Examination of Witnesses (Questions 79-99)
BARONESS ASHTON
OF UPHOLLAND
AND MARK
ORMEROD
1 NOVEMBER 2005
Chairman: Baroness Ashton and Mr Ormerod,
welcome. I think we have one or two interests we have to declare
today.
Jeremy Wright: I am a non-practising
criminal barrister.
David Howarth: I am an academic lawyer
specialising in civil compensation.
Barbara Keeley: I have an outstanding
motor accident insurance claim which might be covered by some
of the business today.
Q79 Chairman: Those are all the interests
that we have. Is there anything you want to say to us before we
start?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland:
No, I do not think so. It is very nice to be back in front of
you.
Q80 Chairman: The pleasure is ours.
Why do county courts lack basic electronic document and records
management facilities? Why is it that a judge can say that anyone
going to the back office of a county court will be amazed by the
amount of paper which is chased around on a minute by minute basis?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland:
I am going to hand that over to my colleague, Mark Ormerod, who
has come along today specifically to talk about this issue because
I know it is important to the Committee. One of the interesting
things for me when I went across to Constitutional Affairs was
to see the paper based nature still of our courts system. As you
will know, Chairman, there are a lot of areas where we are trying
to address that right across the courts system, but I will ask
Mark to give you some specifics about what we are doing in terms
of the small claims courts in particular.
Mark Ormerod: I think it is recognised,
as the Association of District Judges said, that the IT provision
in the county courts is not satisfactory. There is some IT provision
through the "CaseMan System". [1]
Over the last three years the DCA has spent
£75 million on IT facilities in the county courts and principally
on providing the LINK system. The historic position was that the
county courts had standalone computers and the LINK provision
allows linkages between the county courts. We provided that and
Money Claim Online, which is an award winning system for lodging
claims, and also lap-top provisions for judges in the county courts.
It is recognised that that is not sufficient. At the moment we
are looking at a feasibility study looking at E-Filing,[2]
it is a web based application, which gets you over the cost of
having to provide all the hardware in relation to the courts because
you do it through the web. We have a feasibility study underway
to try and see whether that would be a possible way forward and
we are hoping to conclude that by the end of this year.
Q81 Chairman: So by the end of this year
you might have an idea of which way to go forward with it.
Mark Ormerod: We will know whether
the web based E-Filing option provides a way of dealing with it.
The fact of the matter is that we have spent the money that has
been allocated in the best way that we possibly can, but that
provision has not produced the IT facilities that we would wish
to see.
Q82 Chairman: So if that option does
not look promising we are going to have to start again and think
of some other ways, are we?
Mark Ormerod: The next generation
in relation to the CaseMan System is to put that on what is called
a "SUPS CaseMan",[3]
which is an advanced level. We have been doing preliminary work
in relation to that to try and advance that onto a different platform.
The whole DCA and HMCS IT provision will go through a "re-compete"
shortly under what is called the DISC[4]
programme.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland:
I am the Minister responsible for this.
Q83 Chairman: Would you like to try
some alternative wording?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland:
No. I have grown to love re-compete!
Q84 Chairman: Does that mean it is
going out to competition?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland:
It is a question of trying to make sure that we get the procurement
right. Members of the Committee who have had the opportunity,
either through their professional life or as a member of the Committee,
to see the back offices will appreciate that what we have to do
is find systems that will be secure and accurate and that will
give us what we really need to happen within a cost basis that
is feasible for us, bearing in mind that inevitably in all departments
we have to be very cautious. At the moment we are looking to see
whether we can procure a better system by bringing together our
existing systems without losing anything on the way which, as
you will know, is also very important right across all of the
courts system and right across DCA.
Q85 Chairman: In the meantime are
you rolling out a system for listing which the District Judges
cannot actually access?
Mark Ormerod: There is what is
called the e-Diary Project, which is a listing project in relation
to that.
Q86 Chairman: I think I have seen
it at Snaresbrook, is that right?
Mark Ormerod: That is a Crown
Court.
Q87 Chairman: Is it basically the
same project or is this a different one?
Mark Ormerod: This is a different
one relating to the county courts. At the moment that is being
piloted and then we will decide whether that is to be taken forward.
Q88 Chairman: We were picking up
from the District Judges that it looked like a system that was
not going to help them.
Mark Ormerod: That is one of the
things in relation to the pilot that we need to consider, whether
it has helped the judiciary and indeed the court staff in relation
to what it was set out to do.
Q89 Jessica Morden: Do you think
the listing system is arranged for the convenience of judges?
