16/01/2017 House of Lords


16/01/2017

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 16/01/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

Lords. Remember you can watch recorded coverage of all of the day

:00:00.:00:00.

the business of Lords after the daily politics, later tonight. We

:00:00.:00:00.

had a considerable quantity of advocates wry man who worked for a

:00:07.:00:10.

large the products company for 40 years. The TUC representatives said

:00:11.:00:16.

scam this man has worked for the scam this man has worked for the

:00:17.:00:20.

company for 40 years, and they are putting him off. It's not right. We

:00:21.:00:25.

will know more when we heard the case. I said nothing but was worried

:00:26.:00:30.

that members might be set prior to the hearing. There are many

:00:31.:00:35.

witnesses and the case took all day. Retired to consider our decision.

:00:36.:00:41.

The chairman sought our views and the TUC man immediately said 40

:00:42.:00:45.

years. I don't know how they stuck him for that long. They did

:00:46.:00:50.

everything they could, moving him from job to job in the firm. They

:00:51.:00:57.

could do no more. This was restoring my faith in the importance of

:00:58.:01:00.

actually hearing both sides of these cases will stop any employee

:01:01.:01:07.

considering themselves Ronnie dismissed and unfairly treated was

:01:08.:01:10.

entitled to bring their service to the tribunal, their case go and I

:01:11.:01:13.

believe in a fair hearing. They did not have to pay any fee, I believe

:01:14.:01:21.

the system was fair, and well used. At a time when in this house we were

:01:22.:01:27.

at a stage with commonhold and leasehold reform act of 2002 I was

:01:28.:01:31.

responsible for an amendment which outlawed frivolous or vexatious

:01:32.:01:36.

litigants stop the head of the tribunal service advised me in the

:01:37.:01:39.

drafting of the amendment, and the government, after changing one lower

:01:40.:01:44.

case letter to a capital, except it the wording in its entirety. At the

:01:45.:01:51.

time the amendment was brought to the attention when an applicant

:01:52.:01:53.

appeared before a tribunal and it emerged that he was making a

:01:54.:01:57.

the country basing his cases on the country basing his cases on

:01:58.:02:01.

failed job applications. He was a qualified radiographer, he applied

:02:02.:02:08.

advertised and if he didn't get an advertised and if he didn't get an

:02:09.:02:11.

interview he went to the tribunal on the grounds of discrimination. He

:02:12.:02:15.

had all travel accommodation expenses paid in many interesting

:02:16.:02:21.

places, and often got a good compensation. He was abusing the

:02:22.:02:27.

system and being paid to do so. If he did get an interview he never got

:02:28.:02:31.

the job, as hospitals needed radiographers who had worked with

:02:32.:02:36.

human beings, and his experience was specifically with concrete blocks

:02:37.:02:41.

and other inanimate objects. There are charities who try to help

:02:42.:02:48.

individuals with advice. As they don't charge fees they rely on

:02:49.:02:52.

grants and donations and the lawyers are generally not very well paid.

:02:53.:02:58.

The Citizens Advice Bureau still exists, but their resources are

:02:59.:03:01.

really stretched, and in many cases are simply not available to people.

:03:02.:03:08.

My neighbour, an employment lawyer since 1990, has volunteered to help

:03:09.:03:13.

others through the CLB for years. Welfare and debt are the largest

:03:14.:03:18.

number of cases and employment cases where six - 10% of the over 10,000

:03:19.:03:25.

has told me that a major problem is has told me that a major problem is

:03:26.:03:29.

that the individual had very often no idea what the terms of their

:03:30.:03:34.

employment were. And that they didn't know that under section one

:03:35.:03:39.

of the employment rights act, 1996, there were entitled to a statement

:03:40.:03:45.

of particulars in employment. This resulted in a real problem in

:03:46.:03:48.

identifying the correct name of the employer. Many employers use

:03:49.:03:53.

organisations, the name of which appears on a pace that, but they are

:03:54.:03:56.

not the employer and getting hold of documents can be very difficult.

:03:57.:04:01.

Individuals have often had but lost their copy of the terms of

:04:02.:04:03.

employment. In the past, many of these things we

:04:04.:04:14.

could do on a do-it-yourself basis, it seems people are finding they

:04:15.:04:18.

have no choice now but to use legally qualified people and this

:04:19.:04:23.

involves extra costs which they can ill afford. Some hold people on an

:04:24.:04:30.

ex-gratia basis but there are many specialists who do pro bono work. I

:04:31.:04:35.

dislike a system which fails to protect vulnerable groups in society

:04:36.:04:40.

or because they need the practice, for example junior barristers

:04:41.:04:46.

cutting their teeth. Large firms encourage junior solicitors to do

:04:47.:04:52.

pro bono work perhaps because it impresses the corporate clients.

:04:53.:04:57.

Organisations such as the employers lawyers Association have our pro

:04:58.:05:00.

bono section where people can volunteer to take on a case. This is

:05:01.:05:05.

not and should not be a substitute for the right to a fair trial which

:05:06.:05:10.

should be available without relying on the kindness of strangers. It is

:05:11.:05:14.

essential that individuals should have the tools made available to

:05:15.:05:21.

enforce their rights, otherwise they are meaningless. Those who save and

:05:22.:05:26.

therefore do not qualify for admission fees have to find the

:05:27.:05:30.

money before they can start a claim. This means bad employers can benefit

:05:31.:05:35.

from the fact that people who save I then hit with having to pay a fee to

:05:36.:05:40.

claim their employment rights. My other direct experience with

:05:41.:05:47.

leasehold valuation Tribunal is, these were abolished in 2013 and

:05:48.:05:51.

many people are disadvantaged by this. I took part in the commonhold

:05:52.:05:58.

reform act 2002 which introduce these Tribunal is. It was fully

:05:59.:06:04.

debated in your lordship's chamber and after hearing from the

:06:05.:06:09.

covering the full costs down to the covering the full costs down to the

:06:10.:06:16.

milk for the office cat, the House decision was these cases, even if

:06:17.:06:21.

the lost, they would not be required to be more than ?500. Now these

:06:22.:06:27.

cases go straight to the first tier lands Tribunal and it is at least a

:06:28.:06:33.

?500 I understand to enter your case. An important role of the

:06:34.:06:41.

leasehold valuation Tribunal is returning value for the extension

:06:42.:06:48.

and the terms thereof. Most are held in a leasehold and is the least

:06:49.:06:52.

drops, the value becomes very small and the amount to extend the lease

:06:53.:07:00.

increases exponentially. My own experience took the form of four

:07:01.:07:04.

days in front of the Tribunal, a visit to the flat, everything seemed

:07:05.:07:09.

to be done very thoroughly as other cases were heard by different

:07:10.:07:14.

members of the tribunal, I sat in on a lot of cases and the standards

:07:15.:07:20.

were high. The 2002 act made clear that if costs were charged, they

:07:21.:07:26.

would not exceed ?500 per application. Now these cases have to

:07:27.:07:30.

go to the first tier lands Tribunal, one of the worst thing is the

:07:31.:07:37.

unscrupulous leaseholder can often employ a QC and win or lose, they

:07:38.:07:44.

charge the legal fees back to the leaseholder is part of the service

:07:45.:07:48.

charge. This is not fair and I considered it an abuse of the

:07:49.:07:53.

system. The leasehold Tribunal was abolished in 2013 and I was the only

:07:54.:07:57.

member to speak in opposition, perhaps because with those

:07:58.:08:02.

instruments you had to say yes or no, you could not consider a review.

:08:03.:08:07.

The Prime Minister has made clear that those who work hard are already

:08:08.:08:15.

under heavy pressure and should not continue to be disadvantaged, surely

:08:16.:08:19.

it is time to look again at helping access to a tribunal. Unless

:08:20.:08:23.

ordinary people can access a tribunal to help them enforce their

:08:24.:08:28.

rights, those rates are meaningless. These fees are preventing genuine

:08:29.:08:37.

cases from being heard. My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness

:08:38.:08:43.

for asking this question in the short debate. I am proud to be the

:08:44.:08:49.

sole representative of the cross amongst the select band from across

:08:50.:08:52.

those which has assembled to discuss it. The available evidence indicates

:08:53.:08:58.

that the proportion of litigants appearing before civil and family

:08:59.:09:02.

courts without legal representation, litigants in person, also sometimes

:09:03.:09:11.

called self represented litigants, has increased since the legal aid

:09:12.:09:15.

sentencing and punishment of offenders act to many civil and

:09:16.:09:21.

private law, children and family cases out of the scope of legal aid

:09:22.:09:26.

in England and we from April one 2013. I have become involved in

:09:27.:09:32.

these issues through the work of the commission I cheered on the future

:09:33.:09:37.

of advice of legal support on social welfare law and I did clear that as

:09:38.:09:44.

an interest. One of the policy responses the commission has been

:09:45.:09:47.

concerned with has been the Ministry of Justice's decision two years ago

:09:48.:09:53.

to fund and supports litigants in-person support strategy,

:09:54.:10:01.

encouraged by the civil Justice Council work and joined on many of

:10:02.:10:06.

the resources from the pro bono legal information personal support

:10:07.:10:11.

and other support centres such as law life advice website with a

:10:12.:10:17.

personal support unit providing additional capacity and better

:10:18.:10:22.

coordination of the pro bono. Over 1 million people use the advice on our

:10:23.:10:27.

website last year with 50,000 people accessing pro bono legal advice

:10:28.:10:32.

through clinics supported by the strategy and over 50,000 people were

:10:33.:10:40.

provided with practical support via the personal support unit. So the

:10:41.:10:43.

litigants in-person strategy is an litigants in-person strategy is an

:10:44.:10:48.

excellent initiative, but one has to remember that it has been developed

:10:49.:10:54.

in a context in which over 700,000 people have lost their entitlement

:10:55.:10:58.

to legal aid in family and civil matters. Moreover, they now have to

:10:59.:11:04.

pay much steeper fees if they want to bring cases as litigants

:11:05.:11:11.

in-person. In terms of access to justice, this amounts to a double

:11:12.:11:17.

whammy. Over the past few years, these four litigants bringing cases

:11:18.:11:22.

have increased and mushroomed across are several quarts and tribunal is.

