16/01/2017

:00:00. > :00:00.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

:00:07. > :00:10.had a considerable quantity of advocates wry man who worked for a

:00:11. > :00:16.large the products company for 40 years. The TUC representatives said

:00:17. > :00:20.scam this man has worked for the scam this man has worked for the

:00:21. > :00:25.company for 40 years, and they are putting him off. It's not right. We

:00:26. > :00:30.will know more when we heard the case. I said nothing but was worried

:00:31. > :00:35.that members might be set prior to the hearing. There are many

:00:36. > :00:41.witnesses and the case took all day. Retired to consider our decision.

:00:42. > :00:45.The chairman sought our views and the TUC man immediately said 40

:00:46. > :00:50.years. I don't know how they stuck him for that long. They did

:00:51. > :00:57.everything they could, moving him from job to job in the firm. They

:00:58. > :01:00.could do no more. This was restoring my faith in the importance of

:01:01. > :01:07.actually hearing both sides of these cases will stop any employee

:01:08. > :01:10.considering themselves Ronnie dismissed and unfairly treated was

:01:11. > :01:13.entitled to bring their service to the tribunal, their case go and I

:01:14. > :01:21.believe in a fair hearing. They did not have to pay any fee, I believe

:01:22. > :01:27.the system was fair, and well used. At a time when in this house we were

:01:28. > :01:31.at a stage with commonhold and leasehold reform act of 2002 I was

:01:32. > :01:36.responsible for an amendment which outlawed frivolous or vexatious

:01:37. > :01:39.litigants stop the head of the tribunal service advised me in the

:01:40. > :01:44.drafting of the amendment, and the government, after changing one lower

:01:45. > :01:51.case letter to a capital, except it the wording in its entirety. At the

:01:52. > :01:53.time the amendment was brought to the attention when an applicant

:01:54. > :01:57.appeared before a tribunal and it emerged that he was making a

:01:58. > :02:01.the country basing his cases on the country basing his cases on

:02:02. > :02:08.failed job applications. He was a qualified radiographer, he applied

:02:09. > :02:11.advertised and if he didn't get an advertised and if he didn't get an

:02:12. > :02:15.interview he went to the tribunal on the grounds of discrimination. He

:02:16. > :02:21.had all travel accommodation expenses paid in many interesting

:02:22. > :02:27.places, and often got a good compensation. He was abusing the

:02:28. > :02:31.system and being paid to do so. If he did get an interview he never got

:02:32. > :02:36.the job, as hospitals needed radiographers who had worked with

:02:37. > :02:41.human beings, and his experience was specifically with concrete blocks

:02:42. > :02:48.and other inanimate objects. There are charities who try to help

:02:49. > :02:52.individuals with advice. As they don't charge fees they rely on

:02:53. > :02:58.grants and donations and the lawyers are generally not very well paid.

:02:59. > :03:01.The Citizens Advice Bureau still exists, but their resources are

:03:02. > :03:08.really stretched, and in many cases are simply not available to people.

:03:09. > :03:13.My neighbour, an employment lawyer since 1990, has volunteered to help

:03:14. > :03:18.others through the CLB for years. Welfare and debt are the largest

:03:19. > :03:25.number of cases and employment cases where six - 10% of the over 10,000

:03:26. > :03:29.has told me that a major problem is has told me that a major problem is

:03:30. > :03:34.that the individual had very often no idea what the terms of their

:03:35. > :03:39.employment were. And that they didn't know that under section one

:03:40. > :03:45.of the employment rights act, 1996, there were entitled to a statement

:03:46. > :03:48.of particulars in employment. This resulted in a real problem in

:03:49. > :03:53.identifying the correct name of the employer. Many employers use

:03:54. > :03:56.organisations, the name of which appears on a pace that, but they are

:03:57. > :04:01.not the employer and getting hold of documents can be very difficult.

:04:02. > :04:03.Individuals have often had but lost their copy of the terms of

:04:04. > :04:14.employment. In the past, many of these things we

:04:15. > :04:18.could do on a do-it-yourself basis, it seems people are finding they

:04:19. > :04:23.have no choice now but to use legally qualified people and this

:04:24. > :04:30.involves extra costs which they can ill afford. Some hold people on an

:04:31. > :04:35.ex-gratia basis but there are many specialists who do pro bono work. I

:04:36. > :04:40.dislike a system which fails to protect vulnerable groups in society

:04:41. > :04:46.or because they need the practice, for example junior barristers

:04:47. > :04:52.cutting their teeth. Large firms encourage junior solicitors to do

:04:53. > :04:57.pro bono work perhaps because it impresses the corporate clients.

:04:58. > :05:00.Organisations such as the employers lawyers Association have our pro

:05:01. > :05:05.bono section where people can volunteer to take on a case. This is

:05:06. > :05:10.not and should not be a substitute for the right to a fair trial which

:05:11. > :05:14.should be available without relying on the kindness of strangers. It is

:05:15. > :05:21.essential that individuals should have the tools made available to

:05:22. > :05:26.enforce their rights, otherwise they are meaningless. Those who save and

:05:27. > :05:30.therefore do not qualify for admission fees have to find the

:05:31. > :05:35.money before they can start a claim. This means bad employers can benefit

:05:36. > :05:40.from the fact that people who save I then hit with having to pay a fee to

:05:41. > :05:47.claim their employment rights. My other direct experience with

:05:48. > :05:51.leasehold valuation Tribunal is, these were abolished in 2013 and

:05:52. > :05:58.many people are disadvantaged by this. I took part in the commonhold

:05:59. > :06:04.reform act 2002 which introduce these Tribunal is. It was fully

:06:05. > :06:09.debated in your lordship's chamber and after hearing from the

:06:10. > :06:16.covering the full costs down to the covering the full costs down to the

:06:17. > :06:21.milk for the office cat, the House decision was these cases, even if

:06:22. > :06:27.the lost, they would not be required to be more than ?500. Now these

:06:28. > :06:33.cases go straight to the first tier lands Tribunal and it is at least a

:06:34. > :06:41.?500 I understand to enter your case. An important role of the

:06:42. > :06:48.leasehold valuation Tribunal is returning value for the extension

:06:49. > :06:52.and the terms thereof. Most are held in a leasehold and is the least

:06:53. > :07:00.drops, the value becomes very small and the amount to extend the lease

:07:01. > :07:04.increases exponentially. My own experience took the form of four

:07:05. > :07:09.days in front of the Tribunal, a visit to the flat, everything seemed

:07:10. > :07:14.to be done very thoroughly as other cases were heard by different

:07:15. > :07:20.members of the tribunal, I sat in on a lot of cases and the standards

:07:21. > :07:26.were high. The 2002 act made clear that if costs were charged, they

:07:27. > :07:30.would not exceed ?500 per application. Now these cases have to

:07:31. > :07:37.go to the first tier lands Tribunal, one of the worst thing is the

:07:38. > :07:44.unscrupulous leaseholder can often employ a QC and win or lose, they

:07:45. > :07:48.charge the legal fees back to the leaseholder is part of the service

:07:49. > :07:53.charge. This is not fair and I considered it an abuse of the

:07:54. > :07:57.system. The leasehold Tribunal was abolished in 2013 and I was the only

:07:58. > :08:02.member to speak in opposition, perhaps because with those

:08:03. > :08:07.instruments you had to say yes or no, you could not consider a review.

:08:08. > :08:15.The Prime Minister has made clear that those who work hard are already

:08:16. > :08:19.under heavy pressure and should not continue to be disadvantaged, surely

:08:20. > :08:23.it is time to look again at helping access to a tribunal. Unless

:08:24. > :08:28.ordinary people can access a tribunal to help them enforce their

:08:29. > :08:37.rights, those rates are meaningless. These fees are preventing genuine

:08:38. > :08:43.cases from being heard. My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness

:08:44. > :08:49.for asking this question in the short debate. I am proud to be the

:08:50. > :08:52.sole representative of the cross amongst the select band from across

:08:53. > :08:58.those which has assembled to discuss it. The available evidence indicates

:08:59. > :09:02.that the proportion of litigants appearing before civil and family

:09:03. > :09:11.courts without legal representation, litigants in person, also sometimes

:09:12. > :09:15.called self represented litigants, has increased since the legal aid

:09:16. > :09:21.sentencing and punishment of offenders act to many civil and

:09:22. > :09:26.private law, children and family cases out of the scope of legal aid

:09:27. > :09:32.in England and we from April one 2013. I have become involved in

:09:33. > :09:37.these issues through the work of the commission I cheered on the future

:09:38. > :09:44.of advice of legal support on social welfare law and I did clear that as

:09:45. > :09:47.an interest. One of the policy responses the commission has been

:09:48. > :09:53.concerned with has been the Ministry of Justice's decision two years ago

:09:54. > :10:01.to fund and supports litigants in-person support strategy,

:10:02. > :10:06.encouraged by the civil Justice Council work and joined on many of

:10:07. > :10:11.the resources from the pro bono legal information personal support

:10:12. > :10:17.and other support centres such as law life advice website with a

:10:18. > :10:22.personal support unit providing additional capacity and better

:10:23. > :10:27.coordination of the pro bono. Over 1 million people use the advice on our

:10:28. > :10:32.website last year with 50,000 people accessing pro bono legal advice

:10:33. > :10:40.through clinics supported by the strategy and over 50,000 people were

:10:41. > :10:43.provided with practical support via the personal support unit. So the

:10:44. > :10:48.litigants in-person strategy is an litigants in-person strategy is an

:10:49. > :10:54.excellent initiative, but one has to remember that it has been developed

:10:55. > :10:58.in a context in which over 700,000 people have lost their entitlement

:10:59. > :11:04.to legal aid in family and civil matters. Moreover, they now have to

:11:05. > :11:11.pay much steeper fees if they want to bring cases as litigants

:11:12. > :11:17.in-person. In terms of access to justice, this amounts to a double

:11:18. > :11:22.whammy. Over the past few years, these four litigants bringing cases

:11:23. > :11:27.have increased and mushroomed across are several quarts and tribunal is.

