Draft Public Bodies (Abolition of Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council) Order 2013
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Alexander, Heidi (Lewisham East) (Lab)
† Cunningham, Alex (Stockton North) (Lab)
† Ellis, Michael (Northampton North) (Con)
† Evennett, Mr David (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
† Freer, Mike (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
† Gilbert, Stephen (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
† Goodwill, Mr Robert (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
† Grant, Mrs Helen (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice)
† Lloyd, Stephen (Eastbourne) (LD)
† Meacher, Mr Michael (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
† Murphy, Paul (Torfaen) (Lab)
† Nokes, Caroline (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Paisley, Ian (North Antrim) (DUP)
† Pearce, Teresa (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
† Scott, Mr Lee (Ilford North) (Con)
† Sheerman, Mr Barry (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
† Skidmore, Chris (Kingswood) (Con)
† Slaughter, Mr Andy (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Mark Etherton, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
The following also attended ( Standing Order No. 118(2):
Beith, Sir Alan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee
Wednesday 3 July 2013
[Hugh Bayley in the Chair]
Draft Public Bodies (Abolition of Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council) Order 2013
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Public Bodies (Abolition of Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council) Order 2013.
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. The purpose of the draft order is to abolish the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council using powers provided in the Public Bodies Act 2011. Before setting out further details of the order I will briefly explain some of the background.
The AJTC is an advisory non-departmental public body, not a tribunal or any other form of judicial body. It does not exercise powers that relate to judicial independence or judicial decision making. It was created before much of the reform of recent years was implemented, crucially before a unified tribunal structure was put in place. The AJTC was established by the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. It was charged with keeping the administrative justice system as a whole under review and advising Ministers accordingly.
The Government announced proposed reforms to public bodies on 14 October 2010 and it was considered that the oversight of the administrative justice system and development of policy was properly a function of Government and that the AJTC’s oversight function with regard to tribunals was no longer required given the robust governance and oversight arrangements that exist within Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. The AJTC was therefore included for abolition in the Public Bodies Bill. A public consultation, including the proposal to abolish the AJTC, was launched on 12 July 2011 and closed on 11 October 2011. The Government’s response to the consultation was published on 15 December 2011. After considering all of the responses to the consultation it was decided that the AJTC should be abolished. Following further policy development and discussions with the devolved Administrations during 2012, the draft order was laid before Parliament on 18 December 2012.
Hon. Members will no doubt be aware of the scrutiny given to the draft order by both the Justice Committee in this House and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the other place. The Public Bodies Act rightly provided for an enhanced level of scrutiny of the subsequent secondary legislation and I thank those Committees for the detailed consideration they have given to the AJTC order in particular.
As required by the Act I have had regard to the recommendations and they have informed the Ministry of Justice’s thinking about the successor arrangements to the AJTC, particularly in one key area that I will
come to in a moment. Section 8 of the Public Bodies Act provides certain criteria that a Minister must consider are met when making an order under the Act. Taking each of these criteria in turn will give a full account of how I consider the order meets the requirements of the Act.This first is efficiency. Abolishing the AJTC will remove duplication of functions and ensure that the state provides only what is necessary to support the administrative justice and tribunals system. The reform of recent years means that the vast majority of the system is now administered by HMCTS, and so is managed independently of the Departments whose decisions are being challenged. HMCTS has an independent non-executive chair and has two judicial representatives on its board. It also has a dual reporting line to both the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. For the limited number of bodies outside HMCTS’s oversight, Ministry of Justice officials already work with the relevant Departments, the bodies themselves and other interested stakeholders to identify and share good practice, as well as to tackle areas of concern. That approach works well and is solution-focused, and it is one on which I am very keen to build.
The administrative justice and tribunals strategic work programme, published in December 2012, sets out the areas on which the Government will focus in 2015. Objectives include improving initial decision making by Government, and making systems and processes more accessible and proportionate for users. Having now completed the vast majority of the structural reforms, the impetus for a real step change in the delivery for users of that system must come from the Government. It is more efficient and practical for policy development to be carried out by the MOJ policy team responsible for delivering the necessary improvements. The administrative justice advisory group, which was established in May 2012, provides an expert and critical forum, from a user’s perspective, to review the system against the strategic work programme.
