REGISTER OF COUNTY COURT JUDGMENTS (Hansard, 22 July 1977)

§ Mr. Temple-Morris

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 11, line 29, leave out '£30' and insert '£10'.

2119 This is an important amendment, as it has to do with the whole credit industry of this country. As the House will fully realise, we are here dealing with the Register of County Court Judgments, that is, the central registry at Gower Street, and the long-standing practice of enabling the credit industry—and it is an industry—access to that register in order to list bad debts of £10 and more.

In moving the amendment I cannot be completely brief but I shall at least be succinct, because there was a full discussion of this matter in Committee. During that discussion there was a certain amount of criticism from both sides and the Minister charitably and properly undertook to consider the matter and to see whether the figure of £30 should remain in the Bill, whether there should be another figure, or whether we should go back to the status quo of £10 and upwards. I can be succinct, not least because the ball is in the Minister's court. He has undertaken to consider the matter and the House awaits the result of his consultations. I thank him for including the Opposition in those consultations.

The background to the proposal is that it began with the somewhat bureaucratic inclusion in the Bill of the abolition of this access to the register, on the ground that it was an interference with the rights of the individual that anyone should be able to inquire into the means, defaults and debts of others. That proposal attracted much criticism, with the net result that by the time the Bill was presented in the Lords the figure had been changed from £10 to £50. Again, there was a storm of understandable criticism, and the figure was dropped to £30. We are now asking the Government to restore the status quo. In putting this proposition to the House, I want to deal with the Government's grounds for keeping the clause as it now stands and the Government's defence so far.

The question of total abolition began, perhaps, as a matter of individual rights, but once a figure of any kind was inserted, two main grounds only, the ground of principle having gone, were advanced to the House. They were both somewhat dubious. The first of these two grounds was the question of saving to the Government. It was difficult to quantify the saving. Some detailed 2120 argument took place in Committee about the amount that could be justified as a saving.

The Attorney-General advanced the figure of £100,000 as being a saving, mainly on the wage costs of staffing registries, but one could negative such a cost in that the loss to one menswear company would probably be in excess of £100,000. In addition, there is the possibility of costs being indirectly increased by the legislation through price increases if the cost of such debts were passed on to the consumer, as they inevitably are, and through the loss of registration fees being paid by agents seeking information.

The second ground was equally light —that there has been considerable inflation since 1852. That is hardly relevant. The sum of £10 then was a considerable amount of money, and there was then hardly the credit industry that there is today. The register is fulfilling a major modern function.

The first and overwhelmingly strongest reason for the amendment is that it is concerned with the efficient operation of the credit industry. In mentioning the credit industry, one is talking not just of those who lend money but of those who borrow it. In these terms, we are dealing with many ordinary people whose access to credit involves their access to a better life. We are concerned that the less well-off, who need credit for essential things like clothes, would be most likely to be hit by this measure. The Minister might feel inclined to agree to that proposition.

Secondly, we are greatly concerned with the results of the clause. We feel that less credit will be offered. Here again we are dealing with needy people and their standard of life. We feel that this is a much greater threat to the freedom of the individual, his liberty, his rights and his privacy through what could be much less reliable checking if alternative sources had to be used instead of the official register.

If the clause remains unchanged there will be little accurate control. All sorts of unofficial efforts will be made to check people's creditworthiness. For example, there will be monitoring of certain courts in certain areas and not others. The result of such a random selection of those to whom one lends will 2121 do great harm to the individual, not least to those who do not deserve it and can least afford it.

Finally, there is the social responsibility involved in checking credit—and it is a social responsibility. I say that advisedly and deliberately. There is a responsibility on the House to check the lending of money to those who borrow beyond their means, or to ensure that it is checked. Much harm is done if people get used to doing that. The figure of 250,000 defaulters has been mentioned as the number of those who will come off the list if the clause remains as it is.

2.15 p.m.

We look forward with interest to what the Minister has to say. We are grateful to him for having undertaken further to consider the matter. I hope that after the war of attrition that has gone on outside this place, in the Lords, and now here, we can happily go back to the status quo.

If the clause remains as it stands, and even with the amendment, there still will remain with the Government the right to prescribe a figure other than £10. I urge a word of caution. Were any effort made to prescribe a figure other than £10 we would view the matter extremely seriously. We expect the fullest possible consultation to go on outside this place before we ever get to that stage. We know that we have the power to block such a measure by resolution of the House. It is a power that we would not hesitate to use.

§ Mr. Arthur Davidson

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he moved the amendment. He did it in such cordial terms that I want to put his mind at rest at once and assure him that the Government are prepared to accept the amendment. As he rightly said, this matter was debated at some length in Committee, where it was clearly the view of those who spoke, on both sides of the Committee, that the figure should remain as it was—£10—before the clause was introduced.

As my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor said in another place, in maintaining the register of very small judgment debts down to the value of £10—it has been £10 since 1852—a substantial and concrete service is provided to the comer- 2122 cial community, certainly greater than was contemplated in 1852. Even though the register may be financially self-supporting —and I accept that it can be, through fees charged for inspection, which can be raised if necessary—it takes resources, including manpower, to monitor it, and at a time when everyone is concerned about cutting Government expenditure, or at least seeing that it does not increase—and the Opposition are as concerned about that as much as anyone else—my noble Friend took the view at the outset that the manpower could be used in a more productive way than in maintaining this register.

In pursuit of this aim, and also because of the implications that the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, my noble Friend was at one time minded to propose complete closure of the register, but eventually decided against that course. Instead, an increase of the qualifying figure from £10 to £30 seemed to the Government to be an entirely reasonable step, and, indeed, the minimum step that could be taken to acknowledge the fall in the value of money over the years, certainly since 1852.

Although I am happy to accept the amendment, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government do not go back on that view. But in the light of the forceful arguments put to the contrary, and of the arguments put, quite properly, by the commercial interests which provide credit facilities, about whose value to the community I do not disagree, the Government feel it proper to accept the amendment.

As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the clause, even with the amendment, will leave my noble Friend power to increase the £10 figure by statutory instrument if, at some future date, it appears to him expedient and proper to do so. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that would be done only after proper consultation with all those concerned—commercial interests and others—and it would, of course, require approval of the House under the negative resolution procedure. But that is all in the future, perhaps some time in the distant future. For the present, I am happy to say that the Government are prepared to accept the amendment.