:11:28. > :11:33.There have been a number of proposals for further increases.

:11:34. > :11:37.These issues have to be considered together with the impact of legal

:11:38. > :11:45.aid cuts in terms of the outcomes are delivered by the justice system.

:11:46. > :11:52.Take for example, employment tribunal were legal aid was cut to

:11:53. > :12:02.zero, steep tribunal fees were introduced as we have heard at

:12:03. > :12:08.length from the noble Baroness. Since August 2013, from nothing at

:12:09. > :12:16.all, the issue fee in employment tribunal is may now be ?250 and the

:12:17. > :12:20.healing fee as much as ?950 in more complex cases. These may include

:12:21. > :12:27.discrimination, equal pay and unfair dismissal claims. For claims to the

:12:28. > :12:34.employment tribunal, the issue fee is ?400 and the healing fee, ?1200.

:12:35. > :12:40.Fees can be waived if the party cannot afford to pay. However that

:12:41. > :12:52.may be, since introducing fees, the volume of employment tribunal claims

:12:53. > :12:56.has plummeted between October 2013 and September 2014, single claims

:12:57. > :13:03.brought by individuals were 64% down the previous 12 months and multiple

:13:04. > :13:09.claims, those brought by more than one person, were down by 67%. In

:13:10. > :13:15.2015, the number of employment tribunal cases brought by single

:13:16. > :13:22.individuals declined by 67% and the number of multiple claims declined

:13:23. > :13:27.by 72%. Even if one accepts that the imposition of fees was flushing out

:13:28. > :13:33.some under the Tories cases, it is clearly having a negative impact

:13:34. > :13:39.towards access to justice. Last July's report from the other place,

:13:40. > :13:44.criticise many aspects of the fees and charges regime, not just

:13:45. > :13:49.employment tribunal fees but also civil fees which have risen by up to

:13:50. > :13:55.600%. Last autumn there were proposals for an increase of up to

:13:56. > :14:01.500% in immigration tribunal fees, again a jurisdiction that was mostly

:14:02. > :14:06.taken out of the scope of legal aid by the punishing of offenders act.

:14:07. > :14:10.After only a matter of weeks into their implementation, the government

:14:11. > :14:14.had to abandon them when they realise the projected levels of fee

:14:15. > :14:21.income from this level of increase would not materialise as the volume

:14:22. > :14:25.of claims would be so depressed. This seems to be following a

:14:26. > :14:30.familiar pattern from the time when Michael Gove had to scope the

:14:31. > :14:36.criminal courts charge which clearly wasn't working. -- to scrap. Which

:14:37. > :14:40.serve to penalised poor people for the right of citizens to use the

:14:41. > :14:44.courts. That is clearly a strong case for reviewing these massive

:14:45. > :14:49.increases in employment tribunal fees also. I should be grateful if

:14:50. > :14:54.the Minister could tell us whether the government would be willing to

:14:55. > :15:00.consider this? The respected commentator Roger Smith has spoken

:15:01. > :15:03.about the economic cleansing of the courts by deliberately denying poor

:15:04. > :15:09.people access to justice through new economic barriers and much reduced

:15:10. > :15:13.public assistance for supporting litigants through the system. I

:15:14. > :15:17.could go on at length about the false logic and false economy of the

:15:18. > :15:22.MoT seeking full cost recovery and more besides from court users and

:15:23. > :15:27.trying to use court fees as an trying to use court fees as an

:15:28. > :15:32.income generating vehicle to offset the Treasury's meanness to the

:15:33. > :15:35.Ministry of Justice. However, I am interested more broadly on the

:15:36. > :15:41.question of why we reclaim the courts and tribunal is for citizens,

:15:42. > :15:45.especially poor and disadvantaged citizens. Part of the answer must be

:15:46. > :15:53.to make the whole process cheaper with less reliance on expensive

:15:54. > :15:58.paper-based bureaucracy, removal of costly delays in proceedings to more

:15:59. > :16:02.streamline processes and better case management systems to minimise the

:16:03. > :16:07.wastage of court and judicial time. The whole process also needs to be

:16:08. > :16:13.redesigned with the needs of litigants in-person in mind. I am

:16:14. > :16:19.encouraged by proposals for court reform and digitisation and the

:16:20. > :16:25.government take-up of these proposals. However, until one season

:16:26. > :16:30.in operation, one must have 1's reservations about the government

:16:31. > :16:35.commitment to funding better assisted digital legal services to

:16:36. > :16:44.help the least legally or IT literate communities, whether the

:16:45. > :16:52.government's willingness to commit to funding those least legally and

:16:53. > :17:01.IT literate it will actually materialise in practice. -- one sees

:17:02. > :17:10.in operation. My Lords, I too congratulate the noble lady for

:17:11. > :17:18.securing this debate and would -- and also the eloquent way she opened

:17:19. > :17:26.it. The central problem for this debate for me, I and the Woolhouse

:17:27. > :17:31.commend Lord low for the impressive work he and his commission of

:17:32. > :17:36.carried out in this area. Legal aid has meant more litigants in-person

:17:37. > :17:42.while dramatic increases in court fees have restricted access to

:17:43. > :17:48.justice by another route. Cuts in legal aid, especially cuts in scope,

:17:49. > :17:53.were bound to lead to more litigants in-person at their impact in so

:17:54. > :17:57.doing has been dramatic. This has been particularly severe in family

:17:58. > :18:02.cases, mentioned by the noble Lord, because most out of scope. The

:18:03. > :18:09.National audit office report said an increase in cases where neither

:18:10. > :18:15.party are represented of 30% in child contact cases and 22% in

:18:16. > :18:26.family cases overall. Approximately 80% of all family cases have

:18:27. > :18:30.litigants, have at least one litigant in person. In family cases

:18:31. > :18:35.of course this is serious because most litigants come to court when

:18:36. > :18:38.their lives are turbulence and feelings between the parties are

:18:39. > :18:46.highly emotional and often deeply hostile. This is not therefore

:18:47. > :18:50.achieve calm and cool dispute resolution and it certainly is not

:18:51. > :18:56.in the best interest of any children involved. But another civil

:18:57. > :19:02.litigation as well, judges ideally frustrated at trying to get through

:19:03. > :19:06.their lists efficiently and justly while battling to explain to Ang Lee

:19:07. > :19:13.litigants how and where they have gone wrong in the process as well as

:19:14. > :19:15.trying to understand how parties are trying to put their cases and we do

:19:16. > :19:24.make sense in law. The speed and efficiency of the

:19:25. > :19:28.judicial process and inevitably and sadly, so has the quality of

:19:29. > :19:33.justice. At the same time, the cost of cases to the public purse has

:19:34. > :19:36.significantly increased as the National Audit Office and the Public

:19:37. > :19:43.Accounts Committee have pointed out. Diminishing the savings made by

:19:44. > :19:49.cutting legal aid. And to add to the problem, government has thrown into

:19:50. > :19:52.the mix increased court fees, increasing the burden on litigants

:19:53. > :20:01.struggling without representation. These are not just fees to cover

:20:02. > :20:07.administering litigants' own cases but so-called enhanced fees to pay

:20:08. > :20:11.for running the whole system, allowing for profits in some areas

:20:12. > :20:15.in order to pay costs incurred in others. Many of us believe that the

:20:16. > :20:21.state has a fundamental responsibility to provide courts to

:20:22. > :20:25.resolve disputes in accordance with the law and to do so free of charge.

:20:26. > :20:31.But even many who do not take that purist view in difficult times

:20:32. > :20:37.believe there is something deeply offensive about enhanced court fees,

:20:38. > :20:41.charged at levels that exceed the cost of administering the case is

:20:42. > :20:47.concerned, so as to make the whole court system self financing.

:20:48. > :20:50.Furthermore, it was always obvious that introducing very high court

:20:51. > :20:56.fees would reduce the number of cases brought. In 2015, a number of

:20:57. > :21:00.professional bodies assembled evidence which showed that the total

:21:01. > :21:06.value of cases brought by individuals would be likely to fall

:21:07. > :21:09.by around one third with higher court fees, and that for small and

:21:10. > :21:15.medium-sized companies, it would halve. This evidence was in sharp

:21:16. > :21:21.contrast to be complacent and misguided assumptions underlying the

:21:22. > :21:27.Government's impact assessment of higher court fees. First, that the

:21:28. > :21:33.changes will not affect court case volumes. Then, that there are no

:21:34. > :21:39.detrimental impacts on court case outcomes, nor on access to justice

:21:40. > :21:43.from any increase in court fees. Thirdly, that there are no impacts

:21:44. > :21:50.on the legal services used to pursue or defend claims. My Lords, I accept

:21:51. > :21:55.that my party was in coalition at the time, but I spoke out against

:21:56. > :22:00.those fees then, and make no apology for doing so again now. The Lord

:22:01. > :22:05.Chief Justice and senior judiciary described the assumptions as very

:22:06. > :22:12.sweeping and in our view, unduly complacent. And lastly, Lord Dyson,

:22:13. > :22:15.then the Master of the Rolls, gave evidence to the justice Select

:22:16. > :22:18.Committee that they were based on a very limited evidential base and

:22:19. > :22:26.that he was extremely sceptical about them. He described enhanced

:22:27. > :22:32.fees as wrong in principle and the Government's preparatory research as

:22:33. > :22:37.lamentable. In practice, the dire predictions of a reduction in case

:22:38. > :22:43.numbers are proving justified. We need more evidence on civil cases

:22:44. > :22:48.generally, but as the noble Lord has pointed out, the immediate 70%

:22:49. > :22:52.reduction in overall in employment tribunal claims was severe.