:11:23.:11:27.

There have been a number of proposals for further increases.

:11:28.:11:33.

These issues have to be considered together with the impact of legal

:11:34.:11:37.

aid cuts in terms of the outcomes are delivered by the justice system.

:11:38.:11:45.

Take for example, employment tribunal were legal aid was cut to

:11:46.:11:52.

zero, steep tribunal fees were introduced as we have heard at

:11:53.:12:02.

length from the noble Baroness. Since August 2013, from nothing at

:12:03.:12:08.

all, the issue fee in employment tribunal is may now be ?250 and the

:12:09.:12:16.

healing fee as much as ?950 in more complex cases. These may include

:12:17.:12:20.

discrimination, equal pay and unfair dismissal claims. For claims to the

:12:21.:12:27.

employment tribunal, the issue fee is ?400 and the healing fee, ?1200.

:12:28.:12:34.

Fees can be waived if the party cannot afford to pay. However that

:12:35.:12:40.

may be, since introducing fees, the volume of employment tribunal claims

:12:41.:12:52.

has plummeted between October 2013 and September 2014, single claims

:12:53.:12:56.

brought by individuals were 64% down the previous 12 months and multiple

:12:57.:13:03.

claims, those brought by more than one person, were down by 67%. In

:13:04.:13:09.

2015, the number of employment tribunal cases brought by single

:13:10.:13:15.

individuals declined by 67% and the number of multiple claims declined

:13:16.:13:22.

by 72%. Even if one accepts that the imposition of fees was flushing out

:13:23.:13:27.

some under the Tories cases, it is clearly having a negative impact

:13:28.:13:33.

towards access to justice. Last July's report from the other place,

:13:34.:13:39.

criticise many aspects of the fees and charges regime, not just

:13:40.:13:44.

employment tribunal fees but also civil fees which have risen by up to

:13:45.:13:49.

600%. Last autumn there were proposals for an increase of up to

:13:50.:13:55.

500% in immigration tribunal fees, again a jurisdiction that was mostly

:13:56.:14:01.

taken out of the scope of legal aid by the punishing of offenders act.

:14:02.:14:06.

After only a matter of weeks into their implementation, the government

:14:07.:14:10.

had to abandon them when they realise the projected levels of fee

:14:11.:14:14.

income from this level of increase would not materialise as the volume

:14:15.:14:21.

of claims would be so depressed. This seems to be following a

:14:22.:14:25.

familiar pattern from the time when Michael Gove had to scope the

:14:26.:14:30.

criminal courts charge which clearly wasn't working. -- to scrap. Which

:14:31.:14:36.

serve to penalised poor people for the right of citizens to use the

:14:37.:14:40.

courts. That is clearly a strong case for reviewing these massive

:14:41.:14:44.

increases in employment tribunal fees also. I should be grateful if

:14:45.:14:49.

the Minister could tell us whether the government would be willing to

:14:50.:14:54.

consider this? The respected commentator Roger Smith has spoken

:14:55.:15:00.

about the economic cleansing of the courts by deliberately denying poor

:15:01.:15:03.

people access to justice through new economic barriers and much reduced

:15:04.:15:09.

public assistance for supporting litigants through the system. I

:15:10.:15:13.

could go on at length about the false logic and false economy of the

:15:14.:15:17.

MoT seeking full cost recovery and more besides from court users and

:15:18.:15:22.

trying to use court fees as an trying to use court fees as an

:15:23.:15:27.

income generating vehicle to offset the Treasury's meanness to the

:15:28.:15:32.

Ministry of Justice. However, I am interested more broadly on the

:15:33.:15:35.

question of why we reclaim the courts and tribunal is for citizens,

:15:36.:15:41.

especially poor and disadvantaged citizens. Part of the answer must be

:15:42.:15:45.

to make the whole process cheaper with less reliance on expensive

:15:46.:15:53.

paper-based bureaucracy, removal of costly delays in proceedings to more

:15:54.:15:58.

streamline processes and better case management systems to minimise the

:15:59.:16:02.

wastage of court and judicial time. The whole process also needs to be

:16:03.:16:07.

redesigned with the needs of litigants in-person in mind. I am

:16:08.:16:13.

encouraged by proposals for court reform and digitisation and the

:16:14.:16:19.

government take-up of these proposals. However, until one season

:16:20.:16:25.

in operation, one must have 1's reservations about the government

:16:26.:16:30.

commitment to funding better assisted digital legal services to

:16:31.:16:35.

help the least legally or IT literate communities, whether the

:16:36.:16:44.

government's willingness to commit to funding those least legally and

:16:45.:16:52.

IT literate it will actually materialise in practice. -- one sees

:16:53.:17:01.

in operation. My Lords, I too congratulate the noble lady for

:17:02.:17:10.

securing this debate and would -- and also the eloquent way she opened

:17:11.:17:18.

it. The central problem for this debate for me, I and the Woolhouse

:17:19.:17:26.

commend Lord low for the impressive work he and his commission of

:17:27.:17:31.

carried out in this area. Legal aid has meant more litigants in-person

:17:32.:17:36.

while dramatic increases in court fees have restricted access to

:17:37.:17:42.

justice by another route. Cuts in legal aid, especially cuts in scope,

:17:43.:17:48.

were bound to lead to more litigants in-person at their impact in so

:17:49.:17:53.

doing has been dramatic. This has been particularly severe in family

:17:54.:17:57.

cases, mentioned by the noble Lord, because most out of scope. The

:17:58.:18:02.

National audit office report said an increase in cases where neither

:18:03.:18:09.

party are represented of 30% in child contact cases and 22% in

:18:10.:18:15.

family cases overall. Approximately 80% of all family cases have

:18:16.:18:26.

litigants, have at least one litigant in person. In family cases

:18:27.:18:30.

of course this is serious because most litigants come to court when

:18:31.:18:35.

their lives are turbulence and feelings between the parties are

:18:36.:18:38.

highly emotional and often deeply hostile. This is not therefore

:18:39.:18:46.

achieve calm and cool dispute resolution and it certainly is not

:18:47.:18:50.

in the best interest of any children involved. But another civil

:18:51.:18:56.

litigation as well, judges ideally frustrated at trying to get through

:18:57.:19:02.

their lists efficiently and justly while battling to explain to Ang Lee

:19:03.:19:06.

litigants how and where they have gone wrong in the process as well as

:19:07.:19:13.

trying to understand how parties are trying to put their cases and we do

:19:14.:19:15.

make sense in law. The speed and efficiency of the

:19:16.:19:24.

judicial process and inevitably and sadly, so has the quality of

:19:25.:19:28.

justice. At the same time, the cost of cases to the public purse has

:19:29.:19:33.

significantly increased as the National Audit Office and the Public

:19:34.:19:36.

Accounts Committee have pointed out. Diminishing the savings made by

:19:37.:19:43.

cutting legal aid. And to add to the problem, government has thrown into

:19:44.:19:49.

the mix increased court fees, increasing the burden on litigants

:19:50.:19:52.

struggling without representation. These are not just fees to cover

:19:53.:20:01.

administering litigants' own cases but so-called enhanced fees to pay

:20:02.:20:07.

for running the whole system, allowing for profits in some areas

:20:08.:20:11.

in order to pay costs incurred in others. Many of us believe that the

:20:12.:20:15.

state has a fundamental responsibility to provide courts to

:20:16.:20:21.

resolve disputes in accordance with the law and to do so free of charge.

:20:22.:20:25.

But even many who do not take that purist view in difficult times

:20:26.:20:31.

believe there is something deeply offensive about enhanced court fees,

:20:32.:20:37.

charged at levels that exceed the cost of administering the case is

:20:38.:20:41.

concerned, so as to make the whole court system self financing.

:20:42.:20:47.

Furthermore, it was always obvious that introducing very high court

:20:48.:20:50.

fees would reduce the number of cases brought. In 2015, a number of

:20:51.:20:56.

professional bodies assembled evidence which showed that the total

:20:57.:21:00.

value of cases brought by individuals would be likely to fall

:21:01.:21:06.

by around one third with higher court fees, and that for small and

:21:07.:21:09.

medium-sized companies, it would halve. This evidence was in sharp

:21:10.:21:15.

contrast to be complacent and misguided assumptions underlying the

:21:16.:21:21.

Government's impact assessment of higher court fees. First, that the

:21:22.:21:27.

changes will not affect court case volumes. Then, that there are no

:21:28.:21:33.

detrimental impacts on court case outcomes, nor on access to justice

:21:34.:21:39.

from any increase in court fees. Thirdly, that there are no impacts

:21:40.:21:43.

on the legal services used to pursue or defend claims. My Lords, I accept

:21:44.:21:50.

that my party was in coalition at the time, but I spoke out against

:21:51.:21:55.

those fees then, and make no apology for doing so again now. The Lord

:21:56.:22:00.

