16/01/2017 House of Lords

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

actually hearing both sides of these cases will stop any employee

considering themselves Ronnie dismissed and unfairly treated was

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

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

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

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

responsible for an amendment which outlawed frivolous or vexatious

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

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

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

time the amendment was brought to the attention when an applicant

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

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

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

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

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

had all travel accommodation expenses paid in many interesting

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

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

the job, as hospitals needed radiographers who had worked with

human beings, and his experience was specifically with concrete blocks

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

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

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

The Citizens Advice Bureau still exists, but their resources are

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

identifying the correct name of the employer. Many employers use

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

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

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

employment. In the past, many of these things we

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

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

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

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

dislike a system which fails to protect vulnerable groups in society

or because they need the practice, for example junior barristers

cutting their teeth. Large firms encourage junior solicitors to do

pro bono work perhaps because it impresses the corporate clients.

Organisations such as the employers lawyers Association have our pro

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

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

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

essential that individuals should have the tools made available to

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

therefore do not qualify for admission fees have to find the

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

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

claim their employment rights. My other direct experience with

leasehold valuation Tribunal is, these were abolished in 2013 and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

leasehold valuation Tribunal is returning value for the extension

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

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

increases exponentially. My own experience took the form of four

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

member to speak in opposition, perhaps because with those

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

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

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

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

ordinary people can access a tribunal to help them enforce their

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

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

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

sole representative of the cross amongst the select band from across

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

that the proportion of litigants appearing before civil and family

courts without legal representation, litigants in person, also sometimes

called self represented litigants, has increased since the legal aid

sentencing and punishment of offenders act to many civil and

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

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

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

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

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

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

to fund and supports litigants in-person support strategy,

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

the resources from the pro bono legal information personal support

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

personal support unit providing additional capacity and better

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There have been a number of proposals for further increases.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

has plummeted between October 2013 and September 2014, single claims

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

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

2015, the number of employment tribunal cases brought by single

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

consider this? The respected commentator Roger Smith has spoken

about the economic cleansing of the courts by deliberately denying poor

people access to justice through new economic barriers and much reduced

public assistance for supporting litigants through the system. I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to make the whole process cheaper with less reliance on expensive

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

streamline processes and better case management systems to minimise the

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

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

encouraged by proposals for court reform and digitisation and the

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

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

commitment to funding better assisted digital legal services to

help the least legally or IT literate communities, whether the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

while dramatic increases in court fees have restricted access to

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

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

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

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

National audit office report said an increase in cases where neither

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

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

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

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

their lives are turbulence and feelings between the parties are

highly emotional and often deeply hostile. This is not therefore

achieve calm and cool dispute resolution and it certainly is not

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

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

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

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

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

make sense in law. The speed and efficiency of the

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

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

significantly increased as the National Audit Office and the Public

Accounts Committee have pointed out. Diminishing the savings made by

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

the mix increased court fees, increasing the burden on litigants

struggling without representation. These are not just fees to cover

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

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

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

state has a fundamental responsibility to provide courts to

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

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

believe there is something deeply offensive about enhanced court fees,

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

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

Furthermore, it was always obvious that introducing very high court

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

professional bodies assembled evidence which showed that the total

value of cases brought by individuals would be likely to fall

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

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

contrast to be complacent and misguided assumptions underlying the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chief Justice and senior judiciary described the assumptions as very

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

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

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

that he was extremely sceptical about them. He described enhanced

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

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

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

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

reduction in overall in employment tribunal claims was severe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

between the objectives of achieving full cost recovery and preserving

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

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

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

litigants and reducing the effectiveness of the court system.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

more fair fee remission scheme. The present capital and disposable

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

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

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

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

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

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

to recover undisputed depths, and encourage unscrupulous debtors to

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

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

steady decline in access to justice over successive governments in

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

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

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

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

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

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

should mention that my daughter practices in the field of housing

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

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

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

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

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

Conservative governments laying down roadblocks in the form of huge

increases in fees wedding already existed, new impositions whereas in

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

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

members of the judiciary have repeatedly complained likely that

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

cases in which parties are not represented with the consequential

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

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

Dyson giving evidence to the justice Select Committee described the

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

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

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

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

described as an extraordinary position that demands an

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

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

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

most serious consequences, not something because of their skill but

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

disproportionately adverse effect on the most vulnerable. If forecast

correctly the number of self represented litigants will increase

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

be, and with increasingly wide and serious consequences for the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

