Search:

Home >> 1. Overview of the Year

• Annual and special reports
• Guidance
• Other documents

1. Overview of the Year

1.  This Report relates to the period 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006. We reported last year on the proposals contained in the Department for Constitutional Affairs' (DCA) White Paper "Transforming Public Services: Complaints, Redress and Tribunals", which was published in July 2004. The proposals were far-reaching, impacting on the wider landscape of administrative justice, including decision making by government departments, ombudsmen and the courts. They also included a proposal that we should in due course become an Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council (AJTC) with a wider remit. This, and some of the White Paper's other proposals, require primary legislation and the illustrative timetable contained in the White Paper contemplated a Courts and Tribunals Bill being introduced in June 2005.

2.  As matters developed, other pressures on parliamentary time prevented the introduction of a Bill in the 200506 session, but substantial progress has nevertheless been made this year on the aspects of the reform proposals which do not require legislation, including our own sustained efforts to reposition ourselves to take on the AJTC role.

Tribunals Service

3.  The Tribunals Service (TS) was formally launched as an executive agency of the DCA on 3 April 2006. This was the most significant development in the administration of tribunals that has taken place within the lifetime of the Council on Tribunals. The TS comprises the tribunals already within the DCA and a number of other tribunals that have transferred to DCA from other government departments: the Appeals Service (now called the Social Security and Child Support Appeals Tribunal), transferring from the Department for Work and Pensions; Employment Tribunals, transferring from the Department of Trade and Industry; the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel, transferring from the Home Office; the Mental Health Review Tribunal, transferring from the Department of Health; and the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, transferring from the Department for Education and Skills.

4.  We have actively supported the creation of a unified tribunal service as a major step in achieving real independence for tribunals and this year devoted a considerable amount of our time to overseeing the implementation process. Our Chairman served as a member of the DCA Tribunals Service Programme Board, which oversaw the work to establish the Tribunals Service. Our members, including the Chairman, also participated as observers on the Implementation Boards for the individual tribunals joining the new Tribunals Service, to consider issues of particular relevance to those jurisdictions. Following the establishment of the Tribunals Service a new Tribunals Service Management Board has been set up, on which our Chairman will sit. Our members will also sit on the Steering Boards that have been established to oversee the operation of each of the transferring tribunals.

5.  We believe that the bringing together of tribunals within the DCA represents a significant advance for the independence of tribunals and provides the opportunity for a number of benefits to be realised for tribunal users. A significant number of tribunals still remain outside the unified service and consideration will be given this year to the timetable for additional tribunals to join the TS. We expect to contribute to discussions about later phases of the unification process.

6.  The TS published a Framework Document, setting out its purpose and accountabilities, including details of how it will relate to other organisations with which it will maintain operational links. It also published a Business Plan, setting out its key priorities and objectives for 200607. An extract from the Business Plan is included at Appendix A.

Senior President Designate of Tribunals

7.  The White Paper proposed the appointment of a Senior President of Tribunals, who would also be an ex-officio member of the AJTC. Lord Justice Carnwath was subsequently appointed as Senior President designate, pending the necessary legislation. The Senior President is not a member of the Council, nor is it now proposed that he should be a member of the prospective AJTC. We have however welcomed Lord Justice Carnwath at our meetings and value our collaborative relationship with him.

8.  Lord Justice Carnwath assumed chairmanship of the Tribunal Presidents Group (TPG), which had been set up by Lord Justice Brooke for the tribunal judiciary to consider the White Paper's proposals. The TPG has become an established forum and our Chairman now participates in its meetings. A smaller Tribunal Judges Executive Board, comprising representatives from the main constituent tribunals, has also been established and meets more frequently.

9.  We also welcomed the establishment in September 2005 of the Scottish Tribunals Forum, to liaise with the Senior President of Tribunals and other interested parties on Scottish aspects of the reforms and their implementation. The Forum is chaired by Lord Abernethy, a judge in the Court of Session in Scotland, and includes representation from our Scottish Committee.

Users Support Workshops

10.  We have continued to canvass the views of tribunal users about the tribunal reform programme. Following on from our earlier workshops in London, Manchester and Livingston, we held a further workshop in Bristol last October.

11.  The key themes of the workshops were drawn from the issues arising in the DCA White Paper. The White Paper proposed that the Council should have an important role to play in obtaining the views of users and the advice sector on issues arising from tribunal unification and formulating advice to DCA on user priorities and concerns. Delegates were asked to explore in particular:

• how support to tribunal users could be improved, with particular focus on the need for better advice and information
• the scope for employing proportionate dispute resolution techniques so that more disputes might be resolved at an earlier stage without the need for an appeal hearing.

