The Leggatt Review of Tribunals

The obviously apparent proliferation of tribunals operating under a variety of powers gave rise to the perceived need to investigate the whole tribunal system. In May 2000, the Lord Chancellor announced a wide-ranging, independent review of tribunals in England and Wales, to be conducted by Sir Andrew Leggatt. In his report, Sir Andrew found that there were 70 different administrative tribunals in England and Wales, not counting regulatory bodies. Between them they dealt with nearly one million cases a year, but only 20 each heard more than 500 cases a year and many were defunct. He concluded that it was necessary to rationalise and modernise the structure and operation of the tribunal system, and to that end his Review suggested the pursuit of the following main objects:

• To make the 70 tribunals into one tribunals system  This would be achieved by combining the administration of different tribunals, which are concerned with disputes between citizen and State and those which are concerned with disputes between parties within one organisation. It was suggested that only on that basis would tribunals acquire a collective standing to match that of the court system and a collective power to fulfil the needs of users in the way that was originally intended. Within the overall system, the tribunals should be grouped by subject matter into divisions dealing with, for example, education, financial matters, health and social services, immigration, land and valuation, social security and pensions, transport and employment.

• To render the tribunals independent of their sponsoring departments by having them administered by one Tribunals Service At present, departments of State may provide the administrative support for a tribunal, may pay the fees and expenses of tribunal members, may appoint some of them, may provide IT support and may promote legislation prescribing the procedure which it is to follow. On such a basis, the tribunal simply does not appear to be independent of the department it is regulating, nor is it independent in fact. The establishment of a distinct Tribunals Service with the duty to provide all of those services would stimulate both the appearance and reality of independence.

• To improve the training of chairmen and members  The review felt that there was a necessity to improve training in the interpersonal skills peculiar to tribunals, the aim being to encourage an atmosphere which would permit the people who use tribunals to represent themselves effectively. It also felt that every effort should be made to reduce the number of cases in which legal representation is needed. That could only be attained, however, by seeking to ensure that:

❍ decision-makers give comprehensible decisions;

❍ the Tribunals Service provides users with all requisite information;

❍ voluntary and other advice groups are funded so that they can offer legal advice; and

❍ the tribunal chairmen are trained to afford such assistance as they legitimately can by ensuring that the proceedings are intelligible and by enabling users to present their cases.  Sir Andrew recognised that there will always be complex cases in which legal representation is a necessity. However, he suggested that voluntary and community bodies should be funded to provide it and that only as a last resort should it be provided by legal aid.