The Coalition have risked turning access to justice into the preserve for the wealthy

This government’s extraordinary hike in court fees risks turning access to justice yet further into the sole preserve of the wealthy or those who have clear cut cases that lawyers know they can win. If we believe that a judicial system is reflective of society, the ‘principles’ of this government cannot be anything we should aspire to. And, while historically the UK legal system has often been a model followed by other countries, our status as international leaders in legal best practice will die a death if elitism and conservatism become woven into the DNA of our legal model.

The governments’ reforms would be audacious in any civilised society but are all the more so when they are as pernicious and so directly the product of close connections between powerful vested interests and the Conservative Party. The only saving grace (and it’s a small one) is that the changes have been so cynical, and at the same time so cack-handed, that those who care about equality of arms, democratic debate around reform and transparent analysis of proposals cannot fail but to see through them for what they are.

It’s been an avalanche. Tribunal fees in employment claims which the Tory Lib Dem government said were not about seeking a reduction in claim numbers – but then business minister Matthew Hancock let the cat out of the bag when he trumpeted fees as doing exactly that to the Federation of Small Businesses’ conference last March. A Portal in personal injury cases as well as fixed costs with claimants having to pay up front and out of their damages (ending the principle that the polluter pays). Law that has stood since the Crimean War – that workers injured through no fault of their own should be compensated rather than having to prove fault – ended by section 69 of The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act. And of course there has been the virtual abolition of legal aid alongside a massive ratcheting up of the eligibility criteria for those who claim for criminal injury and a limiting on what they are paid if they succeed

And now, as of 9 March, court fees for civil cases have been dramatically increased, in some cases by over 600%. The fee for a claim worth £40,000, has increased from £610 to £2,000 (a 228% increase). A claim worth £90,000 will now require a fee of £4,500 (a 395% increase), while the fee payable for a claim of £190,000 has increased by a stratospheric 622%.

Given that the fees are now, ‘thanks’ to earlier reforms by this government, usually payable up front (unless you are a trade union member), they will make many people on normal household incomes at the very least think twice before proceeding with a case. Many will simply not go ahead at all with what may be an entirely legitimate case.

To this extent, these latest court fee increases – like the introduction of fees for Tribunals and the imposition of drastic cuts to the legal aid budget – are turning the justice system from one which serves all equally and where a case stands or falls on its merits, to one that closes its doors to those other than the well-off. When fees are combined with the difficulty in taking on a powerful employer and their team of insurance-company lawyers, the risks of not winning and the pain and stress of a drawn-out court battle are often seen as simply not worth it. Kerching! The insurers, huge funders of the Tory Party, are quids-in: fewer claims means more profit (I haven’t noticed any premiums falling).

We can already see the stark, black and white, impact that tribunal fees are having. Their introduction in July 2013 affected a drop in claims going to the Tribunal of 650%. The latest figures show a drop of 12% for single claims for the last quarter of 2014 compared with the same period in 2013.

Unfortunately, reforms like these are also changing how lawyers behave. As profit is squeezed, too many lawyers will be cautious about taking on cases. There is no longer a ‘pot’ for a rainy day if a case goes wrong. Margins are such that lawyers aren’t taking risks and whether that means individuals being turned away when they would have found a lawyer before, or cases that would have made new law never being started, it’s all music to the insurance industry’s ears.

Court fees used to be paid up-front by the claimant’s lawyer and then charged back to the client in the form of a disbursement if the case was won. But that is no longer the case. The increase, combined with the funding changes, means lawyers (in those cases which they will commit to) will want money up front rather than running the risk of being left making a financial loss at the end of the day.

The government and its allies in the insurance industry would argue that there is no problem because low-earning claimants (or more often their lawyer on their behalf) can apply for fees remission and get out of paying anything upfront. Those in the industry know, however, that this is not the simple solution it is glibly presented as being. The application process is long and complicated and the chances of acceptance are pathetically small. And yet it seems reality for lawyers is that they often, to show willing to their client and in case they are criticised later, feel obliged to waste time completing the application process even if they know it is highly likely to be unsuccessful.

The options lawyers face on behalf of their clients are now stark: battle on or seek to settle early; secure compensation based on expediency or stick to the justice that reflects the full merits of the case.

The distorted justice system that has been moulded by this government is shameful. When, as the Justice Committee forced the insurers to concede, they and the government have the arrogance to have written deals marked ‘confidential’ in an effort to stitch up compensation for asbestos victims, there is something very wrong – and yes, corrupted – about what we have seen since 2010. There is nothing ‘necessary’ or ‘balanced’ about these changes.

We need to ensure that the polluter pays, that the system is fair and that there is transparency. A vote for Labour on May the 7^th is the first step down that road.

Andy McDonald is re-standing to be the Labour MP for Middlesbrough.