EUROPEAN SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE (10160/06)
Letter from the Chairman to Rt Hon Baroness
Ashton of Upholland, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department
for Constitutional Affairs
Thank you for your letter of 30 August 2006[92]
which was considered by Sub-Committee E at its meeting on 18 October.
We are grateful for the explanations given and for the text dated
24 July.
The Presidency Conclusions record that, at its
meeting on 5-6 October, the Council reached a "general agreement"
on the text of the Regulation. Somewhat surprisingly the fact
that the ESCP was on the agenda was not mentioned in your letter
of 5 October dealing with the informal JHA on 21-22 September
and the Council on 5-6 October. The Committee would be grateful
for an explanation of this omission and of the special reasons
for overriding scrutiny in this case.
The proposal is retained under scrutiny.
19 October 2006
Letter from Rt Hon Baroness Ashton of
Upholland to the Chairman
You wrote to me on 19 October on the subject
of the European Small Claims Procedure. As you know, at the Justice
and Home Affairs Council on 5-6 October the Council reached a
general agreement on the text of the whole of the instrument.
The European Parliament has yet to deliver its opinion on first
reading.
This is a key stage in the development in negotiations.
Unfortunately, the timing of this during Parliamentary recess
did not allow me to approach the Committee in order to seek scrutiny
clearance on the Government's negotiating stance going into the
JHA meeting. However, I understand that my offic;ials were in
contact with the Clerk to your Committee before the Council. Following
these discussions, I had intended to write to you in advance of
the Council to explain the position. Indeed, a letter had been
drafted but due to what I am told was a clerical error it was
not in fact sent. I am sorry for this oversight.
The formal agreement in the Council took place
without discussion. I took the view that, notwithstanding that
Parliamentary scrutiny had not been completed, it would not be
in the United Kingdom's interests either to abstain or withhold
support for the agreement at this stage for a variety of reasons.
It is a proposal which the UK has championed and to which we have
secured significant improvements in the course of negotiations.
I am also keen that the measure should progress quickly during
the Finnish Presidency because of the helpful level of priority
that you have given to it, and because we are obliged to take
positions which the Presidency will consider less helpful on other
proposals on the current JHA agenda.
In my letter of 30 August I informed you that
at the Council Working Group meeting in September, the UK would
be putting forward proposals on revised forms and guidance notes
that are annexed to the Regulation.
Our revised forms and guidance was welcomed
by a number of Member States who all acknowledged that the format,
layout and text were user friendly. During negotiations our overall
aims were achieved, as the Presidency conceded the need for improvement.
The redrafted forms have simplified guidance notes placed at the
appropriate points and there are more clear signposts with the
forms to aid litigants complete and understand the various sections.
The language has been simplified and abbreviations have been removed.
Unfortunately, our attempt to include any reference to ADR was
not supported by the majority of Member States. I am enclosing
a copy of the revised text.
The matter will now be taken forward by the
European Parliament -Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI). Various
amendments have been proposed. I will write to you again when
we have the European Parliament's opinion.
The Government, remains of the view that the
ESCP is a welcome proposal, which has the potential to deliver
real benefits to the citizens in Britain and more widely throughout
Europe.
20 October 2006
Letter from the Chairman to Rt Hon Baroness
Ashton of Upholland
Thank you for your letter of 20 October which
was considered by Sub-Committee E at its meeting on 1 November.
We are grateful for your explanation as to why the Committee was
not informed in advance of the Council of the Government's intention
to, and reasons for, overriding parliamentary scrutiny.
We note that the next significant step will
be the delivery of the Opinion of the European Parliament. We
look forward to receiving a copy of the Opinion, together with
a further Explanatory Memorandum, in due course.
The Committee decided to retain the proposal
under scrutiny.
2 November 2006
Letter from the Chairman to Rt Hon Baroness
Ashton of Upholland
Thank you for furnishing for scrutiny the proposed
Common Approach with the European Parliament. This has been considered
by Sub-Committee E which has agreed to clear the proposal from
scrutiny.
As you will be aware the final product of the
negotiations does not accord with a number of the key recommendations
made by the Committee in its 2005 Report, European Small Claims
Procedure, including the very important issue of liability
for costs. Nevertheless the Committee hopes that the Regulation
will produce a workable procedure which will bring benefits both
to consumers and commerce across the Union.
We know that the Government, and you in particular,
have placed great emphasis on providing a procedure which will
be speedy and take advantage of modem technology. We also note
the attention which you have given to the design and content of
the forms used by the parties and the Court. Parts may still appear
daunting to some, for example sections 4 and 5 dealing with jurisdiction
and the cross-border nature of the case. We trust that the commitment
which you have personally given to the Regulation will continue
throughout its implementation and that the Government will provide
the necessary resources to give effect to the obligation accepted
under Article 8(a) (assistance to the parties).
19 December 2006
92 Correspondence with Ministers, 40th Report of Session
2006-07, HL Paper 187, pp 348-349. Back
| 