:22:53. > :23:00.Furthermore, there was no increase in the success rate of claims. So,

:23:01. > :23:05.one can reduce that fees have not discouraged spurious claims, they

:23:06. > :23:10.have only vented claims, meritorious or not, from being brought. -- only

:23:11. > :23:18.prevented. Michael Gove as Justice Secretary said in the House of

:23:19. > :23:22.Commons, one of the biggest barriers to justice is costs. Action needs to

:23:23. > :23:27.be taken to reduce costs in civil justice. It is not enough simply to

:23:28. > :23:33.say the taxpayer must shoulder the burden. We need reform of our legal

:23:34. > :23:40.system to make access to justice easier for all. On that issue, I

:23:41. > :23:45.agree with Michael Gove. I also agree that the Conservative chair of

:23:46. > :23:50.the Justice committee, who said in June, where there is conflict

:23:51. > :23:54.between the objectives of achieving full cost recovery and preserving

:23:55. > :24:02.access to justice, the latter must avail. -- prevail. Access to justice

:24:03. > :24:07.has been subjected to a pincer movement of restricted legal aid and

:24:08. > :24:11.increased court fees. This has had the dual effect of deterring

:24:12. > :24:16.litigants and reducing the effectiveness of the court system.

:24:17. > :24:20.On legal aid, we need an urgent review of the areas in scope, to see

:24:21. > :24:27.whether hardship is biting deepest and to relieve it. Social welfare

:24:28. > :24:33.and family cases are two of the prime areas for alleviation. We must

:24:34. > :24:39.make it easier to apply for and to secure exceptional case funding. We

:24:40. > :24:43.must review the system for applying for legal aid in domestic violence

:24:44. > :24:49.cases, to make it more humane and easier to navigate. On court fees, I

:24:50. > :24:55.suggest there are three things to be done. First, we should be reducing

:24:56. > :25:00.court fees to a reasonable level, and never more than the cost of

:25:01. > :25:05.administering claims. To ensure that litigants are not deterred by court

:25:06. > :25:12.fees from bringing genuine claims. Secondly, we should be introducing a

:25:13. > :25:16.more fair fee remission scheme. The present capital and disposable

:25:17. > :25:21.income thresholds are far too low, and stop poor litigants from

:25:22. > :25:26.bringing genuine claims. Thirdly, we should be looking at spreading fees

:25:27. > :25:33.in civil litigation more evenly over the life of cases this is done in

:25:34. > :25:37.part already in employment cases. Rather than front loading them, as

:25:38. > :25:41.is done now in civil cases with huge issue fees and only modest fees

:25:42. > :25:49.later on. The present arrangements deter claims to collect, difficult

:25:50. > :25:53.to recover undisputed depths, and encourage unscrupulous debtors to

:25:54. > :26:00.avoid payment in the hope that the fees will put off their creditors.

:26:01. > :26:05.My Lords, these are practical steps, intended to go some way to reverse a

:26:06. > :26:08.steady decline in access to justice over successive governments in

:26:09. > :26:14.recent decades. The measures I have suggested have cost implications,

:26:15. > :26:21.but they are targeted to addressing the most urgent crisis points. In

:26:22. > :26:26.the longer term, only a more wide-ranging review will enable us

:26:27. > :26:30.to restore and sustain access to civil justice to the standard we

:26:31. > :26:35.would all wish to see, and to which we all claim to aspire. And which, I

:26:36. > :26:48.fear, we have painfully failed to attain in recent years. I suppose I

:26:49. > :26:53.should mention that my daughter practices in the field of housing

:26:54. > :26:59.law and serves as a part-time deputy district judge. I must congratulate

:27:00. > :27:02.the noble Baroness on securing this debate, her initiative is the more

:27:03. > :27:07.welcome, coming as it does from a most respected occupant of the

:27:08. > :27:11.off-mac benches. Access to justice has been all too regular a subject

:27:12. > :27:14.of debate in my membership of this House, with the coalition and

:27:15. > :27:18.Conservative governments laying down roadblocks in the form of huge

:27:19. > :27:23.increases in fees wedding already existed, new impositions whereas in

:27:24. > :27:25.the case of implement Rabah N also did not exist, and savage reductions

:27:26. > :27:31.in legal aid, to which noble Lords have already referred. Senior

:27:32. > :27:36.members of the judiciary have repeatedly complained likely that

:27:37. > :27:39.these measures have led to a significant increase in a number of

:27:40. > :27:44.cases in which parties are not represented with the consequential

:27:45. > :27:48.legal equivalent of Burger King, wasting the time of course and

:27:49. > :27:53.proving the old maxim that Justice delayed is justice denied. Lord

:27:54. > :27:55.Dyson giving evidence to the justice Select Committee described the

:27:56. > :28:01.evidence on which the Government based its increase in court fees as

:28:02. > :28:07.hopeless and pointed out that it had consulted all of 31 people on the

:28:08. > :28:10.proposal. Sir Ernest Ryder, in charge of tribunal is an apartment,

:28:11. > :28:15.Ponta to the 70% reduction in tribunal applications, which he

:28:16. > :28:19.described as an extraordinary position that demands an

:28:20. > :28:25.explanation. Needless to say, those are -- no such expiration has been

:28:26. > :28:28.vouchsafed. The fee could be as much as ?1200. The civil justice Council

:28:29. > :28:32.have warned that the reductions and changes in legal aid will have the

:28:33. > :28:36.most serious consequences, not something because of their skill but

:28:37. > :28:39.also by design and incidents. Among other things they would have a

:28:40. > :28:44.disproportionately adverse effect on the most vulnerable. If forecast

:28:45. > :28:48.correctly the number of self represented litigants will increase

:28:49. > :28:52.on a considerable scale, leading to cases been longer than the need to

:28:53. > :28:56.be, and with increasingly wide and serious consequences for the

:28:57. > :28:59.individual families and the state. There have been large reductions in

:29:00. > :29:04.important areas of the law, including housing, weather has been

:29:05. > :29:08.a reduction of 18% in cases at a time whether having record numbers

:29:09. > :29:14.of repossessions in private rented property. Some 40,000 households

:29:15. > :29:23.were affected in 2015 and 53% more than in 2010. -- 40 3000. -- 43,000.

:29:24. > :29:26.The problem is the collapse of the supply side in the ship of legal aid

:29:27. > :29:33.lawyers specialising in housing law so there are areas of the countries,

:29:34. > :29:36.very few and in some cases no legal aid housing providing lawyers. One

:29:37. > :29:43.third of legal aid areas have just one solicitor providing legal aid in

:29:44. > :29:46.housing cases. As the director of the legal aid action group observed,

:29:47. > :29:51.civil aid legal services are in freefall with solicitors' firms and

:29:52. > :29:55.advice centres closing and while legal aid is available, fees are

:29:56. > :30:01.charged that only 57p per hour or ?63 per hour for a court appearance.

:30:02. > :30:06.-- ?57 per hour. It is hardly surprising that there are not many

:30:07. > :30:14.people practising. My charging rate was higher than that when I was last

:30:15. > :30:21.practising. I would surmise that the charges in Scotland might be higher

:30:22. > :30:27.still. Unqualified people assisting litigants are no charging as much as

:30:28. > :30:30.?125 per hour for their services. Shelter has 17 offices offering

:30:31. > :30:33.legal assistance, some of them being the only source in their error. How

:30:34. > :30:41.much has the Government been saving from the impact of the changes in

:30:42. > :30:45.housing law? And reminder budgets -- and from other bodies, which have

:30:46. > :30:47.all been affected as a consequence of evictions and this repair which

:30:48. > :30:53.might have been dealt with by the justice system? In family law there

:30:54. > :30:57.has been a significant drop in cases of domestic violence, which could

:30:58. > :31:03.trigger legal aid but it is not an issue, and that is where legal aid

:31:04. > :31:06.is not available, but the much vaunted alternative by way of

:31:07. > :31:10.mediation has actually fallen by two thirds. The people here are most

:31:11. > :31:14.likely to be affected women and children. Mental health cases have

:31:15. > :31:20.declined due largely to a shrinking of the supply-side of legal advice,

:31:21. > :31:26.as in housing. And welfare cases have season large reductions. Nor

:31:27. > :31:29.have these difficulties combined to individuals -- can find. Small

:31:30. > :31:35.businesses also faced difficulty from higher court fees. The Justice

:31:36. > :31:44.Select Committee report was damning of the Government's policy, and are

:31:45. > :31:52.unlikely to be impressed by what passes for the government's replied.