Chief Justice and senior judiciary described the assumptions as very

:22:01.:22:05.

sweeping and in our view, unduly complacent. And lastly, Lord Dyson,

:22:06.:22:12.

then the Master of the Rolls, gave evidence to the justice Select

:22:13.:22:15.

Committee that they were based on a very limited evidential base and

:22:16.:22:18.

that he was extremely sceptical about them. He described enhanced

:22:19.:22:26.

fees as wrong in principle and the Government's preparatory research as

:22:27.:22:32.

lamentable. In practice, the dire predictions of a reduction in case

:22:33.:22:37.

numbers are proving justified. We need more evidence on civil cases

:22:38.:22:43.

generally, but as the noble Lord has pointed out, the immediate 70%

:22:44.:22:48.

reduction in overall in employment tribunal claims was severe.

:22:49.:22:52.

Furthermore, there was no increase in the success rate of claims. So,

:22:53.:23:00.

one can reduce that fees have not discouraged spurious claims, they

:23:01.:23:05.

have only vented claims, meritorious or not, from being brought. -- only

:23:06.:23:10.

prevented. Michael Gove as Justice Secretary said in the House of

:23:11.:23:18.

Commons, one of the biggest barriers to justice is costs. Action needs to

:23:19.:23:22.

be taken to reduce costs in civil justice. It is not enough simply to

:23:23.:23:27.

say the taxpayer must shoulder the burden. We need reform of our legal

:23:28.:23:33.

system to make access to justice easier for all. On that issue, I

:23:34.:23:40.

agree with Michael Gove. I also agree that the Conservative chair of

:23:41.:23:45.

the Justice committee, who said in June, where there is conflict

:23:46.:23:50.

between the objectives of achieving full cost recovery and preserving

:23:51.:23:54.

access to justice, the latter must avail. -- prevail. Access to justice

:23:55.:24:02.

has been subjected to a pincer movement of restricted legal aid and

:24:03.:24:07.

increased court fees. This has had the dual effect of deterring

:24:08.:24:11.

litigants and reducing the effectiveness of the court system.

:24:12.:24:16.

On legal aid, we need an urgent review of the areas in scope, to see

:24:17.:24:20.

whether hardship is biting deepest and to relieve it. Social welfare

:24:21.:24:27.

and family cases are two of the prime areas for alleviation. We must

:24:28.:24:33.

make it easier to apply for and to secure exceptional case funding. We

:24:34.:24:39.

must review the system for applying for legal aid in domestic violence

:24:40.:24:43.

cases, to make it more humane and easier to navigate. On court fees, I

:24:44.:24:49.

suggest there are three things to be done. First, we should be reducing

:24:50.:24:55.

court fees to a reasonable level, and never more than the cost of

:24:56.:25:00.

administering claims. To ensure that litigants are not deterred by court

:25:01.:25:05.

fees from bringing genuine claims. Secondly, we should be introducing a

:25:06.:25:12.

more fair fee remission scheme. The present capital and disposable

:25:13.:25:16.

income thresholds are far too low, and stop poor litigants from

:25:17.:25:21.

bringing genuine claims. Thirdly, we should be looking at spreading fees

:25:22.:25:26.

in civil litigation more evenly over the life of cases this is done in

:25:27.:25:33.

part already in employment cases. Rather than front loading them, as

:25:34.:25:37.

is done now in civil cases with huge issue fees and only modest fees

:25:38.:25:41.

later on. The present arrangements deter claims to collect, difficult

:25:42.:25:49.

to recover undisputed depths, and encourage unscrupulous debtors to

:25:50.:25:53.

avoid payment in the hope that the fees will put off their creditors.

:25:54.:26:00.

My Lords, these are practical steps, intended to go some way to reverse a

:26:01.:26:05.

steady decline in access to justice over successive governments in

:26:06.:26:08.

recent decades. The measures I have suggested have cost implications,

:26:09.:26:14.

but they are targeted to addressing the most urgent crisis points. In

:26:15.:26:21.

the longer term, only a more wide-ranging review will enable us

:26:22.:26:26.

to restore and sustain access to civil justice to the standard we

:26:27.:26:30.

would all wish to see, and to which we all claim to aspire. And which, I

:26:31.:26:35.

fear, we have painfully failed to attain in recent years. I suppose I

:26:36.:26:48.

should mention that my daughter practices in the field of housing

:26:49.:26:53.

law and serves as a part-time deputy district judge. I must congratulate

:26:54.:26:59.

the noble Baroness on securing this debate, her initiative is the more

:27:00.:27:02.

welcome, coming as it does from a most respected occupant of the

:27:03.:27:07.

off-mac benches. Access to justice has been all too regular a subject

:27:08.:27:11.

of debate in my membership of this House, with the coalition and

:27:12.:27:14.

Conservative governments laying down roadblocks in the form of huge

:27:15.:27:18.

increases in fees wedding already existed, new impositions whereas in

:27:19.:27:23.

the case of implement Rabah N also did not exist, and savage reductions

:27:24.:27:25.

in legal aid, to which noble Lords have already referred. Senior

:27:26.:27:31.

members of the judiciary have repeatedly complained likely that

:27:32.:27:36.

these measures have led to a significant increase in a number of

:27:37.:27:39.

cases in which parties are not represented with the consequential

:27:40.:27:44.

legal equivalent of Burger King, wasting the time of course and

:27:45.:27:48.

proving the old maxim that Justice delayed is justice denied. Lord

:27:49.:27:53.

Dyson giving evidence to the justice Select Committee described the

:27:54.:27:55.

evidence on which the Government based its increase in court fees as

:27:56.:28:01.

hopeless and pointed out that it had consulted all of 31 people on the

:28:02.:28:07.

proposal. Sir Ernest Ryder, in charge of tribunal is an apartment,

:28:08.:28:10.

Ponta to the 70% reduction in tribunal applications, which he

:28:11.:28:15.

described as an extraordinary position that demands an

:28:16.:28:19.

explanation. Needless to say, those are -- no such expiration has been

:28:20.:28:25.

vouchsafed. The fee could be as much as ?1200. The civil justice Council

:28:26.:28:28.

have warned that the reductions and changes in legal aid will have the

:28:29.:28:32.

most serious consequences, not something because of their skill but

:28:33.:28:36.

also by design and incidents. Among other things they would have a

:28:37.:28:39.

disproportionately adverse effect on the most vulnerable. If forecast

:28:40.:28:44.

correctly the number of self represented litigants will increase

:28:45.:28:48.

on a considerable scale, leading to cases been longer than the need to

:28:49.:28:52.

be, and with increasingly wide and serious consequences for the

:28:53.:28:56.

individual families and the state. There have been large reductions in

:28:57.:28:59.

important areas of the law, including housing, weather has been

:29:00.:29:04.

a reduction of 18% in cases at a time whether having record numbers

:29:05.:29:08.

of repossessions in private rented property. Some 40,000 households

:29:09.:29:14.

were affected in 2015 and 53% more than in 2010. -- 40 3000. -- 43,000.

:29:15.:29:23.

The problem is the collapse of the supply side in the ship of legal aid

:29:24.:29:26.

lawyers specialising in housing law so there are areas of the countries,

:29:27.:29:33.

very few and in some cases no legal aid housing providing lawyers. One

:29:34.:29:36.

third of legal aid areas have just one solicitor providing legal aid in

:29:37.:29:43.

housing cases. As the director of the legal aid action group observed,

:29:44.:29:46.

civil aid legal services are in freefall with solicitors' firms and

:29:47.:29:51.

advice centres closing and while legal aid is available, fees are

:29:52.:29:55.

charged that only 57p per hour or ?63 per hour for a court appearance.

:29:56.:30:01.

-- ?57 per hour. It is hardly surprising that there are not many

:30:02.:30:06.

people practising. My charging rate was higher than that when I was last

:30:07.:30:14.

practising. I would surmise that the charges in Scotland might be higher

:30:15.:30:21.

still. Unqualified people assisting litigants are no charging as much as

:30:22.:30:27.

?125 per hour for their services. Shelter has 17 offices offering

:30:28.:30:30.

legal assistance, some of them being the only source in their error. How

:30:31.:30:33.

much has the Government been saving from the impact of the changes in

:30:34.:30:41.

housing law? And reminder budgets -- and from other bodies, which have

:30:42.:30:45.

all been affected as a consequence of evictions and this repair which

:30:46.:30:47.

might have been dealt with by the justice system? In family law there

:30:48.:30:53.

has been a significant drop in cases of domestic violence, which could

:30:54.:30:57.

trigger legal aid but it is not an issue, and that is where legal aid

:30:58.:31:03.

is not available, but the much vaunted alternative by way of

:31:04.:31:06.

mediation has actually fallen by two thirds. The people here are most

:31:07.:31:10.

likely to be affected women and children. Mental health cases have

:31:11.:31:14.

declined due largely to a shrinking of the supply-side of legal advice,

:31:15.:31:20.

as in housing. And welfare cases have season large reductions. Nor

:31:21.:31:26.

have these difficulties combined to individuals -- can find. Small

:31:27.:31:29.

businesses also faced difficulty from higher court fees. The Justice

:31:30.:31:35.

Select Committee report was damning of the Government's policy, and are

:31:36.:31:44.

unlikely to be impressed by what passes for the government's replied.

:31:45.:31:52.