businesses also faced difficulty from higher court fees. The Justice

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

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

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

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

has at least abandoned that proposal. The Government declared it

would publish a review of the employment Tribunal fees in due

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

and how long does he expect the pregnancy and discolouration claims

today? The Government dismissed the concern about a significant increase

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

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

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

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

advice and rivers in addition, thereby being placed at a

disadvantage and increasing the problem of litigants in person? The

Government and responding to the suggestion that there should be a

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

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

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

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

not be sufficient? The committee suggested the employment tribunal

cases that the respondent should pay but the suggestion was rejected

because respondents have little influence over the decision to

mitigate or stop it is an interesting argument. A recalcitrant

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

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

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

not proposed an increase of these but immigration judges report high

levels of unrepresented applicants, contrary to the impression given by

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

Gove by an immigration lawyer in 2015.

Litigants for Suffolk the additional difficulty of not being able to

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

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

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

settled that review and least the respect of the most contentious

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

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

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

depletion of qualified lawyers wishing to undertake cases. The

second is that the courts impose additional costs on parties now

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

commend the work that the public support unit which has been

mentioned tonight who staff and volunteers do valiant work in

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

experiences in the court centres that they support. Will the

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

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

more difficult by this government and its predecessors?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baroness Thatcher have referred to the matter of the employment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

would notice that the introduction of fees was incidental with the

development and mediation services in the context of employment

applications, and therefore, one cannot simply attribute any

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

least, from recovering costs by way of service charge against

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

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

also endeavour to prevent landlords recovering such costs by way of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

be reintroduced to address the question at the water level it

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

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

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

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

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

are characterised by an approach which is deliberately less formal

than is generally found in the courts and the tribunal panel

members themselves as the noble Baroness noted, are trained to

assist unrepresented parties but helping to frame the way in which

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

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

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

range of partners across the sector to improve the experience of

vulnerable litigants in person in the fundamental ways. Firstly,

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

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

raised by the noble Lord Marks earlier. Secondly, providing

practical and emotional support and providing access to free or

affordable advice and representation, whenever possible.

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

stressful and that is particularly the case in matters concerning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cost of our courts and tribunal systems to the taxpayer is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

respects of tribunal fees, the government firmly believes it is

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

providing such services and reference having been made to the

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

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

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

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

limit Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon in exceptional circumstances. In the

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

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

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

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

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

to modernise our whole court and tribunal system and indeed,

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

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

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

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

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

present government and indeed, proposals are coming forward quite

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

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

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

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

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

not have legal representation to understand how they apply to the

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

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

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

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

proposals, these changes will deliver swifter justice. So our

wider reforms underlie a guiding principle that our justice system

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

department has a number of different ministers with specific areas of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

still rising, this place is fit to burst.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democrat Baroness and the Green Party burners decide between

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

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

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

actually got the answers they were looking for?

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

Parliament are watched closely in the comments and counterclaims are

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hundreds of years before that, there were competing journals documenting

what was happening. It is interesting standing here, seeing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

produced several hundred daily copies, which members still like to

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

work recently has been aimed at making our digital content more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

be careful of the degree of obligations and the direction of

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

phrased as not prescribing any particular outcome but saying the

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

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

have public functions and was made subject to the Freedom of

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reacted so fiercely to Lady Brown when she quoted commercial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

inequality of treatment of universities which were subject to

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

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

education situations. That created a commercial tension between those who

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

subject to FOIA, which prevented information being released under

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fee cap. Universities are currently subject to the Freedom of

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

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

registered providers designated for the purpose of student support under

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

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

currently leaves open what categories of provider should be

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

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

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

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

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

to whether adherents should be a condition for initial registration

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

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

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

providers designated for the purpose of student support, which are

registered with the OFS. This means registered providers which are

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

level playing field on this question. What is his argument

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

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

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

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

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

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

sector, I do not believe universities are public sector

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

be, requiring everybody to comply with Freedom of Information

obligations seems to be a highly desirable thing.