Do you see any way in which it could be improved so people do
not have to hang round at court all day?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland:
I went to a small claims court about two weeks ago and I took
along a group of MEPs from the European Parliament JURI[5]
Committee, which is a Committee that we deal with in terms of
our presidency on civil justice, and I was surprised to see a
listing system done in the way it was and then I saw what actually
happened. What we had were three judges sitting. Up to 12 cases
could have been heard on that day, but at the time—it was
ten o'clock when we began—only two had both of the people
there and any required witnesses. What actually happened in the
course of the time I was there is that although it would look
as if you had people arriving altogether, in fact they did not
and it was very convenient both for the people involved and it
was a better use of court time because otherwise we would have
had time when the judges were simply hanging around and we more
or less avoided that. Some of the courts have been trying to patch
time a little better by saying, "You'll be on before 11.30
and not before 11.00, so try and come around that time and we
will fit you in." Normally I would be against having a system
where people all turn up at the same time, but in the circumstance
I saw it was probably the best use of time and people did not
wait very long.
Q90 Jessica Morden: Do you think that
is the norm across the service?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland:
I asked that question of the judges involved because it was unusual
and they felt I was seeing a very typical court on a very typical
day and therefore that was the case. They themselves said they
would not do it this way if they felt it was going to hold people
up, but the reality was that if in very many of the cases when
they got to them they did not have all the witnesses there they
would have been wasting their time. It is that balance which I
think is probably about right, but we need to keep an eye on it.
Q91 Jessica Morden: Moving on to
the point about people not turning up. Do you think that judges
should be more easily able to penalise people who do not turn
up?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland:
I think it is difficult because it depends why they have not turned
up. The circumstances I saw were where you had somebody stuck
in traffic, somebody who had not received the letter from their
solicitor that told them they should be there and who raced across
London as soon as they were rung up to be told, and somebody who
had settled as they arrived, so it was a range of different reasons.
It is hard to generalise. I think we have always got to be mindful
that we use courts effectively and if people are not showing up,
they need to be clear why. All the circumstances were, one way
or another, pretty understandable.
Q92 David Howarth: I want to bring
you on to the issue of enforcement of judgments which is an issue
that I think the Committee is finding increasingly interesting.
We have heard evidence that one-third of successful claimants
recover nothing and only one-third recover their judgments in
full. What is your view of why that is happening and what could
be done about it?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland:
We have been looking at enforcement because, I agree with you,
it is very important if the small claims process is going to work
that people actually get what they are entitled to at the end
of it. Some people may be successful, but they have to make a
decision as to whether it is actually worth pursuing the person
they have got the judgment against and some people decide not
to do so, rightly or wrongly. Secondly, there is an issue about
making sure that people realise they have to pay. I am particularly
interested in what more we can do to support the person who has
been successful in making sure that the information that they
need to pursue the claim is available to the court earlier. I
think it is also about making sure that the judges, in delivering
their judgments, are very clear with the individual in terms of
the expectations on them and that we make the system overall much
more geared towards ensuring that the person who is successful
is able to get the money that they want at the end.
Q93 David Howarth: There are two
separate tracks there. There is one track that is basically administrative
and does not need any more legislation and the other track is
different legislation. Just taking the legislative one first,
there have been proposals for better interaction between organisations
on the attachment of earnings and also the possibility with the
Data Disclosure Order because people are finding it very difficult
especially to enforce Third Party Orders. Is there any chance
of that sort of legislative proposal coming forward soon?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland:
In the Courts and Tribunals Bill we have a proposal that would
enable the better sharing of information, which is one of the
issues that is a difficulty, through a gateway that would enable
DWP information, for example, to be shared with the Inland Revenue
and so on. Obviously the Data Protection Act is very clear about
the purpose of information being kept. When I get a slot for the
Courts and Tribunals Bill—which I keep my fingers crossed
for and any influence would be gratefully received—there
will be some issues within that. There is a whole national enforcement
strategy which is meant to be looking right across the civil and
criminal justice system at how we can better enforce judgments
that are made which I think will also be of some value in that
sense. The legislation within the Courts and Tribunals Bill will
go some way towards dealing with this and I hope that we are successful
in getting that Bill on the Statute Book soon.
Q94 David Howarth: Will that need
any revision of the Data Protection Act itself or is it just going
to be within the existing legislation?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland:
We do not need to revise the Data Protection Act per se. We can
create the gateway because we are allowed to do that.
Q95 David Howarth: So you do not
think there is any problem with Data Protection in reality even
though apparently some people think there is a problem with Data
Protection in, for example, the Third Party Order?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland:
We are using the Courts and Tribunals Bill to create the gateway.