:31:53. > :31:58.-- reply. One of those pages deals with the controversial employment

:31:59. > :32:03.and immigration tribunal fees and I would be grateful if the Government

:32:04. > :32:06.has at least abandoned that proposal. The Government declared it

:32:07. > :32:10.would publish a review of the employment Tribunal fees in due

:32:11. > :32:15.course. Can the Minister say how long this issue will take to resolve

:32:16. > :32:20.and how long does he expect the pregnancy and discolouration claims

:32:21. > :32:23.today? The Government dismissed the concern about a significant increase

:32:24. > :32:27.for fees and divorce petitions, seeing help is available, but how

:32:28. > :32:30.widely is that no? Insofar as the Government is right to claim women

:32:31. > :32:33.are less likely to have to pay the full feed, is it not the case that

:32:34. > :32:37.by the same token, there are less likely to be able to pay for legal

:32:38. > :32:42.advice and rivers in addition, thereby being placed at a

:32:43. > :32:45.disadvantage and increasing the problem of litigants in person? The

:32:46. > :32:49.Government and responding to the suggestion that there should be a

:32:50. > :32:53.graduate of the declared a balance had to be struck between the 70

:32:54. > :32:58.fixed fees Andrade more for those who make greater use of the course.

:32:59. > :33:02.Can the Minister explain this? Does greater use Roberta frequency and if

:33:03. > :33:06.so, in one sense, or content? Will and income or means related system

:33:07. > :33:10.not be sufficient? The committee suggested the employment tribunal

:33:11. > :33:13.cases that the respondent should pay but the suggestion was rejected

:33:14. > :33:17.because respondents have little influence over the decision to

:33:18. > :33:21.mitigate or stop it is an interesting argument. A recalcitrant

:33:22. > :33:26.employer must not be troubled by paying a fee but a dismissed

:33:27. > :33:31.employee must fork out an amount disproportionate to the claim. I

:33:32. > :33:36.mentioned immigration cases, and I welcome the fact the Government have

:33:37. > :33:39.not proposed an increase of these but immigration judges report high

:33:40. > :33:44.levels of unrepresented applicants, contrary to the impression given by

:33:45. > :33:48.the official statistics, which were questioned in the letter to Michael

:33:49. > :33:55.Gove by an immigration lawyer in 2015.

:33:56. > :34:00.Litigants for Suffolk the additional difficulty of not being able to

:34:01. > :34:05.speak English. So far it has resolutely resisted and insist that

:34:06. > :34:09.will only do so after five years of the operation. Given the scale of

:34:10. > :34:13.concerns, at the time of the review, why will the government not now

:34:14. > :34:17.settled that review and least the respect of the most contentious

:34:18. > :34:20.areas? I conclude with the further short points, the first is to remind

:34:21. > :34:24.the House that the government was my proposals on the increase of the

:34:25. > :34:27.small claims it will engender more problems for litigants and a further

:34:28. > :34:32.depletion of qualified lawyers wishing to undertake cases. The

:34:33. > :34:36.second is that the courts impose additional costs on parties now

:34:37. > :34:39.having to travel to have their cases heard. And finally, I would like to

:34:40. > :34:43.commend the work that the public support unit which has been

:34:44. > :34:46.mentioned tonight who staff and volunteers do valiant work in

:34:47. > :34:52.non-legal support of litigants in person as they encounter unfamiliar

:34:53. > :34:54.experiences in the court centres that they support. Will the

:34:55. > :34:58.government at the very least help this organisation as it attempts to

:34:59. > :35:02.hold those and help those whose access the judgment has been made

:35:03. > :35:12.more difficult by this government and its predecessors?

:35:13. > :35:14.My Lords, I am grateful to the noble lady Baroness Gardner of Parkes

:35:15. > :35:19.securing the debate today. On this important subject. And to the House

:35:20. > :35:24.for its valuable contributions they have made to the debate. I would

:35:25. > :35:27.begin by saying that the government is committed to ensuring that the

:35:28. > :35:32.justice system continues to be accessible to all and that it deals

:35:33. > :35:37.with disputes fairly and justly and that it continues to work for all

:35:38. > :35:43.its users. A number of your noble lord ships and the noble lady

:35:44. > :35:47.Baroness Thatcher have referred to the matter of the employment

:35:48. > :35:55.tribunal 's and the employment tribunal fees. And as the noble Lord

:35:56. > :36:01.Beecham noted in his observations, that has been the subject of a

:36:02. > :36:06.review at the instance of the government. -- baroness and are.

:36:07. > :36:12.What I can tell you is that that review, which was essentially to

:36:13. > :36:18.address the issue of applications in light of the three matters, a review

:36:19. > :36:22.of the impact of the introduction of fees on the employment tribunal 's

:36:23. > :36:29.Andy employment appeal Tribunal has made a very good progress and we do

:36:30. > :36:35.expect to publish the results of that review in the very near future.

:36:36. > :36:39.I cannot at this stage, regret, be more specific than that, but I hope

:36:40. > :36:43.that the noble Lord Beecham will accept that it is our intention to

:36:44. > :36:50.publish as soon as we reasonably can and that is anticipated to be in the

:36:51. > :36:54.near future. It is appreciated that the number of applications to

:36:55. > :36:57.employment tribunal 's have reduced since the introduction of fees but I

:36:58. > :37:03.would notice that the introduction of fees was incidental with the

:37:04. > :37:06.development and mediation services in the context of employment

:37:07. > :37:11.applications, and therefore, one cannot simply attribute any

:37:12. > :37:15.reduction to fees being introduced in that respect. It would not be

:37:16. > :37:19.appropriate for me to anticipate the outcome of the review that has been

:37:20. > :37:28.carried out and must be published in the near future. I am sorry to

:37:29. > :37:34.interrupt, had any work being done to assess how far there is a match

:37:35. > :37:40.between the increase in mediation services and the drop-off? I would

:37:41. > :37:44.not wish to anticipate the outcome of the review, which will be

:37:45. > :37:49.published, and we will look at the matter in light of that review once

:37:50. > :37:55.it has been published. If I can turn for a moment away from employment

:37:56. > :38:03.tribunal 's to the matter of the property law issues that were raised

:38:04. > :38:06.by the noble baroness in her opening speech and it is necessary to

:38:07. > :38:12.remember that when you look at the matter of course, it is not just a

:38:13. > :38:16.matter of fees, it is not just a matter of legal costs that may be

:38:17. > :38:22.incurred in litigation, there is the matter of recovery of costs in that

:38:23. > :38:26.context as well and in that area, some considerable progress has been

:38:27. > :38:29.made, particularly with regard to the matter of applications to the

:38:30. > :38:37.property chamber. As noble lords will be aware, provision had already

:38:38. > :38:42.been made with regard to preventing landlords and in some instances at

:38:43. > :38:46.least, from recovering costs by way of service charge against

:38:47. > :38:54.leaseholders. That has now been extended or will be extended by

:38:55. > :38:59.virtue of section 131 of the housing and planning at 2016, which will

:39:00. > :39:03.also endeavour to prevent landlords recovering such costs by way of

:39:04. > :39:11.administrative charges. So steps are being taken to try to limit the cost

:39:12. > :39:17.liability of those who do have regard to these tribunal 's and to

:39:18. > :39:23.these courts. Now, the noble lady also expressed some concern

:39:24. > :39:26.regarding the operation of costs and in general, parties meet their own

:39:27. > :39:31.costs of litigating in the tribunal system, even when they are

:39:32. > :39:36.successful with the claim but there are some exceptions to that and the

:39:37. > :39:41.procedural rules. As the noble baroness noted, there was a cap of

:39:42. > :39:48.?500 in respect of the cost rules of the property chamber, although that

:39:49. > :39:52.was rarely used, I understand. The tribunal Procedure Committee has

:39:53. > :39:58.noted that there is concern about the movement of that cap and it does

:39:59. > :40:04.intend to seek a consultation ASDA bother to reintroduce a cap for

:40:05. > :40:08.costs for unreasonable conduct any sort of cases. If such a cap is to

:40:09. > :40:12.be reintroduced to address the question at the water level it

:40:13. > :40:16.should be set, again, in that regard, some progress has been made

:40:17. > :40:23.and I would hope the report for the injured course. The noble lady,

:40:24. > :40:28.Baroness Gardner of Parkes refers to that, those who do not have

:40:29. > :40:32.representation when it comes to trials at courts. Those using the

:40:33. > :40:36.system are not required to be legally represented and tribunal 's

:40:37. > :40:39.are characterised by an approach which is deliberately less formal

:40:40. > :40:43.than is generally found in the courts and the tribunal panel

:40:44. > :40:47.members themselves as the noble Baroness noted, are trained to

:40:48. > :40:53.assist unrepresented parties but helping to frame the way in which

:40:54. > :40:56.the present their case to the tribunal. Of course, this issue is

:40:57. > :41:01.dealt with differently in the courts but in November 20 14th the support

:41:02. > :41:04.strategy for litigants in person was launched and this involves work by a

:41:05. > :41:09.range of partners across the sector to improve the experience of

:41:10. > :41:13.vulnerable litigants in person in the fundamental ways. Firstly,

:41:14. > :41:15.providing online and self-help resources and making sure that those

:41:16. > :41:22.who need them know where they are and how to access them. A point

:41:23. > :41:25.raised by the noble Lord Marks earlier. Secondly, providing

:41:26. > :41:29.practical and emotional support and providing access to free or

:41:30. > :41:33.affordable advice and representation, whenever possible.