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

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

enforce some kind of contractual obligation in order to be

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

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

there are important distinctions between universities and other

providers of higher education. Whether that level playing field

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

students who have fees from government loans should indeed have

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

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

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

Chancellor I know that universities get memories Freedom of Information

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

information about vice chancellors and staff and other things, for

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

requirements of Rather than simply having more requirements on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

prestigious as some of our institutions that was not covered by

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

Lords, the government has given careful consideration to the range

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

relation to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to higher

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

this issue perhaps surprisingly poignant was divided. The underlying

principle behind Freedom of Information legislation is that they

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

And though not traditionally required as public authorities in

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom of Information obligation on providers who are not currently

already covered. Irrespective of whether they receive direct public

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

obligations, in this case, to all registered higher education

providers and is of course designated for student support. Any

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

regulatory costs could impose on higher education providers, some of

which may be relatively small organisations. Having considered the

views expressed by range of stakeholders, our decision was so

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

Information obligations on those providers who are in future are

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

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

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

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

for expanding the scope of the Freedom of Information Act more

broadly. We already believe that more higher education providers

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

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

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

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

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

continues in a different approach whereby those who received the more

significant public funding direct from the public purse are subject to

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

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

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

funding, does that mean any institution where a students can

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

are talking about the private individual receiving private funding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for clarification, these are complicated aspects that require

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

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

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

approach to such risks could impose unwarranted costs on smaller

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

competition in the sector. The independent commission of Freedom of

Information concluded that the current application of the FOI Act

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

please others at a disadvantage compared with alternative advisers

-- providers and founded unpersuasive. In addition to

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

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

this particular discussion. Given the importance of information to the

effect and scrutiny of higher education providers, we have to

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

regulatory oversight and transparency. For example, causes

eight and nine would require the office for students to impose

ongoing registration conditions on higher education institutions and

provided by the permission required to out its functions and publish

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

about information availability and if I could attempt to answer that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the application for information and going through the tribunal and

afterwards, if you allow this difference of treatment, you

effectively say to all of the institutions which are covered by

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

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

anything that is commercially confidential is information that

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

go to. So anything that is important and interesting becomes

unpublishable and the Freedom of Information registration has no

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

breakfast, which is, you know, clearly not commercially

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

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

institutions for the Freedom of Information Act if you then this

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

competitors. I understand the government will reach a decision and

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

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

lordship pleasure that this membership be withdrawn? It is

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

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

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

probing amendments and the background to that is that the bill

contains aspirations and indeed, could be amended to have more

aspirations to CD cover and rather rigid structure for curriculum and

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

and more flexibility allowed to the possibility of taking part courses

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

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

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

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

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

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

financed higher education are structured, worked in terms of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

lacking flexibility and it is no surprise that the people who

currently occupy the position of Challenge Tour institutions are

being vigorous and arguing that the arrangements that are currently

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

committed to encouraging more accelerated degrees and other

flexible provision. Indeed the Government stated this in our last

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

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

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

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

particular strength and this will help to ensure that students can

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

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

offer students the opportunity to complete an honours degree of two

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

workforce more quickly. We are interested in understanding what

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

evidence seeking views from providers, students and others. This

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

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

engagement. Many of the responding students express an interest in

accelerated degrees so this is clearly an important issue. The

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

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

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

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

remove barriers to accelerated degrees. While we sympathise with

the underlying intention of the amendment, as we continue to

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

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

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

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

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

The Government is committed to improving diversity of provision and

increasing student choice. Supporting students who wish to

switch higher education institutions is an important part of our

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

now gives me an opportunity to trumpet this particular aspect of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

is there from all institutions who might be interested in following

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

government. If the other House considered a bill to legalise

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

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

a government supported bill on this issue. The