-- reply. One of those pages deals with the controversial employment

:31:53.:31:58.

and immigration tribunal fees and I would be grateful if the Government

:31:59.:32:03.

has at least abandoned that proposal. The Government declared it

:32:04.:32:06.

would publish a review of the employment Tribunal fees in due

:32:07.:32:10.

course. Can the Minister say how long this issue will take to resolve

:32:11.:32:15.

and how long does he expect the pregnancy and discolouration claims

:32:16.:32:20.

today? The Government dismissed the concern about a significant increase

:32:21.:32:23.

for fees and divorce petitions, seeing help is available, but how

:32:24.:32:27.

widely is that no? Insofar as the Government is right to claim women

:32:28.:32:30.

are less likely to have to pay the full feed, is it not the case that

:32:31.:32:33.

by the same token, there are less likely to be able to pay for legal

:32:34.:32:37.

advice and rivers in addition, thereby being placed at a

:32:38.:32:42.

disadvantage and increasing the problem of litigants in person? The

:32:43.:32:45.

Government and responding to the suggestion that there should be a

:32:46.:32:49.

graduate of the declared a balance had to be struck between the 70

:32:50.:32:53.

fixed fees Andrade more for those who make greater use of the course.

:32:54.:32:58.

Can the Minister explain this? Does greater use Roberta frequency and if

:32:59.:33:02.

so, in one sense, or content? Will and income or means related system

:33:03.:33:06.

not be sufficient? The committee suggested the employment tribunal

:33:07.:33:10.

cases that the respondent should pay but the suggestion was rejected

:33:11.:33:13.

because respondents have little influence over the decision to

:33:14.:33:17.

mitigate or stop it is an interesting argument. A recalcitrant

:33:18.:33:21.

employer must not be troubled by paying a fee but a dismissed

:33:22.:33:26.

employee must fork out an amount disproportionate to the claim. I

:33:27.:33:31.

mentioned immigration cases, and I welcome the fact the Government have

:33:32.:33:36.

not proposed an increase of these but immigration judges report high

:33:37.:33:39.

levels of unrepresented applicants, contrary to the impression given by

:33:40.:33:44.

the official statistics, which were questioned in the letter to Michael

:33:45.:33:48.

Gove by an immigration lawyer in 2015.

:33:49.:33:55.

Litigants for Suffolk the additional difficulty of not being able to

:33:56.:34:00.

speak English. So far it has resolutely resisted and insist that

:34:01.:34:05.

will only do so after five years of the operation. Given the scale of

:34:06.:34:09.

concerns, at the time of the review, why will the government not now

:34:10.:34:13.

settled that review and least the respect of the most contentious

:34:14.:34:17.

areas? I conclude with the further short points, the first is to remind

:34:18.:34:20.

the House that the government was my proposals on the increase of the

:34:21.:34:24.

small claims it will engender more problems for litigants and a further

:34:25.:34:27.

depletion of qualified lawyers wishing to undertake cases. The

:34:28.:34:32.

second is that the courts impose additional costs on parties now

:34:33.:34:36.

having to travel to have their cases heard. And finally, I would like to

:34:37.:34:39.

commend the work that the public support unit which has been

:34:40.:34:43.

mentioned tonight who staff and volunteers do valiant work in

:34:44.:34:46.

non-legal support of litigants in person as they encounter unfamiliar

:34:47.:34:52.

experiences in the court centres that they support. Will the

:34:53.:34:54.

government at the very least help this organisation as it attempts to

:34:55.:34:58.

hold those and help those whose access the judgment has been made

:34:59.:35:02.

more difficult by this government and its predecessors?

:35:03.:35:12.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble lady Baroness Gardner of Parkes

:35:13.:35:14.

securing the debate today. On this important subject. And to the House

:35:15.:35:19.

for its valuable contributions they have made to the debate. I would

:35:20.:35:24.

begin by saying that the government is committed to ensuring that the

:35:25.:35:27.

justice system continues to be accessible to all and that it deals

:35:28.:35:32.

with disputes fairly and justly and that it continues to work for all

:35:33.:35:37.

its users. A number of your noble lord ships and the noble lady

:35:38.:35:43.

Baroness Thatcher have referred to the matter of the employment

:35:44.:35:47.

tribunal 's and the employment tribunal fees. And as the noble Lord

:35:48.:35:55.

Beecham noted in his observations, that has been the subject of a

:35:56.:36:01.

review at the instance of the government. -- baroness and are.

:36:02.:36:06.

What I can tell you is that that review, which was essentially to

:36:07.:36:12.

address the issue of applications in light of the three matters, a review

:36:13.:36:18.

of the impact of the introduction of fees on the employment tribunal 's

:36:19.:36:22.

Andy employment appeal Tribunal has made a very good progress and we do

:36:23.:36:29.

expect to publish the results of that review in the very near future.

:36:30.:36:35.

I cannot at this stage, regret, be more specific than that, but I hope

:36:36.:36:39.

that the noble Lord Beecham will accept that it is our intention to

:36:40.:36:43.

publish as soon as we reasonably can and that is anticipated to be in the

:36:44.:36:50.

near future. It is appreciated that the number of applications to

:36:51.:36:54.

employment tribunal 's have reduced since the introduction of fees but I

:36:55.:36:57.

would notice that the introduction of fees was incidental with the

:36:58.:37:03.

development and mediation services in the context of employment

:37:04.:37:06.

applications, and therefore, one cannot simply attribute any

:37:07.:37:11.

reduction to fees being introduced in that respect. It would not be

:37:12.:37:15.

appropriate for me to anticipate the outcome of the review that has been

:37:16.:37:19.

carried out and must be published in the near future. I am sorry to

:37:20.:37:28.

interrupt, had any work being done to assess how far there is a match

:37:29.:37:34.

between the increase in mediation services and the drop-off? I would

:37:35.:37:40.

not wish to anticipate the outcome of the review, which will be

:37:41.:37:44.

published, and we will look at the matter in light of that review once

:37:45.:37:49.

it has been published. If I can turn for a moment away from employment

:37:50.:37:55.

tribunal 's to the matter of the property law issues that were raised

:37:56.:38:03.

by the noble baroness in her opening speech and it is necessary to

:38:04.:38:06.

remember that when you look at the matter of course, it is not just a

:38:07.:38:12.

matter of fees, it is not just a matter of legal costs that may be

:38:13.:38:16.

incurred in litigation, there is the matter of recovery of costs in that

:38:17.:38:22.

context as well and in that area, some considerable progress has been

:38:23.:38:26.

made, particularly with regard to the matter of applications to the

:38:27.:38:29.

property chamber. As noble lords will be aware, provision had already

:38:30.:38:37.

been made with regard to preventing landlords and in some instances at

:38:38.:38:42.

least, from recovering costs by way of service charge against

:38:43.:38:46.

leaseholders. That has now been extended or will be extended by

:38:47.:38:54.

virtue of section 131 of the housing and planning at 2016, which will

:38:55.:38:59.

also endeavour to prevent landlords recovering such costs by way of

:39:00.:39:03.

administrative charges. So steps are being taken to try to limit the cost

:39:04.:39:11.

liability of those who do have regard to these tribunal 's and to

:39:12.:39:17.

these courts. Now, the noble lady also expressed some concern

:39:18.:39:23.

regarding the operation of costs and in general, parties meet their own

:39:24.:39:26.

costs of litigating in the tribunal system, even when they are

:39:27.:39:31.

successful with the claim but there are some exceptions to that and the

:39:32.:39:36.

procedural rules. As the noble baroness noted, there was a cap of

:39:37.:39:41.

?500 in respect of the cost rules of the property chamber, although that

:39:42.:39:48.

was rarely used, I understand. The tribunal Procedure Committee has

:39:49.:39:52.

noted that there is concern about the movement of that cap and it does

:39:53.:39:58.

intend to seek a consultation ASDA bother to reintroduce a cap for

:39:59.:40:04.

costs for unreasonable conduct any sort of cases. If such a cap is to

:40:05.:40:08.

be reintroduced to address the question at the water level it

:40:09.:40:12.

should be set, again, in that regard, some progress has been made

:40:13.:40:16.

and I would hope the report for the injured course. The noble lady,

:40:17.:40:23.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes refers to that, those who do not have

:40:24.:40:28.

representation when it comes to trials at courts. Those using the

:40:29.:40:32.

system are not required to be legally represented and tribunal 's

:40:33.:40:36.

are characterised by an approach which is deliberately less formal

:40:37.:40:39.

than is generally found in the courts and the tribunal panel

:40:40.:40:43.

members themselves as the noble Baroness noted, are trained to

:40:44.:40:47.

assist unrepresented parties but helping to frame the way in which

:40:48.:40:53.

the present their case to the tribunal. Of course, this issue is

:40:54.:40:56.

dealt with differently in the courts but in November 20 14th the support

:40:57.:41:01.

strategy for litigants in person was launched and this involves work by a

:41:02.:41:04.

range of partners across the sector to improve the experience of

:41:05.:41:09.

vulnerable litigants in person in the fundamental ways. Firstly,

:41:10.:41:13.

providing online and self-help resources and making sure that those

:41:14.:41:15.

who need them know where they are and how to access them. A point

:41:16.:41:22.

raised by the noble Lord Marks earlier. Secondly, providing

:41:23.:41:25.

practical and emotional support and providing access to free or

:41:26.:41:29.

affordable advice and representation, whenever possible.

:41:30.:41:33.

Now, of course, any legal proceedings are likely to be

:41:34.:41:37.

stressful and that is particularly the case in matters concerning

:41:38.:41:40.

families and children, one could not doubt that. But there is support

:41:41.:41:45.

therefore those who become involved in these proceedings. Can I move

:41:46.:41:52.

onto a more general issue of costs? Because we have to address the fact

:41:53.:41:57.

that the cost of our courts and tribunal 's has to be met in some

:41:58.:42:03.

form or another. The Ministry of Justice is not a protected

:42:04.:42:07.

