Civil Proceedings, First-tier Tribunal, Upper Tribunal and Employment Tribunals Fees (Amendment) Order 2016

Lord Lester of Herne Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I first commiserate with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, in having to lie upon another bed of nails. Through him, I also congratulate the right honourable Liz Truss MP on her appointment as Lord Chancellor, a great office of state whose origins may be traced to Anglo-Saxon times. In her study of the office, Diana Woodhouse observed that there were no qualifications for Lord Chancellor—that any man or woman could be Lord Chancellor, although in modern times it was always a senior and distinguished lawyer. As your Lordships know, that changed in 2005 when Parliament enacted the Constitutional Reform Act. Section 2 says that a person may not be appointed as Lord Chancellor unless he or she,

“appears to the Prime Minister to be qualified by experience”.

Being a lawyer is not a requirement, although a non-lawyer needs to have the rule of law in his or her political DNA. That was made clear in the 2005 Act’s reference to the Lord Chancellor’s continuing constitutional role in relation to the rule of law.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, among others, have criticised the new Lord Chancellor for lacking the necessary experience to uphold the rule of law; indeed it seems that the noble Lord resigned for that reason. But the new Lord Chancellor should in fairness be given time to be judged by her actions in office. She cannot be criticised for the Motion and the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, which I strongly support. The mischief of which he rightly complains derives from previous Lord Chancellors—Chris Grayling and Michael Gove. It is part of the continuing assault by successive Governments on access to justice.

Law care is as important to our well-being as healthcare, but it is no longer within the reach of most people. Law centres report people collapsing from lack of food because they are unable to contest benefits sanctions. Parents are unable to challenge their children being taken into care or put up for adoption. Unscrupulous employers sack workers knowing that they cannot afford tribunal fees.

The cost of going to courts and tribunals is exorbitant because of swingeing user fees—rightly described by previous speakers as a tax on justice—even in cases involving alleged race and sex discrimination or claims for asylum by victims of political persecution. For claims involving unfair dismissal discrimination, whistleblowing or equal pay, claimants must foot a bill of £1,200 on top of their legal fees. Asylum fees for a full First-tier Tribunal hearing are £140 and it is proposed to increase them by 472% to £800.

These are exorbitant taxes on justice. As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said, it is a matter for regret that under the coalition Government the Treasury sought, for the first time ever, to make a profit from people seeking to enforce their legal rights, granting the Lord Chancellor the power to prescribe fees above cost. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, described that tax on justice as necessary to secure access to justice. I hope that he will not mind my saying that that is an example of irrationality in the Wednesbury sense—a defiance of accepted moral standards, among other things. When the proposals were announced, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales warned that the Government had made “very sweeping” and “unduly complacent assumptions” about their likely effect on access to justice. Successive Governments have treated legal aid as the Cinderella of the welfare state, an easy target of Treasury raids. Access to justice is seen as a luxury rather than a necessity underpinning our way of life, yet it is central to the rule of law.

Without going into too many figures, I would like to add some to what has been said already. The order introduces 10% fee uplifts across civil and magistrates’ courts. A contested hearing has increased from £515 in 2014 to £567 in the magistrates’ court, from £280 to £308 in the county court, and from £480 to £528 in the High Court. Those are increases well above inflation, and are cumulative. The request to reconsider at a hearing a decision on judicial review permission in civil proceedings cost £180 in 2008 in comparison to £770 today.

Fees act as a deterrent to bringing a claim to court. They dissuade people with legitimate grievances from coming to court. As your Lordships have heard, last month the House of Commons Justice Committee reported how fees in employment tribunal cases had led to a “startling drop” of cases brought, by 67%. That includes a decline in claims for breaches of the working time directive, unauthorised deductions from wages, unfair dismissal, equal pay, sex discrimination—the list goes on.

Fees prevent or deter people from articulating and enforcing their rights to a minimum standard of treatment in the workplace. As the Minister may well know, employment tribunal fees are being abolished in Scotland. I wish the same would happen in England and Wales. The risk of losing their case or getting a partial costs order is one that many vulnerable and low-income claimants cannot take, no matter how egregious the wrong they have to suffer. Some claimants have to choose between stumping up the fee and paying for a lawyer. Many end up without legal assistance. Others will get payday loans to assist with their claims, and then are saddled with debt and have to pay interest to exercise their right to justice. The upshot of all that is that the justice system is too expensive for traders, small businesses and the victims of personal injuries and of unscrupulous employers. There is a risk that parties with deeper pockets will deny liability on the basis that claimants are unable to fund court fees.

I am also concerned by the increase in fees to judicial review applications in civil proceedings. The fee for permission to proceed with a judicial review will increase from £700 to £770. The Government already have sufficient safeguards against abuse of judicial review proceedings. As has also been said, the fee uplifts in immigration and asylum cases are particularly worrying. The Law Society warns that higher fees for immigration and asylum cases may encourage individuals who cannot afford fees to risk criminal prosecution and illegal overstay.