On effectiveness, the AJTC is not a tribunal, a watchdog or a regulator, and it has no powers to enforce its recommendations. It provides independent advice that the Government are not bound to accept. Even if the Government accept AJTC recommendations on policy changes, the MOJ still has to resource their implementation. An advice-giving body such as the AJTC cannot implement the actions that it recommends; that can be done only by the Government. The MOJ is in a much better position to work directly with Departments and other users of the system to implement change. The advisory group supports and guides that work by providing user focus to policy development. For instance, members from the group engaged in a workshop to provide input to the development of the strategic work programme ahead of its publication. The group can also form sub-groups to look at specific issues, such as improving user guidance. The group has operated well and has provided useful input, but it has naturally taken time to establish its identity, especially given the uncertainty about the future of the AJTC.
To date, the advisory group has been chaired by a director in the MOJ, but having reflected on the concerns raised by scrutiny Committees, particularly the one in the other place, I have decided to appoint an independent chair of the advisory group, following the abolition of
the AJTC. Although I consider the advisory group to be effective, I can see the long-term value of establishing a clear line of independence from Government for the group, so that it can provide proper challenge, where necessary. My officials are developing a detailed job description for the chair’s role. I broadly envisage that the chair’s focus will be to support delivery of the strategic work programme and, where required, to provide strong and independent leadership.In relation to economy, in a period of austerity, when it is impossible to avoid cuts, we must reduce expenditure on things that are not vital. A purely advisory body such as the AJTC is not vital, and there are more economical ways of keeping the operation of the administrative justice system under review. The AJTC currently costs £700,000 per year to operate. Although that represents a reduction from its 2010-11 budget of £1.2 million, it is still a significant amount at a time when all of the Government are under financial pressure.
I recognise that scrutiny of the draft order has raised some questions about the estimated savings from abolition. Since such estimates were first made in October 2010, they have been continuously updated. Rather than simply rely on the 2010-11 running costs of £1.2 million, we have, as recommended by the Public Administration Committee, taken account of the lower running cost of the AJTC in recent months.
Changes in estimated savings reflect the later than anticipated date for closure, due to the lengthy passage of the Public Bodies Bill, necessary further policy development and consultation and the length of the scrutiny process for the draft order. Based on a revised closure date of 31 August 2013, which allows for a four-week orderly closedown following parliamentary approval of the order, we estimate gross savings of £1.2 million across the remainder of 2013-14 and 2014-15. Costs of closure over that period are estimated to be around £0.6 million. That includes £300,000 for possible redundancies at the AJTC and £300,000 for reimbursement to the Scottish and Welsh Governments for the creation of interim non-statutory bodies to replace the AJTC in Scotland and Wales.
Those figures mean there will be a net saving of £0.6 million over the rest of the spending review period, with, of course, a long-term saving beyond that period. The 10-year net present value of the AJTC’s closure is estimated to be around £5 million, which is not an insignificant amount of money. No further significant costs are estimated from our successor arrangements. I ask hon. Members to bear in mind that to implement reform, a team would have to exist at the MOJ, no matter what happens to the AJTC. It is more economical for the MOJ team responsible for implementing the changes to develop policy. In addition to the forum provided by the advisory group, the team is free to commission expert advice when needed.
The abolition of the AJTC will not result in any loss of accountability to Ministers. Ministers are, and will remain, ultimately accountable for the administrative justice system and for HMCTS as an executive agency of the MOJ. HMCTS is responsible for the performance of the unified system. A minority of tribunals sit outside of HMCTS and will remain accountable to Ministers through their respective departmental channels. The MOJ will examine the case for bringing those remaining existing tribunals into the unified tribunal system. Where
that does not happen, the MOJ will, as it does now, keep those tribunals’ administration and performance under regular review.The abolition of the AJTC will not result in the removal of any necessary protection and no person will be prevented from exercising a right or freedom that they might reasonably expect to continue to exercise. The AJTC is a purely advisory body. It neither holds anyone to account nor has the power to enforce any advice or reforms. Abolition does not prevent anyone from accessing a tribunal or an ombudsman to vindicate or protect their rights or freedoms. Tribunal users can still make their voice heard by raising concerns with their elected representatives or through the user groups that exist in most HMCTS tribunal jurisdictions.