:41:34. > :41:37.Now, of course, any legal proceedings are likely to be

:41:38. > :41:40.stressful and that is particularly the case in matters concerning

:41:41. > :41:45.families and children, one could not doubt that. But there is support

:41:46. > :41:52.therefore those who become involved in these proceedings. Can I move

:41:53. > :41:57.onto a more general issue of costs? Because we have to address the fact

:41:58. > :42:03.that the cost of our courts and tribunal 's has to be met in some

:42:04. > :42:07.form or another. The Ministry of Justice is not a protected

:42:08. > :42:11.Department and it does face a very challenging financial settlement. We

:42:12. > :42:19.must reduce annual spending by 15% in real terms, that is about ?1

:42:20. > :42:23.billion by 2019 to 2020. Achieving that scale of financial saving

:42:24. > :42:26.inevitably require is difficult and tough decisions. We need to look at

:42:27. > :42:30.every area of the department's spending and there can be no

:42:31. > :42:33.exceptions for tribunal is. I hope that the noble lords will recognise

:42:34. > :42:38.that to ensure that they are properly funded and that access to

:42:39. > :42:44.justice is protected, increases to some court fees are required. The

:42:45. > :42:48.cost of our courts and tribunal systems to the taxpayer is

:42:49. > :42:51.unsustainably high and it must be right that those who use the system

:42:52. > :42:56.p more to believe that burden. However, Parliament has granted

:42:57. > :42:59.through the anti-social behaviour crime and policing at 2014 a power

:43:00. > :43:03.that allows the government to set court and tribunal fees at a level

:43:04. > :43:08.above the cost of the service and I acknowledge that and Lord Marks

:43:09. > :43:13.referenced that. The income from those fees must be used to find an

:43:14. > :43:16.efficient and effective system of courts and tribunal is, so when

:43:17. > :43:20.setting fees the Lord Chancellor must have regard to a number of

:43:21. > :43:25.factors, including the need to preserve access to justice. And

:43:26. > :43:28.respects of tribunal fees, the government firmly believes it is

:43:29. > :43:32.right to ask users of the service to make contributions to the cost of

:43:33. > :43:37.providing such services and reference having been made to the

:43:38. > :43:41.property tribunal, I would note that the fees are set at a level below

:43:42. > :43:46.the actual costs incurred, not above it or even equal to it. That is the

:43:47. > :43:49.help for Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon scheme which helps those who cannot

:43:50. > :43:54.afford to pay and in addition, the Lord Chancellor has the power to

:43:55. > :43:59.limit Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon in exceptional circumstances. In the

:44:00. > :44:04.property chamber, and in particular the first-tier Tribunal, a new fee

:44:05. > :44:09.structure was introduced in July 2016 to simplify matters, a single

:44:10. > :44:14.issue three of ?100, hardly an insurmountable burden for a

:44:15. > :44:26.leaseholder with a further fee of ?200 in respect of the review of an

:44:27. > :44:31.application. We must see all of this against the background of proposals

:44:32. > :44:37.to modernise our whole court and tribunal system and indeed,

:44:38. > :44:40.reference was made to the support by the noble lord and to the government

:44:41. > :44:47.having decided to address that and the review how they can take forward

:44:48. > :44:54.the whole process of digitisation in the court process. The removal of

:44:55. > :44:57.paper, wherever it can be done, the streamlining of case management,

:44:58. > :45:01.wherever that can be achieved, all of that is an immediate goal of the

:45:02. > :45:06.present government and indeed, proposals are coming forward quite

:45:07. > :45:10.imminently to address that whole process of digitisation. Yes, it

:45:11. > :45:16.will take time, it will take years to implement that sort of proposal

:45:17. > :45:22.fully, but we have begun that task. And that task will improve, well, I

:45:23. > :45:26.suggest, immeasurably improve, the whole matter of access to justice.

:45:27. > :45:30.It will demystify the court process and hopefully, allow those who do

:45:31. > :45:33.not have legal representation to understand how they apply to the

:45:34. > :45:38.court, how they proceed through the courts in order to vindicate rights

:45:39. > :45:46.and in order to seek a secure justice. That extends to all of

:45:47. > :45:50.those who might be vulnerable to all of those who might be in difficulty,

:45:51. > :45:55.to all of those who feel they have a just climb. Ultimately, these

:45:56. > :46:02.proposals, these changes will deliver swifter justice. So our

:46:03. > :46:05.wider reforms underlie a guiding principle that our justice system

:46:06. > :46:14.must be proportionate and accessible to everyone. And that means members

:46:15. > :46:19.of the public, legal professionals, witnesses, litigants, the

:46:20. > :46:27.vulnerable, victims of crime and, of course, the judiciary themselves.

:46:28. > :46:36.My Lords, I beg to move the House do now I Jardim until 20:38pm. The

:46:37. > :46:43.question is that the House do adjourn until 8:38pm. As many of the

:46:44. > :47:18.position C content, not content, the content habit. -- have it.

:47:19. > :47:24.Pieres get the opportunity to put the government of the day under the

:47:25. > :47:26.spotlight at question time. It is the first item of business every

:47:27. > :47:33.Monday to Thursday in the House of Lords. In each session, there are

:47:34. > :47:35.format questions which can be on any topic. The government gives notice

:47:36. > :47:40.of most of these well in advance, but spots are kept open for topical

:47:41. > :47:48.questions on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. The winner gets drawn

:47:49. > :47:52.out of a hat a few days before. I beg leave to ask the question

:47:53. > :47:56.standing in my name on the order paper. The minister and stars and

:47:57. > :48:00.the original questioner gets a follow-up. The flaw is then open to

:48:01. > :48:06.everyone else in the Chamber who can ask whatever they want as long as it

:48:07. > :48:13.relates to the original question. Why will Eurostar not take pets

:48:14. > :48:18.because you can take your God in the sleeper to Scotland and all of the

:48:19. > :48:22.ferries take dogs, why not Eurostar? Unlike any comments, where each

:48:23. > :48:26.department has a number of different ministers with specific areas of

:48:27. > :48:30.responsibility, ministers and the Lords must be ready to field any

:48:31. > :48:36.question on the whole department. They have to be completely on top of

:48:37. > :48:42.their prey. Would the noble lord the Minister accept my assurance that he

:48:43. > :48:54.should be careful in dealing with the issue of ferries? We had a very,

:48:55. > :49:06.my Lords, belonging to my son and she did enjoy trouser legs. I think

:49:07. > :49:10.the noble lady has given us a tremendous reason as to why we

:49:11. > :49:15.should be cautious of ferrets. They were 68 ferries that came in last

:49:16. > :49:21.year under the pet scheme and I very much hope that everyone has taken

:49:22. > :49:26.note of what the noble lady has said about trousers. A Lord's question

:49:27. > :49:31.marks about eight minutes, much longer than any comments or it is

:49:32. > :49:34.that much harder to wriggle out of answering an awkward one. Pieres can

:49:35. > :49:39.go into much more detail so there is the greater risk that ministers get

:49:40. > :49:42.caught out. Oral questions of the busiest part of the day in the

:49:43. > :49:48.Chamber. The benches are always packed. I beg leave to as the

:49:49. > :49:52.question standing in my name. With the number of peers at over 800 and

:49:53. > :49:56.still rising, this place is fit to burst.

:49:57. > :50:02.As numbers grow, asking a question gets harder. The traditional

:50:03. > :50:06.courtesy and conventions always decided who gets to speak, but this

:50:07. > :50:15.gets forgotten when peers struggled to be heard and things can get quite

:50:16. > :50:19.heated. My lords... My Lord stud-mac -- my Lords... When good manners

:50:20. > :50:23.were out of the window, the referee, the Leader of the House, not the

:50:24. > :50:30.Lord Speaker, steps into cool down. I may suggest that the Liberal

:50:31. > :50:32.Democrat Baroness and the Green Party burners decide between

:50:33. > :50:37.themselves who would like to give way. The Parliamentary rule book

:50:38. > :50:43.says that the purpose of questions is to obtain information, or press

:50:44. > :50:46.for action. Though perhaps the bigger question is, how many peers

:50:47. > :51:33.actually got the answers they were looking for?

:51:34. > :51:40.Order. Questions to the Prime Minister. The goings on in

:51:41. > :51:43.Parliament are watched closely in the comments and counterclaims are

:51:44. > :51:49.pored over, especially at busy times like this. Of course, there are

:51:50. > :51:53.times when there are fewer people taking notice, times like this. But

:51:54. > :51:56.even in those quiet times, there are two sets of eyes and ears ticking

:51:57. > :52:03.down, witnessing everything that happens here. And they sit here and

:52:04. > :52:06.on the Speaker's chair. They are the reporters of Hansard and they have

:52:07. > :52:11.been there for centuries with different staff over the years. How

:52:12. > :52:15.does this work? To reporters at any given time are in these seats. We

:52:16. > :52:20.call this the box. It is difficult to get in and out but you have the

:52:21. > :52:24.best view in the house. You are craning your neck, searching the

:52:25. > :52:29.benches for any, anything that people would say that you need to

:52:30. > :52:32.put into the record. It is an edited verbatim report, a purely verbatim

:52:33. > :52:36.report would not be a useful thing as a written record so we translate

:52:37. > :52:43.the spoken to the written so the record can stand the test of time.

:52:44. > :52:49.The reporters watch back video of the debate they made notes on, then

:52:50. > :52:53.take it up, editing as they go. The deadline is a very tight so if I am

:52:54. > :52:58.doing a five-minute turn, a chunk of debate that we report, I have 45

:52:59. > :53:02.minutes to get that done and onto the sub editor's desk. I then have a

:53:03. > :53:06.few minutes before I go back into the chamber for the next one.

