§ Mr. EtheringtonTo ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the impact of new county court fees to be charged on debtors under the provisions of the County Court Fees (Amendment) order 1996; and if he will make a statement. [19494]
365W
§ Mr. StreeterFollowing the judgment in R v. the Lord Chancellor ex parte Witham, the Lord Chancellor has decided that litigants in the county courts and in family proceedings should be placed on the same footing as litigants in non-family proceedings in the Supreme Court. He has therefore made orders restoring the exemption and remission provisions which applied before 15 January 1997. As a result, most debtors on low incomes will not be liable to pay court fees.
§ Mr. EtheringtonTo ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the estimated projected annual income the Court Service will receive from levying new charges for(a) fee numbers (1)2C(ii) application by debtor to vary judgment,(iii)2C(2) application to set aside judgment,(3)2C(iv) application to district judge,(4)2C(vi) application to circuit judge,(5)4(i)(c)second or subsequent warrant and (6)4(ix) application to suspend warrant and (b) entering a counter claim against the plaintiff. [19502]
§ Mr. StreeterThe question concerns a matter which has been assigned to the Court Service under the terms of its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. Bill Etherington, dated 17 March 1997:
PQ/304: Projected income from new court fees.The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the projected annual income the Court Service will receive from new court fees.These estimates do not take account of the possible impact of the judgment in R v the Lord Chancellor ex-parte Witham.
Fee number and type of process Projected income £ million 2C(ii) and (ii) application to vary or set aside judgment1 0.975 2C(iv) application to district judge or circuit judge ex-part or by consent 8.3 2C(v)(vi) application to district judge and circuit judge1 2.0 4(i)(c) request for second or subsequent warrant 2.3 4(ix) application to suspend warrant 0.865 Entering a counterclaim against the plaintiff2 No projection has been made 1 This is a combined projection for the two fees. 2 The new fee payable on entering a counterclaim is the same as if separate proceedings were being issued for that amount.
§ Mr. Alex CarlileTo ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review(a) the Supreme Court Court Fees (Amendment) order 1996, (b) the County Court Fees (Amendment) order 1996 and (c) the Family Proceedings Fees (Amendment) order 1996; and if he will make a statement. [20641]
§ Mr. StreeterThe Lord Chancellor is in the process of implementing wide-ranging reforms to the civil justice system following the publication of Lord Woolf's final report. As part of this process, the current fees structure366W will be subject to review to ensure that fees are charged at an appropriate level and at appropriate points in the progression of a case.
§ Mr. CarlileTo ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the expected savings from each element of the(a) Supreme Court Fees (Amendment) order 1996, (b) County Court Fees (Amendment) order 1996 and (c) Family Proceedings Fees (Amendment) order 1996; and if he will make a statement. [20643]
§ Mr. StreeterThe question concerns a matter which has been assigned to the Court Service under the terms of its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 17 March 1997:
PQ 97/318: Expected savings from court feesThe Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question on expected savings from court fees.The estimated additional income from the three fees orders is as follows:Supreme Court Fees (Amendment) order 1996: £8.8 millionCounty Court Fees (Amendment) order 1996: £24.6 millionFamily Proceedings Fees (Amendment) order 1996: £6 millionThese estimates do not take account of the possible impact of the judgment in Regina v the Lord Chancellor ex parte Witham.
§ Mr. CarlileTo ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received(a) in favour and (b) against the (i)Supreme Court Fees (Amendment) order 1996,(ii)County Court Fees (Amendment) order 1996 and (iii)Family Proceedings Fees (Amendment) order 1996; and if he will make a statement. [20642]
§ Mr. StreeterAccording to our records 91 representations have been received by Ministers relating to the Fees (Amendment) orders 1996, three in the form of parliamentary questions and 88 in the form of letters from Members of Parliament. The representations made have expressed concerns about the effect of particular fees rather than views on each order as a whole.
§ Mr. CarlileTo ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to reverse recent increases in civil justice court fees in accordance with the decision in R v. the Lord Chancellor ex parte Witham; and if he will make a statement. [20640]
§ Mr. StreeterThe judgment in R v. the Lord Chancellor ex parte Witham reinstates the former fee exemptions and remissions in the Supreme Court. It does not relate to the increases in civil court fees. To place county court and family proceedings litigants on the same footing as litigants in the Supreme Court, the Lord Chancellor has made orders reintroducing provisions for fee exemption and remission in these proceedings as well, and has made refunds available to those eligible.