I stress that no part of the administrative justice system currently included in the AJTC’s overview remit will be left out under the new arrangements, including those tribunals and bodies currently outside the unified tribunal system. There is no hiatus in oversight, as has been mentioned in scrutiny reports. The MOJ already provides and will continue to exercise oversight of this small and diminishing subset of the much larger administrative justice and tribunals system.
HMCTS’s governance structure, with its strong judicial representation, provides a clear level of protection to the public through its oversight of the unified tribunal system. Any oversight role the AJTC may have performed is therefore a duplication of effort. Parliament will also have an important role to play in scrutinising the work of the Department. In his May 2012 response to the Public Administration Committee report entitled, “Future oversight of administrative justice: the proposed abolition of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council”, the Lord Chancellor agreed following the AJTC’s abolition to report annually to the Public Administration Committee on a number of issues. Parliament will therefore have means of ensuring that the Government are held to account for oversight, which will provide a further layer of protection for the public.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to set out in some detail the Government’s plans for oversight of the administrative justice and tribunals system following the abolition of the AJTC. I know that Mr Thomas is in the room and while I thank him for the work that the body has done up until now, we are in a different place now from when the AJTC was created. We have established a unified tribunal structure that is separate from the Departments making the original decisions and the focus must now be on moving away, trying to find a better system and offering taxpayers good value for money. This is not just about exercising oversight or providing advice; this is about delivering real improvements based on ministerial priorities and on evidence gathered by capable and experienced officials. The system is vitally important, but I entirely disagree that oversight must take place at arm’s length from Ministers and Departments. It is absolutely in the interests of the Government to reduce demand on the system, to get decisions right the first time and to make the system accessible and proportionate to users.
The Chair: I thank the Minister for her introduction. As the Select Committee on Justice has produced a report on the proposed policy, it would be best for us now to call that Committee’s Chairman.
2.47 pm
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD): Thank you, Mr Bayley, for the opportunity to refer hon. Members to the report by the Select Committee on Justice, the concerns expressed within and how the Minister has sought to address some of those concerns in our exchanges with her.
The Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council evolved out of the old council on tribunals, which will be indelibly associated for some of us with the name of our late colleague Tony Newton, who remained a defender of the council’s work almost literally to the last. He is remembered with great affection, but that is no disrespect to the present chairman of the AJTC, who has had the difficult task of not only tackling financial savings but also dealing with some of the extraordinarily complicated problems that have arisen during the period that may lead to its demise—even down to how he maintains a quorum to carry out its functions.
The body we are discussing today grew out of the massive expansion in administrative justice and in the tribunals system, which now dwarfs the rest of the court system, of which most of it is formally now a part. That reflected the extent to which the state and citizen interchanged with each other and the extent to which the citizen needed redress against decisions of the state on a vast range of matters. Having some body that exercised some advisory oversight was clearly important. We saw it as analogous to the Civil Justice Council and the Family Justice Council, both of which are independent but also advisory bodies.
We did not feel that the efficiency and effectiveness tests for abolition set out in the legislation were passed. The costs were relatively small. In some matters, greater accountability to Ministers was not appropriate, because it is about disputes between the citizen and the Executive. We accepted that certain functions, in particular policy development, properly should be transferred into the Ministry of Justice, but that there remained a wider purpose and remit. Many of the bodies that the AJTC oversaw were outside the remit of the Ministry of Justice. That was very much the case for bodies in Scotland and Wales. It is not clear—I hope the Minister can clarify it further—what the situation will be in Scotland and Wales in future in areas where the Department has no jurisdiction whatsoever over these matters.
