and expert advice to inform the Review. Responses showed strong stakeholder support for:
10. An Advisory Group on Enforcement Service Delivery was established to provide advice from the private, voluntary and public sectors involved in enforcement, a market evaluation of the delivery of enforcement services, and to inform the Review's policy proposals.17 The Group has met regularly, published updates of its progress on the LCD website and held an open meeting in November 2001. It has provided three reports to the Lord Chancellor, which are available from the LCD website.
11. Building on the considerable progress and goodwill that has been achieved through working closely with stakeholders, LCD published the National Standards for Enforcement Agents in May 2002. This is the first document of its kind to be issued across the whole industry, and was widely endorsed by trade associations in the private sector, by bodies representing enforcement agents within the public sector, and also by representatives of the major creditors who make use of their services. It aims to improve existing good practice, raise the level of professionalism across the whole industry, and increase awareness of creditors' responsibilities. It has become a benchmark for professional standards across the industry.
12. The Association of Civil Enforcement Agencies (ACEA) has incorporated the National Standards into their code of conduct and this will be displayed on their website. This obliges all member companies to comply with them. If a complaint is received based on a breach of the National Standards it will be dealt with by ACEA's complaints procedure accordingly. ACEA is also recommending to all member companies that they inform prospective clients that their conduct will conform to the National Standards for Enforcement Agents and that they should request that this should be recognised in any contractual requirements where appropriate.
13. The Enforcement Services Association (ESA) has given its wholehearted support to the National Standards and intends to incorporate adherence to them into their Code of Conduct as one of its fundamental principles by which all members of the Association are required to operate. Failure to comply with the Code of Conduct may be dealt with as a disciplinary matter under the Association's Rules. ESA proposes that all members will include it as a minimum requirement in contracts and similar service level agreements.
14. At least one Local Authority is now using enforcement agencies commitment to the use of the Standards as part of their contractual compliance. Encouraged by this, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) and the Local Government Association are advertising the adoption of the National Standards for Enforcement Agents as part of the contractual arrangements between Local Authorities and Enforcement Agencies, through their regular Council Tax newsletters. We would hope that all major creditors, including local authorities, will consider using the Standards as contracts come up for renewal. LCD will also be promoting the use of the Standards at meetings of local authority representatives such as the London Revenues Group.
15. The Sheriffs' Officers' Association is undergoing change to meet the challenges of the new structure for High Court enforcement envisaged by the Courts Bill, and is working to ensure that the guidance and good practice set out in the National Standards informs this process and permeates through their Rules, Codes of Conduct and Practices down to the activities of individual members.
16. We have also published a consultation paper proposing to uplift enforcement agents' fees and charges under the Road Traffic Act 1991 and the Distress for Rent Acts 1888 and 1895. A parallel consultation is being undertaken by ODPM in relation to fees and charges for enforcing council tax and national non-domestic rates debts. We are not proposing to change the existing fee structures prior to the substantial legislative change proposed in Chapter Two, but recognise the need to ensure that the current fee levels are responsive to market conditions. The consultation paper was published on 24 February 2003.18
17. Throughout this period, LCD and Court Service have developed targets for civil enforcement through a range of Performance Indicators. This has involved refining existing targets with regard to 'pence in the pound' collected by County Court bailiffs on enforceable warrants, and also introducing targets based on turnaround times for dealing with other court-based enforcement methods, such as Charging Orders. The 'pence in the pound' targets have now also been extended to High Court enforcement. Consumers now have greater access to accurate information to assist with their decisions about enforcement.
18. The civil justice system does not exist in a vacuum. To be relevant, it must reflect the real world, be flexible enough to take on board the best that external influences have to offer, and able to adapt when change is for the best. Bearing this in mind, it is helpful to consider the influences that have affected the work of the Civil Enforcement Review, and have helped to shape our vision for the civil enforcement regime of the future. This 'wider perspective' has been influenced by many other areas of work, both across other government departments, and also beyond the boundaries of England and Wales.
