Defamation Bill
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
I beg to move,
That this House agrees with Lords amendment 2B in lieu of Lords amendment 2, to which this House has disagreed.
The reasons that this House gave for disagreeing to certain amendments to the Bill have been considered in the other place, and a further amendment has been agreed there that now requires consideration by this House. I ask the House to agree to Lords amendment 2B.
The Lords amendment is to clause 1 and makes it clear that a body that trades for profit will satisfy the serious harm test only if it is able to show that the statement complained of has caused that body, or is likely to cause it, serious financial loss. As I made clear when we originally considered Lords amendments, we recognise the strength of feeling that exists on whether there should be a specific provision in the Bill on the issue. I indicated that I would consider the matter further, and the amendment reflects the outcome of those considerations.
As the Government explained at earlier stages of the Bill’s passage, we amended what was initially a “substantial harm” requirement to one of “serious harm” to raise the bar for bringing defamation claims. The Lords amendment therefore refers to “serious financial loss”, to reflect that aim, and is now linked explicitly with the serious harm test.
We consider that the approach that we have taken is clearly preferable to that in the earlier Lords amendment 2 for two main reasons. First, the use of the words “serious financial loss” makes it absolutely clear that the financial loss required to meet the serious harm test must itself be serious. By contrast, the reference in the earlier amendment to “substantial financial loss” could inadvertently have weakened the requirements of what must be shown to satisfy the test.
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)
Why does my hon. Friend say that? What is the difference between “serious” and “substantial”?
Mrs Grant
I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will go into details about the motion that he tabled, but as we have made clear, we think it is helpful that there will be a direct link between serious harm and serious financial loss. That will make the situation absolutely clear to those wishing to bring an action.
The second reason why Lords amendment 2B is preferable to the earlier Lords amendment 2 is that the term that we have used to define those who will be subject to the requirement—
“a body that trades for profit”—
is a much clearer and simpler definition. Those are the bodies about which people have expressed concern, so we have phrased the amendment specifically and directly to meet those concerns.
I believe that the Lords amendment represents an effective and proportionate approach that addresses the concerns that have been expressed in this House and elsewhere. I urge the House to support it.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Thanks to a lot of hard work—especially in the other place, it has to be said—the Bill is now in a much better place. It is still far from perfect, sadly, which is a huge shame. It could have been perfect and a marvel to behold, but sadly the to-do list in the Bill includes early strike-out, website operator regulations and clarification for booksellers of the innocent dissemination rules, about which they were concerned. It also includes costs, which are a strange case, because we are really no further forward on them.
Indeed, we are left in a wholly unsatisfactory place. The last-minute announcement of a consultation on costs over the summer shows how sloppily this Government have treated parts of the Defamation Bill. The mess in respect of defamation, Leveson and the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 means in future people in a similar position to the Dowlers, Simon Singh and Peter Wilmshurst who will fight defamation cases will probably be in a worse position on costs than they would have been had the Government not got their hands on this legislation. Despite the promises that were made during the passage of the LASPO Act, costs is a major issue, and it should have been dealt with properly before this Bill returned to the Chamber.
The Minister commented on extending the Derbyshire principle to private companies. It is estimated that, following this Government’s privatisation agenda, in the NHS alone private companies will take over £16 billion- worth of Government contracts to provide services previously carried out by the public sector. Those services will go to private companies that use the law to chill debate in a way that the NHS cannot. Atos frequently suppresses disquiet, and Baroness Hayter cited Serco in the other place yesterday.
I hope the judiciary is listening to this debate and has listened to some of the other debates, because as Ministers both in this House and the other place have repeatedly said, the courts should further develop the Derbyshire principle in line with the will of Parliament. That is an unsatisfactory position, however, and this is on the to-do list of things that would have improved the Bill dramatically, but I hope the courts will now extend Derbyshire to contracts between the private sector and the Government or local authorities, because that is in line with the will of this House. [Interruption.] The Minister has commented on that, as I have said.
It is thanks to Opposition Members that the Bill has been improved. No matter what is claimed on the Liberal Democrat Voice website, not once have the Lib Dems backed us against the Government. Indeed, yesterday in the other place in the vote on the Derbyshire aspect of what was amendment 2—[Interruption.] The Minister keeps chuntering about Derbyshire, but the issue here is clearly that the will of this House has been expressed on many occasions, but thanks to the Liberal Democrats supporting the Government, we are not able to take that forward. It is important to put that on the record. No matter what they say, it is all talk and no action from the Liberal Democrats.
This is now a better Bill, but it is not the best it could be, and we will need to return to it after Labour is re-elected to government in 2015—or sooner, I hope. It is the best we can expect at present, however, and that is a shame. I am disappointed—and also surprised, although perhaps I should not be—that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) has introduced his proposal. We will hear his observations on this matter in a few moments. We will decide whether what is before us is the best we can get today after we have heard the Minister’s final comments.
Sir Edward Garnier
She is shaking her head to say she did not, but I am not sure that is an answer to the question. The Government should come to the Dispatch Box and have a coherent case to make, but they do not.
Old and ill-tempered Members of Parliament, whether they represent Worthing or Harborough, must draw their remarks to a conclusion at some stage so I shall do that now. I do so, however, with acute disappointment, and I think the Government are letting themselves down.
Sharia Law
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) for bringing this timely debate to the Chamber. I am sure that hon. Members will be aware of the concerns raised in the BBC “Panorama” programme last night on this subject.
