§ VISCOUNT HANWORTHMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in making a review of county court procedures for small claims, they have obtained the views of potential 999 litigants in person; and whether any consumer representative is to be included on the Working Party which is being set up to examine the matter.]
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE)My Lords, potential litigants in person do not as such constitute an identifiable group which can be consulted. The conference of judges, registrars and chief clerks which I convened last year and the County Court Rule Committee which is considering their proposals have taken account of the views expressed in the document entitled Justice out of Reach, and both bodies include persons with great experience of dealing with litigants in person. I have also consulted officials of the National Citizens' Advice Bureaux Council and the National Chamber of Trade. The small Working Party which I am setting up will be concerned only with the forms used in county court proceedings. This is a task which must be performed by people with legal training and experience of the courts, but in making the forms intelligible to laymen they will be able to seek the views of anyone with expertise in this field.
§ VISCOUNT HANWORTHMy Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that reply. I should like to ask two supplementary questions. First, would he not agree that it is now an accepted principle that there ought to be a person specifically representing the consumer point of view on committees dealing with matters which so intimately concern them? Secondly, surely the Lord Chancellor does not think that somebody in a professional capacity can represent and necessarily appreciate the point of view of his clients, who in the main are drawn from the poorer sections of our community? Therefore, views from people who are dealing with them would be of the utmost value. No doubt people who have had experience with litigation could make suitable points before this inquiry.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, in reply to the first supplementary it is all very well to talk about "potential litigants in person" as consumers; but I do not know how to identify potential litigants in person. If I did know, I 1000 should no doubt try to consult them. I doubt whether anybody could represent them because I do not think they represent what philosophers call a set or class. They are rather like Cross-Benchers in that respect. As regards the noble Viscount's second supplementary question, the first Lord Hanworth would have told him that a professional who did not ascertain the point of view of his client was a very poor professional indeed.
§ BARONESS PHILLIPSMy Lords, the noble and learned Lord mentioned the fact that where form-filling was difficult some experts could be consulted. Who are these experts who would be able to interpret form-filling to the ordinary individual?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I do not think the noble Baroness really understood what I was saying in my rather long original Answer. After I had read the pamphlet to which I referred, it occurred to me, both as an experienced ex-county court practitioner and as a student of the subject, and having read the forms (not that the forms themselves were difficult to understand; they were, on the whole, pretty easy to understand), that they were not best calculated to bring out the real points in the case. Therefore, bearing in mind that a good deal of the trouble, in my opinion, is that it is difficult with small claims, and particularly with litigants in person, to find out in advance what is the real point in their case, I am asking the Working Party to give them a form which would help them disclose it for themselves in advance. I said in my original Answer that obviously the actual forms must he in the hands of people who are familiar with the law; but there are people with the expertise of making forms intelligible in themselves. Sometimes lawyers use language which is perfectly precise and definite in meaning but which does not convey the meaning so easily to ordinary people. I said that although the actual Working Party must be composed of persons with experience of the county court and the law, they would be able to consult people with that kind of expertise in order to make their forms easily intelligible.
§ VISCOUNT HANWORTHMy Lords, very briefly I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor 1001 whether he would agree that it would be useful to consult those who have actual experience of litigants of the type with whom I am concerned, and that this would be almost as useful as the more difficult task of trying to locate potential litigants?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, that is precisely what I am doing. So far as I know, there is nobody with the same experience of litigation conducted by litigants in person as a county court registrar. The only people with comparable experience on the same scale are county court judges. They are on the Rule Committee and they are precisely the people whom I convened last December in order to discuss the problem. I also consulted the Citizens Advice Bureaux. They seem to be ideally the right organisation to approach when trying to find out where the shoe is pinching. I cannot consult potential litigants in person because I do not know who they are; nor do I think the disappointed litigant in person is necessarily very fruitful of good advice as to what Lord Chancellors should do. I can assure the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, that they are not slow at all in tendering advice to me in every post.