Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [HL]

I know it is unusual but I was told that, if I gave notice to the Deputy Chairman, the Clerk and the Minister, it would be in order to raise one or two points on Schedule 7 stand part. The reason I am doing it in this slightly unusual way—for which I ought perhaps to apologise—is that, as I strongly support both Clause 42 and Schedule 7, it would be too artificial to put down a blocking motion merely in order to make a point or two. I have indicated the two main points that I want to raise with the Minister. I re-declare my interest, in view of the direct relationship between my present position as chairman of the Council on Tribunals and these provisions. The first point relates to membership of the council. I understand that the form of the Bill is revolution: in Clause 43 the Council on Tribunals is out; and in Clause 42 the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council is in. But the practical understanding—this is the point about which I would like to get some words on the record from the Minister—is that this is not revolution but evolution, and that the members of the council at the time of the change will in general be grandfathered through for their terms of appointment on the old council to the new council. I understand entirely that it is not appropriate to have that provision in the Bill. I am told that there may be something about it lurking in the regulatory impact assessment. But, in Committee, I would like the Minister to reassure my members, who have been very supportive, that they have not been turkeys voting for Christmas, if I may put it in that way. That would be extremely helpful. The second point, which is a bit more contentious, is of a more substantive nature. It relates to the part of paragraph 14 of Schedule 7 which gives the council some duties. Paragraph 14(1)(e) has the duty to, "““make proposals for research into the system””." That reflects one of the few areas where there was some marginal disagreement between the council and those advising the Minister in the department. We thought that it was not unreasonable for the council to be able to commission or conduct research, as distinct from simply proposing research. I continue to believe that that is consistent with the overall general duties put on the new council by the Bill. I do not want to make a meal out of this. This is not a bid for money, to turn this into a sort of great academic institution; it is really a bid for slightly greater flexibility in how we choose to use resources—whatever a generous Minister makes available to us in the future—at a time when I know the Minister is not feeling that generous. I am not trying to take cash out of her pocket, but simply to get reasonable flexibility for the future. I would like to have her comments on that. I take the view—it is the sort of view I would have taken when I was in positions like that of the Minister—that there can often be advantages in having things done by an independent body rather than by the department itself, so I can see some advantages in this for Ministers as well. I leave that thought with her. I have a couple of other points that are a bit more like bouncers, so if the Minister does not want to say anything I shall quite understand. First, at paragraph 23 of Schedule 7 there is a provision about the rights of members of the council to attend proceedings. Occasionally there has been dispute about whether members of the Council on Tribunals have the right to attend deliberations, as distinct from public parts of the hearing. I think that that right is covered, or intended to be covered, by the drafting. I would just like, if possible—it does not have to be this afternoon—some clarification that that is the intention, as occasionally there have been tribunals where this has become an issue. Lastly, has the noble Baroness given any thought—given the speed with which the Bill is progressing and the optimism she therefore has about its relatively early passage—to the time of the change from one council to another?