12.  A wide range of delegates from organisations that provide support to tribunal users attended the workshops. We have reviewed and collated all the key messages representing the views expressed by delegates at the workshops and produced a report of the feedback, which was published in April 2006. Copies of the report have been circulated widely to all those with an interest, including key DCA officials, workshop delegates and other contacts within the administrative justice field.

13.  he report sets out the emerging key messages and highlights potential areas for further work. Whilst we recognise that some of these further areas of work have already been identified by the DCA our intention in producing the report has been to provide a faithful account of the views of the workshop attendees. We are also considering where we ourselves can work with the TS in taking forward some of the further work identified in the feedback report.

Judicial Studies Board

14.  We continue to enjoy a close collaborative working relationship with the Judicial Studies Board's Tribunals Committee, on which we are represented by one of our members. During the year we were invited to comment on a draft Framework for the Evaluation of Training, Appraisal and Mentoring Arrangements in Tribunals and our Chairman took part in a consultative workshop where the proposals were discussed with those responsible for training and appraisal in a range of tribunal jurisdictions. We welcomed the evaluation framework, which aims to encourage a consistent approach to training and development across tribunals and to promote good practice. Following a successful pilot evaluation of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, the JSB will undertake a programme of evaluation visits over the next 18 months to those tribunals within, or soon to join, the Tribunals Service.

15.  At the Council's conference in November 2005 Mr Justice Sullivan, Chairman of the JSB's Tribunals Committee, announced the publication of the Framework for Induction of New Chairmen and Members of Tribunals, the latest in the JSB's series of guidance and framework documents. Also, during the year, at the request of the Senior President, the JSB has conducted a survey of current training provision in tribunals, in order to update the survey previously carried out in conjunction with the Council in 2002. Preliminary results indicate that substantial progress has been made by many tribunals during this time, both in the development of judicial training and the introduction of appraisal schemes.

Judicial Appointments Commission

16.  Our Chairman has had the opportunity to meet Baroness Usha Prashar, Chair of the new Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), which came into operation on 3 April 2006. The JAC is an independent public body set up by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to select judicial office holders, including appointments to tribunals. The members of the JAC with a particular interest in tribunals include His Honour Judge David Pearl, President of the Care Standards Tribunal, and Professor Dame Hazel Genn DBE. We look forward to developing an appropriate working relationship with the JAC in the future.

Research Advisory Group

17.  During the year we welcomed the opportunity to join with Lord Justice Carnwath in establishing a Research Advisory Group. Its remit is to advise the Senior President and the Council on the availability, desirability and dissemination of research to assist them in the fulfilment of their respective duties. The Group is chaired by Professor Martin Partington, himself a former Council member, who also acts as a special adviser to the Senior President. The Council is represented on the group by Professor Genevra Richardson and Bernard Quoroll.

Oral Hearings Consultation

18.  The White Paper emphasised the need to reduce reliance on formal oral hearings and we considered that if we were to be in a position to contribute fully to the consequent policy debate we should consult widely among the relevant stakeholders. Accordingly, in May 2005 we published a consultation paper entitled "The Use and Value of Oral Hearings in the Administrative Justice System". Two events were held alongside the consultation: the first was an Oral Hearings Seminar, held at our Chancery Lane premises in July 2005 and attended by key members of the tribunals judiciary, academics and representatives of the legal and advice sectors; the second was an Oral Hearings Workshop, held during the afternoon of our annual conference in November 2005.

19.  The consultation generated a great deal of interest and a large number of thoughtful written responses. In January 2006 we published a summary of responses on our website, together with most of the responses themselves. The summary is at Appendix B. We plan to build on the success of the consultation exercise and to continue to engage stakeholders. Areas of particular interest to us include the form and style adopted when an oral hearing is used, and, more generally, mechanisms for the sorting and distribution of cases in systems of redress (or "triage" as some commentators refer to it).

Nuffield Foundation and Economic & Social Research Council

20.  During late 2005 and early 2006 the Nuffield Foundation held a series of six seminars on Administrative Justice, at which a range of distinguished British and international speakers shared experiences and viewpoints. They included advisers, members of tribunals, judges, ombudsmen, and complaint handlers, as well as academics and policy-makers. The three main aims of the seminars were to stimulate an informed and strategic discussion, ensure that the wider issues raised in current reform proposals could be discussed dispassionately, and to help identify future research needs. The seminars were organised by Professor Maurice Sunkin. One of our members, Professor Genevra Richardson, also sits on the Nuffield Foundation Board of Trustees and was closely involved in devising and introducing the seminars. Our Chairman and several of our members and staff attended the seminars.

