Search:

Home >> Publications >> Annual and Special Reports >> Annual Report 2004/2005 >> 1. Introduction

• Annual and special reports
• Guidance
• Other documents

1. Introduction

1.  This Report relates to the period 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005 and is the first Report for a full year following the change of reporting period to coincide with our business-planning year.

2.  The publication of our last Report in July 2004 coincided with the announcement of the Department for Constitutional Affairs' White Paper "Transforming Public Services: Complaints, Redress and Tribunals". We have subsequently devoted a great deal of time over the past 12 months to considering the full implications of the White Paper's proposals, not least as regards the impact they will be likely to have on our own work and operations.

Transforming Public Services: Complaints, Redress and Tribunals

3.  The White Paper's proposals were much more far-reaching than originally envisaged, covering not just dispute resolution in the context of tribunals but right across the wider landscape of administrative justice, including first-tier decision makers, ombudsmen and the courts.

4.  The White Paper presented the government's proposals within the context of the four key elements of the Department's five-year strategy, which comprised:

• developing policies that empower citizens;
• better use of education, information, advice and proportionate dispute resolution to resolve disputes;
• radically changing the way it delivers services; and
• reshaping its organisation and infrastructure.

5.  We very much welcomed the emphasis on proportionate dispute resolution, which aimed to ensure the resolution of greater numbers of disputes without recourse to tribunals. This was to be achieved through:

• making better decisions and giving clearer explanations at the first tier;
• improving people's understanding of their rights and responsibilities;
• ensuring that people have access to early advice and assistance when they need it;
• developing a range of tailored dispute resolution services; and
• delivering cost effective courts and tribunals to deal with the cases coming before them more effectively.

6.  From our perspective the crux of the White Paper lay in the statement in paragraph 4.21:

"What we need to do is to create the unified tribunal system recommended by Sir Andrew Leggatt but transform it into a new type of organisation which will not only provide formal hearings and authoritative rulings where these are needed but will have as well a mission to resolve disputes fairly and finally either by itself or in partnership with the decision-making department, other institutions and the advice sector."

An Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council

7.  The White Paper also included measures impacting on the Council on Tribunals, proposing that in due course we should become an administrative justice council (since renamed "Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council"), which would constitute a significant widening of our existing remit to encompass the wider landscape of administrative justice. In addition to our current statutory role of overseeing the tribunals under our supervision, the White Paper proposed that we should have the following new functions:

• keeping under review the performance of the administrative justice system as a whole, drawing attention to matters of particular importance or concern;
• reviewing the relationships between the various components of the system (in particular ombudsmen, tribunals and the courts) to ensure that these are clear, complementary and flexible;
• identifying priorities for, and encouraging the conduct of, research;
• providing advice and making recommendations to government on changes to legislation, practice and procedure which will improve the workings of the administrative justice system.

8.  In addition to this new remit it is expected that legislation will strengthen our voice by giving us authority to publish our comments on legislation. A Code of Practice will commit government departments to publish responses to our comments and our reports will be drawn to the attention of the appropriate Select Committee of the House of Commons.

9.  The White Paper also proposed that we should have an interim role to play in the run-up to the creation of the Tribunals Service in terms of:

• collaborating with the Tribunals Service Chief Executive and other tribunals to identify common performance measures, to promote effective alignment of data collection and more effective benchmarking of performance;
• scrutinising and challenging the way in which the new organisation is being established;
• in collaboration with the JSB advising the Senior President on an appropriate initial training policy and co-ordinated training programme for the unified tribunals judiciary;
• obtaining the views of users and the advice sector on issues arising from the unification process, formulating advice to DCA on user priorities and concerns, and promoting ongoing dialogue between the unified tribunals and the user community;
• recommending which tribunals should be brought into the Tribunals Service after the initial "big 10".

10.  We have already begun to address many of these issues. Pending the appointment of the Senior President designate, Lord Justice Carnwath, as an ex-officio member of the Council, we were pleased that he accepted our invitation to attend our meetings in the meantime. Our Chairman also sits as a member of the DCA's Tribunals Service Programme Board and our members sit on the Implementation Boards which have been set up for the Tribunals transferring in the first phase to the new Tribunals Service. We have also begun holding a number of workshops to seek views from the organisations that provide support to tribunal users on users' priorities (which are described in more detail at paragraphs 18 to 22 below).

