NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FRIDAY 6 SEPTEMBER 2002
STUC DISMAYED AT COURT FEES DECISION
The STUC has again questioned the decision to impose massive increases in Civil Court Fees despite demonstrating a failure to adequately consult on the issue. The increases, they fear, will exclude those not covered by the concessions contained within the proposals and have further concerns future plans in connection with fees and, possibly Jurisdiction Orders will result in many more people being unable to access the Justice system, purely on the grounds of cost. They have also stated that the Minister of Justice has failed to provide an explanation as to why the STUC, whose affiliates represent the interests of over 600 000 Trade Unionists, happened to be excluded from the process.
Ian Tasker, STUC Health and Safety Officer, said,
"We are deeply disappointed that the Justice Minister failed to provide an answer to our earlier concerns in relation to how we came to be omitted from the consultation. The exclusion of the STUC from this exercise is even more astonishing considering the Minister's previous dismay when, as Westminster MP for Orkney and Shetland, he said that the Conservative Government's failure to consult with bodies such as ours, on a similar subject relating to increases in Sheriff Court Fees, was not only discourteous, but also indicative of the unacceptable arrogance of the way in which that Government had dealt with the issue.
"It would appear that the Justice Minister now feels that failure to consult is acceptable. We would also suggest that the failure to re-open the consultation, as we requested, displays the same arrogance of which he accused the Conservatives in February 1994. These proposals have now been forced through and the Minister appears to have abandoned the principles that enabled him to put forward strong arguments in opposing Sheriff Court Fee increases at that time.
"The Minister, at that time, in one of a number of contributions in a debate in the House of Commons on 9 February 1994, acknowledged that, in most societies, the state has a recognised role to play in determining and resolving differences between citizens. He also argued that proposals to amend fees, at that time would seriously undermine that role.
Tel: 0141 337 8100 / Fax: 0141 337 8101 / Email: lferguson@stuc.org.uk
"We would say that these increases, and the proposal to move towards full cost recovery of fees within an, as yet, unspecified timescale also, seriously, undermine the right for individuals to seek justice.
"It would appear ludicrous that individuals, least able to afford it, and not on means-tested State benefits, have to contribute to Judges salaries, currently more than £600.00 per day. We would also state that there is now an argument for a full review of the Civil Justice system to examine the effectiveness of the Civil Court system and the value users receive for these increased costs.
"Additionally, we are now writing to the Deputy Minister for Justice seeking assurances that there are no longer plans to lodge similar amendments in connection with Summary Cause Jurisdiction Orders, seeking to raise the limits on cases heard in Sheriff Courts to £5000, excluding many cases from being heard in the Court of Session. Sheriffs would hear these cases; less experienced in handling personal injury cases, with no access to jury trials and would, in all likelihood, result in lower compensation awards being made.
"Should such a proposal go ahead then, not only would Justice cost more, those paying for the service would not have control, in many instances, of the Court in which their case is heard.
"While we are obviously disappointed at the manner in which this exercise has been carried and the final outcome, we would welcome any moves that sought to have this matter debated in Parliament. In the meantime the STUC will continue to campaign to ensure that those using the courts do not face further increased financial burden in their pursuit of Justice."
For further information, contact:
Ian Tasker