We were worried whether the advisory group, as then constituted, could match the level of expert advice and user input currently provided by the council, or carry out the same volume of activity in areas where an external contribution is worthwhile. That is the same sort of service that the Civil Justice Council and the Family Justice Council provide. We expressed those concerns and the Minister sought to respond to them. She wrote to me on 27 June and in that letter revealed that she concluded that administrative justice advisory group should have an independent chair. I welcome that change, which is important and significant and will raise the status of that group.
We still have concerns about resources and budget, not because we want it to be a high-spending body—the existing council is not really a high spending body—but because total dependence on resources within the Department would be worrying. The Minister referred
to the advisory group as being effectively under the sponsorship of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and she hopes that that will provide some protection.To return to the chairmanship, the Minister told me that officials were working out
“detailed criteria for the independent chair’s role and a proposal for the recruitment and appointment process.”
She also said that she hoped to say more about that in today’s debate. From what I recall, she did not say much more about the appointment of the independent chair, apart from the principle, which we welcome. Perhaps she will say more about that in response.
When we considered this matter, we came to a view that while the abolition of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council was not cause for outrage, its existence had real benefits; some of which would be removed if it were transferred effectively into the Ministry of Justice. Although that move could be justified for part of what the council did, we were not satisfied that the advisory group would be sufficiently independent or high powered to be of sufficient value. The Minister has gone some way to meet those concerns, but it is for Members to reflect on whether she has done so to a sufficient extent.
2.52 pm
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab): It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. I thank the Minister for her opening remarks and, particularly, the Chair of the Justice Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) for being here and for summarising the Select Committee’s continuing concerns about the abolition of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council.
The council has an interesting title, which sounds like DoSAC from “The Thick of It” or the department of administrative affairs, but we on this Committee, and the Minister in particular, should know better than that. Administrative justice is, as the right hon. Gentleman said, not only an important part of our constitutional justice system, but a growing part of that.
I listened with interest to what the Minister said. I do not think that there was anything, apart from the independent chair of the advisory group, that was particularly new. In fact, I think that that script has been repeated in various written and oral forms by various Ministers in both Houses for about two years. That can be summarised in one sentence: we have decided to include this body in the bonfire of the quangos; we have ticked the box and we will not listen to any of the evidence against that. She should have listened to some of that evidence and taken notice of its weight, quality and quantity.
It is right to say that the council has existed in its current form only since being set up under the 2007 Act—that was, I think, with all-party support—but the Council on Tribunals was in existence since 1958. Therefore, in 1958, when administrative justice was not thought to have anything like the importance that it currently does, we needed a Council on Tribunals, but apparently we do not in 2013.
The other place paid particularly strong attention to this matter during the passage of the Public Bodies Bill. There were three Divisions on this, in which the least narrow margin was nine votes; there was one of seven
votes and one of three votes, with the Government winning two of those three. The fact that the Lords voted three times and discussed it over a period of a year, and that the matter was so highly contentious is something the Minister should pay attention to. She should also pay attention to the fact that there was wide cross-party support.I pay particular tribute to the late Lord Newton of Braintree, who led on this matter, as he did on many other matters about which he had particular expertise. He was the chair, first, of the Council on Tribunals and then this body for 10 years. He put his arguments strongly, but he was supported by Lord Howe, Lord Borrie, Lord Woolf, Lord Pannick, Baroness Scotland and Lord Mackay—a cross-party and Cross-Bench coalition of some of the most eminent jurists in the other place. They cautioned the Government on this point, and they were all ignored.
The Select Committee on Public Administration, chaired by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), did a substantial report on this issue. It had a fundamental difference of view with the Government. The Chair said:
“The AJTC should be part of the machinery to help government get decisions ‘right first time’. Instead, over half a million decisions have to be reviewed each year, at great cost and considerable injustice and inconvenience to citizens. If the AJTC is abolished, what will take its place, and how will Government do better?”
The Government’s short response to the Select Committee’s report did not address those points.
We have heard the clear objections of the Select Committee on Justice about the proposed abolition; I am not going to repeat them at length. In short, it said:
“we do not believe that the abolition of the AJTC satisfies the statutory tests in respect of efficiency and effectiveness. We therefore recommend that the Government reconsiders its decision”.
The Minister simply repeated the mantra of efficiency and effectiveness today, without modifying it in any way.