:53:07. > :53:10.Hansard has been the official record Parliament since 1909, but for

:53:11. > :53:15.hundreds of years before that, there were competing journals documenting

:53:16. > :53:17.what was happening. It is interesting standing here, seeing

:53:18. > :53:22.this huge role of books, and if we look at the years they cover, we can

:53:23. > :53:26.see that they started in the early 18th century. We have to walk quite

:53:27. > :53:30.a long way before we get to the Battle of Waterloo, and even further

:53:31. > :53:35.before we get to the First World War. It is only by this point, when

:53:36. > :53:40.I have walked quite a long way, that we get to the 1940s and the Second

:53:41. > :53:44.World War. These days, most of our customers access Hansard in digital

:53:45. > :53:50.form. In those days, the print run was quite big. When I joined Hansard

:53:51. > :53:54.there were still many thousands of daily additions being published. And

:53:55. > :53:58.also, all these lovely bound volumes were sent out to all the libraries

:53:59. > :54:03.in the country as a way of distributing them. These days, we

:54:04. > :54:07.produced several hundred daily copies, which members still like to

:54:08. > :54:11.use in the chamber, and very few of these bound volumes. A lot of our

:54:12. > :54:15.work recently has been aimed at making our digital content more

:54:16. > :54:20.effective. House of Commons business is available to read on the Hansard

:54:21. > :54:24.website, within three hours. You can search for your own MP, for example.

:54:25. > :54:26.That is quicker than sitting through hours and hours of debate. They do

:54:27. > :57:07.that so you do not have to. The higher education and research

:57:08. > :57:12.bill. I beg to move the House du Niall McGinn resolve itself into a

:57:13. > :57:14.committee upon the bill. The question is the House du resolve

:57:15. > :57:17.itself into coup -- committee upon the bill. As many as are of the

:57:18. > :57:28.opinion say, "Content," to the contrary, "Not content." The

:57:29. > :57:39.contents have it. Higher Education Bill, after clause nine, amendment

:57:40. > :57:43.118. My Lords, I beg to move 118. Although I am a thoroughgoing

:57:44. > :57:46.advocate of Freedom of Information, I am very much conscious of what my

:57:47. > :57:53.noble friend Lord Willets said shortly before supper, that we must

:57:54. > :57:59.be careful of the degree of obligations and the direction of

:58:00. > :58:04.obligations we put on universities. So, this amendment is very much

:58:05. > :58:09.phrased as not prescribing any particular outcome but saying the

:58:10. > :58:18.outcome must be equal, and that is born of my experience, when the time

:58:19. > :58:22.has reached -- was reached under the last command when UCAS was deemed to

:58:23. > :58:26.have public functions and was made subject to the Freedom of

:58:27. > :58:31.Information Act. -- the last government. I immediately requested

:58:32. > :58:38.some information from UCAS and was refused, and went through the appeal

:58:39. > :58:44.procedure. Having been ruled partially in my favour, UCAS went

:58:45. > :58:52.through two sets of tribunal is with QCs, it must have cost them about

:58:53. > :58:55.half ?1 million to resist the commission's attempts to pin them to

:58:56. > :59:03.the Freedom of Information Act obligations. But is perhaps my -- by

:59:04. > :59:08.I reacted so fiercely to Lady Brown when she quoted commercial

:59:09. > :59:12.interests, because UCAS's order of priorities was first of all making

:59:13. > :59:17.money, secondly I'm looking after the universities and thirdly, the

:59:18. > :59:20.students. The -- I did not think that was right and nor do I think it

:59:21. > :59:27.is right that universities put money first and other things second. We

:59:28. > :59:30.are dealing, or ought to be dealing, with different kinds of

:59:31. > :59:33.institutions. But on the bits I never got through the commission on,

:59:34. > :59:37.some of which are bits of information which I now -- are now

:59:38. > :59:45.being made available through this bill, the reason I failed was, the

:59:46. > :59:49.inequality of treatment of universities which were subject to

:59:50. > :59:52.Freedom of Information Act, and other high against St Mary de Haura

:59:53. > :59:59.Church higher education institutions which were not. -- other higher

:00:00. > :00:06.education situations. That created a commercial tension between those who

:00:07. > :00:11.might have been asked to reveal information on those who were not

:00:12. > :00:15.subject to FOIA, which prevented information being released under

:00:16. > :00:19.FOIA. This is just my recommendation to the government, whatever you do,

:00:20. > :00:28.do the same with everybody, then everybody has to comply. I beg to

:00:29. > :00:31.move. Proposed, insert the following new clause entitled Freedom of

:00:32. > :00:42.Information followed by the words on the list. I have amendment two 38.

:00:43. > :00:48.-- 238. It follows on from what George Lucas has just been saying

:00:49. > :00:53.about equality of treatment. -- Lord Lucas. The bill creates three types

:00:54. > :00:58.of registered providers that are basic, approved and approved with a

:00:59. > :01:01.fee cap. Universities are currently subject to the Freedom of

:01:02. > :01:04.Information Act 2000 but in order to ensure a level playing field in

:01:05. > :01:08.terms of access to information, we believe it is important for all

:01:09. > :01:13.registered providers designated for the purpose of student support under

:01:14. > :01:17.section 22 of the teaching of higher education act 1998, to be subject to

:01:18. > :01:22.the same level of public scrutiny. Schedule 11 of the bill as drafted

:01:23. > :01:27.currently leaves open what categories of provider should be

:01:28. > :01:30.caught by Freedom of Information by leaping to the Secretary of State to

:01:31. > :01:34.specify categories and McGillis is. If there is the appetite to be more

:01:35. > :01:42.prescriptive, the schedule could adopt the revised new clause for a

:01:43. > :01:45.wording has proposed. Universities are Kammy subject to the Freedom of

:01:46. > :01:51.Information Act 2000, if we propose further consideration to be given as

:01:52. > :01:55.to whether adherents should be a condition for initial registration

:01:56. > :02:01.for Hydro -- higher education providers do -- designated her

:02:02. > :02:06.purpose of student support. This new clause would amend the Freedom of

:02:07. > :02:11.Information Act so as to apply its provisions to or higher education

:02:12. > :02:15.providers designated for the purpose of student support, which are

:02:16. > :02:20.registered with the OFS. This means registered providers which are

:02:21. > :02:22.eligible for public grant funding and, or, access to student loans and

:02:23. > :02:34.I look forward to the Minister's replied. -- reply. I have not

:02:35. > :02:38.thought about this topic before. So I welcome the amendment that has

:02:39. > :02:44.been moved, but I must say that on the face of it, I very much agree

:02:45. > :02:51.with what Lord Lucas has said. It seems to me that there is an

:02:52. > :02:54.invisible case for a level playing field. It would be interesting to

:02:55. > :03:00.know from the Minister what he regards as the argument against a

:03:01. > :03:08.level playing field on this question. What is his argument

:03:09. > :03:15.against it? And it also seems to me that I am relaxed, personally, about

:03:16. > :03:22.new entrants to the higher education market, I want to see more diversity

:03:23. > :03:31.and innovation in higher in higher education. But if this is to happen,

:03:32. > :03:38.there are clearly risks, of the Trump University type, as we know

:03:39. > :03:46.from the United States. It seems to me that requiring everyone to be as

:03:47. > :03:50.open in their dealings as public institutions, I say not public

:03:51. > :03:54.sector, I do not believe universities are public sector

:03:55. > :04:01.institutions, but they are public institutions, that requiring them to

:04:02. > :04:03.be, requiring everybody to comply with Freedom of Information

:04:04. > :04:11.obligations seems to be a highly desirable thing.

:04:12. > :04:19.My boards I am not certain as to whether these amendments, both of

:04:20. > :04:24.them, will in fact plays a statutory duty of whether they are intended to

:04:25. > :04:26.enforce some kind of contractual obligation in order to be

:04:27. > :04:30.registered, because you have to agree to do this and that. That

:04:31. > :04:38.would not quite be the same thing. -- my Lords. And I just wonder,

:04:39. > :04:45.there are important distinctions between universities and other

:04:46. > :04:50.providers of higher education. Whether that level playing field

:04:51. > :04:54.that has been referred to applies across that divide is an interesting

:04:55. > :05:01.question that I would be glad to know the answers to. I would briefly

:05:02. > :05:09.rise to say that I think it is incredibly important for the student

:05:10. > :05:12.and for society as a whole that all providers of higher education are

:05:13. > :05:21.subject to Freedom of Information requests. I will give you a couple

:05:22. > :05:25.of examples. If there are a number of private colleges which provide

:05:26. > :05:31.higher education and if you wish to find out what the progression rates

:05:32. > :05:37.are, the books are closed. You are not allowed to do that. But if you

:05:38. > :05:43.went to university and said we would like to know what the progression

:05:44. > :05:48.rates are by the students a year on year, that could be obtained by

:05:49. > :05:59.information requests. It should be the same for universities as it is

:06:00. > :06:02.for any private provider. Yes. My Lords, I rise to say that I think

:06:03. > :06:11.the level playing field for those in receipt of public money and with

:06:12. > :06:16.students who have fees from government loans should indeed have

:06:17. > :06:19.a level playing field but I think we must reflect on the comment of David

:06:20. > :06:24.Willetts about do we want to add more requirements or do they

:06:25. > :06:30.actually want to take some of them away? Having recently been a vice

:06:31. > :06:35.Chancellor I know that universities get memories Freedom of Information

:06:36. > :06:39.requests, some from local newspapers in the area want to know bits of

:06:40. > :06:42.information about vice chancellors and staff and other things, for

:06:43. > :06:48.example, and is it really reasonable that we should be spending students'

:06:49. > :06:56.fees on responding to this sort of trivial request? I think the kind of

:06:57. > :06:59.key data that you need to know about universities, things like

:07:00. > :07:05.progression rates, this bill will make sure that is available to do to

:07:06. > :07:08.register providers, that is very important, it is not about

:07:09. > :07:11.universities trying to hide things, I think the bill does require

:07:12. > :07:15.universities to provide the right kind of data that students need to

:07:16. > :07:20.know, but I think you are levelling the playing field and I think we

:07:21. > :07:23.should follow the advice of David Willetts and take some of the

:07:24. > :07:31.requirements of Rather than simply having more requirements on.