Department and it does face a very challenging financial settlement. We

:42:08.:42:11.

must reduce annual spending by 15% in real terms, that is about ?1

:42:12.:42:19.

billion by 2019 to 2020. Achieving that scale of financial saving

:42:20.:42:23.

inevitably require is difficult and tough decisions. We need to look at

:42:24.:42:26.

every area of the department's spending and there can be no

:42:27.:42:30.

exceptions for tribunal is. I hope that the noble lords will recognise

:42:31.:42:33.

that to ensure that they are properly funded and that access to

:42:34.:42:38.

justice is protected, increases to some court fees are required. The

:42:39.:42:44.

cost of our courts and tribunal systems to the taxpayer is

:42:45.:42:48.

unsustainably high and it must be right that those who use the system

:42:49.:42:51.

p more to believe that burden. However, Parliament has granted

:42:52.:42:56.

through the anti-social behaviour crime and policing at 2014 a power

:42:57.:42:59.

that allows the government to set court and tribunal fees at a level

:43:00.:43:03.

above the cost of the service and I acknowledge that and Lord Marks

:43:04.:43:08.

referenced that. The income from those fees must be used to find an

:43:09.:43:13.

efficient and effective system of courts and tribunal is, so when

:43:14.:43:16.

setting fees the Lord Chancellor must have regard to a number of

:43:17.:43:20.

factors, including the need to preserve access to justice. And

:43:21.:43:25.

respects of tribunal fees, the government firmly believes it is

:43:26.:43:28.

right to ask users of the service to make contributions to the cost of

:43:29.:43:32.

providing such services and reference having been made to the

:43:33.:43:37.

property tribunal, I would note that the fees are set at a level below

:43:38.:43:41.

the actual costs incurred, not above it or even equal to it. That is the

:43:42.:43:46.

help for Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon scheme which helps those who cannot

:43:47.:43:49.

afford to pay and in addition, the Lord Chancellor has the power to

:43:50.:43:54.

limit Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon in exceptional circumstances. In the

:43:55.:43:59.

property chamber, and in particular the first-tier Tribunal, a new fee

:44:00.:44:04.

structure was introduced in July 2016 to simplify matters, a single

:44:05.:44:09.

issue three of ?100, hardly an insurmountable burden for a

:44:10.:44:14.

leaseholder with a further fee of ?200 in respect of the review of an

:44:15.:44:26.

application. We must see all of this against the background of proposals

:44:27.:44:31.

to modernise our whole court and tribunal system and indeed,

:44:32.:44:37.

reference was made to the support by the noble lord and to the government

:44:38.:44:40.

having decided to address that and the review how they can take forward

:44:41.:44:47.

the whole process of digitisation in the court process. The removal of

:44:48.:44:54.

paper, wherever it can be done, the streamlining of case management,

:44:55.:44:57.

wherever that can be achieved, all of that is an immediate goal of the

:44:58.:45:01.

present government and indeed, proposals are coming forward quite

:45:02.:45:06.

imminently to address that whole process of digitisation. Yes, it

:45:07.:45:10.

will take time, it will take years to implement that sort of proposal

:45:11.:45:16.

fully, but we have begun that task. And that task will improve, well, I

:45:17.:45:22.

suggest, immeasurably improve, the whole matter of access to justice.

:45:23.:45:26.

It will demystify the court process and hopefully, allow those who do

:45:27.:45:30.

not have legal representation to understand how they apply to the

:45:31.:45:33.

court, how they proceed through the courts in order to vindicate rights

:45:34.:45:38.

and in order to seek a secure justice. That extends to all of

:45:39.:45:46.

those who might be vulnerable to all of those who might be in difficulty,

:45:47.:45:50.

to all of those who feel they have a just climb. Ultimately, these

:45:51.:45:55.

proposals, these changes will deliver swifter justice. So our

:45:56.:46:02.

wider reforms underlie a guiding principle that our justice system

:46:03.:46:05.

must be proportionate and accessible to everyone. And that means members

:46:06.:46:14.

of the public, legal professionals, witnesses, litigants, the

:46:15.:46:19.

vulnerable, victims of crime and, of course, the judiciary themselves.

:46:20.:46:27.

My Lords, I beg to move the House do now I Jardim until 20:38pm. The

:46:28.:46:36.

question is that the House do adjourn until 8:38pm. As many of the

:46:37.:46:43.

position C content, not content, the content habit. -- have it.

:46:44.:47:18.

Pieres get the opportunity to put the government of the day under the

:47:19.:47:24.

spotlight at question time. It is the first item of business every

:47:25.:47:26.

Monday to Thursday in the House of Lords. In each session, there are

:47:27.:47:33.

format questions which can be on any topic. The government gives notice

:47:34.:47:35.

of most of these well in advance, but spots are kept open for topical

:47:36.:47:40.

questions on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. The winner gets drawn

:47:41.:47:48.

out of a hat a few days before. I beg leave to ask the question

:47:49.:47:52.

standing in my name on the order paper. The minister and stars and

:47:53.:47:56.

the original questioner gets a follow-up. The flaw is then open to

:47:57.:48:00.

everyone else in the Chamber who can ask whatever they want as long as it

:48:01.:48:06.

relates to the original question. Why will Eurostar not take pets

:48:07.:48:13.

because you can take your God in the sleeper to Scotland and all of the

:48:14.:48:18.

ferries take dogs, why not Eurostar? Unlike any comments, where each

:48:19.:48:22.

department has a number of different ministers with specific areas of

:48:23.:48:26.

responsibility, ministers and the Lords must be ready to field any

:48:27.:48:30.

question on the whole department. They have to be completely on top of

:48:31.:48:36.

their prey. Would the noble lord the Minister accept my assurance that he

:48:37.:48:42.

should be careful in dealing with the issue of ferries? We had a very,

:48:43.:48:54.

my Lords, belonging to my son and she did enjoy trouser legs. I think

:48:55.:49:06.

the noble lady has given us a tremendous reason as to why we

:49:07.:49:10.

should be cautious of ferrets. They were 68 ferries that came in last

:49:11.:49:15.

year under the pet scheme and I very much hope that everyone has taken

:49:16.:49:21.

note of what the noble lady has said about trousers. A Lord's question

:49:22.:49:26.

marks about eight minutes, much longer than any comments or it is

:49:27.:49:31.

that much harder to wriggle out of answering an awkward one. Pieres can

:49:32.:49:34.

go into much more detail so there is the greater risk that ministers get

:49:35.:49:39.

caught out. Oral questions of the busiest part of the day in the

:49:40.:49:42.

Chamber. The benches are always packed. I beg leave to as the

:49:43.:49:48.

question standing in my name. With the number of peers at over 800 and

:49:49.:49:52.

still rising, this place is fit to burst.

:49:53.:49:56.

As numbers grow, asking a question gets harder. The traditional

:49:57.:50:02.

courtesy and conventions always decided who gets to speak, but this

:50:03.:50:06.

gets forgotten when peers struggled to be heard and things can get quite

:50:07.:50:15.

heated. My lords... My Lord stud-mac -- my Lords... When good manners

:50:16.:50:19.

were out of the window, the referee, the Leader of the House, not the

:50:20.:50:23.

Lord Speaker, steps into cool down. I may suggest that the Liberal

:50:24.:50:30.

Democrat Baroness and the Green Party burners decide between

:50:31.:50:32.

themselves who would like to give way. The Parliamentary rule book

:50:33.:50:37.

says that the purpose of questions is to obtain information, or press

:50:38.:50:43.

for action. Though perhaps the bigger question is, how many peers

:50:44.:50:46.

actually got the answers they were looking for?

:50:47.:51:33.

Order. Questions to the Prime Minister. The goings on in

:51:34.:51:40.

Parliament are watched closely in the comments and counterclaims are

:51:41.:51:43.

pored over, especially at busy times like this. Of course, there are

:51:44.:51:49.

times when there are fewer people taking notice, times like this. But

:51:50.:51:53.

even in those quiet times, there are two sets of eyes and ears ticking

:51:54.:51:56.

down, witnessing everything that happens here. And they sit here and

:51:57.:52:03.

on the Speaker's chair. They are the reporters of Hansard and they have

:52:04.:52:06.

been there for centuries with different staff over the years. How

:52:07.:52:11.

does this work? To reporters at any given time are in these seats. We

:52:12.:52:15.

call this the box. It is difficult to get in and out but you have the

:52:16.:52:20.

best view in the house. You are craning your neck, searching the

:52:21.:52:24.

benches for any, anything that people would say that you need to

:52:25.:52:29.

put into the record. It is an edited verbatim report, a purely verbatim

:52:30.:52:32.

report would not be a useful thing as a written record so we translate

:52:33.:52:36.

the spoken to the written so the record can stand the test of time.

:52:37.:52:43.

The reporters watch back video of the debate they made notes on, then

:52:44.:52:49.

take it up, editing as they go. The deadline is a very tight so if I am

:52:50.:52:53.

doing a five-minute turn, a chunk of debate that we report, I have 45

:52:54.:52:58.

minutes to get that done and onto the sub editor's desk. I then have a

:52:59.:53:02.

few minutes before I go back into the chamber for the next one.

:53:03.:53:06.

