Comment : Forum of Tribunal Organisations
(July 2007)
Derek Searby, a District Chairman of the Social Security and Child Support Appeals Tribunal, talks about the creation of the Forum of Tribunal Organisations.
Lord Newton, Chairman of the Council on Tribunals, invited me to set down some information after hearing my report to the Tribunals Presidents' Group meeting at the end of June. His curiosity may have been stimulated when, during the introductions, I had to announce myself as representing an organisation that had no name! ... I did, however, go on to explain that it could be described as a "forum of tribunal organisations." I have to say that as this forum evolves we shall certainly write a defining constitution and find a suitable name. That name however should reflect the part we eventually play when the framework of the Tribunals Service is firmly in place.
Early last year, in anticipation of the move to the then DCA, HH Judge Michael Harris called a meeting of the organisations to which most of the full-time tribunal judiciary belong. I went along as Chairman of the Association of District Chairmen of the Appeals Service, as it then was. There was also attendance from the Presidents of the Council of Employment Tribunal Chairmen, The Council of Immigration Judges and Council of SSCS Commissioners. These names are a bit of a mouthful so we tend to refer to ourselves by jurisdiction, as I now shall.
The vision for the future, which I think was shared by the Senior President (designate), Carnwath LJ, was of an overarching body representing the interests of all the tribunal judiciary who would become administered by the DCA and we were being asked to explore the possibilities of forming such a body. There has been a history of rivalry between our organisations which was probably at its height at the beginning of last year when we were in competition for promotion during the fundamental review of judicial salaries conducted by SSRB. At best there was no enthusiasm for what was being proposed and at worst even reluctance. I warmed to the idea and so offered to bring the parties together to discuss matters in common without commitment for the future.
By the time we had met on a couple of occasions the Senior President had secured agreement with the Lord Chief Justice to have three representatives of the tribunal judiciary sitting on the Judges' Council. It emerged that one of those seats was reserved for the higher level judiciary and that it would be taken by Michael Harris until his retirement the following year,[1] thus excluding our SSCS Commissioner colleague from consideration at that stage. The period of membership on the Judges' Council is usually three years, but the remaining two places were to be filled on a transitional basis of one until April 2008 and the other to April 2009 by and on behalf of those on the lower level. (This is known as Group 7).
All three of the Group 7 organisations had some claim to priority for the places on offer, but a mechanism was devised to enable two go forward. This resulted in Peter Hildebrand (ET) and Paul Shaerf (AIT) taking those places, with me to act as their deputy in case of absence. Both Michael Harris and the Senior President were keen to emphasise that the role of our members of the Judges' Council was to represent all the tribunal judiciary, including non-legal members and the fee-paid (part-timers). To this end they favoured using what the administration could provide to enable liaison with the wider spectrum of judiciary, rather than leave it for the group to devise.
In the early part of this year it became very clear that there was no viable mechanism through which the wider membership could be engaged. My term as Chairman of my own organisation was coming to an end but Michael Harris agreed that I could continue to drive forward the expansion of the group to get some resolution to this issue.
When we met again, representatives of the existing, mainly non-legal members, organisations were invited to join us. This has led now to a forum involving those representing salaried and fee paid legal members of the SSCSAT, ET, SSCS Commissioners, AIT and also, mainly non-legal members associations, from ET, AIT and the National Association of General Commissioner of Income Tax. This means that every member's organisation of which we know has now become involved.
We have so far agreed:
- That our members of the Judges' Council and myself, as deputy and convenor/chairman, will continue to act as such even after our terms of office with our own organisations come to an end.
- Our principal meetings will coincide with the dates of the Judges' Council to enable full reportage from the previous sittings and feedback for the next.
- The forum shall provide the interface between the tribunal judiciary and the Judges' Council.
- That the Senior President be asked to secure provision for the wider tribunal judiciary to play a part in the Judges' Council. This may involve securing a non-legal members seat or widening the scope of the judicial sub-committee and the co-option of more members to serve on it.
- The current Presidents and Chairs of the represented organisation, or their deputies are automatically delegates to the forum.
- That the administration be requested to assist in providing a web-site or dedicated portion of the existing Tribunal Service web-site to secure communication with judiciary who do not have their own organisations.
- The forum shall be the interface between the represented organisations and the Senior President on matters of common interest.
We retain on the agenda an item "the future shape and direction of the forum". This ensures that we keep in mind how to develop ourselves and engage other judicial colleagues. The link with the Judges' Council is considered to be important, particularly to the legal members, all of whom will become tribunal judges under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill, now soon to become law. The non-legal organisations clearly feel that they get better value from the forum than from the Judges' Council. It is also true that our jurisdictions extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland whereas the Judges' Council is exclusively for England and Wales.
I perceive that there is a clear desire for the forum to evolve into a "Council of Tribunals Judiciary" and for its plenary meetings to be chaired by the Senior President. I would not discourage this, as it could run in tandem with the Judges' Council and would not conflict with the sort of business conducted in the Tribunal Presidents' Group. Were such an idea feasible I think it could be strengthened and dignified by the Judges on the Tribunal Sub-Committee of the Judges' Council being given the right to attend.
Following my very brief report to the Tribunal Presidents' Group the Senior President described "the ripples we were making across the water" being due to a "stone thrown in" by Michael Harris. It can now be seen what he was referring to. It is a good analogy, particularly since we do not know what the future may hold; the ripple could become a wave or even gradually disappear. I hope not the latter, because my experience so far suggests that the forum represents the true spirit and the heart of what the various frameworks and legislation are aiming to achieve.
Anyone seeking more information can contact Derek by email.
Footnote:
- Michael Harris continues to act as deputy to the Senior President. He was succeeded by Sir Stephen Oliver QC, President of the Taxes and Duties Tribunal as tribunal member on the JC. [back]