19. These areas can be broken down as follows:
20. Chapter 5 of the Criminal Justice White Paper looks specifically at the area of sentencing and criminal fine enforcement. Criminal fine enforcement is closely related to civil enforcement, not least because many enforcement agents work in both sectors.
21. Nearly three-quarters of all cases sentenced result in fines being imposed, yet payment rates are poor and there are unacceptably high levels of arrears. There have been successful experiments in data sharing, not least between Magistrates' Courts Committees and the Department of Work and Pensions, and in introducing innovative payment methods, but there is still a need to provide further support to improve performance and to intervene where there is persistent failure.
22. Taken together, proposals in the Courts Bill will put in place a robust yet flexible framework for fine enforcement, with new tools to elicit prompt payment, more severe sanctions for those who try to play the system, and a dedicated fines officer managing the collection of the fine.
23. The Courts Bill will allow the appointment of specific staff in courts who will be responsible for making sure that fines and compensation orders are paid. These 'fines officers' will have discretion to vary payment terms and (subject to appropriate safeguards) to impose increasingly severe sanctions on defaulters who refuse to co-operate, without the need for further court hearings. The court will only be involved when judicial decisions are called for - giving magistrates time to deal more thoroughly with cases of persistent default.
24. A range of sanctions will be piloted for use by fines officers in tackling default. These include: an incentive for prompt payment and an increase if the offender fails to pay on time; registering the fine with the new registry of judgements to prevent defaulters getting credit; vehicle clamping; authorising bailiffs to seize defaulters' goods; and ordering deductions from defaulters' pay and benefits.
25. For those who are genuinely unable to pay, the Government expects to propose making alternative sentences (such as unpaid work) available to the courts.
26. The Courts Bill will also bring Magistrates' Courts Committees
(MCCs) into a single courts organisation responsible to the Lord Chancellor
for fine enforcement, with a clear performance management framework.
[Note: As MCCs are independent, there are limited performance management
levers at present to address poor performance].
27. In parallel with the legislative programme, LCD is developing a network of support and advice for those who need help in organising their payments or who are genuinely struggling with multiple debts.
28. The measures will be piloted and their effectiveness will be evaluated prior to implementation. The Bill will enable adjustments to the proposals to be made in the light of experience of the pilots.
29. Subsequently, a report from the Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) recommended that further work be done on the scope for centralising the administration of government debt and all financial transactions between citizens and government. This is being taken forward through a feasibility study.
30. Court Service's Courts and Tribunals Modernisation Programme (CTMP) aims to improve its service to customers through centralisation at business centres and by introducing more on-line and interactive services, building on the experience of Money Claim Online (MCOL) and the Preston E-mail Service (PREMA).
31. As part of the CTMP, Court Service's plans to modernise the bailiff service include:
32. Court Service will pilot these proposals before wider implementation, but plans to do so are in their early stages. In addition to their work on CTMP, Court Service is reviewing the procedure for service of orders to attend court under the oral examination procedure, which was reformed in March 2002. This is being evaluated and considered in the light of comments from stakeholders.
33. Court Service is reviewing the registration of judgment procedure to provide a consistent approach between county court and High Court judgments as recommended in the First Phase of the Enforcement Review. The Court Service is carrying out a full service review of the Register of County Court Judgments and plans to create a new unified register of fines and county court and High Court judgments. This review will inform the drafting of regulations to support the provisions in the Courts Bill, which is taking forward the extension of the registration to High Court judgments and criminal fines. This review aims to improve customer service at optimal cost to the taxpayer and will include an appraisal of the options for delivery of the new service.
34. The Report of the First Phase of the Enforcement Review put forward a proposal for a unified interpleader process for the High Court and county courts. In response, however, it was noted that as under section 123 of the County Courts Act 1984 (CCA) the District Judges were currently responsible for the actions of bailiffs, they were effectively prohibited from hearing interpleader applications. Section 123 of the CCA provides that the District Judge shall be personally responsible for executions carried out in his name and for the bailiffs who enforce them. This section will be amended so that such responsibility can be passed to the Court Manager. This will remove any potential conflict between the District Judge's role as High Bailiff and their power to hear applications for suspension of warrants.