Hansard has been the official record Parliament since 1909, but for

:53:07.:53:10.

hundreds of years before that, there were competing journals documenting

:53:11.:53:15.

what was happening. It is interesting standing here, seeing

:53:16.:53:17.

this huge role of books, and if we look at the years they cover, we can

:53:18.:53:22.

see that they started in the early 18th century. We have to walk quite

:53:23.:53:26.

a long way before we get to the Battle of Waterloo, and even further

:53:27.:53:30.

before we get to the First World War. It is only by this point, when

:53:31.:53:35.

I have walked quite a long way, that we get to the 1940s and the Second

:53:36.:53:40.

World War. These days, most of our customers access Hansard in digital

:53:41.:53:44.

form. In those days, the print run was quite big. When I joined Hansard

:53:45.:53:50.

there were still many thousands of daily additions being published. And

:53:51.:53:54.

also, all these lovely bound volumes were sent out to all the libraries

:53:55.:53:58.

in the country as a way of distributing them. These days, we

:53:59.:54:03.

produced several hundred daily copies, which members still like to

:54:04.:54:07.

use in the chamber, and very few of these bound volumes. A lot of our

:54:08.:54:11.

work recently has been aimed at making our digital content more

:54:12.:54:15.

effective. House of Commons business is available to read on the Hansard

:54:16.:54:20.

website, within three hours. You can search for your own MP, for example.

:54:21.:54:24.

That is quicker than sitting through hours and hours of debate. They do

:54:25.:54:26.

that so you do not have to. The higher education and research

:54:27.:57:07.

bill. I beg to move the House du Niall McGinn resolve itself into a

:57:08.:57:12.

committee upon the bill. The question is the House du resolve

:57:13.:57:14.

itself into coup -- committee upon the bill. As many as are of the

:57:15.:57:17.

opinion say, "Content," to the contrary, "Not content." The

:57:18.:57:28.

contents have it. Higher Education Bill, after clause nine, amendment

:57:29.:57:39.

118. My Lords, I beg to move 118. Although I am a thoroughgoing

:57:40.:57:43.

advocate of Freedom of Information, I am very much conscious of what my

:57:44.:57:46.

noble friend Lord Willets said shortly before supper, that we must

:57:47.:57:53.

be careful of the degree of obligations and the direction of

:57:54.:57:59.

obligations we put on universities. So, this amendment is very much

:58:00.:58:04.

phrased as not prescribing any particular outcome but saying the

:58:05.:58:09.

outcome must be equal, and that is born of my experience, when the time

:58:10.:58:18.

has reached -- was reached under the last command when UCAS was deemed to

:58:19.:58:22.

have public functions and was made subject to the Freedom of

:58:23.:58:26.

Information Act. -- the last government. I immediately requested

:58:27.:58:31.

some information from UCAS and was refused, and went through the appeal

:58:32.:58:38.

procedure. Having been ruled partially in my favour, UCAS went

:58:39.:58:44.

through two sets of tribunal is with QCs, it must have cost them about

:58:45.:58:52.

half ?1 million to resist the commission's attempts to pin them to

:58:53.:58:55.

the Freedom of Information Act obligations. But is perhaps my -- by

:58:56.:59:03.

I reacted so fiercely to Lady Brown when she quoted commercial

:59:04.:59:08.

interests, because UCAS's order of priorities was first of all making

:59:09.:59:12.

money, secondly I'm looking after the universities and thirdly, the

:59:13.:59:17.

students. The -- I did not think that was right and nor do I think it

:59:18.:59:20.

is right that universities put money first and other things second. We

:59:21.:59:27.

are dealing, or ought to be dealing, with different kinds of

:59:28.:59:30.

institutions. But on the bits I never got through the commission on,

:59:31.:59:33.

some of which are bits of information which I now -- are now

:59:34.:59:37.

being made available through this bill, the reason I failed was, the

:59:38.:59:45.

inequality of treatment of universities which were subject to

:59:46.:59:49.

Freedom of Information Act, and other high against St Mary de Haura

:59:50.:59:52.

Church higher education institutions which were not. -- other higher

:59:53.:59:59.

education situations. That created a commercial tension between those who

:00:00.:00:06.

might have been asked to reveal information on those who were not

:00:07.:00:11.

subject to FOIA, which prevented information being released under

:00:12.:00:15.

FOIA. This is just my recommendation to the government, whatever you do,

:00:16.:00:19.

do the same with everybody, then everybody has to comply. I beg to

:00:20.:00:28.

move. Proposed, insert the following new clause entitled Freedom of

:00:29.:00:31.

Information followed by the words on the list. I have amendment two 38.

:00:32.:00:42.

-- 238. It follows on from what George Lucas has just been saying

:00:43.:00:48.

about equality of treatment. -- Lord Lucas. The bill creates three types

:00:49.:00:53.

of registered providers that are basic, approved and approved with a

:00:54.:00:58.

fee cap. Universities are currently subject to the Freedom of

:00:59.:01:01.

Information Act 2000 but in order to ensure a level playing field in

:01:02.:01:04.

terms of access to information, we believe it is important for all

:01:05.:01:08.

registered providers designated for the purpose of student support under

:01:09.:01:13.

section 22 of the teaching of higher education act 1998, to be subject to

:01:14.:01:17.

the same level of public scrutiny. Schedule 11 of the bill as drafted

:01:18.:01:22.

currently leaves open what categories of provider should be

:01:23.:01:27.

caught by Freedom of Information by leaping to the Secretary of State to

:01:28.:01:30.

specify categories and McGillis is. If there is the appetite to be more

:01:31.:01:34.

prescriptive, the schedule could adopt the revised new clause for a

:01:35.:01:42.

wording has proposed. Universities are Kammy subject to the Freedom of

:01:43.:01:45.

Information Act 2000, if we propose further consideration to be given as

:01:46.:01:51.

to whether adherents should be a condition for initial registration

:01:52.:01:55.

for Hydro -- higher education providers do -- designated her

:01:56.:02:01.

purpose of student support. This new clause would amend the Freedom of

:02:02.:02:06.

Information Act so as to apply its provisions to or higher education

:02:07.:02:11.

providers designated for the purpose of student support, which are

:02:12.:02:15.

registered with the OFS. This means registered providers which are

:02:16.:02:20.

eligible for public grant funding and, or, access to student loans and

:02:21.:02:22.

I look forward to the Minister's replied. -- reply. I have not

:02:23.:02:34.

thought about this topic before. So I welcome the amendment that has

:02:35.:02:38.

been moved, but I must say that on the face of it, I very much agree

:02:39.:02:44.

with what Lord Lucas has said. It seems to me that there is an

:02:45.:02:51.

invisible case for a level playing field. It would be interesting to

:02:52.:02:54.

know from the Minister what he regards as the argument against a

:02:55.:03:00.

level playing field on this question. What is his argument

:03:01.:03:08.

against it? And it also seems to me that I am relaxed, personally, about

:03:09.:03:15.

new entrants to the higher education market, I want to see more diversity

:03:16.:03:22.

and innovation in higher in higher education. But if this is to happen,

:03:23.:03:31.

there are clearly risks, of the Trump University type, as we know

:03:32.:03:38.

from the United States. It seems to me that requiring everyone to be as

:03:39.:03:46.

open in their dealings as public institutions, I say not public

:03:47.:03:50.

sector, I do not believe universities are public sector

:03:51.:03:54.

institutions, but they are public institutions, that requiring them to

:03:55.:04:01.

be, requiring everybody to comply with Freedom of Information

:04:02.:04:03.

obligations seems to be a highly desirable thing.

:04:04.:04:11.

My boards I am not certain as to whether these amendments, both of

:04:12.:04:19.

them, will in fact plays a statutory duty of whether they are intended to

:04:20.:04:24.

enforce some kind of contractual obligation in order to be

:04:25.:04:26.

registered, because you have to agree to do this and that. That

:04:27.:04:30.

would not quite be the same thing. -- my Lords. And I just wonder,

:04:31.:04:38.

there are important distinctions between universities and other

:04:39.:04:45.

providers of higher education. Whether that level playing field

:04:46.:04:50.

that has been referred to applies across that divide is an interesting

:04:51.:04:54.

question that I would be glad to know the answers to. I would briefly

:04:55.:05:01.

rise to say that I think it is incredibly important for the student

:05:02.:05:09.

and for society as a whole that all providers of higher education are

:05:10.:05:12.

subject to Freedom of Information requests. I will give you a couple

:05:13.:05:21.

of examples. If there are a number of private colleges which provide

:05:22.:05:25.

higher education and if you wish to find out what the progression rates

:05:26.:05:31.

are, the books are closed. You are not allowed to do that. But if you

:05:32.:05:37.

went to university and said we would like to know what the progression

:05:38.:05:43.

rates are by the students a year on year, that could be obtained by

:05:44.:05:48.

information requests. It should be the same for universities as it is

:05:49.:05:59.

for any private provider. Yes. My Lords, I rise to say that I think

:06:00.:06:02.

the level playing field for those in receipt of public money and with

:06:03.:06:11.

students who have fees from government loans should indeed have

:06:12.:06:16.

a level playing field but I think we must reflect on the comment of David

:06:17.:06:19.

Willetts about do we want to add more requirements or do they

:06:20.:06:24.

actually want to take some of them away? Having recently been a vice

:06:25.:06:30.