11.  We are still at an early stage in our consideration of our future role, not least in terms of determining the full extent of the new landscape of administrative justice. Nevertheless, we are beginning to see how the new administrative justice system could be made simpler for, and more accessible to, users. For example, we have long held the view that improved initial decision-making, including better explanation of decisions and more effective internal review procedures, would avoid the need for many appeals.

12.  We have begun to scope work to be taken forward on proportionate dispute resolution so that we might be better equipped to provide advice to DCA on its potential application within tribunals. Moreover, as part of the proportionate dispute resolution debate, we have recently published a consultation document seeking views on the use and value of oral hearings in administrative justice and organised a workshop to seek the views of key players in the administrative justice world.

13.  We are also working closely with officials in DCA on the legal framework for the new administrative justice and tribunals council, to be contained in prospective primary legislation.

Our Annual Conference

14.  Our 2004 annual conference, which we again held at One Great George Street in Westminster, constituted what we believe to be the largest ever gathering of the administrative justice and tribunals worlds in Britain, with some 200 delegates in attendance. We have been keen each year to expand the range of delegates at our conference to include not just tribunal Heads and Presidents but also wider representation from the core membership of tribunals. We were pleased also to be able this year to include delegates from the wider administrative justice world and the advice and voluntary sectors.

15.  We were particularly pleased to have as keynote speaker the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer, who announced the Government's plans to publish a Courts and Tribunals Bill, which would include the legislative framework for the new unified Tribunals Service and the administrative justice and tribunals council. Lord Falconer spoke about the importance he placed on providing more effective mechanisms for resolving disputes quickly, fairly and proportionately. We welcomed his personal commitment to these landmark reforms.

16.  Other speakers included Lord Justice Carnwath, the Senior President designate of Tribunals; Peter Handcock, Chief Executive designate of the Tribunals Service; Mr Justice Sullivan, Chairman of the Judicial Studies Board's Tribunals Committee; Ann Abraham, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman; Siobhan McGrath, Senior President of the Residential Property Tribunal Service; Carolyn Kirby, Chairman of the Mental Health Review Tribunal in Wales; and Roger Smith, Director of Justice.

17.  During the plenary session delegates took the opportunity to express their views on what they had heard during the day and on the wider issues discussed in the White Paper. There was a broad welcome for proportionate dispute resolution and for tribunal users having greater choice in the means by which their disputes are resolved. Delegates also emphasised the need to avoid neglect of those tribunals which would for the time being remain outside the new service; a concern which we recognised and will bear in mind.

Users Support Workshops

18.  In order to fulfil our new role in obtaining the views of users, we organised a number of Tribunal Users Support Workshops, involving a wide range of groups from the advice and voluntary sectors. We held events in London and Manchester and our Scottish Committee held a workshop in Livingston in Scotland. We plan to run further workshops during the course of the year.

19.  The key themes of the workshops were based on the issues arising in the White Paper, providing the opportunity 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.

20.  At the London workshop we were pleased to have a wide range of speakers, including Teresa Perchard, Director of Policy at Citizens Advice; Adam Griffith, a policy adviser at the Advice Services Alliance; Paul Stockton, Head of Administrative Justice Division in the Department for Constitutional Affairs; John Wright, Chief Executive of the Independent Panel for Special Education Advice; and Nony Ardill, Policy Director at Legal Action Group. Ian Moss, Head of Employment Rights within the Citizens Advice Specialist Support Unit in Wolverhampton, spoke at the Manchester workshop. We are grateful to them for their contributions to the workshops, which were materially helpful in achieving a successful outcome.

21.  A wide range of representatives from national and regional user support groups attended the workshops. Their participation has enabled us to gain a better understanding of the views and experiences, from the user's perspective, of the services provided by the tribunal systems which we oversee. We will be reporting in due course to DCA on the findings from the workshops, giving advice on the arrangements that are being made for the new Tribunals Service, which is due to come into operation in April 2006.

22.  In the meantime, we look forward to building on the useful contacts we made at the workshops, with a view to establishing how and where the Council might be able to make a significant difference for tribunal users in the future.