The Government are introducing fee increases before the publication of the impact review on employment tribunal fees and before responding to the Justice Select Committee’s report on the impact of fee increases, despite 93% of respondents to the Ministry of Justice’s enhanced court fees consultation having disagreed with the proposal to uplift all civil fees by 10%. It is also questionable whether the increased fees will create £6 million in additional income, as the Government claim. Since fees were first introduced in 2014, judicial review applications have fallen from 15,600 in 2013 to 4,680 in 2015. I have already mentioned the 67% drop in employment tribunal applications. The 10% increase in fees will discourage more litigants.

Justice is a necessity, not a commodity. We should, as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, states, and his powerful speech underlined, certainly express our regret. The Government have ignored the wise counsel of the Commons Justice Committee that access to justice should prevail over generating revenue. Instead, they continue to increase the already enhanced fees and have set them above cost. That is deplorable.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by returning to the matter of Ms Truss being made Lord Chancellor. I share the view of lawyers in this House that it is regrettable that Lord Chancellors are no longer people with substantial legal experience. I regret that it was a Labour Government who changed that practice and the way it was done. However, I object to people feeling that Ms Truss is somehow short of the substance necessary for the role. I was very disappointed to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, suggesting that she was not overburdened with experience in court matters. Were the men of law as vociferous when Mr Grayling or Mr Gove took up their appointments and did they make the same complaints when it was a man in that role? We should look at whether we are seeing something inappropriate about a woman taking this role. I regret that we have heard a clamour of male lawyers and judges saying that this is not a suitable appointment when they made no such complaints when men were put into that role. I welcome the appointment of Ms Truss, given the current rules.

I turn to the Government’s Motion. It is an assault on access to justice that they are seeking to do this yet again. Only last year, the Justice Committee examined the issue of tribunal fees and made it very clear to Parliament that the level of fees charged for bringing cases should be substantially reduced and that no fee should be charged if the amount claimed was below a certain level. It was particularly concerned about cases dealing with unpaid wages or people not getting their holiday pay, so the sums of money were not great but an injustice was taking place and employers were behaving badly. Of course, there are thresholds for fee remission, but the bar is too low; the committee made it very clear that too few people could claim fee remission.

The committee expressed special concern about how that impacted on women bringing cases. That is what I want to emphasise today. Women are having particular problems with this provision. Women alleging maternity or pregnancy discrimination, where some excuse is found for easing them out of their jobs, not letting them return after they have had children, want to bring a case, but the time limit is too tight and they are considerably put off by the cost to them, often at a time when money is sparse because they are at home with a newborn.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred to the suggestion that there had been a dramatic fall in the number of applications for judicial review as a consequence of the introduction of fees. I would suggest that there is more to that than meets the eye. In fact, the reason there was a sharp reduction in applications lodged in the civil courts in respect of judicial review is reflected in the policy change which moved the responsibility for assessing applications for the vast majority of immigration and asylum judicial reviews from the civil courts to the Upper Tribunal chamber dealing with immigration and asylum. It is interesting and, indeed, noteworthy that the figures indicate that, between 2013 and 2014, the number of applications in the civil courts dropped from about 9,377 to 1,783, while at the same time they increased in the Upper Tribunal from 7,841 to 15,179, but I add this caveat: the latter figures are based on the financial year whereas the former figures are based on the calendar year. However, there is a fairly obvious correlation to the extent of a 7,000 decrease and a 7,000 increase in the number of applications.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

The noble and learned Lord said a little earlier that the question is whether the taxpayer or those who use the system should pay. Does he not understand that the problem is not those who use the system but those who cannot afford to use the system? Is he not in difficulty in making the kinds of points he has made when he says that the Government have not published the review of the system and will do so only in what he calls “due course”?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I do not believe that that difficulty arises. I emphasise the point that I made earlier: if you look, for example, at the fees in respect of the employment tribunal, the gross figure is £12 million-plus; the sum remitted for those who could not afford the fees is £3.9 million. In other words, something of the order of 30% of employment tribunal fees came under the remittance scheme. It is working. It is effective. It is allowing access to those tribunals for those people who could not otherwise afford it.

I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the three questions which he posed in the context of the Justice Committee’s June report. We welcome the report from the Justice Committee. We will consider it in detail. We will consider its conclusions. We will respond to it as it requested, and we anticipate responding by September this year in accordance with the Justice Committee’s wishes. It would not be appropriate for me to anticipate that response at this time.

As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, observed, there are instances in which some of our greatest advocates will take on the most hopeless of cases, and I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for stepping forward to take into court the issue of Article 50 and its exercise in the context of our exit from the European Union. I look forward with interest to the outcome of his efforts in such hopeless endeavours.