My Lords, the noble Lord has already given his views. He has had a little time perhaps to reflect on the debate, and one can only hope that having heard the debate he might come back a second time with a somewhat more responsive point of view than we originally heard. I certainly, from the opposition Benches, once again support the noble Lord, Lord Newton, on this. I thought he made the case eloquently once again for the value of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council and the impact for good that it has on the performance of many government departments in Whitehall. In particular, I pay tribute to the council for its focus on what it describes as improving initial decision-making as it affects members of the public. That is surely the importance of the council; it is concerned with administrative processes in relation to members of the public.
My noble and learned friend Lady Scotland referred to legal aid. It is interesting to reflect—indeed, my noble friend referred to this earlier in our debates—on the council’s comments on the impact on legal aid. I am not raising the issue of legal aid; the point is that the council has said that it believes that the Government bear responsibility for, "““causing many of the appeals in the administrative justice system … through poor … decision-making, poor communications … delay or through overly complex and … incomprehensible legislation and regulations””."
The council has been making these points for over 50 years and it has undoubtedly led to improvements in these administrative processes. There is clearly still some way to go. From what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has said, we are to believe that everything will be all right because his department will be able to analyse the performance of different government departments, comment on them and encourage them to improve their administrative processes.
Is it realistic to think that the Ministry of Justice will be able to make that kind of statement and identify faults in administrative processes in other departments of government, let alone in itself? Of course, the Ministry of Justice will have to be subject to some kind of scrutiny by the team of officials that will be based in the Minister's department. The history of trying to influence government departments in this area surely shows that an external advisory body would be much more likely to have an impact, particularly if it were able to make public statements about the faults it finds in decision-making processes, than would a unit in the department of the noble Lord, Lord McNally.
I am very much persuaded that the council has done work of inestimable value over the past 50 years. I pleaded with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to reflect on comments that were made today and in the past few months. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, does not seek to revisit the debate and the decision of the House. He seeks to give a little flexibility to the Government to reflect and to await the results of the inquiry by the Public Administration Committee that is taking place. Even at this late hour, I urge the noble Lord to take up the offer from his noble friend. It is a very handsome offer, it would get the Government off the hook and it would enhance administrative justice in this country.
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 23 November 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Public Bodies Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
732 c1084-5 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 19:48:57 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_788109
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_788109
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_788109