:07:32. > :07:36.My Lords, having blasted off at Lord Wallace in the previous amendment, I

:07:37. > :07:48.cannot go back on that, and I will not follow up the noble baroness on

:07:49. > :07:51.that one. But like the learned Lord, they are within the Freedom of

:07:52. > :07:54.Information Act or they are not, if they are not, they will get the

:07:55. > :08:00.information in other ways, that does not matter. But if you have to

:08:01. > :08:02.question the other way round, would you have the university sector as

:08:03. > :08:06.prestigious as some of our institutions that was not covered by

:08:07. > :08:14.a Freedom of Information at, you would find that quite strange. My

:08:15. > :08:17.Lords, the government has given careful consideration to the range

:08:18. > :08:24.of views expressed in response to our green paper. That is 2015 in

:08:25. > :08:28.relation to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to higher

:08:29. > :08:34.education providers. Over 100 cons of these responses were received on

:08:35. > :08:37.this issue perhaps surprisingly poignant was divided. The underlying

:08:38. > :08:40.principle behind Freedom of Information legislation is that they

:08:41. > :08:45.will have a right to know about the activities of public authorities.

:08:46. > :08:49.And though not traditionally required as public authorities in

:08:50. > :08:54.the wider sense, the act applies to the funded institutions in

:08:55. > :08:58.recognition of the fact that they are in receipt of direct public

:08:59. > :09:02.funding. In seeking to apply the Freedom of Information Act equally

:09:03. > :09:06.to all providers, the effect of the amendment tabled by my noble friend

:09:07. > :09:09.Lord Lucas and I thanked him, would either be to remove all I read the

:09:10. > :09:13.quiche and providers from the remit of the act or impose an additional

:09:14. > :09:16.Freedom of Information obligation on providers who are not currently

:09:17. > :09:20.already covered. Irrespective of whether they receive direct public

:09:21. > :09:25.funding. This amendment would extend the scope of freedom of information

:09:26. > :09:30.obligations, in this case, to all registered higher education

:09:31. > :09:33.providers and is of course designated for student support. Any

:09:34. > :09:37.2015 green paper we consider the application of the act and the

:09:38. > :09:41.regulatory costs could impose on higher education providers, some of

:09:42. > :09:44.which may be relatively small organisations. Having considered the

:09:45. > :09:50.views expressed by range of stakeholders, our decision was so

:09:51. > :09:52.far as gospel to maintain the status quo by providing Freedom of

:09:53. > :09:57.Information obligations on those providers who are in future are

:09:58. > :10:01.eligible to receive grant funding from the office of students, namely

:10:02. > :10:07.approved the cap providers. As part of our overall principle of

:10:08. > :10:10.risk-based regulation and seeking to reduce regulation costs and barriers

:10:11. > :10:14.to entry when appropriate, we did not consider there was a strong case

:10:15. > :10:18.for expanding the scope of the Freedom of Information Act more

:10:19. > :10:22.broadly. We already believe that more higher education providers

:10:23. > :10:27.would be regulated through our reforms. And then this short debate,

:10:28. > :10:33.I did want to address an interesting question posed by Lord Liddle and

:10:34. > :10:37.supported by Lord story, which basically, they just this question

:10:38. > :10:42.was why that this bill seek to provide a regularly playing field

:10:43. > :10:46.across the board? I would like to expand on my answer that the bill

:10:47. > :10:48.continues in a different approach whereby those who received the more

:10:49. > :10:52.significant public funding direct from the public purse are subject to

:10:53. > :10:58.the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and this is a

:10:59. > :11:03.targeted approach to regulation, imposing requirements on those... I

:11:04. > :11:09.am not trying to be difficult but when you talk about direct public

:11:10. > :11:16.funding, does that mean any institution where a students can

:11:17. > :11:23.receive a loan in order to carry out their studies, because in my view,

:11:24. > :11:28.anyone who is eligible for a student loan, there is an element of public

:11:29. > :11:35.funding because as we know, there is going to be write-offs of these

:11:36. > :11:42.loans in future from... By the government. So I think that this

:11:43. > :11:49.phrase about direct public funding, with the greatest of respect,

:11:50. > :11:52.Minister, it is a bit of a copout. Well, it is that the more

:11:53. > :11:56.complicated than that and it could be that there is a letter that I

:11:57. > :12:00.should like to clarify, but there is the funding, of course, only student

:12:01. > :12:06.side of the tuition fee and the argument here is that, in fact, you

:12:07. > :12:09.are talking about the private individual receiving private funding

:12:10. > :12:12.and then on the other side, what we are speaking about here is the

:12:13. > :12:19.funding that comes, for example, in the form of a grant to help with Tom

:12:20. > :12:22.Pope, for example, for a high-cost course. It would be good if I wrote

:12:23. > :12:28.a letter of clarification about that. There has been some discussion

:12:29. > :12:31.outside the Chamber about this and it gives me the opportunity to be

:12:32. > :12:38.able to write to him further. Having said all of that, there is more that

:12:39. > :12:41.I wanted to see on that. Before the minister finishes, I wonder if I

:12:42. > :12:51.could ask, does that direct public funding include QR funding and

:12:52. > :12:56.research funding from UKRI? I would be planted to add that to the letter

:12:57. > :13:01.for clarification, these are complicated aspects that require

:13:02. > :13:05.proper qualification. -- I would be delighted. Just to complete my

:13:06. > :13:08.answer to the noble lord Lidl, providers, and he will have probably

:13:09. > :13:15.guessed, will come future in shapes and sizes and one size fits all

:13:16. > :13:18.approach to such risks could impose unwarranted costs on smaller

:13:19. > :13:24.providers and new entrants which could stifle Bible is the specs of

:13:25. > :13:27.competition in the sector. The independent commission of Freedom of

:13:28. > :13:32.Information concluded that the current application of the FOI Act

:13:33. > :13:34.is appropriate. The considered evidence was looked at and it could

:13:35. > :13:39.please others at a disadvantage compared with alternative advisers

:13:40. > :13:45.-- providers and founded unpersuasive. In addition to

:13:46. > :13:50.comments made by my noble friend, I thought they put it rather so simply

:13:51. > :13:58.and it backs up the access to this debate. It has been helpful to have

:13:59. > :14:03.this particular discussion. Given the importance of information to the

:14:04. > :14:05.effect and scrutiny of higher education providers, we have to

:14:06. > :14:08.produce provisions elsewhere in the bill to provide a high degree of

:14:09. > :14:13.regulatory oversight and transparency. For example, causes

:14:14. > :14:18.eight and nine would require the office for students to impose

:14:19. > :14:20.ongoing registration conditions on higher education institutions and

:14:21. > :14:27.provided by the permission required to out its functions and publish

:14:28. > :14:31.specified information. The noble Lord, Lord story, raised the point

:14:32. > :14:35.about information availability and if I could attempt to answer that

:14:36. > :14:39.point, because to this bill we are making more information available to

:14:40. > :14:44.students, as he will know, hopefully he will know, than ever before. For

:14:45. > :14:48.example, both approved and the approved the cap providers will be

:14:49. > :14:53.subject to the transparency of duty in Clause nine as discussed earlier

:14:54. > :14:57.in committee. It will make it easier for more information to be available

:14:58. > :15:03.to students. With that, I would hope that the noble lord would agree to

:15:04. > :15:06.withdraw his amendment. My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for

:15:07. > :15:16.that answer, if a little disappointed. As I learned in making

:15:17. > :15:21.the application for information and going through the tribunal and

:15:22. > :15:26.afterwards, if you allow this difference of treatment, you

:15:27. > :15:31.effectively say to all of the institutions which are covered by

:15:32. > :15:36.Freedom of Information, that all you need to do is claim commercial

:15:37. > :15:42.confidentiality and you do not have to publish anything. And the stuff,

:15:43. > :15:45.anything that is commercially confidential is information that

:15:46. > :15:52.might affect a student in making a decision about which institution to

:15:53. > :15:58.go to. So anything that is important and interesting becomes

:15:59. > :16:01.unpublishable and the Freedom of Information registration has no

:16:02. > :16:05.function, except to find out what the Vice Chancellor had for

:16:06. > :16:08.breakfast, which is, you know, clearly not commercially

:16:09. > :16:12.confidential and therefore, we can't continue to plague you on that. But

:16:13. > :16:16.it ceases to have a function. There is no point in registering

:16:17. > :16:23.institutions for the Freedom of Information Act if you then this

:16:24. > :16:26.apply it on such a large scale by failing to register their

:16:27. > :16:29.competitors. I understand the government will reach a decision and

:16:30. > :16:34.that will not trouble them again, but I think they have gone down the

:16:35. > :16:41.wrong road on this. I beg leave to withdraw that amendment. Visit your

:16:42. > :16:48.lordship pleasure that this membership be withdrawn? It is

:16:49. > :16:56.withdrawn, Clause ten, 119. -- is it your pleasure?

