---

Small Claims (Courts)

: I have heard and read the record of the short debate on the subject yesterday, but I was not persuaded by the hon. Lady's arguments. I think that we legislate far too much and we ask for legislation far too much. If we were much more cautious about thinking and holding out the idea that this place is the answer to everyone's problems, we would provide a far better service. In fact, if we legislated for only one year in two, we might do the public a much better service. It is normally administration, not legislation, that we need. I have a strong view about the belief that the law is the answer to everybody's problems. We should encourage people in society to take more responsibility. People can take risks, and if things go wrong, take the consequences. I reinforce the first of the four points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, which concerned the failure of IT. Friends and colleagues of mine who do this sort of work tell me that the system is entirely inefficient. There are basically two IT systems that are not joined up, and until they are, the system will not work well. I have a note from a friend of mine, who does such work on a regular basis. She says:"““The small claims track is particularly inefficient regarding listings . . . If time is money, it's often a costly method of organising the case load. Also, it can be costly in terms of justice.””" That leads into a separate but linked point:"““Some, not all, District Judges are so stressed out by having, for example six cases in their list that morning . . . they don't pay attention to points that are properly being made to them.””" She goes on to make the wider and very valid point that if judges are stressed and the system is not sustainable, people do not get justice, because the judges are impatient, particularly with litigants in person. Litigants in person tend to test the patience of judges much more than those representing the insurance companies. It is true that there are some excellent district judges, but there are some who are less good. Their general reputation around the courts is one of a very variable service. I am sure that those responsible for the appointment, supervision and management of district judges are alert to that. It is a difficult task: I have been in enough courts to see how difficult litigants in person can be, and how the imbalance of justice does not work to their advantage. However, we still need to make progress on efficiency and the quality of judges. My right hon. Friend's second point, which he made the burden of his speech, was about enforcement. The system is of little use unless we can enforce the judgment. If one goes to court for £500 or £1,000 and nothing happens, or it takes months, the system is inefficient. The Government have said that they will respond, and it would be helpful if the Minister indicated how soon that will be. I note what the report says, and we must be able to enforce the judgment, in effect, immediately. The inquisition about enforcement ought to be concluded there and then, at court, as the Minister and I know from our constituency experience. That is one reason why I have always argued for a merger of the tax and benefit system, because in the debate about ability to pay, people can and do deceive courts regularly. There ought to be before the judge adequate and integrated information about what people can pay. The simple proposition is that there should be a fixture no later than one month after a judgment in which enforcement is worked out, and people should be expected to attend. That is why I have a very big stick to wave over the corporate sector—the defendants who are liable to pay. They should be required to turn up with the money in court one month later. If they do not, a very large penalty could be imposed so that it was not in their commercial interest not to turn up. We must find a way in which enforcement takes place more quickly and more effectively. We ought to raise limits logically and gradually at least to keep pace with inflation. I shall not extend that debate at length. I take a technical view: it is probably wise to raise the limit, but only to one in line with inflation, which is about £1,500. It may be only lawyers who read Kemp and Kemp, but it would be foolish to go beyond that limit without consensus. There may have been much lobbying on both sides in the evidence given to the Committee —insurance companies and personal injury lawyers—but the insurance industry is clearly reluctant to help in many cases. I understand why personal injury lawyers want to ensure that justice is done. When the insurance companies pitch up with their lawyers and the individual has no representation, it is often easy for the company to win the day. Observations from colleagues throughout the country suggest that parity is often not achieved, because an individual against an insurance company often produces an inequitable result, in which the company is significantly advantaged. I support the Committee's proposal for the European procedure. Cross-border cases are the only logical circumstances in which it should be used. May I flag up the question about the cost of medical reports and the difficulty of getting them? I think I am right in saying that doctors invariably charge for medical reports.