Chancellor I know that universities get memories Freedom of Information

:06:31.:06:35.

requests, some from local newspapers in the area want to know bits of

:06:36.:06:39.

information about vice chancellors and staff and other things, for

:06:40.:06:42.

example, and is it really reasonable that we should be spending students'

:06:43.:06:48.

fees on responding to this sort of trivial request? I think the kind of

:06:49.:06:56.

key data that you need to know about universities, things like

:06:57.:06:59.

progression rates, this bill will make sure that is available to do to

:07:00.:07:05.

register providers, that is very important, it is not about

:07:06.:07:08.

universities trying to hide things, I think the bill does require

:07:09.:07:11.

universities to provide the right kind of data that students need to

:07:12.:07:15.

know, but I think you are levelling the playing field and I think we

:07:16.:07:20.

should follow the advice of David Willetts and take some of the

:07:21.:07:23.

requirements of Rather than simply having more requirements on.

:07:24.:07:31.

My Lords, having blasted off at Lord Wallace in the previous amendment, I

:07:32.:07:36.

cannot go back on that, and I will not follow up the noble baroness on

:07:37.:07:48.

that one. But like the learned Lord, they are within the Freedom of

:07:49.:07:51.

Information Act or they are not, if they are not, they will get the

:07:52.:07:54.

information in other ways, that does not matter. But if you have to

:07:55.:08:00.

question the other way round, would you have the university sector as

:08:01.:08:02.

prestigious as some of our institutions that was not covered by

:08:03.:08:06.

a Freedom of Information at, you would find that quite strange. My

:08:07.:08:14.

Lords, the government has given careful consideration to the range

:08:15.:08:17.

of views expressed in response to our green paper. That is 2015 in

:08:18.:08:24.

relation to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to higher

:08:25.:08:28.

education providers. Over 100 cons of these responses were received on

:08:29.:08:34.

this issue perhaps surprisingly poignant was divided. The underlying

:08:35.:08:37.

principle behind Freedom of Information legislation is that they

:08:38.:08:40.

will have a right to know about the activities of public authorities.

:08:41.:08:45.

And though not traditionally required as public authorities in

:08:46.:08:49.

the wider sense, the act applies to the funded institutions in

:08:50.:08:54.

recognition of the fact that they are in receipt of direct public

:08:55.:08:58.

funding. In seeking to apply the Freedom of Information Act equally

:08:59.:09:02.

to all providers, the effect of the amendment tabled by my noble friend

:09:03.:09:06.

Lord Lucas and I thanked him, would either be to remove all I read the

:09:07.:09:09.

quiche and providers from the remit of the act or impose an additional

:09:10.:09:13.

Freedom of Information obligation on providers who are not currently

:09:14.:09:16.

already covered. Irrespective of whether they receive direct public

:09:17.:09:20.

funding. This amendment would extend the scope of freedom of information

:09:21.:09:25.

obligations, in this case, to all registered higher education

:09:26.:09:30.

providers and is of course designated for student support. Any

:09:31.:09:33.

2015 green paper we consider the application of the act and the

:09:34.:09:37.

regulatory costs could impose on higher education providers, some of

:09:38.:09:41.

which may be relatively small organisations. Having considered the

:09:42.:09:44.

views expressed by range of stakeholders, our decision was so

:09:45.:09:50.

far as gospel to maintain the status quo by providing Freedom of

:09:51.:09:52.

Information obligations on those providers who are in future are

:09:53.:09:57.

eligible to receive grant funding from the office of students, namely

:09:58.:10:01.

approved the cap providers. As part of our overall principle of

:10:02.:10:07.

risk-based regulation and seeking to reduce regulation costs and barriers

:10:08.:10:10.

to entry when appropriate, we did not consider there was a strong case

:10:11.:10:14.

for expanding the scope of the Freedom of Information Act more

:10:15.:10:18.

broadly. We already believe that more higher education providers

:10:19.:10:22.

would be regulated through our reforms. And then this short debate,

:10:23.:10:27.

I did want to address an interesting question posed by Lord Liddle and

:10:28.:10:33.

supported by Lord story, which basically, they just this question

:10:34.:10:37.

was why that this bill seek to provide a regularly playing field

:10:38.:10:42.

across the board? I would like to expand on my answer that the bill

:10:43.:10:46.

continues in a different approach whereby those who received the more

:10:47.:10:48.

significant public funding direct from the public purse are subject to

:10:49.:10:52.

the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and this is a

:10:53.:10:58.

targeted approach to regulation, imposing requirements on those... I

:10:59.:11:03.

am not trying to be difficult but when you talk about direct public

:11:04.:11:09.

funding, does that mean any institution where a students can

:11:10.:11:16.

receive a loan in order to carry out their studies, because in my view,

:11:17.:11:23.

anyone who is eligible for a student loan, there is an element of public

:11:24.:11:28.

funding because as we know, there is going to be write-offs of these

:11:29.:11:35.

loans in future from... By the government. So I think that this

:11:36.:11:42.

phrase about direct public funding, with the greatest of respect,

:11:43.:11:49.

Minister, it is a bit of a copout. Well, it is that the more

:11:50.:11:52.

complicated than that and it could be that there is a letter that I

:11:53.:11:56.

should like to clarify, but there is the funding, of course, only student

:11:57.:12:00.

side of the tuition fee and the argument here is that, in fact, you

:12:01.:12:06.

are talking about the private individual receiving private funding

:12:07.:12:09.

and then on the other side, what we are speaking about here is the

:12:10.:12:12.

funding that comes, for example, in the form of a grant to help with Tom

:12:13.:12:19.

Pope, for example, for a high-cost course. It would be good if I wrote

:12:20.:12:22.

a letter of clarification about that. There has been some discussion

:12:23.:12:28.

outside the Chamber about this and it gives me the opportunity to be

:12:29.:12:31.

able to write to him further. Having said all of that, there is more that

:12:32.:12:38.

I wanted to see on that. Before the minister finishes, I wonder if I

:12:39.:12:41.

could ask, does that direct public funding include QR funding and

:12:42.:12:51.

research funding from UKRI? I would be planted to add that to the letter

:12:52.:12:56.

for clarification, these are complicated aspects that require

:12:57.:13:01.

proper qualification. -- I would be delighted. Just to complete my

:13:02.:13:05.

answer to the noble lord Lidl, providers, and he will have probably

:13:06.:13:08.

guessed, will come future in shapes and sizes and one size fits all

:13:09.:13:15.

approach to such risks could impose unwarranted costs on smaller

:13:16.:13:18.

providers and new entrants which could stifle Bible is the specs of

:13:19.:13:24.

competition in the sector. The independent commission of Freedom of

:13:25.:13:27.

Information concluded that the current application of the FOI Act

:13:28.:13:32.

is appropriate. The considered evidence was looked at and it could

:13:33.:13:34.

please others at a disadvantage compared with alternative advisers

:13:35.:13:39.

-- providers and founded unpersuasive. In addition to

:13:40.:13:45.

comments made by my noble friend, I thought they put it rather so simply

:13:46.:13:50.

and it backs up the access to this debate. It has been helpful to have

:13:51.:13:58.

this particular discussion. Given the importance of information to the

:13:59.:14:03.

effect and scrutiny of higher education providers, we have to

:14:04.:14:05.

produce provisions elsewhere in the bill to provide a high degree of

:14:06.:14:08.

regulatory oversight and transparency. For example, causes

:14:09.:14:13.

eight and nine would require the office for students to impose

:14:14.:14:18.

ongoing registration conditions on higher education institutions and

:14:19.:14:20.

provided by the permission required to out its functions and publish

:14:21.:14:27.

specified information. The noble Lord, Lord story, raised the point

:14:28.:14:31.

about information availability and if I could attempt to answer that

:14:32.:14:35.

point, because to this bill we are making more information available to

:14:36.:14:39.

students, as he will know, hopefully he will know, than ever before. For

:14:40.:14:44.

example, both approved and the approved the cap providers will be

:14:45.:14:48.

subject to the transparency of duty in Clause nine as discussed earlier

:14:49.:14:53.

in committee. It will make it easier for more information to be available

:14:54.:14:57.

to students. With that, I would hope that the noble lord would agree to

:14:58.:15:03.

withdraw his amendment. My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for

:15:04.:15:06.

that answer, if a little disappointed. As I learned in making

:15:07.:15:16.

the application for information and going through the tribunal and

:15:17.:15:21.

afterwards, if you allow this difference of treatment, you

:15:22.:15:26.

effectively say to all of the institutions which are covered by

:15:27.:15:31.

Freedom of Information, that all you need to do is claim commercial

:15:32.:15:36.

confidentiality and you do not have to publish anything. And the stuff,

:15:37.:15:42.

anything that is commercially confidential is information that

:15:43.:15:45.

might affect a student in making a decision about which institution to

:15:46.:15:52.

go to. So anything that is important and interesting becomes

:15:53.:15:58.

unpublishable and the Freedom of Information registration has no

:15:59.:16:01.

function, except to find out what the Vice Chancellor had for

:16:02.:16:05.

breakfast, which is, you know, clearly not commercially

:16:06.:16:08.

confidential and therefore, we can't continue to plague you on that. But

:16:09.:16:12.

it ceases to have a function. There is no point in registering

:16:13.:16:16.

institutions for the Freedom of Information Act if you then this

:16:17.:16:23.

apply it on such a large scale by failing to register their

:16:24.:16:26.

competitors. I understand the government will reach a decision and

:16:27.:16:29.

that will not trouble them again, but I think they have gone down the

:16:30.:16:34.

wrong road on this. I beg leave to withdraw that amendment. Visit your

:16:35.:16:41.

lordship pleasure that this membership be withdrawn? It is

:16:42.:16:48.

withdrawn, Clause ten, 119. -- is it your pleasure?

:16:49.:16:56.