My hon. Friend has eloquently, carefully and respectfully explained why he is opposed to any establishment of a state-sponsored, alternative judicial process in England and Wales. I recognise that there is some confusion about what the exact position is on this issue. Therefore I start by stressing plainly and clearly that sharia law has no jurisdiction under the law of England and Wales and the courts do not recognise it. There is no parallel court system in this country, and we have no intention of changing the position in any part of England and Wales.
On the points raised by my hon. Friend, sharia law is the code of personal religious law governing the conduct of Muslims. Those principles can extend to all aspects of people’s lives. There are a number of sharia councils in England and Wales that help Muslim communities resolve civil and family disputes by making recommendations by which they hope that the parties will abide, but I make it absolutely clear that they are not part of the court system in this country and have no means of enforcing their decisions. If any of their decisions or recommendations are illegal or contrary to public policy—including equality policies such as the Equality Act 2010—or national law, national law will prevail all the time, every time. That is no different from any other council or tribunal, whether or not based on sharia law.
Britain is proud of its tradition of religious tolerance. The Government do not prevent individuals from seeking to regulate their lives through religious beliefs or cultural traditions. Provided that an activity prescribed by sharia principles does not contravene the law of England and Wales, there is nothing that prevents people from living by sharia law.
The use of religious councils or other extra-legal bodies to deal with civil disputes is well established and non-contentious. Communities have the option to use religious authorities to adjudicate disputes and to agree to abide by their decisions on a voluntary basis, but such decisions are subject to national law and are not legally enforceable. Any member of any community should know that they have the right to refer to an English court at any point, especially in the event that they feel pressured or coerced to resolve an issue in a way with which they feel uncomfortable.
Because sharia councils do not have any legal means of enforcing their decisions, they can only make recommendations that they hope the parties will follow. There is no appeal mechanism. If a party decides to challenge a decision in a civil court, any decision would be made in accordance with English law.
Any use of sharia law in Scotland would be a devolved matter for the Scottish Parliament. My understanding is that there are no sharia courts in Scotland and that there is no intention of setting any up. However, individual parties can, if they wish, agree to use sharia law to settle disputes, so long as there is no conflict with the law of Scotland.
I understand the concerns, expressed by many, regarding religious councils involving themselves in matters of domestic violence, to which my hon. Friend referred. Domestic violence is a dreadful form of abuse and is not acceptable in our society; it is not condoned or supported by any religion. It is absolutely essential that victims and potential victims are aware of their rights and of all the advice and support that is available. The Government are committed to working with both statutory and voluntary organisations to ensure that our messages reach across all communities.
My hon. Friend knows that Baroness Cox’s Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill had its Second Reading on 19 October 2012. The Government are aware of the level of concern about the perceived use and interpretation of sharia law in this country, as was highlighted by the amount of support for that Bill on Second Reading. After careful and considered deliberation, however, it was evident that the provisions already existed in current legislation and so were unnecessary. Instead, we believe the issue is more about raising awareness of the existing position under English law. We are fully committed to protecting the rights of all our citizens and will consider what is required to educate people further on the protections afforded to them by UK law.
Under criminal law, any person who commits a criminal offence is liable to be prosecuted for that offence, provided it is in the public interest to do so. In England and Wales, criminal proceedings are always heard in a criminal court. We do not recognise any criminal law decision made by an alternative court in this country. The Government have no intention of changing that position.
My hon. Friend also asked about the recognition of sharia marriages by English courts. We are working to raise awareness of the need to have a legally recognised marriage, and we are encouraging mosques to register to carry out legally recognised marriages in their various facilities.
I hope that I have answered all the important issues raised by my hon. Friend. This has been a useful and timely debate, and I am grateful to him for his contribution.
Rightly, this country celebrates diversity. We are a country where everyone has an opportunity to contribute, no matter what their background, ethnicity or religion, but that must be within a set of laws and a judicial framework that is common to all and understood by all. There can be no question of there being a parallel court system in this country. I hope that that clarification of the Government’s position reassures my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who are present
Courts and Tribunals (Fee Remissions)
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
I am today publishing a consultation on the system of fee remissions for courts and tribunals. The proposals in this consultation paper (Cm 8608) will ensure that access to justice is maintained for those who cannot afford a court or tribunal fee. They will also provide a better targeted system of fee remissions so that those who can afford to pay a fee do so.
The proposals set out in this consultation paper represent a wide-ranging reform of the fee remissions system. A fee remission is a full or partial waiver of the fees that become payable when an individual uses certain court or tribunal services.
The remission system ensures that access to justice is maintained for those individuals on lower incomes who would otherwise have difficulty paying a fee by providing access to that service free of charge or at a reduced rate.
Our aim is to produce a remissions system which is better targeted, fairer, easy for users to understand and more coherent. To achieve this, the consultation paper proposes three key changes:
The introduction of a unified system of remissions across courts and tribunals.
The introduction of a disposable capital test to assess eligibility for a remission.
The introduction of a simplified income test, with a greater level of contribution required from those who receive a partial remission.
Implementation of these proposals will mean that the taxpayer contribution towards fee remissions will be targeted towards those who need it most. The proposals also ensure that the system of remissions takes into account the introduction of universal credit which replaces several benefits that currently determine eligibility for a remission.
The consultation will be open for a period of four weeks. We plan to implement an amended remissions system for the start of October 2013, in time for the introduction of the universal credit.
The consultation will be available in the Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office and on the Ministry of Justice website.
Oral Answers to Questions
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
4. What steps she is taking to prevent women from becoming victims of human trafficking.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Mrs Helen Grant)
Raising awareness with potential victims in source countries and training front-line professionals in the UK are key to our work in identifying and preventing the exploitation of potential victims of all ages, genders and nationalities.
