Conclusions and recommendations
Role of the AJTC
1. PASC regards the high level of successful
appeals and complaints against decisions by government departments
as an indication of widespread administrative failure. Government
should aim to produce decisions which are right first time and
command a high degree of confidence. The scale of the injustice
and the cost to the taxpayer caused by this poor decision-making
are wholly unacceptable. We expect the Government to echo this
view in their response. We also therefore regard the role of
the AJTC as one of vital national importance, overseeing a system
that protects the rights of millions of citizens every year. (Paragraph
18)
Proposal to abolish the AJTC
2. The
Government has argued that the AJTC fails to meet its three criteria
for deciding whether to retain a public body. But it could be,
and has been, argued that the AJTC in fact meets all three of
them: that it is "needed in order to perform a technical
function"; that it benefits from being "politically
impartial"; and that it is "needed to act independently
in order to establish facts" about the administrative justice
system. (Paragraph 27)
Consequences of abolishing the AJTC
3. We
recommend that the Government provide further information on its
proposals for the membership and operation of this group of experts
and key stakeholders. (Paragraph 28)
Resources and expertise
4. Alongside
the draft Order to abolish the AJTC, the Ministry of Justice must
make available further information about the number, turnover
and expertise of the civil servants who would become responsible
for taking on the AJTC's functions, and provide verifiable assurances
about staffing plans in this area for the foreseeable future.
(Paragraph 35)
Independence and oversight of the administrative
justice system
5.
We agree that responsibility for the development of government
policy in relation to administrative justice properly lies with
the MoJ (although we do not share the MoJ's view that this is
a function currently duplicated by the AJTC). We also accept
that the creation of the new Courts and Tribunals Service means
that many of the specific functions of the AJTC, in particular
in relation to tribunals, have been taken over by the Tribunals
Service. If the AJTC is retained, its functions will need to be
reviewed and may need to be revised. (Paragraph 44)
6. It
is clear that there is a fundamental difference of view between
the Government and others from whom we have heard on both the
need for independent oversight of the administrative justice system,
and the extent to which the AJTC has been performing such a function.
We accept that this task may be undertaken in more than one way,
but consider that oversight by an entity independent from Government
is valuable and should be continued in some form. This should
be a key consideration in deciding whether or not the AJTC should
be abolished. (Paragraph 45)
Cost savings
7. The
Government estimates that abolition of the AJTC could save approximately
£4.6 million by 2015, but this assumes that the AJTC would
not be required to reduce costs and improve efficiency like other
public bodies . We also suspect that the full cost of carrying
out these functions within the MoJ has been underestimated. We
therefore doubt this estimate. The Government should provide
a more detailed estimate, which addresses these points before
asking Parliament to approve an abolition Order. (Paragraph 51)
8. The
proposal to abolish the AJTC makes it all the more clear that
the Government's priority should be to improve its own decision-making
and redress systems. We recommend that the Government set out
plans to achieve this improvement. This is an area into which
we will inquire in depth during this Parliament. (Paragraph 52)
Conclusion
9. 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. (Paragraph 54)
10. The
MoJ, as a part of Government, cannot replace the AJTC's functions
in providing an independent overview of the administrative justice
system. If these are functions worth preserving, the Government
will need to revisit its plans. (Paragraph 55)
11. 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. (Paragraph 56)
12. 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. (Paragraph 57)
| 