21.  Also during the year the Economic and Social Research Council began sponsoring a series of seminars on administrative justice, with a slightly different focus. The aims of this series of seminars are to review the current state of theoretical work on administrative justice, defined as work concerned with the justice and fairness of administrative procedures; to consider recent changes in the nature of the state, recent developments in public administration in the UK and elsewhere and their implications for accountability; and, against this background, to assess the current state of administrative justice in the UK, in particular the balance between external and internal forms of accountability and the degree of co-ordination between them, and to consider how administrative justice might be enhanced. The seminars are being organised by Professor Michael Adler and Dr Richard Whitecross. The Chairman of our Scottish Committee, Alistair MacLeary, attended the first seminar, which was held in Edinburgh in March 2006.

Communications Strategy

22.  The underlying aims of the review of our communications strategy last year were to:

• develop better systems for exchanging information with our stakeholders;
• strengthen our communications to enable us to consult more easily with tribunals and tribunal users; and
• promote best practice across the administrative justice field.

23.  We had hoped that our transition to a AJTC would help define the progress of our communications work. But whilst the former has not been realised, we have still made a productive and promising start to widening our communications network and engaging with our stakeholders. We will continue our work to fulfil the "hub of the wheel" role that Sir Andrew Leggatt envisaged in his Report.

24.  We describe in paragraphs 10 to 13 above the series of users workshops we held to seek views on the tribunal reform programme and to promote the Council's work among the user and advice sector. As a by-product of this work we have established a useful network of user representatives with whom we plan to engage further as we evolve into our new AJTC role.

25.  We have also redesigned our website at www.council-on-tribunals.gov.uk in order to improve its appearance and accessibility. Further work is also in progress to expand its functionality, which will enable it to be updated more easily and quickly.

"Adjust" electronic newsletter

26.  Our quarterly electronic newsletter "Adjust" has evolved both in design and content, the original format having been replaced with a more user-friendly design. Adjust has become an informative newsletter and a useful medium for us to communicate the work of the Council and also wider issues pertaining to administrative justice. This year we have welcomed interesting articles from a wide variety of contributors from different backgrounds, including academics, user representatives and tribunals. We have endeavoured to continue building our relationship with user representatives and advice groups and have profiled various agencies such as the Specialist Support Services division of Citizens Advice, PEACH (Parents for the Early Intervention of Autism in Children) and the Legal Casework Service division of the RNID.

27.  In October we produced an Adjust 'Education Special', a one-off edition focusing on education appeals in England and Wales. This was partly inspired by the workshop we ran for admission and exclusion appeal clerks in London to promote the work of the Education Appeals Support Initiative (EASI) group. The aim of the education special was to help support and promote the sharing of best practice and provide a medium for networking and sharing of experiences.

28.  We have continued to build the readership of Adjust to ensure that it reaches a larger audience within the administrative justice world, both here and overseas.

British and Irish Ombudsman Association

29.  We have sought to strengthen our relationship with the British and Irish Ombudsman Association (BIOA) by collaborating in areas of common interest. Work has begun on a joint exercise designed to map out ombudsman and complaint handling bodies in the United Kingdom, in order to inform a wide range of individuals and organisations. It is anticipated that this will be particularly useful to policy-makers.

30.  One of our members has been participating in a BIOA working group tasked with developing principles of good complaint handling. The group held its inaugural meeting in October 2005, bringing together BIOA members from the public and private sectors, both large and small, from across Great Britain and Ireland.

The terms of reference of the group are:

• to identify the over-arching principles and standards in escalated complaint handling which reflect best practice in the establishment of schemes and the delivery of service;
• to draw up a statement of principles and standards which value the breadth and diversity of BIOA members whilst articulating and defining BIOA's core values;
• to publish a statement which can be used as a measure of quality assurance by current and potential BIOA members, other complaint handling schemes and individuals and also those interested in the provision of such services and the recipients of them.

The working group has now produced a draft consultation document which has been circulated for comment within BIOA.

Our 2005 Annual Conference

31.  Our 2005 annual conference included participants from more than 40 different administrative justice jurisdictions, as well as representatives from the advice sector, user groups and academia. The main theme of the conference was once again the DCA White Paper and the establishment of the Tribunals Service. Peter Handcock, Chief Executive of the Tribunals Service, updated the conference on the substantial progress that had been made.

32.  We were particularly pleased to welcome as keynote speaker Baroness Ashton, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in DCA. Announcing a review of the role of non-legal tribunal members, Baroness Ashton described non-legal members as 'often neglected and under-valued'. We welcome her commitment to a continuing role for non-legal members and we are actively participating in the review.

33.  Other speakers included Lord Justice Carnwath, Senior President of Tribunals; Mr Justice Sullivan, Chairman of the Judicial Studies Board's Tribunals Committee; Professor Hazel Genn, University College London (whose appointment as a DBE in the 2006 Birthday Honours gave us particular pleasure); and our own Professor Genevra Richardson, who reported on our oral hearings consultation. Our Chairman described our evolution to an Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council, outlining three themes emerging in our work, which would help to determine our new role:

• establishing the ways in which we would communicate with the administrative justice sector;
• placing an increasing emphasis on promoting and publicising research to produce materials of value to stakeholders;
• continuing our work on promoting the needs and priorities of tribunal users.

