Report of the Review of Tribunals
To the Right Honourable
the Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain
The Review
1 We were appointed in May 2000 and
required to report by 31 March 2001, as we now do.
2 Our terms of reference are as follows:
"To review the delivery of
justice through tribunals other than ordinary courts of law, constituted
under an Act of Parliament by a Minister of the Crown or for the purposes
of a Minister’s functions; in resolving disputes, whether between
citizens and the state, or between other parties, to ensure that:
There are fair, timely, proportionate
and effective arrangements for handling those disputes, within an
effective framework for decision-making which encourages the systematic
development of the area of law concerned, and which forms a coherent
structure, together with the superior courts, for the delivery of
administrative justice;
The administrative and practical arrangements
for supporting those decision-making procedures meet the requirements
of the European Convention on Human Rights for independence and impartiality;
There are adequate arrangements for improving
people’s knowledge and understanding of their rights and responsibilities
in relation to such disputes, and that tribunals and other bodies
function in a way which makes those rights and responsibilities a
reality;
The arrangements for the funding and management
of tribunals and other bodies by Government departments are efficient,
effective and economical; and pay due regard both to judicial independence,
and to ministerial responsibility for the administration of public
funds;
Performance standards for tribunals are
coherent, consistent, and public; and effective measures for monitoring
and enforcing those standards are established; and
Tribunals overall constitute a coherent
structure for the delivery of administrative justice.
The review may examine, insofar
as it considers it necessary, administrative and regulatory bodies which
also make judicial decisions as part of their functions."
3 The review was conducted by Sir
Andrew Leggatt, until recently a Lord Justice of Appeal, assisted by
Dame Valerie Strachan, until recently Chairman of the Board of HM Customs
and Excise. Specialist advice was provided by: Professor Carol Harlow
QC FBA, Professor of Public Law at the London School of Economics, who
brought a wide knowledge of both common and civil law administrative
law systems; David Hatch CBE JP, at the time of appointment Chairman
of the National Consumer Council and now Chairman of the Parole Board,
who provided input from the consumer’s perspective; Mrs Doris Littlejohn
CBE, until recently President of the Employment Tribunals in Scotland,
who has considerable experience of tribunals and of the Scottish justice
system; Professor Martin Partington, at the time of appointment Professor
of Law at the University of Bristol and now a Law Commissioner (as well
as a former member of the Council on Tribunals), who is a leading academic
expert on our system of administrative justice; and Professor Richard
Susskind OBE, Information Technology Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice
of England and Wales, who is generally regarded as the leading figure
in the area of information technology and the law.
4 The full team met on 10 days over
the review period at approximately monthly intervals. We think it is
worth emphasising that, despite the different experience and background
which each of us brought, throughout our work we found ourselves in
complete agreement on the main problems faced by the current tribunals,
and on the reforms necessary to establish a new and coherent system
which would meet the needs of modern users.
5 The main part of the Review consisted
of finding the facts by five methods: (1) by receiving and reading 300
responses to our Consultation Paper, (2) by visiting over 20 of the
most important tribunals, (3) by a visit to Australia by two of us,
and our Secretary, for comparative purposes, (4) by holding four seminars,
and (5) by limited research conducted by MORI among users.
6 The responses to the Consultation
Paper were many and varied, but a majority attempted to answer most
of the questions. A list of those who responded is to be found in Annex
A. The visits, mostly by Sir Andrew and Dame Valerie, were to nearly
all of those tribunals which have an annual caseload of more than 100
cases per year. The visit to Australia was valuable not only as lending
a perspective to this Review, which would otherwise have been wholly
internal, but also because it afforded an opportunity to inspect at
first-hand the only tribunal system in any common law jurisdiction that
is in important respects well in advance of our own. The seminars each
lasted one day. They were respectively for users and users’ groups,
for managers, for academics, and for Presidents and Heads of tribunals.
All the seminars were held in London except that for academics which
was conducted in Bristol. The fourth seminar for heads of tribunals
was promoted by the Council on Tribunals. The research by MORI consisted
of interviews with 40 recent users of tribunals in an attempt to gauge
their reactions to the tribunals of which they had had experience.
7 That only 10 and a half months
were allowed for the Review means that our recommendations must be presented
in bold colours. Time does not permit the more refined presentation
in which a more protracted consideration of the issues might have resulted.
8 We wish to express our gratitude
to our Secretary, Mr Alistair Shaw. He has led by example, and under
his direction, our Secretariat, often working under pressure, have borne
with grace all the burdens we have placed upon them. Throughout the
time that the task has taken their dedication and their good humour
have remained exemplary. It is a measure of their diligence that we
have been enabled to deliver our report on time.
Signed
Back
to the Contents Page