Mr Burrowes
Given the shocking statistic that British girls trafficked for sexual exploitation make up nearly half of all modern-day slavery victims in the UK, what voice and help is the Minister giving those voiceless and helpless girls?
Mrs Grant
The Government recognise that, sadly, trafficking can and does occur in the UK. The inter-departmental ministerial group on human trafficking brings together all parts of the Government and raises awareness of trafficking, which can affect boys and men in addition to women and girls, across the UK. The group also highlights the tailored support available through the Government’s contact with the Salvation Army. The police are also doing a great deal of very good work to tackle trafficking.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister talk to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee about how women who are terrified of publicity could give evidence to Select Committees in confidence that they will not be named and identified?
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I think the Minister is being a little reticent. She perhaps forgot to say that on Monday the Prime Minister is opening an exhibition about human trafficking and the hidden number of slaves in our constituencies. Will the Minister welcome the Prime Minister’s intervention? It would be good if she did.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that many women who are victims of human trafficking, instead of being given the support they need, end up being prosecuted or having action taken against them under immigration rules. What assessment have the Government made of the suggestion by the Centre for Social Justice in its report last month that there should be a modern slavery Act that outlines an obligation to investigate indicators of slavery so that when there is a suggestion that there has been human trafficking, it is investigated rather than people being prosecuted?
Mrs Grant
It sounds like a very interesting report. I have not yet read it in detail, but I certainly will, and I will look at what the hon. Lady said. Our aim, at the end of the day, is to tackle this terrible issue at source. It is an abhorrent crime. We want to work smarter at our borders, have better law enforcement, and make sure that people do not become victims.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
5. What assessment she has made of the cumulative effect of the Government’s policies on disabled people.
Defamation Bill
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 3, and amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendments 4 to 14.
Lords amendment 15, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 16, and Government motion to disagree.
Mrs Grant
I am delighted that the Defamation Bill has returned to this House for us to consider the amendments made in the other place. Lords amendments 1, 15 and 16 constitute a partial enactment in statute of several recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson in his report on the culture, practices and ethics of the press. In particular, they create a press recognition body and require the creation of an arbitration service within recognised self-regulators for defamation and related civil claims. However, the requirements set out in these amendments for the press recognition body do not specify fully or clearly Lord Justice Leveson’s requirements for the self-regulator.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Is the hon. Lady aware that these amendments have been overtaken by events and will not be pressed? We only have one hour in which to discuss all the amendments to the Defamation Bill. Before she launches into a long speech, will she take account of this and perhaps conclude her remarks relating to past events so that we can move on?
Mrs Grant
I am very aware of time scales and if the hon. Gentleman could bear with me for 30 seconds longer, we might be able to move from this section to the next section.
Moreover, the amendments were tabled at a time when cross-party talks were well under way to identify an agreed response to Leveson’s recommendations, including careful efforts to develop a set of workable criteria for the self-regulatory body. The amendments before us pre-empted the outcome of those talks. As the House will be aware, on 18 March cross-party talks were resolved successfully and a draft royal charter was agreed as a vehicle by which the recognition body should be set up. Detailed criteria by which self-regulators would be assessed were also agreed, and provisions to enact Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations on incentives in costs and exemplary damages have subsequently been included in the Crime and Courts Bill. Further, a “no change” clause has been included in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill as a safeguard against political intervention with the royal charter.
I note that my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) has tabled a motion to agree with amendment 16, which introduces a requirement for an independent regulatory body to provide an arbitration service. I should like to reassure my hon. Friend and this House that the recognition criteria contained within the agreed draft royal charter include just that. To retain amendment 16 in the Bill, alongside the provisions within the royal charter, risks creating duplication and uncertainty around these requirements. The package of measures identified to enact Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations have cross-party support. As Lord Puttnam, who tabled these amendments, said:
“Nothing in the world will delight me more than to see the Defamation Bill pass in its original form.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 March 2013; Vol. 744, c. 880.]
On that basis, I hope that the House will agree to the removal of Lords amendments 1, 15 and 16.
I also ask the House to disagree with Lords amendment 2. A motion to that effect has been tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier). The amendment concerns two distinct but related issues, which have already featured extensively in debates in both Houses during the passage of the Bill.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I thank the Minister for giving way so early in her speech. She is presumably aware that the Joint Committee on the draft Defamation Bill, on which I served, said that it favoured the approach that limits libel claims to situations where the corporation can prove the likelihood of substantial financial loss. Does she understand the reasons behind that, and can she give us any reassurances on that?
Mrs Grant
I fully understand those reasons, and if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me and allow me to progress on to an explanation of those amendments, I hope that all will be revealed to him.
The separate but related issues are whether there should be any restrictions on the rights of bodies corporate and other non-natural persons to bring an action in defamation and whether any non-natural person, which is performing a public function, should be prevented altogether from bringing a claim in relation to a statement concerning that function. In relation to the first issue, the amendment would mean that in order to bring a claim, a non-natural person would first have to obtain permission of the court. The court would be required to strike out any such application, unless the claimant could show that the publication of the statement complained of had caused, or was likely to cause, substantial financial loss. We believe that a permission stage for this purpose would create unnecessary duplication and additional costs for both parties.
If the claimant was required to show substantial financial loss in order to satisfy the permission requirement, it would in effect mean that the claimant would satisfy the serious harm test introduced by clause 1. We have asked the civil procedure rules committee to consider rule changes to support a new early resolution procedure under which either party could apply at the outset of proceedings for the court to decide certain key issues, including whether the serious harm test is satisfied. The addition of a permission stage would therefore add little or nothing, because any case where the existence of serious harm was disputed could have that issue resolved at a very early stage in any event.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for taking us through this matter. The problem comes when a body—not a person—sends a threatening letter to an ordinary member of the public. Were I to go to a pop concert and be abused by security staff, and then tell my friends not to go to anything organised by those people, and if they then issued and served a writ, what chance would I have, with no money? Do I go straight to court and say, “They’ve shown no loss. Cut it out. They are not a person. They’ve got no feelings. They should not be allowed to do it.”?