The consultation elicited 41 responses. Four were neutral or supportive of the Government; 37 were against. One response quoted in the impact assessment is from Mencap—the body that represents some of the most vulnerable users of the tribunal system—which made the good point that this body could be on the side of the user. Mencap doubted—as we all do—that the Ministry of Justice will be on the side of the user in exactly the same way. Last but not least, Private Eye has spoken out against the abolition, so it has reached even the popular press.
Any cursory cost-benefit analysis would say that the costs, which have been going down—there have been alleged savings—will have to be rolled up into a 10-year estimate of saving to produce anything like a substantive sum of money. The Minister said today that over the first two years of abolition the saving will be £1.2 million gross, and £0.6 million net. The PASC rightly doubted those figures because some of the functions will have to be maintained, presumably within the MOJ and through the advisory group.
It is doubtful whether there will be any saving from the abolition, but there is a huge potential loss. The Justice Committee took evidence from Professor Colin Reid, who said:
“The best way of saving the public money spent in relation to administrative justice is to reduce the number of cases that have to be dealt with through internal complaint…improving initial decision-making…better communication with individuals…providing quick, cheap and simple review and redress”
“considering how the various avenues of redress can best work together.”
The council is ideally placed to carry out those functions. As far as I can see, they will no longer be carried out at all, so the cost will be huge.
I remind the Minister that the functions of the council are to
“keep the administrative justice system under review…consider ways to make the system accessible, fair and efficient…advise [Ministers] on the development of the system…refer proposals for changes in the system to those persons, and…make proposals for research into the system.”
Does the Minister expect that those necessary, important and potentially cost-saving functions and terms of reference will be properly carried out by the MOJ and the advisory body? I also remind the Minister of evidence to the Select Committee about the advisory group. Dr Jeff King described it as a “poorly planned afterthought”. Whereas the independent chair might be an additional help, it will not dig the Government out of the hole they have dug for themselves.
There were very good reasons, many given in the debates on the Public Bodies Bill, why this body should be retained. I have spoken about the importance of administrative justice; that is a given. I have spoken about the cost savings. Regarding the complexity, the Minister rather brushed over the fact that there are functions in relation to ombudsmen and tribunals that fall outwith the Ministry of Justice’s remit. Those were all catered for by the council and will not necessarily be catered for by the Ministry.
Is it not perverse that we rightly maintain the Civil Justice Council to oversee the civil courts and the 63,000 cases they deal with a year, but we think we can do without this body that potentially deals with 650,000 cases a year, 10 times the number of civil actions and three times the number of criminal cases that go to court? It is a given that every tribunal case is important for the parties engaged in it. However, they are also often of national importance. In the other place the Aberfan tribunal inquiry was mentioned, and there have been many other groundbreaking, important and significant national events catered for through the tribunal system.
Above all, the council is an independent and expert body. I see no sign of either those essential criteria being replaced within the Ministry of Justice. Those are the ground rules why the body should be maintained. Since the original proposal, other reasons have arisen why it should be maintained. The negotiations with Scottish and Welsh jurisdictions have come back with a clear answer that both Scotland and Wales wish to preserve a body of this kind. Instead of one body for Great Britain we will have two—one for Scotland and one for Wales—and, as part of the settlement in dealing with the objections, the Ministry of Justice will have to fund those bodies for the first two years. That will reduce the savings still further.
I see no sign that the Ministry of Justice, with the cuts it is going through and its chaotic organisation, is in a fit state to take on these responsibilities. The fact that
more and more tribunals are coming into the chamber system—we saw the property chamber enhanced recently —is another reason for maintaining some oversight. The pressure on the tribunal system, through the economic downturn and the incompetence of organisations such as Atos producing many more tribunal cases, is another good reason to maintain it. The changes that the Government are introducing, such as the considerable charges for employment tribunal fees, are further reasons for maintaining an independent body for oversight.In conclusion, I can think of no other reason for this than the tick box, that we have got rid of another quango, another notch on the bedpost as it were, in what was the bonfire of the quangos but is now just a small fire in the corner of the room. There is only one reason that I can think of, and I turn to Private Eye for my information, which says:
“April sees cuts to legal aid which will result in more pointless cases which proper legal advice would previously have filtered out, as well as welfare reforms and their inevitable legal fallout. Summer then sees the introduction of fees for employment tribunals: expect a lot of laborious means-testing of workers who can’t afford the fees. The independent watchdog will no longer be around by then, so if, as is suspected, the MoJ doesn’t have the manpower to cope with the reforms, at least it won’t have to put up with the AJTC pointing out its shortcomings.”