35. Such an amendment will make more efficient use of judicial time, as District Judges will be able to hear interpleader applications and other actions, which would otherwise only be able to be heard by Circuit Judges.
36. Administration Orders (AOs) provide the court with a mechanism for dealing with debtors with unmanageable debt problems and give the debtor respite from enforcement proceedings while paying off those debts. Although not strictly speaking an enforcement method, AOs can help to ensure that county court judgments, as well as other debts, are paid. Within this, they have benefits for the debtor, the creditor and the court: the debtor is helped to manage their debts whilst being relieved from the threat of enforcement proceedings; creditors are spared the trouble of court action but can expect complete or partial repayment of their debt; and the courts do not have to act on various enforcement applications regarding the same debtor.
37. The provisions of the current AO scheme are set out in section 112 of the CCA, with provision for an enlarged AO scheme in section 13 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. Section 13 has not been implemented due to concerns over its feasibility - for instance the three-year time limit imposed on an order by section 13, combined with the absence of a statutory definition of debt would mean that technically any type of debt, including a mortgage, could be included and composed. Implementation of section 13 would also remove the current parameters to the scheme whilst not providing any safeguards, such as the opportunity to deal with excessive interest rates, dealing with physical assets, and investigation into misconduct.
38. We have concluded that implementation of section 13 in its current form is unworkable and is therefore not a viable option for reform. Research carried out by LCD staff in 2001 has shown that AOs in their current form have not been successful in meeting their objectives and that several problems exist with the current scheme. With these issues in mind, we have also been considering the role of AOs within the wider Government perspective: the enterprise agenda - as a debt management tool AOs, like bankruptcy orders, should seek to rehabilitate the debtor. AOs can help tackle poverty and social exclusion, as the socially excluded may come into contact with the justice system in various situations, one of which is debt. Reform of AOs is also relevant to the Government's agenda to tackle overindebtedness.
39. The Government is therefore considering a wide range of options for reform in this area. These include:
40. Any new scheme needs to be workable for both debtors and creditors and affordable for the State, i.e. there is a cost implication in providing relief for those with no ability to pay. It is important to identify the potential costs attached to each option for reform and as a starting point, we have obtained information on how much it currently costs Government to administer AOs and bankruptcies. To inform the objective assessment of feasibility of options for reform, independent research is currently being conducted into who uses AOs and bankruptcy orders and how successful they are.
41. The Government is committed to tackling overindebtedness and addressing concerns about increased levels of consumer debt. An overindebtedness task force was established by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) in 2000 charged with finding ways of achieving more responsible borrowing and lending. The task force published its first report in July 2001, recommending the need for a national survey to examine the cause, effect and extent of overindebtedness in the UK.
42. This research was published in November 2002 and suggested that the historically high levels of borrowing were problematic for only a small number of people and the numbers were not increasing. However, it also concluded that macro-economic uncertainties remained and there was no room for complacency. Accordingly, in line with the conclusions of the report, DTI put the task force on a permanent footing to monitor developments.
43. In March 2002, PIU published Lending Support: Modernising the Government's Use of Loans. One of its recommendations was that there should be a review of Government policy on reducing the overindebtedness of individuals. This review, to identify and bring together related work on overindebtedness, has been led by DTI. The publication of the study conclusions is expected in the summer.
44. As well as its work on overindebtedness, DTI is also considering possible reforms to the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The first step towards this was the publication in July 2001 of the consultation paper Tackling Loan Sharks - and more! This report set out DTI's plans and the key areas they proposed to tackle. The main drivers for undertaking the review were:
45. Priority areas for consultation and discussion were identified as follows in a report published by DTI in February 2002:
46. Since then, an ongoing series of presentations, consultation exercises and focus group discussions has been looking at all the above identified areas. The first consultation paper, issued in March 2002, sought views on options for increasing or removing the financial limit for credit agreements regulated by the Act; redefining or excluding business lending for purposes of the Act; and reducing the categories of lending exempted from the Act. Responses were published in September 2002, indicating support for an increase in the financial limit; a redefining of business lending so that only small businesses continued to receive protection; and the amendment rather than removal of current exemptions.