Mrs Grant
No, in a moment. I want to make some progress first.
If the claimant succeeded at the permission stage, an early resolution hearing would often still be needed to enable the court to give a ruling on other key aspects of the claim—in particular, what the meaning of the words complained of was and whether they were statements of fact or opinion. This would mean that two sets of applications and hearings could often be needed, whereas under our proposals one would be sufficient. We have consistently made it clear that we are fully committed to taking action to help reduce the cost of defamation proceedings. The amendment would have precisely the opposite effect.
In addition to the early resolution proposals, the Civil Justice Council has recently submitted to the Secretary of State its recommendations for cost protection in defamation and privacy proceedings. We are considering these carefully, with a view to introducing measures to give protection to parties with limited means when they are faced by an opponent with substantially greater resources. The amendment would undermine these initiatives and in many cases create unnecessary additional costs for both claimants and defendants.
Paul Farrelly
I thank the Minister for her generosity in giving way. The amendment would be the only place in the Bill that provides for an early strike-out procedure. One of the problems has been that we have not seen the changes to the civil procedure rules throughout all this. How, then, can we be confident that what is promised will happen? In the case that the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) will no doubt refer to in due course—of Peter Wilmshurst and NMT—an early strike-out procedure was necessary to prevent one company from abusing our libel laws. It was an example of libel tourism and all the worst excesses. The amendment would be the only place in the Bill providing for early strike-out.
Mrs Grant
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but the early resolution procedure will not fix the problem of the chilling effect and equality of arms that he is obviously concerned about. It is one of many measures and although I fully accept that the chilling effect is an issue, we also have to recognise that companies must have the right to protect their reputation. One therefore has to consider not just our request for an early resolution procedure, but the serious harm test and our proposals on cost protection and exemplary damages and costs. Altogether, all those things will, I hope, ensure that defamation proceedings are not manipulated by the party with considerably more financial needs against the party with less financials means.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way—I know she wants to get into the flow of her speech—but she misunderstands what clause 1 will do. A trial judge will be able to decide whether serious harm has been caused only at the final trial, after costs have been expended, as indicated by her hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). The purpose of the clause introduced in the Lords is to allow the issue to be resolved at an early stage, before the defendant has faced too much cost and stress. What has she got against that?
Mrs Grant
I have just explained that we have requested that an early resolution procedure should be looked into, and if we have an early resolution procedure, we do not need a permission stage. As I have explained, having a permission stage and an early resolution procedure would create far too much delay and cost, which is not what anyone wants. I would have thought that the shadow Minister, having been a solicitor, would know the effect that can have on claimants.
Mrs Grant
I would also like to make the point—I can hear that there are concerns about this issue—that I am, however, aware of the strength of feeling that exists on this matter and on whether the Bill should contain a provision requiring non-natural persons trading for profit to show substantial financial loss. As we have made clear at earlier stages in the Bill, in order to satisfy the serious harm test, such bodies are likely in practice to have to show actual or likely financial loss anyway. However, I can confirm that we are prepared to consider actively that aspect of the Lords amendment further, and we will listen carefully to the views expressed in both Houses.
Sir Edward Garnier
I listened with care to what the shadow Secretary of State said just now. Although it is true that clause 1 might be a retrospective application, the ordinary rules of strike-out and the ordinary rules of court that police abusive cases are not altered. If the court is faced with an abusive claim by a company, it will be dealt with. One does not need legislation to police the administration of such proceedings.
Sir Peter Bottomley
Just two names: Peter Wilmshurst and the hundreds of thousands of pounds by a corrupt organisation, a company that had not allowed clinical research to be published properly; and Dr Simon Singh and the half a million pounds of costs over £5,000 of damages, and the court could not find a way of dismissing the case. That is the problem: such cases should not be allowed to start.
Mrs Grant
As I intimated earlier, fixing the problem of fairness and creating the right balance between the claimant and defendant is not just about an early strike-out procedure. It is about a package of proposals that create fairness, are proportionate and allow for freedom of expression while protecting the reputations of individuals.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
Before my hon. Friend leaves this issue and following the intervention by our hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), will she say whether the implication of what she said a few minutes ago is that she and the Government are willing to look at how we reflect the Lords amendment, but in a different way, to deal with corporate actions against vulnerable individuals, which is clearly a concern on both sides of the House?
Mrs Grant
In relation to serious financial harm—that aspect and that aspect alone at the moment.
I now turn to the second element of the Lords amendment. In the case of Derbyshire county council v. Times Newspapers, the House of Lords held that local authorities and government bodies were already prevented from bringing actions for defamation. The amendments seek to extend that principle and prevent claims by any non-natural person performing a public function. We do not consider that appropriate, as it would remove completely the right of a wide range of businesses and other organisations to protect their reputation. Although the provision focuses on criticisms in connection with the exercise of public functions, that criticism could of course have a wider impact on the reputation of the business more generally.
Our view is that a rigid, restrictive statutory provision that would remove the right to claim from a wide range of bodies does not represent a proportionate approach. We consider it much better to allow the courts to develop the Derbyshire principle, as they consider appropriate and necessary in the light of individual cases. The removal of the amendment will not affect the Derbyshire principle, which will continue under the common law as it does now. I hope that the House will therefore agree to reject Lords amendment 2.
Improving the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime (Consultation)
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
On 29 March, the Government launched the “Improving the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime” consultation.
The Government want to do all they can to ensure the right services and support is in place to help victims through what is often a sensitive, worrying and emotional time. Last year we published our response to the “Getting it right for victims and witnesses” consultation in which we made a commitment to revise the current code of practice for victims of crime (“victims’ code”).
The victims’ code sets out the services to be provided in England and Wales by criminal justice agencies to enable victims to receive the support they need. The current code is written with criminal justice agencies in mind, rather than victims. The revised code is set out in a more user-friendly style structured around the criminal justice process. This enhances victims’ understanding of the process, with victims’ entitlements clearly set out at each stage.
Every victim will be entitled to a minimum level of service under the revised code. We have also outlined an enhanced service in the revised code for three categories of victim most in need: victims of the most serious crime, the most persistently targeted and vulnerable or intimidated victims. This approach will help victims to get the right support at the right time. It also provides greater flexibility to allow agencies to tailor services according to individual need.
There is a new section of entitlements dedicated to victims under the age of 18 which is easy for children, young people, parents and guardians to understand. The code will also for the first time include:
The victim personal statement, which gives victims an opportunity to describe the wider effects of the crime upon them, and thus give them a louder voice in the criminal justice system;
A separate section for businesses who will be able to submit an “impact statement” to explain how a crime has affected them;
Information on restorative justice for victims of adult offenders.
A clear and transparent complaints process to provide quick and thorough responses to victims.
A copy of the draft victims’ code will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Further information on the consultation can be found on the Ministry of Justice website at: www.justice.gov.uk.
Magistrates Courts (Wiltshire)
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on securing the debate.
Let me make three things clear from the outset. First, no decisions have been made on this matter. The local area is conducting a consultation on the proposals and I would not want to prejudge the outcome of that consultation in the Chamber today. Secondly, the proposed merger of benches and the proposed changes to the court matrix are completely different matters and are not related to one another, except for the fact that they are taking place according to a similar timetable. Thirdly, the maintenance of appropriate arrangements for the deployment of the judiciary in England and Wales and the allocation of work within courts is the statutory responsibility of the Lord Chief Justice, not the Lord Chancellor.
Together with and supported by clerks through the justices’ issues group, which I shall refer to as the issues group, local magistrates ensure that there is sufficient court time available to meet demand and that the right facilities are provided for the cases that come before them. That includes reviewing the sitting programmes of magistrates courts in the area.
In line with those in other areas, Wiltshire magistrates review the sitting programme for the courts in each area every six months to ensure it is properly aligned with the work load. Criminal work load in Wiltshire’s magistrates courts is falling. In north-west Wiltshire, it has decreased by 25%, in south-east Wiltshire by 26% and in Swindon by 8%. That reflects a national trend and the forecast is for further reduction, but family court work is increasing in the area and it is right that local arrangements are made to accommodate that.
The low volume of criminal cases, particularly in rural areas, means that some courts are not fully occupied. Steps are being taken in Wiltshire to consolidate similar business and are designed to help make the best use of the estate, accommodate a growing family case load and tribunals work load, and reduce the inconvenience to court users caused by sitting patterns changing, often at very short notice. The proposals have been subject to wide stakeholder consultation, which closed on 15 March 2013. The responses to that consultation are being considered by the local area, and the issues group will meet shortly to discuss the proposals. The final decision as to how to arrange the business will rest with that group.
The consultation has been designed to draw out specific impacts on various groups, which will be considered carefully and a full equality impact assessment will be carried out before implementation. The clerk for the area and the bench chairmen have held meetings with local defence advocates and a representative of the Legal Services Commission better to understand their concerns. The issues group will consider carefully the impact on magistrates’ rotas, and those considerations will take into account the need to balance travel time and costs against the need to maintain competences and sittings across a wide range of work areas.
I understand the concern that some changes may result in increased travel for victims and witnesses. Wiltshire is a rural county, and public transport links are often limited. That is why the local area is working closely with criminal justice partners to look at ways to overcome that, especially by making the most of video technology. It is important to remember that proposals for Salisbury court suggest that some trials will remain in that locality and that start times for those held in Chippenham can be flexible, accommodating the needs of court users wherever possible.
In deciding how we meet the needs of victims and witnesses, we need to weigh up whether an increase in journey times to court is offset by the benefit of increased certainty for the victims and witnesses that the trials they are called to attend are much more likely to go ahead as planned. There is an opportunity to focus facilities at Chippenham for accommodating victims and witnesses, as it will be a dedicated trials venue, and we must make better use of court time for magistrates and court users to ensure that best use is made of their valuable time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury has raised some serious issues, and I should like to comment further on one or two of them. I want to reassure him as far as possible that these appear to be sensible and proportionate proposals that accommodate a change in the legal landscape. It is not just about a diminishing workload but about a 45% increase in family work in the area, which must be accommodated. I remind him that all responses to the consultation will be considered very carefully indeed, including the response to the consultation from him and my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), to which he referred. I repeat that no decision has yet been made.
On the issue of inconvenience for witnesses and victims, it is my aim as victims Minister to put the interests of victims and witnesses at the heart of the justice system. We recognise that there may be some inconvenience with increased journey times, but that must be weighed carefully against benefits such as increased certainty of trials proceeding, increased expertise and the proper use of court resources and magistrates’ skills. Criminal business in magistrates courts is reducing. We have a duty to court users and a duty to deliver an efficient and effective service across all parts of our business, and we believe that the proposals help us to do both.
This is a local initiative being driven and supported by the judiciary in Wiltshire. Local justice is about visible and continual engagement with communities. It does not mean providing a courthouse in every town or city, and that courthouse hearing every type of business. Quality, speed and efficiency of the service that we provide, which commands respect for the justice system, are much more significant to the delivery of effective local justice across our communities. We will continue to work closely with the judiciary and other key stakeholders as we consider how best to harness the potential of magistrates through our wider reform programme.
I hope that what I have said today reassures my hon. Friend the member for Salisbury that the Government are serious about working with magistrates and the judiciary to improve the local and regional administration of justice in the south-west and nationally.
Question put and agreed to.
Female Offenders
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
I am pleased to announce that today I have published online a document outlining the Government’s strategic priorities for female offenders. These priorities are:
Ensuring the provision of credible, robust sentencing options in the community that will enable female offenders to be punished and rehabilitated in the community where appropriate. We are committed to ensuring all community orders include a punitive element. Other options such as tagging and curfews can also be used to provide greater monitoring and structure to offenders’ lives;
Ensuring the provision of services in the community that recognise and address the specific needs of female offenders, where these are different from those of male offenders;
Tailoring the women’s custodial estate and regimes so that they reform and rehabilitate offenders effectively, punish properly, protect the public fully, meet gender specific standards, and locate women in prisons as near to their families as possible; and
Through the transforming rehabilitation programme, supporting better life management by female offenders ensuring all criminal justice system partners work together to enable women to stop reoffending.
To support delivery of these priorities, I am also pleased to announce that I will chair a new Advisory Board for Female Offenders. The board, which will bring together key stakeholders, criminal justice partners and senior officials from across Whitehall, will support me in providing strong leadership on delivery of our strategic priorities.
It will focus on specific work streams, which will include exploring how we could enhance provision for female offenders in the community to offer a credible alternative to custody; supporting the Government’s plans for transforming rehabilitation; providing expert, practitioner input to the Government’s review of the women’s custodial estate; and working with sentencer, criminal justice partners, the voluntary sector and other Government Departments to reduce women’s offending and reoffending.
The publication of this document follows commitments made in the House of Lords by Lord McNally during the parliamentary passage of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, and by the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) in the House of Commons during Commons Committee of the Crime and Courts Bill.
Copies of “Strategic Priorities for Female Offenders” have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The document is also available online, at: www.justice. gov.uk/publications/policy/moj/strategic-objectives-for-female-offenders
Oral Answers to Questions
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
1. What assessment he has made of the value of the work done by women’s centres with women offenders; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
Women’s centres are a key element in our approach to women in the criminal justice system. Since April 2012, we have been monitoring referrals made by probation trusts to the 31 women’s centres funded by the National Offender Management Service. Feedback indicates that users, staff and magistrates see the centres as a valuable resource.
Fiona Mactaggart
May I first declare an interest as chair of Commonweal, a charity that established the Re-Unite programme, which helps women offenders to reunite with their children when they come out of prison? The programme is run by many women’s centres and those we have been working with are anxious about their future funding and about the lack of strategy from the Ministry for women offenders and women in the criminal justice system. Will the Minister meet me, together with representatives from the women’s centres, to reassure them about future funding for the wonderful programmes they run?
Mrs Grant
I am happy to meet the hon. Lady, and I hope to reassure her. During the last few weeks, I have been visiting women’s centres around the country, in Gloucester, Reading and London, and I have been very impressed by what I have seen. Overall, I want to see more provision for women in areas where it does not exist at the moment. I also want existing provision in the centres deepened and strengthened further. Funding may be readjusted for some services; there has to be redistribution and some centres may have to do a little more with less, but I assure the hon. Lady that funding is continuing and we are increasing it by £300,000 for this financial year.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I visited the excellent Dawn projects in Cambridge and Peterborough, where they do a huge amount of work with female ex-offenders and save the state far more than they cost to run. They are both concerned about the future of their funding. The Minister has given some reassurance, but can she give further reassurance that the Dawn project will continue to get the support it needs?
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
These excellent centres are facing problems financially, as the Minister appreciates. She will also appreciate that on a cost-benefit analysis, short-term expenditure will pay dividends; it will keep women out of the prison estate, without further costs for children in care and so on. Ultimately it is a great investment.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
2. What progress he has made on improving special educational needs provision within the youth custodial estate.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
7. What his Department’s policy is on victims of crime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
For many years now, victims have felt completely overlooked and unsupported by the criminal justice system. As victims Minister, I am determined to put that right. That is why we are implementing a range of reforms that will put victims at the very heart of the criminal justice system, which is where they belong.
Simon Danczuk
Two weeks ago, The Sunday Times revealed that investigations of sexual abuse in Rochdale are faltering because police are failing to win the trust of victims. Does the Minister believe that a higher conviction rate would be achieved against the predators if Greater Manchester police had more officers with better skills for supporting vulnerable victims?
Mrs Grant
I cannot comment on individual cases, especially those that are at a sensitive point in the investigation, but I can assure the House and the hon. Gentleman that the Government are committed to bringing forward changes that will help to support victims of sexual abuse at every stage of the criminal investigation.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Reports by the organisation Support After Murder and Manslaughter Abroad consistently highlight the fact that more support is required for bereaved families—those who have lost loved ones through murder and manslaughter abroad. What steps is my hon. Friend the Minister taking to address those shortcomings?
Mrs Grant
We do a considerable amount of work, and we provide funding for families of homicide victims. I attended a conference run by a gentleman called Frank Mullane to discuss what he does for families who go through that appalling difficulty. I am happy to talk further with my hon. Friend about what measures are being taken and what else we are doing on those issues.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I have to tell you, Mr Speaker, that this Government have failed to implement the main recommendation made by the last victims’ commissioner, Louise Casey, before she left her post 18 months ago, which was to implement a victims’ law. The Government have also slashed the compensation available to victims of crime. During the last Justice questions, we heard that the Justice Secretary believes that it is the fault of the victims of rape that so many men receive cautions for rape. Does the Minister believe that it is possible to have a criminal justice system that is on the side of victims while her party is in government? If so, when will it happen?
Mrs Grant
The Government are absolutely committed to looking after victims and witnesses of crime. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we currently spend £66 million on victim services. Not content with that, we want to raise even more money for victims—up to £50 million—through the victims’ surcharge. We are also raising money through the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996, giving victims a louder voice through the appointment of Baroness Newlove as victims’ commissioner and clarifying victims’ entitlements through reform of the victims’ code, on which we will consult in due course.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
On the victim surcharge, what is being done to ensure that all the fines are being collected so that they can be used to support victims?
Mrs Grant
The victims surcharge is potentially a large amount of money that will be raised for victims and witnesses. As Minister with responsibility for courts as well as for victims, I assure my hon. Friend that Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service will continue to prioritise collection of financial penalties, including the surcharge.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
8. What representations he has received from the voluntary and charitable sector on his proposals to introduce payment by results for the rehabilitation of offenders.
Grahame M. Morris
I thank the Justice Secretary for his reply, but may I draw his attention to the Public Accounts Committee’s damning report on the Ministry of Justice’s handling of the court translators contract? Again it is a case of being penny wise and pound foolish. Two hundred cases in England and Wales had to be cancelled, costing the public purse millions of pounds. Experienced and trained translators are still refusing to work with Capita, which was awarded the contract. Will the Minister, as part of his action plan, rescue our justice service and abandon this failed contract?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but we are working very closely with Capita. Our success rate is good, but it can, of course, improve, and it will improve. The British taxpayer will save some £15 million per annum as a result of this contract, and I am fully convinced that the new contract will be more accountable, transparent and effective than the old one.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
T3. Has the Secretary of State considered increasing the maximum sentences available to magistrates from six to 12 months, so that justice can be delivered more efficiently, fairly and quickly by magistrates who live in, and have a good understanding of, the communities they serve?
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
T4. The failed contract with ALS/Capita is a year old. Does the Minister agree that her claims of massive savings cannot be demonstrated, given that the Ministry refuses to publish details of how much is spent off-contract to purchase interpreting services?
Mrs Grant
I think that I have made the position clear, but I will repeat it. The contract is operating at a very good success rate, but further improvements can be made. Having worked as a solicitor in the old regime, I can say that it certainly was not perfect. I am satisfied that the new regime will not only save the taxpayer a considerable amount of money, but be more effective, transparent and accountable than the old regime.
Charles Hendry (Wealden) (Con)
Far too many young people are essentially illiterate and innumerate when they start custodial sentences. Even worse, they still are when they finish them. What assessment has the Minister made of the extent to which the costs of providing educational services would be offset by savings through a reduction in reoffending rates?
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
On compensation for people with pleural plaques, will the Minister look at what has happened in Northern Ireland, which has overturned the House of Lords ruling and restored the right of people to sue in the civil courts for compensation for that condition?
Mrs Grant
Yes, I am happy to look at that, but the law does not prevent a person with pleural plaques who goes on to develop any recognised asbestos-related disease from bringing a claim in relation to that disease. Obviously, England and Wales have a different legal system from those in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Claims Management Companies
Helen Grant Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on securing this debate on claims management companies, which remain topical. Clearly, there are serious conduct problems among a minority of CMCs, but it is worth remembering that some provide a useful service in identifying consumers who have suffered loss and supporting them in obtaining redress when they would otherwise receive nothing. While we have made good progress since the start of regulation, I acknowledge that there is more that can be done and should be done to improve the conduct of CMCs, and to strengthen consumer protection across the claims management industry. To that end, the Ministry of Justice claims management regulation unit remains committed to providing a stable and robust regulatory system that the public can trust. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged the good work that the CMR unit is doing. It is stepping up its approach to improving CMC compliance and strengthening enforcement action through a range of measures.
The CMR unit has established a specialist compliance team to deal with poor practices used by some CMCs when handling claims for mis-sold payment protection insurance. In the past year, the compliance team has conducted more than 100 audits of CMCs assessed as high risk, issued warnings, and taken other forms of enforcement action where problems have been found. This work continues and includes targeting CMCs that are submitting poorly prepared or spurious claims, charging up-front fees and operating call centres, to ensure that sales calls are compliant.
On the problem of nuisance calls and text messages, we fully support the work of the Information Commissioner’s Office in enforcing the legislation that protects individuals from this form of direct marketing. We also recognise the benefits of a joint approach to tackling the problem. Before I go further, however, it is important to point out that spam texts that market claims services are generally not sent by CMCs, but by other organisations that generate leads for other businesses, including CMCs. The CMR unit is working with the ICO to investigate and take enforcement action against CMCs accepting leads or claims from this type of marketing.
Within the personal injury claims sector, most of the issues relate to businesses or organised groups attempting to defraud the insurance industry. The CMR unit contributes valuable intelligence and expertise, and has worked with a range of organisations and agencies to tackle fraud, including the Insurance Fraud Bureau, and police forces on a number of operations throughout the year. Those operations have resulted in arrests, charges and convictions. Much has therefore been achieved at a time when resources are limited. Since regulation began in 2007, the CMR unit has removed the licences of more than 900 CMCs across the sector. More recently, a major crackdown resulted in more than 400 CMCs being warned, suspended or having their licences cancelled. That has been done with no impact on the public purse, as regulation is self-financing.
So far, I have covered the good work that the CMR unit is doing to drive out malpractice. What I want to do now is to look further ahead to the programme of reforms we are introducing this year. Our reform plans give us all huge opportunities to do things better and to ensure that the regulatory framework continues to deliver effectively. This year’s reform agenda includes four main measures. Following a consultation exercise, we are proposing to tighten the conduct rules for CMCs. Most critically, we are proposing that contractual agreements between CMCs and consumers must be signed by clients before any fees can be taken. CMCs will only be permitted to refer to being regulated by the claims management regulator, rather than by the Ministry of Justice. CMCs will have to inform their contracted client of any variation or suspension of their authorisation. We intend to publish our response to the consultation shortly and, subject to the relevant Government clearance processes that can take some time, we expect implementation of the proposed changes to follow this summer.
Last year, we ran a public consultation on imposing a ban on CMCs offering financial rewards, or similar benefits, to potential claimants as an inducement to make a claim. The ban will come into effect from 1 April. Also from 1 April, we are implementing the primary recommendations contained in Lord Justice Jackson’s review of civil litigation costs, including in particular a ban on the payment and receipt of referral fees in personal injury cases and fundamental reform to the no win, no fee conditional fee agreements. That will include, in particular, a ban on the payment and receipt of referral fees in personal injury cases and fundamental reform to the no win, no fee conditional fee agreement.
Kate Green
I am aware of the changes being made to referral fees, but is the Minister aware of the concern that, because they will be brought within the ambit of the conditional free arrangements, CMCs will be able to use those CFAs as a means simply of replacing referral fees?
Mrs Grant
I think that our reforms have looked into these issues carefully and we have anticipated many of the issues to which the hon. Lady is alluding. I was going to touch on this in my speech anyway. We feel that our reforms have been carefully considered and are proportionate, appropriate and balanced, and that we now have to start to attack our compensation culture, which has been building up for many years. Obviously, the reforms will be reviewed within three to four years, and if further changes need to be made in order to create further balance and fairness, of course that can be considered.
Nic Dakin
The Minister is spelling out some of the good work being done through the Ministry of Justice and the CMR, but may I pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) about the balance of risk? The Financial Ombudsman Service places all the risk with businesses, which means that CMCs can act with impunity and without risk. Is the Minister talking to her colleagues across government to ensure that the excellent work being done by the MOJ is met in parallel by the other Departments and so can be reinforced?
Mrs Grant
Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging the good work of the CMR unit in the MOJ. Of course, we are working across government to try to get this right. I hear exactly what he says, but we need to take a balanced approach and to accept that not all CMCs are bad. We want targeted, appropriate and proportionate action against the bad companies, but we also want the good ones to continue.
Lastly, this year we intend to commence powers under the Legal Services Act 2007 to extend the Legal Ombudsman’s restriction in order to provide an independent complaints and redress scheme for clients dissatisfied with the service provided to them by the CMC they have contracted with. Consumers will benefit, because the Legal Ombudsman has wider powers of redress, including the ability to order compensation.
I want to pick up on some of the issues raised by hon. Members. I believe that I have already touched on my attitude to balance and our civil reforms to funding and the costs. I would like to reassure the hon. Member for Scunthorpe that I firmly believe that, notwithstanding the reforms, meritorious claims will still be permitted. It is avoidable and spurious claims that we want to stop.
On the issue of banning cold calling and texting, I should say that nuisance calls and text messaging are a serious problem that can cause considerable annoyance, as clearly it has done in the case of the company in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. The Information Commissioner’s Office can take enforcement action and has lead responsibility in this area, but we of course work very closely with it, and will continue to do so. The commissioner can impose penalties of up to £500,000 for serious breaches of privacy. Indeed, I was informed a few days ago that for the first time it recently issued fines totally £440,000 to two illegal marketers responsible for distributing millions of spam e-mails.
In our opinion, a blanket ban on cold calling would be disproportionate. Other businesses operating in similar industries such as debt management are not subject to a blanket ban. Next year, CMCs will have to have a signed contract before they can take any up-front fees from an individual, and that will tackle the main detriment resulting from cold calling.
On the issue of charging CMCs, we fear that that could penalise consumers who find the services of CMCs helpful in making complaints. We worry, too, that any fee would be likely to be passed on to the consumer. Also, we do not believe that charging a fee is the correct approach to protecting consumers. Protection will ultimately be achieved by effective regulation.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I hear what the Minister is saying, but I draw her attention to PPI claims, for which the banks have well-established processes that involve only the filling in of a form. The presence of an up-front fee might make consumers think twice about giving their business to a company, and about doing the work themselves instead.
Mrs Grant
I hear what my hon. Friend is saying, but I am afraid that I fundamentally disagree with her on this point.
The hon. Member for Scunthorpe asked who might be the best regulator for these purposes. I believe that the MOJ is in a good position to continue in that role. We can act now, and we are doing so. The CMR unit has a good track record of making a difference using relatively limited resources, and we have had a good response from stakeholders, who are supporting the regulation remaining with us. I also believe that it is not a good idea to transfer responsibility at a time of substantial change.
In conclusion, the CMR unit will step up its approach, and resources will be devoted to tackling the underlying problems that exist in the conduct of some CMCs. I do not believe that institutional reform is necessarily the answer, especially at a time when the industry is undergoing such fundamental change. The industry will of course have its role to play in driving up standards. CMCs must give consumers and defendants more confidence in the system by ensuring that they comply properly, fairly and adequately with the rules.
Question put and agreed to.