Tribunals for Diverse Users

34.  We were pleased to be invited to attend a reception to launch the publication of Professor Hazel Genn's eagerly awaited research report "Tribunals for Diverse Users", at which Professor Genn presented an outline of her findings. The report was based on a study of access, expectations, experiences and outcomes of tribunal hearings from the perspective of users of the Appeals Service, Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel and the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. The report found that users of those three tribunals are on the whole treated well at hearings and that the majority of users across ethnic groups perceive this to be true. The study also highlighted the importance of pre-hearing preparation, the perception of fairness and the need for the judiciary to have the skills to enable unrepresented parties to present their case. We have since had a meeting with Professor Genn to discuss her report, which also highlighted a number of areas for further work.

Diversity

35.  The introduction of the Equality Bill, now the Equality Act 2006, prompted us to undertake a review of our existing policy statement on diversity, which we first published in 2000. We were keen that any new statement should adopt a more proactive approach by specifying the positive steps we would take in carrying out our statutory functions, to demonstrate our commitment to eliminating discrimination and promoting equality and diversity. Our revised policy statement is at Appendix C.

Wales

36.  Following on from the success of our first conference on Administrative Justice in Wales last June, we look forward to building on the positive relations fostered with tribunal colleagues in Wales and to this end plan to hold a further conference in Wales in 2007.

37.  The reform of the tribunals system in England has raised many issues for the future agenda of the Welsh Assembly Government and we look forward to being involved in these discussions. We continue to remain in touch with developments in Wales through Heather Wilcox, our member who represents the interests of people in Wales.

Northern Ireland

38.  Although tribunals in Northern Ireland are for the most part outside our statutory remit, we take an interest in developments there. In September 2005 our Chairman spoke at a conference in Belfast organised by the Office of the President of Appeal Tribunals in Northern Ireland. One of our members, Susan Howdle, also attended, as did two members of our staff. The conference theme was "Tribunals: A Time for Change". And so it has proved. In March 2006 the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced that the administration of tribunals currently sponsored by the Northern Ireland departments is to become the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor to form part of a new Courts and Tribunals Service. We warmly welcome this development.

International

39.  We continue to develop good relations with overseas administrative justice contacts to encourage networking and the sharing of good practice. We were delighted to welcome Trish McConnell, Principal Adjudicator of the Tenancy Tribunal in New Zealand, who visited the Council at the end of November as part of a networking tour. The Tenancy Tribunal, part of the Ministry of Justice in New Zealand, is a court established under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to deal with unresolved problems between landlords and tenants. We were also visited by Steve Karas, Principal Member of the Australian Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Tribunal.

40.  Our Dispute Resolution Committee met Professor Peter Spiller, who had been appointed as Principal Disputes Referee of the Disputes Tribunal in New Zealand. This meeting provided a useful opportunity to discuss dispute resolution processes across two different jurisdictions.

41.  The European Ombudsman, P. Nikiforos Diamandouros, visited us as part of a programme of visits to EU Member states. We were pleased to welcome Mr Diamandouros and to give him an overview of our work.

42.  During the year we also welcomed Anton Alexandrovitch Ivanov, President of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, who was leading a study tour as part of an EU Tacis Programme project. The jurisdiction of the Arbitration Courts of the Russian Federation includes some areas of law dealt with by tribunals in the UK.

43.  We were pleased to meet a delegation headed by Professor Ying Songnian, Director of the Law Department of the National School of Administration and Member of the National People's Congress in China. The visit was organised by the Great Britain-China Centre to enable the delegates to learn about the UK system of administrative tribunals. Our Chairman, the Chairman of our Scottish Committee and one of our members presented an overview of the Council to the delegation.

44.  The Senior President of Tribunals, one of our members and academics in the field of administrative justice took part in an International Tribunals Workshop in Canberra, Australia in April 2006. The workshop, which was organised by Professor Robin Creyke of the Centre for International and Public Law at the Australian National University, enabled a comparison of developments in the tribunals systems in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

Visits

45.  During the year our members, both of the Council and the Scottish Committee, observed 75 tribunal and inquiry hearings and participated in 60 conferences, training seminars and user group meetings. Details are at Appendix G.

46.  In advance of our anticipated transition to a AJTC we have been undertaking a review of our visits reporting system, including the arrangements for providing feedback to tribunals following our visits to observe appeal hearings. We are keen to put in place an open, transparent and informative process for tribunals and will undertake a trial of new arrangements for reporting and giving feedback to tribunals, involving letting tribunal Heads have sight of our resulting visit reports. We aim to begin piloting these new arrangements from Autumn 2006.