47. The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has produced draft guidance for all consumer credit licence holders and applicants who have an involvement either directly or indirectly in debt collection activity.19 This draft guidance provides advice to business on the type of unfair practices that would call into question their fitness to hold a consumer credit licence. The OFT is currently consulting on this document and will publish finalised guidance by Spring 2003.
48. In accordance with proposals in the Green Paper and from the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Group on Enforcement Service Delivery, measures in the Courts Bill will introduce a regime to supersede the existing appointment arrangements prescribed by the Sheriffs Act 1887.20 In practice, Under Sheriffs and sheriffs' officers are re-appointed annually, without any competition or other arrangement promoting the transparency of their appointments or the efficiency of the appointees. These provisions will maintain the existing competence and probity of those actively engaged in High Court enforcement, and promote their efficiency and best practice in consumer redress, employment, etc., among other things, by encouraging competition, consumer choice and an accessible complaints mechanism.
49. On 11 April 2002 PIU published a report entitled Privacy and Data-sharing: The way forward for public services. The report resulted from a project steered by an advisory group including the Information Commissioner, Liberty, and the National Consumer Council, academics and government departments. The report, which contains 25 recommendations, has two main objectives: to improve public services through better use of personal data, and to secure public trust in the handling of personal data by safeguarding personal privacy.
50. In line with its existing responsibilities for privacy, data protection, human rights and freedom of information LCD has assumed overall responsibility for championing and overseeing implementation of the report's conclusions. Work will concentrate on three main areas outlined in the report, which were the subjects of initial public consultation. They are:
51. The PIU report outlined an ambitious timetable, with the aim of a draft Bill being ready for publication in Spring 2003. In practice, this has proved an unrealistic objective and the current intention is to continue developing policy in this area and, when and where appropriate, to consult widely on conclusions reached.
52. Along with other government departments, LCD contributes to the Adding It Up website.21 The site aims to stimulate interest among and debate with the academic community; is used to set out the current evidence base underpinning policies designed to satisfy key Government targets; and also details some of the central initiatives including the Evidence Based Policy Fund. The significant body of research that has informed the Review can be accessed via this site.
'Evaluating the Effectiveness of Enforcement Procedures In Undefended claims in the Civil Courts'
53. In March 2003 LCD published Professor John Baldwin's Research Report, Evaluating the Effectiveness of Enforcement Procedures In Undefended claims in the Civil Courts. This was commissioned by LCD to inform the Enforcement Review. The author argues that:
Mapping the 'Can't Pay/Won't Pay' Divide
54. With assistance from HM Treasury's Evidence Based Policy Fund, LCD commissioned a research project to identify and characterise, where possible, the distinction between those debtors who do not and those debtors who cannot pay. The project, Mapping the 'Can't Pay/Won't Pay' Divide, was undertaken by Professor Elaine Kempson of Bristol University's Personal Finance Research Centre and published in 2003.
55. The research explored the following questions that arose from the Report of the First Phase of the Enforcement Review:
56. The research found that when approaching the distinction between 'can't pay' and 'won't pay' it is important to consider both the ability to pay and the intention of doing so. The great majority of people who fall into arrears have every intention of paying but are unable to do so either through a drop in income resulting from a change in circumstance or living long-term on a low income. There is, however, a minority of debtors who have little or no intention of paying the money they owe. The research also found that creditors vary in their ability to distinguish between these different groups of debtor.
57. The researchers recommend that:
58. The Scottish Executive announced in June 2000 that it intended to conduct a thorough review of the law of diligence (as the enforcement of civil obligations is known in Scotland). Reform of the Scottish system has been taking place in the following two streams.
