I am very grateful for those comments, including the bouncers. I am grateful to the noble Lord for advising me of at least the first two points that he wished to make, although I hope he realises that I would have answered them anyway, without the briefing.
I describe what is happening as radical evolution. The noble Lord is right to ask what will happen to the members of the Council on Tribunals. They have done an outstanding job. I pay tribute to both the noble Lord and the members of the council. My message to them is that they do not escape that easily. We want to ensure that we do not lose continuity of membership or the expertise that they have. As the noble Lord rightly said, the measure does not contain provisions for the transition because we do not need them; we can do it administratively. But, for the record, those who are members of the Council on Tribunals on the day that it is abolished will become members of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council and serve out the remainder of their term of office in the new body. New members of the Council on Tribunals—that is, those who are recruited between now and the creation of the AJTC—will be appointed to the Council on Tribunals in the expectation that their term of office will cover a period as a Council on Tribunals member and a period as an AJTC member. I understand that the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments is happy with this approach. I hope that the noble Lord is too. The answer to the bouncer of a second question is that we are looking at June next year to implement all this.
The noble Lord was kind enough to advise me that he intended to comment on research. We do not want the council to spend time developing a massive in-house research capacity. In any event I do not think that is in the noble Lord’s mind. As he rightly says, there is no money available for that. I completely agree with him that it is often hugely relevant and important for independent bodies, especially those with expertise in a particular field, to do research. We have sought to ensure in the Bill that the council informs us of areas where it thinks that research will be needed. However, there is absolutely nothing to stop the council itself commissioning research. I accept that that would confer advantages on the council and the Government. There is no question but that the council could do other than bid for a share of the departmental research budget if it so wished. I hope that I have fully answered that question.
On the first bouncer question regarding attendance as observers and deliberations, the answer is yes. That is intended to be included.
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Ashton of Upholland
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 14 December 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
687 c86-7GC 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:47:33 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_365705
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_365705
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_365705