📚 Delegated Legislation Committee

General Committees

🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️

The government proposed a technical amendment to maintain three court fees at their current levels, ensuring continued funding for the court system without increasing costs for users. The fees in question relate to council tax liability orders, warrants of entry, and the sale of seized ships, which together generate significant income for the courts. Opposition members supported the order but called for ongoing scrutiny and assurance that the fees would not hinder access to justice, particularly for those on lower incomes. The Minister confirmed that the funds would be reinvested into the justice system and that the fees would be regularly reviewed.

Summary

  • The session focused on the Draft Civil Proceedings and Magistrates’ Courts Fees (Amendment) Order 2025, which aims to amend three court and tribunal fees to ensure they can continue to be charged at their current level.

  • The Minister, Sir Nicholas Dakin, explained that the changes are technical and will not result in any increase in fees for users of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS).

  • The three fees affected are:
    • A 50p fee for a council tax liability order, used by local authorities to demand payment of council tax arrears.
    • A £22 fee for a warrant of entry, mostly used by utility companies to gain legal access to premises.
    • A fee for selling seized ships or goods over £100,000, charged based on the value of the ship.

  • The amendments aim to protect an estimated £3.5 million a year in income, supporting the efficient resourcing of courts and tribunals, which helps reduce the overall cost to taxpayers.

  • The fees are part of a broader review involving 27 fees, with 24 to be reduced through a separate negative instrument due to lowered cost estimates.

  • Dr Kieran Mullan (Con) expressed support for the draft order but raised concerns about future fee adjustments, ensuring they do not become a barrier to justice, and asked for assurances that the revenue would be reinvested in the justice system to improve efficiency and digital infrastructure.

  • The Minister reassured that any future changes would be properly scrutinised, and funds from the fees would be directly used to support the justice system, with fees kept under regular review.

  • The draft order was put to a vote and agreed upon, maintaining the status quo without increasing the fees in question.

Divisiveness

The level of disagreement displayed in the session is minimal, warranting a rating of 1. Throughout the transcript, there are no explicit instances of disagreement among the members. The session primarily focuses on the Minister’s introduction of the draft Civil Proceedings and Magistrates’ Courts Fees (Amendment) Order 2025 and a subsequent response from Dr Kieran Mullan, representing the Conservative party.

The Minister, Sir Nicholas Dakin, provides detailed explanations of the amendments and their implications, emphasizing that no fees will be increased and that the changes aim to protect the funding for HMCTS. Dr Kieran Mullan’s response is mostly supportive, indicating that they ‘broadly support this draft order.’ He does raise points for reassurance regarding future scrutiny, impact monitoring, and the use of funds, but these are presented as requests for further information and commitment rather than direct opposition to the order.

For example, Dr Mullan states: ‘As the Minister emphasised, the draft order does not change the value of fees, though it does establish a framework for future increases above costs… We seek assurances that the funds will be used directly to improve court efficiency, reduce delays and enhance digital infrastructure, rather than being absorbed into broader departmental budgets.’

These concerns are addressed directly by Sir Nicholas Dakin in his response without any sense of contention, saying: ‘I thank the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle for his contribution. He is right that any future changes should have proper scrutiny… All the funds will go directly into the justice system, as he rightly encourages, and fees will always be kept under proper review.’

The session concludes with ‘Question put and agreed to,’ indicating unanimous approval of the order without any recorded dissent or opposition. The interactions remain polite and procedural, further supporting the low level of disagreement observed.