59. Firstly, one specific aspect of the Scottish enforcement system which had been of particular concern was the diligence against corporeal moveable property known as poinding and warrant sale. A Member's Bill was introduced on 24 September 1999 to abolish this diligence, which was considered to be unnecessarily harsh to domestic debtors, and was agreed by the Scottish Parliament. However, the Parliament recognised that merely to abolish this diligence without having an alternative diligence against corporeal moveable property in place would leave a loophole in the diligence system. The Parliament, therefore, delayed the implementation of the Act until 31 December 2002 to enable such a replacement to be put into place.
60. A Working Group was set up by the Executive to identify a humane and workable alternative and in July 2001 it published its report Striking a Balance: a new approach to debt management. This was put out to consultation, and on receiving widespread support, the Executive announced in December 2001 that it would implement the approach recommended by the group. The Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Act came into force on 30 December 2002. This Act brings into force a new diligence against corporeal moveable property, called attachment. The Act also gives Scottish Ministers the power to introduce, by regulation, a national statutory debt arrangement scheme. The debt arrangement scheme is a debt management tool designed to tackle the problem of debt at its root, and to give people the support and help to manage multiple debt free from the threat of enforcement action.
61. Secondly, the Executive's principal consultation paper on all other aspects of the Scottish enforcement system, Enforcement of Civil Obligations in Scotland, was published in April 2002. A copy of this consultation paper can be downloaded from the Scottish Executive website at www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations/justice/CivOb-00.asp. The consultation paper sets out the Scottish Executive's policy aims and intentions for the Scottish system of diligence. It contains proposals for reform of the structure and organisation of the diligence system and methods of enforcement, and sought views on a range of proposals for reform of the law of diligence.
62. Some key issues covered in the consultation paper include:
63. A report analysing the responses to consultation produced by independent consultants was published on 8 November 2003.22 A copy of this report can be downloaded from the Scottish Executive website at www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/justice/ecos-00.asp. The report revealed that the proposals put forward on the paper were, as a whole, extremely well received and supported by those who responded. The Scottish Executive is currently considering the analysis and will bring forward further legislation to implement the reforms. The first step which the Scottish Executive is undertaking as a matter of urgency is consideration of the consultation results on the debt arrangement scheme in order that regulations can be made under the Debt Arrangement and Attachment (S) Act 2002.
64. In most areas, the propositions put forward by the Scottish Executive are in line with this White Paper. However, there are differences in the respective legal systems and how their enforcement methods operate. These differences are reflected in the responses from stakeholders on which the respective proposals are based. Clearly our proposals for reform should be those best suited to the needs of court users in England and Wales based on our own Review, just as the Scottish Executive's proposals reflect what will work best in Scotland based on their own review.
65. In all areas of government policy making, Europe has a considerable role to play and a growing influence. The areas of civil justice and civil enforcement are no different in this respect. Both through the work of the European Commission and the Council of Europe, the UK continues to play a central role in work being carried out across Europe in this sphere.
66. The three main areas of work that the UK is involved in are:
The European Enforcement Order
67. In April 2002 the European Commission issued a proposal for a European Enforcement Order (EEO). This followed from the European Council meeting in Tampere in 1999, which had endorsed the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and other decisions of judicial authorities as the cornerstone of judicial co-operation. In civil matters that was to be achieved by a further reduction of the intermediate measures required to enable the recognition and enforcement in one Member State of a judgment delivered in another Member State.
68. The introduction of an EEO was discussed during the UK Presidency of the EU in 1998. Limited progress was made because some Member States considered that the time was not then right for the abolition of the checks associated with exequatur (the conversion of foreign judgments into orders enforceable in the jurisdiction).
69. The Commission decided that as a first step towards the abolition of exequatur there should be a pilot procedure for uncontested claims based on the principle of minimum standards rather than harmonised procedures. The proposal provides for a creditor who has obtained a judgment in a monetary claim for a specific sum to apply to the court where that judgment was obtained to certify the judgment as an EEO. The court will do this if certain procedural requirements (the minimum standards) have been met. The aim is that an EEO will allow a creditor to have a judgment obtained in one Member State recognised and enforced by the relevant authorities in another Member State without any special procedure being required in the Member State of enforcement. Negotiations on this proposal continue.
