---

Small Claims (Courts)

: At least we now have the cards on the table. The hon. Gentleman should be arguing for all small cases to be taken out, but that is unreasonable in terms both of the perception of what judges will do in the small claims court and of the treatment of those whose injuries have undoubtedly been dealt with and who would quite like to go through a fairly simple procedure, rather than the lengthier one. However, the Government are listening to the arguments and will make the decision; we are simply contributing to the debate. That brings clearly out into the open the fact that most of those who argue that the limits should not be raised at all appear to believe, as the hon. Gentleman did in previous years, that none of these cases should ever go down the small claims track. Of course, one could advance the same argument about much of what goes on in the small claims court. One could say that consumers are not in a position to understand the complexities of tort or contract law, yet the limit for such claims is set at £5,000, without obvious difficulties. If complex medical reports are eliminated from the equation, it is not easy to identify why claimants should not be able to set out the basic facts before a judge about how they came to be injured. Fourthly, the European small claims procedure became a live matter while we were examining the issue. We concluded that it could be of real benefit in cross-border cases, but we were concerned that the claiming of disproportionate legal costs and the unrealistically low limit of £2,000 could undermine its value. We saw no reason to extend the European small claims procedure to wholly domestic cases, where the existing system is available with lower cost risk and has been shown to work relatively well. We were quite worried that people might mistakenly suppose the European small claims procedure to have something to do with European human rights and therefore believe that they would be better off using it. However, doing so might prove to be a more expensive and time-consuming way of dealing with their case. We saw the attractions of the European procedure in cross-border cases, which are increasingly common as people travel more widely and buy things on the internet from sources abroad. The complexities of modern life make it highly desirable to get such a system up and running effectively. The Government's response said:"““The Government, during its presidency of the European Council obtained agreement on the need for proportionate costs and to limit the procedure to cross-border cases.””" The issue is apparently still under discussion in the European Council's working group. I am not sure that the limit is absolutely firm, so it would be helpful if the Minister could let us know. The response continued:"““The Government will continue to press for a procedure which is practical, straightforward, fast and effective.””" In the meantime, the House of Lords European Union Committee has published a report on the European small claims procedure welcoming the initiative, particularly in respect of cross-border cases. Members of our Committee found it rewarding to look closely at the small claims track and at the grass roots of consumer disputes, housing issues, and minor accidents and personal injuries. I still treasure the image of a district court judge arranging dinky toys on the court desk while the parties, both of whom were represented, explained precisely where the cars and the bus were at a crucial moment. I asked the judge in one case how long she thought it would have taken if the parties had not been represented. She said about half the time. Judges operating in district courts have a pretty good and shrewd way of ensuring that unrepresented defendants have their cases properly dealt with. All human life was there. We saw the emotions and cross-currents that run through the often hotly contested disputes between private individuals. I watched an argument about a fireplace that had been removed, with the judge attempting to resolve the difficult situation and the husband and wife parties not agreeing on how it should be resolved—one was prepared to pay and the other was not. Many of the cases operate at the level where personal difficulty and emotion complicate arguments about relatively small sums of money. However, those sums are significant to those who have had to bear the burden of the cost of a repair, consumer mistreatment or whatever. The system is a credit to our judiciary, but it is capable of significant improvement, particularly in enforcement, and there probably needs to be some adjustment of the limits in personal injury and housing cases—we wait to hear what the Government think appropriate in that respect. It is a system that should be valued.