| Courts Bill [Lords]
|
|
Mr. Hawkins: With his usual courtesy, the Minister may have written to other members of the Committee too, but I am certainly grateful to him for having written to me explaining the background to the amendments that the Government tabled last week. His letter was dated 3 July, and it is fair to say that we received earlier advice about the Government's thinking on such matters. I am pleased that they have accepted the spirit of what my noble Friends, led by Baroness Anelay of St. Johns, did in another place Column Number: 168 by inserting the requirement to facilitate access to justice.The Government have been right to acknowledge the strong view held both by the Select Committee and by those in another place that we needed a reference to access to justice in clause 92. We do not object to the way in which the Government have chosen to approach the matter. They have acknowledged both what my noble Friend said in another place and the report of the Select Committee. Government amendment No. 147 would re-insert—if I may put it that way—the same kind of obligation in the clause in a slightly different way, and No. 146 would replace what was previously there. That is acceptable. Government amendment No. 148 is different. The Lords inserted a specific requirement, which the Government are seeking to remove. There is a good reason why judicial salaries should not be taken into account. Those are in a different category from all the other expenditure that we are talking about. I understand that the Government are trying to make the system self-funding, but to incorporate judicial salaries as part and parcel of their balance sheet is wrong in principle. To do so would confuse the independent position of the judiciary with a potential cost-cutting, book-balancing exercise. The official Opposition in both Houses feel passionately that judicial salaries should not form part of the equation. There is a great danger in that. It is reasonable for the Government to say that they want to balance the rest of the system, but the salaries of the judiciary should not be included in that account, because they are not to do with the fees levied in relation to the use of the courts. A mature democracy takes on the public expenditure obligation of judicial salaries, and says, ''We shall have a legal system in which the most highly qualified people we can find will sit as members of the professional judiciary.'' The Government should treat that obligation as separate from the costs of running the system. I detect in the Minister's briefing a little of the politics of envy, which seems to run as follows: ''We can't have commercial cases on behalf of big companies. They're getting the benefit of the quality of our judiciary, so they ought to pay for it. They shouldn't have any kind of hidden benefit.'' I do not blame him for that—he is new to his responsibilities. Judges and the salaries they are paid are in a different category from everything else that we are discussing, and I urge my hon. Friends to vote against Government amendment. No. 148. Norman Lamb (North Norfolk): I agree with the hon. Gentleman's argument. Subsection (11) was introduced in the House of Lords and it should stay. Angela Watkinson (Upminster): I shall speak briefly to Government amendment No. 147, in so far as it relates to access to justice. I shall also refer to the letter from the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath, which says
Column Number: 169 There are two groups of people who have ready access to justice. First, there are the wealthy, who can afford to risk personal loss should their action be unsuccessful. Secondly, there are people who are entitled to full exemption, either by a fees exemption or through legal aid, because they are benefit-dependent, or for another reason. Because those people make no personal contribution, no personal risk is involved. They do not face the prospect of financial loss and are more likely to seek legal remedy. They have greater access to the law than the vast majority of people—the average taxpayers—who cannot afford the personal risk of financial loss involved in seeking legal action. May I press the Minister to say a little bit more about how widely fees exemptions might be used, and how the ability to pay would be assessed? Mr. Leslie: First I shall answer the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), who implied that if certain people were exempt from fees, they might not have the personal motivation to stave off litigation, which might encourage them to become more litigious because there would be no financial discouragement from going to court. That has been debated for many years, and in particular since the Opposition considered the question of legal aid. I am not convinced that the hon. Lady would be getting the balance right by not having a system of full exemptions. Fees are only one part of the overall cost of litigation; solicitors' fees are far higher than court fees, are a burden on those entering the litigation process, and can be a financial disincentive from taking a case forward. The current arrangements strike the right balance of making sure that we do not deny individuals access to justice because of their means. We need a system of exemptions. There is a detailed process by which exemptions and omissions are related to the number of state benefits, and that informs the court of whether certain fees should be remitted. I could find out some of those details if the hon. Lady would like me to. In 1997, the Lord Chancellor extended the exemption criteria to include income-based jobseeker's allowance, family credit and disability working allowance. In 1999 that was updated to include recipients of working family tax credit, disabled persons tax credit and so forth. There have been further revisions to reflect the new working tax credits, child tax credits and pension credits. By the end of this year, more than 5 million people will be eligible for automatic exemption from court fees. I believe that that strikes the right balance and ensures that people are not discouraged from bringing proper cases. It is up to the courts to make a judgment on whether a case is reasonable. Whether a fee is a barrier, an incentive or disincentive, the other approach is nevertheless wrong. Angela Watkinson: May I press the Minister a little further? My point was that average people—those in between those two extreme groups that I described—are deterred from access to the law because of the costs. However justified their cases might be, a lot of Column Number: 170 people do not seek remedy in law. They are not eligible for legal aid or exemptions, and they are not wealthy enough to be able to sustain the cost if things do not go their way.Mr. Leslie: The hon. Lady is focusing in particular on some of the legal aspects in relation to solicitor's costs and so forth. I do not know of many cases where the court fees themselves were a disincentive to coming forward with a case. However, I understand the hon. Lady's point. The system reflects the levels of assistance that those above a certain threshold can get as one goes up the income scale. That balance has been correctly struck. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath acknowledged the Government change to the Bill in that respect, and accepted the principle that access should not be denied, which we have enshrined in amendment No. 146. However, he was especially critical of amendment No. 148, which would remove subsection (11), which was added in the other place. That subsection would prevent cost recovery of judicial salaries. Judicial salaries were excluded from the definition of recoverable costs until 1992 on the basis that the majority of judicial salaries were not required to be included in the estimates of expenditure that the former Lord Chancellor's Department presented to the House of Commons each year. That was because they were traditionally drawn from the Consolidated Fund.
3 pmThe point that I seek to push is that that money, whether drawn from the Consolidated Fund or from estimates, is still a charge on the taxpayer, and it would be wrong to make a distinction simply according to whether the money comes from the Consolidated Fund or from estimates. In line with that, the previous Administration took the view that those costs, like others, should be borne by litigants rather than the taxpayer. In 1994, the then Lord Chancellor, when setting out his expenditure plans, announced that he had decided to phase out the judicial subsidy and move closer to full cost recovery for civil business. Fees were then restructured to incorporate judicial costs. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Upminster, although fees obviously recover a certain amount of the cost, they do not account for the biggest part of the expense of civil litigation; there are other costs involved, too. However, I feel that it is a fair principle for the Government to seek to recover some of those costs, including judicial salaries, not least as that principle was established by the previous Administration. I think that the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) wishes to intervene. [Interruption.] No, he does not—although he was listening intently in a manner that suggested that he would intervene at any moment. Clearly, I interpreted that wrongly. I hope that with those comments, I have answered the points raised by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. Column Number: 171 Mr. Hawkins: I repeat that although we are quite happy with what the Minister says about Government amendments Nos. 146 and 147, we will seek to divide the Committee on Government amendment No. 148. Amendment agreed to. Amendment made: No. 147, in
'( ) When including any provision in an order under this section, the Lord Chancellor must have regard to the principle that access to the courts must not be denied.'.—[Mr. Leslie.]
Amendment proposed: No. 148, in
Question put, That the amendment be made:— The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 5.
Division No. 4]
AYES
NOES
Clause 92 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 8 July 2003 |
