Spotlight : The Appeals Service
His Honour Judge Michael Harris, President of the Appeals Service, talks about the Appeals Service's current and future work, emphasising the need to continue to improve upon the standard of initial decision-making and sharing his thoughts on the move toward a unified tribunals service.
What is the Appeals Service?
Created in 2000, the Appeals Service is responsible for hearing appeals against decisions on social security, child support, vaccine damage, housing benefit, council tax benefit, child tax credits, pensions credit, tax credit and compensation recovery. Most decisions of the agencies of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) can be challenged by appeal.
The service consists of two distinct bodies. The first is a tribunal non-departmental public body with responsibility for the judicial functioning of appeals tribunals, headed by Judge Harris.
The second is an executive agency of the DWP. At the head of the agency, with responsibility for the administration of appeals (delegated to her by the Secretary of State), is the Chief Executive, Christina Townsend.
Appeals are heard by a network of locally based tribunals in over 140 venues throughout England, Scotland and Wales. They are processed at eight major operational sites dispersed throughout the UK, servicing all venues within their catchment area.
Over the last year the service received 235,000 appeals and held 53,000 tribunal sessions. Waiting times for appeals to be heard have decreased (from receipt of an appeal at the Appeals Service to first hearing), with the service exceeding the target set by the Secretary of State. During the year appellants waited an average of 11.2 weeks compared to 12.5 weeks in 2002/03. This figure does not include the waiting time within the DWP Agencies.
The impact of this improvement has meant that the service has reduced the waiting time variation in regional performance to only 2.8 weeks, compared to 3.9 weeks in 2002/03, a reduction of 28 per cent.
The Appeals Service seeks to find new and more effective ways of providing feedback and enhancing the flow of information between the tribunal and first-tier decision-makers. Recent National Audit Office and Select Committee Reports have called for improvements in the process of first-tier decision-making. Michael Harris reports annually to the Secretary of State on standards of decision-making in cases that come before the appeal tribunals. The report is based on questionnaires provided by tribunals themselves on the cases that come before them.
In his recently published fifth annual report Judge Harris expresses his continuing concern about the disappointing standards of the DWP Agencies' decision-making.
"Agencies must accept that decision-making is a complicated process involving complex human situations and personal circumstances superimposed on which is a sophisticated system of law. The exercise of sound judgement is at the heart of what we are trying to achieve because it has such a profound effect upon the life of the individual."
What are the key areas for improvement in the system overall?
In his report on standards of decision-making Judge Harris identifies three recurring themes still to be addressed by the Agencies as key areas of improvement. These are: the over-emphasis on processes and targets; the decline in the attendance of Presenting Officers at appeal hearings; and the continuing delay by Agencies in bringing cases to a tribunal hearing. The Council on Tribunals has raised all these matters as issues of concern.
Processes and targets
In his report Judge Harris says, "Too much emphasis is being placed by the agencies on processes and targets, it is as if they are saying that if they could only get the process right then the outcome decision must be right too." He continues, "It is perhaps one of the main reasons why matters do not seem to be improving."
He describes a lack of co-ordination across Agencies with regards to the application of process. Despite guidance for decision-makers being available, this is not always monitored nor is it adhered to. He recommends that Agencies benchmark good practice in decision-making before establishing the process and "let the good decision making practices determine the process rather than the other way round."
Presenting Officers
Asserting that the primary source of feedback to Agencies on the standard of decision-making is the tribunal hearing itself, Judge Harris expresses his ongoing concern about the marked decline in the attendance of Presenting Officers. In 2000/01, 41 per cent of Presenting Officers attended hearings, but by 2003/04 this had declined to 24 per cent and this year the figure is 27 per cent.
Presenting Officers have a dual "amicus curiae" role at the appeal hearing, representing the Secretary of State and assisting the tribunal to come to a legally correct decision. They are well placed to understand the tribunal's line of questioning and to consider wider implications for their colleagues' future decision-making.
He says, "...the routine absence of one of the parties to the proceedings at oral hearings changes the dynamic of the tribunal and where evidence is deficient has the added risk of the tribunal appearing to be another tier of the decision-making process rather than the appropriate appellate authority."
Delays
Delays in bringing cases to tribunal inevitably have an impact upon decision-making. Judge Harris says, "When events are fresh in the mind...it is much easier to bring together the evidence and rationalise decisions." He continues, "In recent years the Appeals Service has worked to reduce waiting lists but work remains to be done within Agencies to address their waiting times and make some improvements. "
What further changes lie ahead?
The Appeals Service is among the first tranche of the tribunals to be incorporated into the DCA as part of the creation of the unified Tribunals Service.
Judge Harris says, "We have much to offer the new organisation and much to gain from it. We can offer a highly professional administrative team. We can offer a well trained and supported Judiciary. But above all we can offer an organisation that works well together."
He concludes, "We have much to gain too. Staff will have the added security of belonging to a much larger judicial organisation. This will enhance the prospects for promotion. On the judicial side it will make it easier to move from one jurisdiction to another, thereby improving the breadth of judicial experience and the quality of our decisions. Sir Andrew Leggatt thought that we could serve as the model for the new service and he was right!"
(July 2005)