The European Order for Payment
70. The European Commission issued a Green Paper in December 2002 about the introduction of a European Order for Payment procedure, which they described as a specific procedure for the speedy and efficient recovery of uncontested claims. Eleven Member States (Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain and Sweden) already have such a procedure as an integral part of their civil procedural legislation.
71. While the procedures work differently in each Member State, the general principles are the same. A claimant makes an application to the court, which decides on the issues in the absence of the defendant. The decision is served on the defendant with an instruction either to abide by the order or to contest the claim within a certain time limit. If the defendant fails to act either way, the order for payment acquires enforceability. Only if he or she lodges opposition to the case can it be transferred to ordinary proceedings.
72. As part of their consultation on the Green Paper the Commission have asked whether there should be a single procedure for use in each Member State or whether there should just be a procedure for cases involving cross-border issues.
Council of Europe draft recommendations on enforcement
73. As part of its overarching aim of greater unity, the Council of Europe is looking at facilitating the efficient and cost-effective enforcement of civil judicial and non-judicial decisions (i.e. those which can be considered enforceable titles either by the law or by decision of the court). The Council of Europe is concerned that without an effective system of civil enforcement, other forms of 'private justice' may flourish. This can have adverse consequences on the public's confidence in and the credibility of the justice system.
74. The Council of Europe is therefore attempting to lay down some guiding principles for civil enforcement in Member States. These include: uniform definitions and scope of application; basic principles covering the conduct of enforcement procedures, the rights of defendants and fee structures; and principles for the conduct and behaviour of enforcement agents. This work is ongoing.
75. The Civil Enforcement Review has carefully considered the existing mechanisms and legislative processes for enforcement - much of which are archaic. It effectively draws to an end now with the comprehensive package of proposals for enforcement agents, data disclosure orders and other court-based enforcement methods that are set out in the following Chapters. These will put in place a system that is better equipped to deliver effective enforcement now and to adapt in the future. Civil justice and its enforcement processes have to continue to evolve and be responsive to other changes, for example the ongoing work in respect of personal insolvency, ideas arising from the criminal justice reforms and from Europe. The new mechanisms we propose could, after careful consideration and consultation, more readily take on board new initiatives than the structures they replace.
10 The terms of reference for the Enforcement Review are at Annex 2
11 Delivered through the Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 4) Rules 2001
12 For definition of the term "Third Party Debt Order" see Annex 3 - Glossary
13 This report is available on the LCD website - www.lcd.gov.uk/enforcement/beatson.pdf
14 Responses to consultation were contained in the report CP(R) 13/01 Distress for Rent - Responses to Consultation, published by LCD in May 2002 and available on the LCD website - www.lcd.gov.uk/consult/distress/distresp.htm
15 The Green Paper Towards Effective Enforcement is available on the LCD website - www.lcd.gov.uk/enforcement/enfrev01/index.htm
16 Responses to the Green Paper were contained in the report CP (R)00/02 Towards Effective Enforcement - A single piece of bailiff law & a regulatory structure for enforcement - Responses to consultation, published by LCD in May 2002 and available on the LCD website - www.lcd.gov.uk/enforcement/teeresp.htm
17 Details of the membership and terms of reference for the Advisory Group on Enforcement Service Delivery are contained at Annex 1 of the Report of the Advisory Group on Enforcement Service Delivery, published by LCD in December 2001.
18Uplifting Enforcement Agents' Fees: Distress for Rent and Road Traffic Acts. Copies may be found on the LCD website at www.lcd.gov.uk/consult/enforcement/agfees.htm. The closing date for responses is 16 May 2003
19 Copies can be downloaded from - www.oft.gov.uk/news/consultations/index.htm
20 The Advisory Group on Enforcement Service Delivery report, High Court enforcement: The compelling need for change, is available on the LCD website - www.lcd.gov.uk/enforcement/enfadgp/hcrtrep.htm
21 Launched in June 2002 in direct response to the Adding It Up Report (published by the Cabinet Office in 2000) and located at www.addingitup.gov.uk
22 Blake Stevenson Ltd