This is entry No.42, first published on 14 July 2011, of a blog on public bodies reform. Click here to view the whole blog. If you would like to be notified when the blog is updated, with links sent by email, click here.
The Public Bill Committee has now been formed and is to comprise:
(1) Chairs: David Amess and John Robertson
(2) Members: Jon Ashworth, Roberta Blackman-Woods, Angie Bray,
Stephen Crabb, Glyn Davies, Charlie Elphicke, Sam Gyimah, Richard
Harrington, David Heath, Nick Hurd, Susan Elan Jones, Stephen
Mosley, Lisa Nandy, Dominic Raab, Jon Trickett, Valerie Vaz, Hywel
Williams, Mark Williams and David Wright.
It is due to meet on 8, 13 and 15 September and on 11 and 13 October and will consider the Bill taking clauses and their associated schedules in numerical order, then new clauses, then new schedules.
It is particularly worth noting too that the Ministry of Justice has also now begun its consultation (see here) on those public bodies affected by the Bill that fall within its remit. Responses are due by 11 October. Perhaps the most contentious elements of its proposals are those concerning the office of Chief Coroner and the demise of the Youth Justice Board, though there are no real surprises in what is proposed. So far as the office of Chief Coroner is concerned, the Government's position is that it is not realistic to commit to the new expenditure that the office would require in the current economic circumstances and, so, some functions are proposed to be transferred to the Lord Chief Justice or the Lord Chancellor whilst leaving the office of Chief Coroner, which has yet to be filled, on the statute book. So far as the Youth Justice Board is concerned, this is to be abolished on the basis that it is no longer necessary to have independent oversight and that responsibility and accountability should be returned to ministers. As the consultation indicates that independent advice and challenge will be provided in future by a non-statutory advisory group and, in addition, that Dame Sue Street (named as an individual rather than as a particular office holder) will be have special responsibilities for youth justice within the department, it looks as if the latter rationale (clawing back departmental and ministerial responsibility) takes precedence over the former one (no need for independent oversight).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