Communications strategy

23.  This year we undertook a wide-ranging review of our communications strategy and methodology in order to assist our transition to an administrative justice and tribunals council. In carrying out this review our main aims were to:

• develop better systems for exchanging information of common interest with other stakeholders and agencies, including those with whom we will need to develop new relationships beyond tribunals, through our wider remit as an administrative justice and tribunals council;
• strengthen our communications to enable us to consult more easily with tribunals and tribunal users (and user representative bodies), with a view to both improving the information available to us about users' needs and making more readily accessible information about us as the Council on Tribunals, and in due course, as an administrative justice and tribunals council;
• promote good practice and a greater sense of community across tribunals and others in the field of administrative justice.

24.  We identified several early priorities, which were to:

• begin a series of 'user' workshops to seek views on the tribunal reform programme and establish new contacts, as described in paragraphs 18 to 22 above;
• adopt a more structured approach to our networking with other stakeholders and agencies;
• arrange our first conference in Wales;
• launch an electronic magazine (an 'e-zine').

25. We established a 'Communications Committee' of Council members to take forward this work and sought specialist advice from a communications consultancy, Tribal MPC.

"Adjust" e-zine

26.  Our electronic magazine, entitled 'Adjust', was launched in January 2005. As its title and strapline 'advancing administrative justice' indicate, we have sought to address the wider administrative justice community described in the White Paper, rather than limit its content and readership to those in the tribunals world.

27.  'Adjust' has been distributed as widely as possible by e-mail and we plan to continue expanding its circulation over time. Copies of 'Adjust', including back issues, are also available on our website. Editions of 'Adjust' are currently being produced quarterly, although we intend to review its frequency during the coming year.

28.  Reaction to the early editions has been positive and we hope that the e-zine will provide a medium through which all those with an interest in administrative justice more generally might be able to share views, ideas and best practice.

Our Conference in Wales

29.  Following an earlier meeting with officials in the National Assembly for Wales, on which we reported last year, we decided to hold a conference in Wales in order to develop further our relations with tribunal colleagues and enhance our contacts there.

30.  In order to make plans for such a conference we established a small working committee to advise us, comprising Carolyn Kirby, Chairman of the Mental Health Review Tribunal in Wales, Rhiannon Ellis Walker and Huw Maguire, the President and Secretary respectively of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal for Wales, and Heather Wilcox, our member on the Council who represents the interests of people in Wales.

31.  We are grateful to the Welsh Assembly Government who kindly provided a meeting room in Cardiff for Committee meetings and to the NAW officials who attended meetings as observers, offering helpful advice and support where necessary.

32.  We were pleased to welcome nearly 80 delegates to the conference, which took place on 23 June 2005. The First Minister, the Rt. Hon Rhodri Morgan AM, kindly agreed to give the keynote address, in which he focussed on developments in administrative justice in Wales and the implications for Wales of the White Paper's proposals.

Judicial Studies Board

33.  We continue to work in close collaboration with the Judicial Studies Board's Tribunals Committee, on which one of our members, Penny Letts, sits as a member. During the year the JSB published yet further useful guidance for tribunals. "Guidance on Mentoring in Tribunals" sets out the issues that tribunals should consider when introducing mentoring for those new to the judicial role; the "Tribunals Training Handbook" provides useful source material on the planning, design, delivery and evaluation of competence-based training for tribunals; and the "Tribunals Training Prospectus" sets out the JSB's increasing annual programme of training courses for tribunal members and chairs. These documents complement earlier publications, in particular "The Competence Framework for Chairmen and Members of Tribunals", "The Framework of Standards for Training and Development in Tribunals" and "The Fundamental Principles and Guidance for Appraisals in Tribunals and Model Scheme".

34.  The JSB has also set up a working group to oversee the development of an evaluation scheme for tribunals to attain a uniform standard of training within tribunals. The scheme would provide a system for evaluating the training provided by tribunals, with the aim of achieving consistent standards across the tribunals world. We have seen and commented on early drafts of the proposed scheme through our representative on the group, Penny Letts, and look forward to formal consultation in due course. Our Chairman and Penny Letts also attended a consultation workshop on the scheme, which the JSB ran for tribunal Presidents and Heads.

Diversity

35.  During our annual Awayday we took the opportunity to discuss our diversity policy, which was first promulgated in 2001, and identified work that needed to be taken forward as a matter of priority. A small working group of our members has been invited to:

• undertake a full review of our diversity policy statement;
• consider how best to mainstream diversity issues within our work, both in respect of our internal operations and our external view of the tribunals world; and
• report on their findings, with recommendations for taking further work forward.