:16:57. > :17:00.Amendment 119 and 120, they should be looked at together, could you

:17:01. > :17:09.possibly follow me on that, that would be very helpful? These are

:17:10. > :17:17.probing amendments and the background to that is that the bill

:17:18. > :17:21.contains aspirations and indeed, could be amended to have more

:17:22. > :17:27.aspirations to CD cover and rather rigid structure for curriculum and

:17:28. > :17:34.courses in this country change, so that there are more two-year degrees

:17:35. > :17:39.and more flexibility allowed to the possibility of taking part courses

:17:40. > :17:45.or credit in order to build up an entitlement to Bosley award of

:17:46. > :17:48.degree. This is common in many other higher education systems, it is

:17:49. > :17:51.something that has been much talked about on all sides of the political

:17:52. > :17:57.spectrum in recent years but progress has been quite slow. These

:17:58. > :18:00.amendments are here to prop the question that part of the delay on

:18:01. > :18:03.this is because of the way in which the financial regulations that

:18:04. > :18:13.financed higher education are structured, worked in terms of

:18:14. > :18:19.sessions. There is an academic year that is defined in paragraph 11,

:18:20. > :18:22.which we are coming to, and the funding for courses is done in

:18:23. > :18:28.relation to the whole course, rather than to any part of the course. That

:18:29. > :18:31.has historically been the way that we have done it and there is no

:18:32. > :18:35.reason that that is wrong or right, but it will not be flexible and if

:18:36. > :18:40.you wish to attempt to do half of the course with a view to perhaps

:18:41. > :18:46.stopping after a bit and coming back and doing the rest at a later date,

:18:47. > :18:48.or if you were a new institution attempting to try to provide a

:18:49. > :18:53.different type of course, you would have to do it in years, you could

:18:54. > :18:58.not do it in part years, and that seems to speak to a discourse of

:18:59. > :19:01.lacking flexibility and it is no surprise that the people who

:19:02. > :19:09.currently occupy the position of Challenge Tour institutions are

:19:10. > :19:12.being vigorous and arguing that the arrangements that are currently

:19:13. > :19:15.needed for the provision of courses does not allow them to do the work

:19:16. > :19:18.that they would like and they would be interested in seeing a way of

:19:19. > :19:29.getting a more flexible approach, whereby perhaps as an Amendment 119,

:19:30. > :19:32.the student... Every student could get up an honours degree in two

:19:33. > :19:35.years because that there was the way that it was taught and examined and

:19:36. > :19:40.that was appropriate for the subject and agreed with all the regulators

:19:41. > :19:43.and everyone involved, even though the noble lord bullocks does not

:19:44. > :19:47.like that, it would not be possible to do it because it is for a

:19:48. > :19:53.four-year course and not a three-year course, so it would not

:19:54. > :19:57.be possible. They would not get it for the Vergeer. Alternatively, if

:19:58. > :20:03.it was possible to do it more flexible in terms of credits, they

:20:04. > :20:08.could do for credits any year and the student would have to pay for a

:20:09. > :20:12.four-year score so much the student might only take two or three

:20:13. > :20:17.credits. These things do stack up to more flexible system. There is no

:20:18. > :20:20.particular model in mind and I will give the opportunity for the noble

:20:21. > :20:25.lord to respond to open this up in future. I beg to move.

:20:26. > :20:48.Could I just add my own tuppence worth in terms of support of these

:20:49. > :20:55.amendments? This seems to be crucial to the kind of socially progressive

:20:56. > :21:00.innovation in higher education which many of us on these benches would

:21:01. > :21:10.like to see. The truth is that there has not been as much attempts to

:21:11. > :21:20.enable people to do courses faster than the standard three or four

:21:21. > :21:30.years, and creating the financial possibility for this to happen would

:21:31. > :21:39.be a very good thing to do indeed. My Lords, I wish to respond to all

:21:40. > :21:43.three amendments. I would like to start by saying that Government is

:21:44. > :21:46.committed to encouraging more accelerated degrees and other

:21:47. > :21:49.flexible provision. Indeed the Government stated this in our last

:21:50. > :21:54.manifesto and I hope that there will be an element of agreement had us

:21:55. > :21:58.all on this. That makes bone, the bill will level the playing field

:21:59. > :22:02.for high-quality new entrants, making it easier for new specialists

:22:03. > :22:06.and innovative providers to enter the sector. Accelerated degrees or a

:22:07. > :22:09.particular strength and this will help to ensure that students can

:22:10. > :22:15.access learning in the form that suits them. For example, Buckingham

:22:16. > :22:19.BPP, Conde Nast fashion and the Greenwich School of management or

:22:20. > :22:23.offer students the opportunity to complete an honours degree of two

:22:24. > :22:27.years, so the student incurs less debt and can enter or re-enter the

:22:28. > :22:31.workforce more quickly. We are interested in understanding what

:22:32. > :22:35.more we can do to support flexible provision. We carried out a call for

:22:36. > :22:40.evidence seeking views from providers, students and others. This

:22:41. > :22:44.call for evidence resulted in over 4500 responses. A clear majority

:22:45. > :22:48.came from individual students and we were delighted to see this level of

:22:49. > :22:51.engagement. Many of the responding students express an interest in

:22:52. > :22:55.accelerated degrees so this is clearly an important issue. The

:22:56. > :23:00.demand seems to be there. On December the 20th 2016, the

:23:01. > :23:04.Government published a summary of the call for evidence. This is a

:23:05. > :23:08.complicated policy area and we are now fully considering the evidence.

:23:09. > :23:12.Let me reassure you that we are looking carefully at the options to

:23:13. > :23:15.remove barriers to accelerated degrees. While we sympathise with

:23:16. > :23:20.the underlying intention of the amendment, as we continue to

:23:21. > :23:23.consider the key issues, I would ask that the amendment is withdrawn. I

:23:24. > :23:29.would like to move on in a similar theme to the amendment is spoken to

:23:30. > :23:36.by Lord Lucas, and a similar approach, which is they both seek to

:23:37. > :23:39.link funding to academic credits as well as academic years. Again I

:23:40. > :23:44.would like to say there is sympathy to the issues that have been raised.

:23:45. > :23:47.The Government is committed to improving diversity of provision and

:23:48. > :23:51.increasing student choice. Supporting students who wish to

:23:52. > :23:57.switch higher education institutions is an important part of our

:23:58. > :24:01.performance. We also recognise the importance of part-time study and it

:24:02. > :24:06.now gives me an opportunity to trumpet this particular aspect of

:24:07. > :24:11.our reforms and should no doubt of our intention to promote this side.

:24:12. > :24:16.Studying part-time and later in life can bring enormous benefits for

:24:17. > :24:22.individuals, the economy and employers. I would like to also say

:24:23. > :24:26.that this area that is -- has also been considered as part of the call

:24:27. > :24:31.for evidence and is all part of us looking closely at the 4500

:24:32. > :24:35.responses. Again, it is complicated and I hope the House will indulge me

:24:36. > :24:40.in remembering that this does require quite a bit of time together

:24:41. > :24:46.the information. We will do all that and we will return with a response

:24:47. > :24:50.in due course. Overall, the Government is already taking action

:24:51. > :24:53.to address some of the key areas of student choice as well as working to

:24:54. > :24:59.support students and their diverse needs. I assure the House that we

:25:00. > :25:04.are actively considering all options in this particular area so I hope

:25:05. > :25:07.these warm words we will be helpful and as we continue to consider the

:25:08. > :25:11.key issues as highlighted in our call for evidence, I ask that this

:25:12. > :25:23.amendment, these amendments, also withdrawn. If I get the support of

:25:24. > :25:28.Lord Liddle, who was quite mean with his support with some of the things

:25:29. > :25:36.that come from the site, I am onto a winner! I would make a couple of

:25:37. > :25:42.points. If I give the impression this was only about new entrants,

:25:43. > :25:45.that was a mistake, and I think the Minister accepts that, the interest

:25:46. > :25:54.is there from all institutions who might be interested in following

:25:55. > :26:05.student demand. I am puzzled why it takes so long to cover those --

:26:06. > :26:10.process those submissions. You have about 4000 sheets in that file! I

:26:11. > :26:16.cannot believe it will take you that much longer to get through those. In

:26:17. > :26:18.the course of this moment we now discover the fifth way of saying

:26:19. > :26:23.they are not quite sure what they are going to bring back at report.

:26:24. > :26:27.He said he says he is spending more time reviewing the evidence. You

:26:28. > :26:35.just have to tell us and we will put it down in report. I beg leave to

:26:36. > :26:43.withdraw the amendment. Is it your Lordships' pleasure this amendment

:26:44. > :26:52.be withdrawn? And not moved. Amendment 122, Lord Stevenson.

:26:53. > :26:58.I beg to move the House do not be resumed. As many as are of the

:26:59. > :27:08.opinion say, "Content," to the contrary, "Not content." The

:27:09. > :27:10.contents have it. -- do now be. I beg to move that the House do know a

:27:11. > :28:48.journey. -- now adjourn. Baroness Meacher. I beg leave to ask

:28:49. > :28:58.the question standing in my name on the order paper. My Lords, the short

:28:59. > :29:01.answer to the question is no. Like previous governments we have always

:29:02. > :29:07.made clear that such legislation is a matter for Parliament, not

:29:08. > :29:12.government. If the other House considered a bill to legalise

:29:13. > :29:19.assisted dying, they rejected it by 330 votes to 118. My Lords, I thank

:29:20. > :29:23.the Minister for his reply. As he has indicated, there has never been

:29:24. > :29:24.a government supported bill on this issue. The