5 Conclusion
53. Our concern is with the quality and standard
of administration within the civil service, and the need to ensure
that citizens can access the support, advice and redress to which
they are entitled. We wholeheartedly endorse the case, put by
both the AJTC and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,[59]
for Government to get its decisions 'right first time', but this
is a goal which is currently missed far too often. When it is
missed, robust systems are necessary to ensure that those individuals
affected have the opportunity to put things right.
54. The Government acknowledges that its decision
to abolish the AJTC should "not reflect on the quality of
the work [it] has done"[60]
and recognises the need "to retain the best of what the AJTC
has to offer".[61]
The judgment for the House when the draft Order is laid is
not just whether the AJTC should be abolished, but also whether
sufficient and appropriate provision has been made for the continued
performance of any necessary functions previously carried out
by the AJTC. If it is retained or a successor body established,
then it will be necessary to review its functions in order to
improve its effectiveness. Either way, the Government's objective
must be to achieve substantial improvements in both administrative
justice and savings in public expenditure. This can only come
from reducing the number of administrative decisions wrongly made
in the first place.
55. As a government department, the MoJ's thinking
and decisions will inevitably be constrained by the need to reflect
Government policy and budgetary constraints. The AJTC has provided
an independent overview of the administrative justice system from
outside these constraints. One key question for the House is whether
this independent overview continues to be required. Its characteristics
include:
- · A
user-centred perspective on the administrative justice system
- · Independent
scrutiny and observation of tribunal/inquiry hearings
- · The
ability to report publicly, in an independent and fearless way,
on issues affecting the administrative justice system, and Government
proposals affecting it.
The MoJ, as a part of Government, cannot replace
these functions. If these are functions worth preserving, the
Government will need to revisit its plans.
56. The MoJ's current interest in the administrative
justice system does not cover the full breadth of the AJTC's remit.
We have also heard concerns about the MoJ's staffing complement,
turnover and expertise. The other key question for the House
is whether the MoJ is therefore adequately resourced to provide
the policy functions currently carried out by the AJTC, in particular:
· Provision
to Ministers of detailed technical advice by experienced practitioners
on the operation of all parts of the administrative justice system,
including those which fall outside the MoJ's responsibilities
· Oversight
of the administrative justice system as a whole including ombudsmen,
tribunals outside HMCTS, and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms,
across England, Wales and Scotland.
57. If the decision is taken to abolish the AJTC,
we recommend that, in the interests of continuing transparency,
the MoJ report annually to Parliament on the operation of the
administrative justice system, including:
· Details
of the resourcing of the Department's administrative justice function
· Actions
taken by Ministers and officials to improve the operation of the
system
· Details
of how the views of users of the administrative justice system
have been sought and addressed
· Details
of work undertaken with other Departments, devolved administrations
and local government, to improve administrative justice for the
citizen.
59 Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council Right
first time (June 2011) and Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman Responsive and Accountable?: The Ombudsman's review
of complaint handling by government departments and public bodies
2010-11 (October 2011) Back
60
Ev 37 Back
61
Q 58 Back
| 