36.  One of our key priorities this year was to organise and deliver diversity training for our members and we were fortunate to be able to secure the services of an ex-Council member, Yvette Genn, and Mark Hinchliffe, who are both members of the Judicial Studies Board's Equal Treatment Advisory Committee. They have been involved in rolling out a programme of diversity training across a number of tribunal systems and were able, at relatively short notice, to develop bespoke training to meet our particular needs.

37.  The course included a helpful overview of the JSB's new Equal Treatment Bench Book, covering issues such as the tribunal perspective of the principles of fair treatment, stereotyping and tribunal competencies. Useful learning points emerged from a number of interesting case studies, during which we also discussed our own role in giving feedback on diversity issues that arise in the course of our observations of tribunal hearings.

Consultation on Increasing Diversity in the Judiciary

38.  The Department for Constitutional Affairs published a consultation document detailing proposals on how the judiciary of England and Wales could be made more reflective of society, whilst at the same time ensuring that judicial appointments continued to be based solely on merit. Among other things the paper invited views on:

• What needed to be done to improve information about the judicial appointments system;
• Whether the conditions for judicial appointments themselves deterred people from applying for appointment;
• How the judicial appointments procedures might be improved so as to minimise the factors which deter people from applying;
• What needed to be done to change those aspects of judicial working practices which deterred people from applying for office;
• What the role of the legal profession should be in ensuring diversity of the pool of lawyers from which entrants to the judiciary are drawn;
• What action needed to be taken in future to monitor progress in increasing judicial diversity.

39.  The key points we made in our response included:

• One reason why some people do not apply to become a member of the judiciary is because of their perceived culture and separateness. Rightly or wrongly, the judiciary is seen as being primarily male, white and middle-class, which puts off many people from applying, particularly women and members of minority ethnic groups. To change this would require a significant shift in people's perception of the judiciary.
• The most effective way of increasing the diversity of the judiciary would be to open up the judicial appointments process so that people could see what it is; it is vital that it should be perceived as independent and fair.
• It takes a long time to become a judge and people who do so are invariably seen as relatively senior in the profession. We suggested that it might be helpful to examine the extent to which the seniority issue affects women and members of particular minority groups.
• Some tribunal systems have been actively encouraging applications from young legal practitioners by inviting them to participate in work shadowing. We could see the potential for more of this type of initiative.
• The tenor of the consultation presented the issues as if becoming a judge was what people did automatically after a career as a solicitor or barrister. Whilst substantial legal experience might well be essential, we saw merit in promoting the idea that judgeship might be something to be aimed for from the early stages of an individual's career.

40. The Lord Chancellor has recently announced a package of measures, including proposals for legislation, to increase the diversity of the judiciary by enabling a wider pool of people to become judges.

Broadcasting Courts Consultation

41.  We responded to the Department for Constitutional Affairs' consultation paper entitled "Broadcasting Courts" (November 2004). The paper was in the nature of a discussion document and did not put forward proposals. While the consultation was primarily concerned with courts, it also referred to broadcasting in tribunals and inquiries. We made the following points.

42.  We recognised that broadcasting has the potential to enhance the delivery of justice in tribunals, and for that reason we did not favour a continuation of the current blanket prohibition on broadcasting. The working of tribunals has not always been well known to the general public and broadcasting could potentially help public understanding.

43.  However, we recognised that the paramount concern is to ensure the effective delivery of justice overall and broadcasting would have to be carefully controlled. In addition to a regulatory framework, a degree of control would need to be retained by the tribunal itself. There is no doubt that broadcasting will be inappropriate in some circumstances and the unique qualities that separate tribunals from courts may in turn require special broadcasting restrictions.

44.  We considered that the prospect of broadcasting inquiries also raised its own special considerations. Much would depend on the nature of the individual inquiry. Again we favoured the retention of a degree of control by inquiry chairmen themselves.

Feedback after visits

45.  In advance of our transition to an administrative justice and tribunals council we are taking the opportunity to review our feedback arrangements with a view to ensuring that any new system we put in place is open, transparent and informative to the tribunals we oversee.

Visits

46.  During the year our members, both of the Council and the Scottish Committee, observed 80 tribunal and inquiry hearings and participated in 44 conferences and training seminars. Full details are at Appendix D.