Amendment 119 and 120, they should be looked at together, could you

:16:57.:17:00.

possibly follow me on that, that would be very helpful? These are

:17:01.:17:09.

probing amendments and the background to that is that the bill

:17:10.:17:17.

contains aspirations and indeed, could be amended to have more

:17:18.:17:21.

aspirations to CD cover and rather rigid structure for curriculum and

:17:22.:17:27.

courses in this country change, so that there are more two-year degrees

:17:28.:17:34.

and more flexibility allowed to the possibility of taking part courses

:17:35.:17:39.

or credit in order to build up an entitlement to Bosley award of

:17:40.:17:45.

degree. This is common in many other higher education systems, it is

:17:46.:17:48.

something that has been much talked about on all sides of the political

:17:49.:17:51.

spectrum in recent years but progress has been quite slow. These

:17:52.:17:57.

amendments are here to prop the question that part of the delay on

:17:58.:18:00.

this is because of the way in which the financial regulations that

:18:01.:18:03.

financed higher education are structured, worked in terms of

:18:04.:18:13.

sessions. There is an academic year that is defined in paragraph 11,

:18:14.:18:19.

which we are coming to, and the funding for courses is done in

:18:20.:18:22.

relation to the whole course, rather than to any part of the course. That

:18:23.:18:28.

has historically been the way that we have done it and there is no

:18:29.:18:31.

reason that that is wrong or right, but it will not be flexible and if

:18:32.:18:35.

you wish to attempt to do half of the course with a view to perhaps

:18:36.:18:40.

stopping after a bit and coming back and doing the rest at a later date,

:18:41.:18:46.

or if you were a new institution attempting to try to provide a

:18:47.:18:48.

different type of course, you would have to do it in years, you could

:18:49.:18:53.

not do it in part years, and that seems to speak to a discourse of

:18:54.:18:58.

lacking flexibility and it is no surprise that the people who

:18:59.:19:01.

currently occupy the position of Challenge Tour institutions are

:19:02.:19:09.

being vigorous and arguing that the arrangements that are currently

:19:10.:19:12.

needed for the provision of courses does not allow them to do the work

:19:13.:19:15.

that they would like and they would be interested in seeing a way of

:19:16.:19:18.

getting a more flexible approach, whereby perhaps as an Amendment 119,

:19:19.:19:29.

the student... Every student could get up an honours degree in two

:19:30.:19:32.

years because that there was the way that it was taught and examined and

:19:33.:19:35.

that was appropriate for the subject and agreed with all the regulators

:19:36.:19:40.

and everyone involved, even though the noble lord bullocks does not

:19:41.:19:43.

like that, it would not be possible to do it because it is for a

:19:44.:19:47.

four-year course and not a three-year course, so it would not

:19:48.:19:53.

be possible. They would not get it for the Vergeer. Alternatively, if

:19:54.:19:57.

it was possible to do it more flexible in terms of credits, they

:19:58.:20:03.

could do for credits any year and the student would have to pay for a

:20:04.:20:08.

four-year score so much the student might only take two or three

:20:09.:20:12.

credits. These things do stack up to more flexible system. There is no

:20:13.:20:17.

particular model in mind and I will give the opportunity for the noble

:20:18.:20:20.

lord to respond to open this up in future. I beg to move.

:20:21.:20:25.

Could I just add my own tuppence worth in terms of support of these

:20:26.:20:48.

amendments? This seems to be crucial to the kind of socially progressive

:20:49.:20:55.

innovation in higher education which many of us on these benches would

:20:56.:21:00.

like to see. The truth is that there has not been as much attempts to

:21:01.:21:10.

enable people to do courses faster than the standard three or four

:21:11.:21:20.

years, and creating the financial possibility for this to happen would

:21:21.:21:30.

be a very good thing to do indeed. My Lords, I wish to respond to all

:21:31.:21:39.

three amendments. I would like to start by saying that Government is

:21:40.:21:43.

committed to encouraging more accelerated degrees and other

:21:44.:21:46.

flexible provision. Indeed the Government stated this in our last

:21:47.:21:49.

manifesto and I hope that there will be an element of agreement had us

:21:50.:21:54.

all on this. That makes bone, the bill will level the playing field

:21:55.:21:58.

for high-quality new entrants, making it easier for new specialists

:21:59.:22:02.

and innovative providers to enter the sector. Accelerated degrees or a

:22:03.:22:06.

particular strength and this will help to ensure that students can

:22:07.:22:09.

access learning in the form that suits them. For example, Buckingham

:22:10.:22:15.

BPP, Conde Nast fashion and the Greenwich School of management or

:22:16.:22:19.

offer students the opportunity to complete an honours degree of two

:22:20.:22:23.

years, so the student incurs less debt and can enter or re-enter the

:22:24.:22:27.

workforce more quickly. We are interested in understanding what

:22:28.:22:31.

more we can do to support flexible provision. We carried out a call for

:22:32.:22:35.

evidence seeking views from providers, students and others. This

:22:36.:22:40.

call for evidence resulted in over 4500 responses. A clear majority

:22:41.:22:44.

came from individual students and we were delighted to see this level of

:22:45.:22:48.

engagement. Many of the responding students express an interest in

:22:49.:22:51.

accelerated degrees so this is clearly an important issue. The

:22:52.:22:55.

demand seems to be there. On December the 20th 2016, the

:22:56.:23:00.

Government published a summary of the call for evidence. This is a

:23:01.:23:04.

complicated policy area and we are now fully considering the evidence.

:23:05.:23:08.

Let me reassure you that we are looking carefully at the options to

:23:09.:23:12.

remove barriers to accelerated degrees. While we sympathise with

:23:13.:23:15.

the underlying intention of the amendment, as we continue to

:23:16.:23:20.

consider the key issues, I would ask that the amendment is withdrawn. I

:23:21.:23:23.

would like to move on in a similar theme to the amendment is spoken to

:23:24.:23:29.

by Lord Lucas, and a similar approach, which is they both seek to

:23:30.:23:36.

link funding to academic credits as well as academic years. Again I

:23:37.:23:39.

would like to say there is sympathy to the issues that have been raised.

:23:40.:23:44.

The Government is committed to improving diversity of provision and

:23:45.:23:47.

increasing student choice. Supporting students who wish to

:23:48.:23:51.

switch higher education institutions is an important part of our

:23:52.:23:57.

performance. We also recognise the importance of part-time study and it

:23:58.:24:01.

now gives me an opportunity to trumpet this particular aspect of

:24:02.:24:06.

our reforms and should no doubt of our intention to promote this side.

:24:07.:24:11.

Studying part-time and later in life can bring enormous benefits for

:24:12.:24:16.

individuals, the economy and employers. I would like to also say

:24:17.:24:22.

that this area that is -- has also been considered as part of the call

:24:23.:24:26.

for evidence and is all part of us looking closely at the 4500

:24:27.:24:31.

responses. Again, it is complicated and I hope the House will indulge me

:24:32.:24:35.

in remembering that this does require quite a bit of time together

:24:36.:24:40.

the information. We will do all that and we will return with a response

:24:41.:24:46.

in due course. Overall, the Government is already taking action

:24:47.:24:50.

to address some of the key areas of student choice as well as working to

:24:51.:24:53.

support students and their diverse needs. I assure the House that we

:24:54.:24:59.

are actively considering all options in this particular area so I hope

:25:00.:25:04.

these warm words we will be helpful and as we continue to consider the

:25:05.:25:07.

key issues as highlighted in our call for evidence, I ask that this

:25:08.:25:11.

amendment, these amendments, also withdrawn. If I get the support of

:25:12.:25:23.

Lord Liddle, who was quite mean with his support with some of the things

:25:24.:25:28.

that come from the site, I am onto a winner! I would make a couple of

:25:29.:25:36.

points. If I give the impression this was only about new entrants,

:25:37.:25:42.

that was a mistake, and I think the Minister accepts that, the interest

:25:43.:25:45.

is there from all institutions who might be interested in following

:25:46.:25:54.

student demand. I am puzzled why it takes so long to cover those --

:25:55.:26:05.

process those submissions. You have about 4000 sheets in that file! I

:26:06.:26:10.

cannot believe it will take you that much longer to get through those. In

:26:11.:26:16.

the course of this moment we now discover the fifth way of saying

:26:17.:26:18.

they are not quite sure what they are going to bring back at report.

:26:19.:26:23.

He said he says he is spending more time reviewing the evidence. You

:26:24.:26:27.

just have to tell us and we will put it down in report. I beg leave to

:26:28.:26:35.

withdraw the amendment. Is it your Lordships' pleasure this amendment

:26:36.:26:43.

be withdrawn? And not moved. Amendment 122, Lord Stevenson.

:26:44.:26:52.

I beg to move the House do not be resumed. As many as are of the

:26:53.:26:58.

opinion say, "Content," to the contrary, "Not content." The

:26:59.:27:08.

contents have it. -- do now be. I beg to move that the House do know a

:27:09.:27:10.

journey. -- now adjourn. Baroness Meacher. I beg leave to ask

:27:11.:28:48.

the question standing in my name on the order paper. My Lords, the short

:28:49.:28:58.

answer to the question is no. Like previous governments we have always

:28:59.:29:01.

made clear that such legislation is a matter for Parliament, not

:29:02.:29:07.

government. If the other House considered a bill to legalise

:29:08.:29:12.

assisted dying, they rejected it by 330 votes to 118. My Lords, I thank

:29:13.:29:19.

the Minister for his reply. As he has indicated, there has never been

:29:20.:29:23.

a government supported bill on this issue. The

:29:24.:29:24.

Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS