---

Small Claims (Courts)

First, I declare an interest as a solicitor and a member of the Law Society. The debate has focused on the Select Committee's recommendations on the proposal to increase the limit in respect of personal injury claims and the small claims track. Before coming to that, however, I should like to talk about a couple of other issues that were dealt with in the Committee's report. The first issue is, on the face of it, relatively minor. It is the administration and operation of the small claims court and, in particular, the customer-facing side of that. Having practised law but not in the county court or small claims court, I found it extremely informative, as part of the Committee's work, to see and appreciate the operation of that court and the way in which it deals with people. One debate that we had was on the manner in which cases are disposed of. I am referring to the way in which people are dealt with when they turn up at court. There was debate on whether there was a need for people to have fixed times for attending court to have their case disposed of. On balance, the Committee felt that that was not appropriate. That view is borne out by my own experience of attending court, and observing the work of a deputy district judge in the context of the small claims procedure and the way in which cases are dealt with at court. A number of claimants and defendants arrive at the same time at an appointed hour in the morning, and the role of the clerk to the court is pivotal. I did not fully appreciate that until I was there. I am talking about the way in which the clerk to the court handles the people arriving there, assessing the complexity of cases in conjunction with the deputy district judge to try to ensure that the time allowed for cases is such that they run smoothly. There is an assessment of how much time will be needed for evidence to be given to the court and for a matter to be disposed of. It may seem as though there is a lot of hanging around for the people involved, but normally the clerks intervene quite early and agree with the deputy district judge or the district judge the order in which cases will be taken, depending on the availability of witnesses and other parties and how long a case is likely to take. I found it informative and interesting to see how well that system can work on the basis of a good clerk. What would be helpful before people come to court is information and notice of how things will proceed, but from what I have seen so far—this view was shared by other members of the Committee—I do not think that there is a feeling that individual appointments should be booked for individual claimants or individual cases. It is a question of ensuring that the court's time is used efficiently and effectively. On balance, the current system works, albeit that there is a need for greater investment in IT and to ensure that claimants and defendants are well aware of what will happen when they get to court and the way in which the case will be dealt with. It was interesting to see how that is still working in practice. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) highlighted the point about enforceability. This debate has centred around limits, but for me the most fundamental and pressing issue is enforceability. We have heard a lot about access to justice during the debate, but if someone goes through the court process, has their day in court, obtains a judgment in their favour but finds that the judgment cannot be enforced, the system falls. It fails and the litigant does not get justice. The strongest point that came out of the inquiry for me was people's sheer frustration and exasperation when they obtained a judgment that told them that they were right and entitled to compensation, but were unable to execute that judgment. The problem has existed for some time. In the Department's evidence to the Committee, it noted that the problem has existed since 1998, when the review of civil enforcement was embarked on. Recommendations came forward in July 2000 on the steps that might be taken. The civil procedure rules came into effect in March 2002 and dealt with secondary legislation on the implementation of some of those recommendations, but we are still without the primary legislation to give teeth to additional enforcement powers such as charging orders, attachment of earnings orders and, most interestingly, data disclosure orders, which are essential to give people the information and ammunition to be able to track people down and to get the court to follow things through. I am sure that many hon. Members feel that frustration when constituents come to them and say, ““I cannot track this person down, so I cannot physically enforce the order and I cannot get the court to do it either.”” Justice and ensuring that people are given direct access to it is about legal advice and the ability to argue a case in court, but it is also about ensuring that a court judgment is followed through and that justice is not only done but is actively seen to be done. That is not happening at the moment and will not happen until we have the primary legislation to give effect to the important recommendations that have already been made. The Department for Constitutional Affairs stated in the report:"““Changes requiring primary legislation will be taken forward as soon as Parliamentary time allows””." I am sure that the Minister wishes that that were the case, but she is not the custodian of parliamentary time and how legislation comes through in this House. However, the strong message that needs to come from this debate, as came from the Select Committee's recommendations, is that the matter must be prioritised. We must put the enforcement powers properly on the statute book as soon as we can to ensure that those rights are properly put into place and that people are not disadvantaged and fed up because the system lets them down and court judgments are not put into effect. We have had a good debate on the suggested increases in the small claims limit in personal injury cases, which in many ways has highlighted the various arguments. As the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said forcefully, the insurers will always seek to increase the limit as much as possible as a means of blocking justice. The Association of British Insurers stated:"““Due to the financial constraints to lawyers and because the limit has never been changed very few cases are assigned to the small claims track.””" It would say that, wouldn't it? The legal side could also say, ““Well, it is too high already.”” The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) argued eloquently that justice would be denied if any changes were made. It is interesting that many of the points that have been made this afternoon apply equally to the present limit. The hon. Gentleman rightly gave his objections to any limit and I understand the purity of his argument. We need a debate on the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering referred to the National Accident Helpline and some of the points that it made. It recognised in its report that there is a case for raising the limit to £1,500, but that any further increase must be part of a wider review of the claims process. It also recognised the express concerns of genuine claimants who are currently seeking redress. That shows that a review is needed and I am pleased that the Select Committee report has sparked discussion of whether there is a need to look at the limit and to increase it. We may have differences of opinion with regard to inflation, but the NAH came up with a figure of £1,500 and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers came up with the same figure. The limit was set in the early 1990s and it should be reviewed to see whether it remains fit for purpose and whether it should change. The Better Regulation Task Force has, to use the words of the hon. Member for Hendon, been even more in the pocket of the insurance industry in recommending £5,000.