That is the essence of my point. The Minister does not want judicial or independent oversight of the tribunal system, which is under increasing pressure and is, therefore, failing.
I have heard nothing new, so I have only one question for the Minister. Why has it taken the Government so long to do something that they appeared to be so resolute about? I believe that the order was laid in December 2012, and the date of abolition was March 2013. Even on the Government’s own terms, they are not making the nugatory savings that they want because they have delayed the matter further, and I would be interested to know why.
For all the reasons I have given, the Opposition will vote against the order today. Even at this late stage, I suggest that the Minister should reconsider.
3.5 pm
Mrs Grant: As always, we have had an interesting debate. I have listened carefully to the points that have been made, and I will try to pick up as many as I can. First, I welcome the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed about the appointment of an independent chair to the advisory group, and I am happy to keep him informed of developments in that process.
My right hon. Friend asked for further details about the role of the chair, and I can now tell him a little more than I could when I spoke earlier. The chair will ensure that the AJAG collaborates to give robust evidence-based challenge; they will build consensus and ensure that the different representative bodies work well together; they will galvanise action to improve the system in line with MOJ principles of efficiency, fairness and accessibility; they must provide strong leadership to the AJAG and represent the AJAG to Parliament; and they should ensure that AJAG delivers on its aims and objectives as set out in the strategic work programme.
My right hon. Friend asked for further details about what would happen in the devolved Administrations. As I am sure he knows, the reforms of the tribunal system in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not as far advanced as they are in England. We have, therefore, agreed to short-term funding of a non-statutory committee to oversee the devolved tribunals in Scotland and Wales. I have written to my right hon. Friend to tell him how much money is involved, but I inform the rest of the Committee that it amounts to £100,000 per annum in Wales and £50,000 per annum in Scotland.
Regarding the issues raised by the shadow Minister, I am quite satisfied that the work undertaken by the AJTC can be properly performed in the alternative ways that I have set out today. He asked why we are making the changes. I felt that I made the situation clear in my speech, but I will set out again the reasons why we are doing so. The AJTC is an advisory body; it always was, and it continues to be. It is not a tribunal, it is not a watchdog and it is not a regulator. It has absolutely no power at all to enforce its recommendations.
Sir Alan Beith: I do not think that the Minister should use the phrase “It is not a watchdog”. The former chairman Tony Newton would never have been happy to hear the AJTC being described in such a way. As far as I know, that term does not have a formal constitutional meaning, but if we are talking about a body that identifies and focuses attention on things that go wrong in the system, I am sure that it has always done that, and I hope that it will continue to be able to do so.
Mrs Grant: I, of course, take on board the issues raised by my right hon. Friend. Nevertheless, from what I have said, we can hopefully see the actual role and function of the AJTC. The good and robust structural reforms we have made over the years—we had to make the system better—mean that the legal landscape is very different from how it was when the tribunal was set up.
I again acknowledge the very good work done by Mr Thomas and his colleagues. We now have a unified tribunal system that manages the vast majority of administrative cases, which are administered by HMCTS. For those tribunals that are not administered by HMCTS, the MOJ is in a good position to ensure that those bodies make good decisions, that there is proportionality and, importantly, that there is good governance.
I believe the order to be reasonable. It will lead to improvements in the administrative justice and tribunals system for users and, importantly, for taxpayers. I hope that hon. Members agree that the abolition of this advisory body is a sensible and appropriate step that meets the requirements of the primary legislation.
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 7.
AYES
NOES
Question accordingly agreed to.
That the Committee has considered the draft Public Bodies (Abolition of Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council) Order 2013.