As data has to be collected for the purpose for which it is collected
and therefore not shared inappropriately you have to create the
specific circumstances, which the Bill will do. I do not think
there is anything inherently wrong with the Data Protection Act
on that. I am also responsible for Data Protection in the Department.
I am always very mindful of either people's perceptions of what
the Data Protection Act does and does not do but, also, making
sure that where we need to share data for good reason, we do it
properly using legislation where appropriate. In this particular
circumstance I think the Bill does do that and it will be very
helpful in those particular circumstances.
Q96 David Howarth: Let us turn to
what can be done without primary legislation. One of the things
that have been said to us is that people often get to the end
of the process, they succeed in their claim and only at that point
do they discover that the defendant is judgment proof, that he
has no assets and there is a whole string of other county court
judgments against them. Is there any way of providing that sort
of information about the status of the defendant to the claimant
earlier on so that effectively they do not waste their time?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland:
We do recommend that people check very carefully for other judgments
for precisely the reason that sometimes you do not bother to recover
because there is nothing to recover. I am always hesitant about
trying to get the courts to provide information on somebody in
a way that I am not always convinced is particularly helpful,
because the fact that somebody has a judgment against them does
not mean that you should not pursue your case and does not mean
that you could not recover the assets. We want to be careful the
court does not skew you into a different course of action. What
I am looking at is whether we could get more information from
both sides at the beginning of the hearing which will enable it
to be easier to pursue someone because you have got more information
about them. One of the issues is that even if you are successful,
the person then walks out of the door and you do not know where
they live, you do not know about their bank account, you do not
have any information and you are then required to go and find
that out one way or another. We are looking at whether, in an
even-handed way, one could ask people to supply more information,
even if it were only the latest information on where you live,
with proof of that and so on and so forth. I could probably bring
ID cards in here just about. I need to think about that to make
sure we are not skewing it in any particular way, but I do think
there is more we could do and more information being lodged might
help.
Q97 David Howarth: And that could
be done without primary legislation, could it?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland:
It could, yes.
Q98 James Brokenshire: Chairman,
my apologies for the late arrival. I am a solicitor, non-practising
and a member of the Law Society. I want to touch on the provision
of information. I was at Romford County Court yesterday morning
watching the small claims procedure and one thing that struck
me, in terms of the litigants and persons who were arriving, was
the fact that they were not necessarily as informed as they could
be in terms of bringing documents with them. Is there anything
that you are doing and looking at in terms of how to try and best
inform them and therefore prepare the claimant to ensure that
they are in the best position they can be to present or defend
their case given that obviously in most circumstance lawyers are
not really involved?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland:
I agree it is a really important problem. I am delighted you raised
it because I have got a leaflet I want to leave with the Committee
for you all.
Q99 Chairman: It is a very good leaflet.
You remind people to consider checking on the register for county
court judgments already taken against people.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland:
I am glad you think they are good. This is one about a new pilot
project in Reading which we are just starting and it is precisely
to deal with the issue that you have raised, which is how do you
ensure that both sides have access to high quality information.
We have a dedicated individual within the court in Reading who
is available for people to come and talk to about how to fill
the forms in, how to make a claim, what it means if they have
received documentation saying that a claim has been made against
them, what will happen in the procedure, what they should come
with, what documents they need and so on. I was reading a newspaper
article about it and it said that when the individual began they
were concerned that perhaps nobody would come for the first few
months and they found they had 20 people in the first two weeks.
If it is successful, which I think it probably will be, we do
have the resources to roll it out nationwide and I think that
would make an instant and very important additional resource for
people precisely to address the point that you have raised, Mr
Brokenshire. We are also doing more training with some of the
staff right across the courts service to enable them to provide
the kind of advice people want on a day-to-day basis, but hopefully
this particular pilot will be in large part the answer to people's
needs.
1 Note by witness: The main case management
system operating in the civil courts. Back
2
Note by witness: A three month feasibility study looking
at the potential to introduce an Electronic Filing and Document
Management System in the civil and family courts, similar to those
that have been introduced in some US States, Australia and Singapore.
The study is to complete in December 2005. Back
3
Note by witness: Service Upgrade Project-a project to
develop and pilot modernised and technically upgraded versions
of the main IT case management systems in the courts. Back
4
Note by witness: Development Innovation and Support Contracts-a
programme to re-tender the Department's main IT contracts, currently
spread across a number of different suppliers, all of which expire
during the period 2006-08. Back
5
Note by witness: JURI is the legal affairs committee of
the European Parliament and has responsibility for considering
the proposal for a European small claims procedure as part of
the "co-decision" procedure. Back
| 
