---

Family Proceedings Fees (Amendment No. 2) Order 2005 Magistrates’ Courts FeesOrder 2005

rose to move to resolve, That this House regrets the Government’s decision to restrict access to justice through the Family Proceedings Fees (Amendment No. 2) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/3443) and the Magistrates’ Courts Fees Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/3444), laid before this House on 20 December 2005. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the orders that we are discussing as a result of this Motion are a significant part of a major threat to access to justice. There have been constant increases in court fees, way beyond the rate of inflation. These increases are driven by the insistence that the costs of courts should be borne entirely by litigants. That is a relatively new concept. Until 1982, the costs of court buildings were borne by the state out of public funds: the litigants paid only the costs of the court administration. In 1982, the costs of buildings were transferred to court fees and therefore to litigants. Those costs included the cost of maintaining heritage buildings such as the Royal Courts of Justice and should surely be borne out of heritage funds so far as they are increased by the heritage status of the buildings. Of course, the Royal Courts of Justice, which are particularly fine examples of Victorian architecture, are by no means the only historic buildings occupied by courts. In 1992, for the first time, the costs of judicial salaries and pensions were also transferred to court fees. The result is that court fees are now so high that they constitute a real bar to access to justice. It is not a bar for the very poorest. Those who get legal aid have their court fees paid out of the legal aid budget. There are indeed limited provisions for fee exemption or remission, but those exemptions or remissions are limited to those who have passported rights and are in receipt of means-tested benefits. It is therefore almost impossible for anyone who is in regular work to qualify for legal aid or for exemption or remission from court fees. I believe that the result is that the fees now form a real deterrent for those who are on below-average incomes or, indeed, on average incomes or somewhat above them. I agree with the Civil Justice Council that there is a need to recognise that an effective civil justice system confers benefits on the country as a whole, not just on successful litigants, and that fees should be calculated accordingly. There is a need to review the entire system. The Civil Justice Council, a public body which the Lord Chancellor has a statutory duty to consult on fee changes, said in response to the recent increase that it was concerned that the persistent increases in fees were leading to a situation where certain groups in the population might no longer be able to afford to undertake litigation, and that the current exemption and remission scheme was not sufficient to guarantee access to justice. This Motion, however, concentrates on two specific examples of excessive increases in fees: the Family Proceedings Fees (Amendment No. 2) Order 2005 and the Magistrates’ Courts Fees Order 2005. Both came into force on 10 January this year. Under the family proceedings order, fees for filing originating proceedings have gone up from £130 to £200. Fees for presenting a divorce petition, which until January 2005 were £180, increased last year to £210, and, as a result of the new order, have gone up to £300. Amending a petition has gone up from £50 to £80. The Children Act 1989 involves an enormous number of proceedings of the greatest importance to children and families, such as contact, parental responsibility, guardianship and financial provision for children. For most of these proceedings, the fees have gone up from £120 to £175. Until January last year, the fees were only £90. All these have, therefore, increased by approximately 50 per cent, as a result of the latest fees increase, and have nearly doubled over a year. This is an enormous increase for those without money to spare, particularly when we take into account that divorces and disputes over children are extremely traumatic and lead to an increase in ordinary living costs as a result of people having to set up separate households. These increases in fees will also have an adverse effect on local government, which often institutes proceedings under these Acts. That will increase the financial burden on local authorities and, through them, on council tax payers. The increase in fees will also reduce the amount of money available for legal aid, since the severely restricted Legal Aid Fund will now have to bear more in the way of court fees of legally aided parties. If fees increase, there is less money for other payments out of the strictly cash-limited Legal Aid Fund. The increases in the fees for civil proceedings in the magistrates’ courts are even more spectacular. The fee for an application for an order for financial revision under the Domestic Proceedings Act 1978 has gone up in one step from £30 to £175. The fees for proceedings in magistrates’ courts under the Children Act 1989—I have already indicated that these applications are of great importance to families—have gone up from £30 to £175, from £50 to £150, or from £20 to £150, for different types of application. An application for a liability order under the Child Support Act 1991 is undoubtedly the winner in this unpleasant race, because the fee has gone up from 70p to £40—increasing nearly 60 times over. Other applications under the Child Support Act have risen from £30 to £130, from £10 to £80 and from £10 to £90. In many cases the increases are nearly 500 per cent and in some cases they are 700 or 800 per cent, even if we ignore the remarkable increase from 70p to £40. Those costs are very frequently paid by vulnerable people going through the trauma of fights over the future of their children. I believe that those increases are nothing less than shameful. They cause hardship to those who have to pay them and they cause even greater hardship to those who cannot afford to pay them and are, therefore, unable to obtain remedies from the courts. I was tempted to put down prayers against the order and move them to a vote. I refrained from doing so only because of the long-established principle that your Lordships’ House does not intervene in how the Government raise their money. However, I felt it was essential to have this debate on the record, which is why I tabled this Motion. In this country we used to pride ourselves on our legal system and in particular on our legal aid system. Legal aid was one of the great achievements of the Labour Government of 1945 to 1951. It was implemented fully by the successor Conservative governments. However, the present Government have done grave damage to legal aid and are now seemingly bent on making access to justice even harder. What is the point of having good laws and fine judges if people cannot afford to access them? I beg to move. Moved to resolve, That this House regrets the Government’s decision to restrict access to justice through the Family Proceedings Fees (Amendment No. 2) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/3443) and the Magistrates’ Courts Fees Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/3444), laid before this House on 20 December 2005.—(Lord Goodhart.)