SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Delays
1. We intend to keep under review the progress
made by The Appeals Service in reducing the unacceptable delays
for appellants in having their appeals heard (paragraph 13).
Quality of administration
2. The Committee considers that a reduction in
the number of administrative staff in the coming year would hinder
the ability of The Appeals Service agency to produce the modern
customer-focused service we all want to see. We recommend that
the numbers of staff and the grading of staff relative to the
tasks they are expected to perform should be kept under review;
and that each annual report of The Appeals Service agency should
set out the number of staff in post, broken down into permanent
and casual staff, and should give details of the training delivered
to staff in the year, and the number of staff who have benefited
from the different types of training (paragraph 18).
Information technology
3. We recommend that the capital budget of The
Appeals Service agency should be increased to support a comprehensive
IT development strategy for the Agency. We recommend that the
business plan for the new Appeals Service Agency should set out
its IT development strategy and that the annual report of the
Agency should give details of expenditure on IT development in
the year (paragraph 20).
Judicial standards
4. We recommend that the Annual Report of the
President of appeal tribunals should give details of the number
of persons appointed to the panel by the Lord Chancellor, by the
nature of their qualifications, by whether they are full-time
or part-time staff, and by Region (paragraph 23).
5. We recommend that The Appeals Service and the
Department of Social Security should carry out a cost benefit
analysis of switching to a system where the majority of appeals
were handled by full-time chairmen rather than part-time chairmen
(paragraph 25).
6. The induction training offered to new panel
members does not seem to us to allow sufficient time to master
the knowledge and skills needed to make important judgements on
social security questions affecting people's lives. We recommend
that the period of induction training should be extended (paragraph
26).
7. We are concerned that the amount of on-going
training available to panel membersparticularly those sitting
part-timemay not be sufficient to enable them to perform
their judicial duties to the requisite standards. We recommend
that the President's Annual Report should give full details of
training delivered to panel members in each region during the
course of the year, and details of annual expenditure on training
(paragraph 27).
10. We recommend that prospective panel members
should be tested for their suitability for judicial appointment.
Consideration should be given to such measures as psychometric
testing to achieve this (paragraph 31).
Equal opportunities and anti-discrimination
8. We consider that equal opportunities and anti-discrimination
training should be part of the basic training of every panel member,
and should also be integral to all continuing training courses.
We are critical of the lack of importance attached to this aspect
of training (paragraph 30).
9. We recommend that immediate action should be
taken to ensure that, when The Appeals Service is launched in
April 2000, a comprehensive programme of equal opportunities and
anti-discrimination training for all staffboth administrative
and judicialis in place (paragraph 30).
11. We recommend that the Lord Chancellor's Department,
in conjunction with the President of appeal tribunals, should
make special efforts to recruit suitable people with legal qualifications
from ethnic minority backgrounds to the panel from which tribunals
will be drawn (paragraph 32).
12. We also recommend that each annual report
of The Appeals Service Agency should give information on the gender
and ethnicity of staff employed by the Agency (paragraph 33).
13. We recommend that The Appeals Service should
undertake ethnic monitoring of appellants, and the monitoring
of appeal outcomes by ethnicity, to assist in ensuring that people
are treated fairly irrespective of their ethnic backgrounds (paragraph
34).
14. We recommend that the form which is completed
by an appellant prior to a hearing concerning their attendance
should expressly invite the appellant to indicate whether he or
she wishes ITS/The Appeal Service to arrange for an interpreter
to attend the hearing (paragraph 35).
15. We recommend that The Appeals Service should
adopt Benefits Agency best practice guidance in the use of interpreters
(paragraph 35).
The use of the President
16. We recommend that when The Appeals Service
is launched, formal recognition should be given to the role of
the President within The Appeals Service in the preparation and
settling of bids with the Department concerning tribunal funds
and in decisions concerning the allocation of funds, through a
published memorandum of understanding between the President, the
Chief Executive and the Department (paragraph 37).
17. We recommend that the Annual Report of The
Appeals Service should contain a section where the President of
appeal tribunals reports on the judicial activities of tribunals,
on the fulfilment of his own statutory responsibilities, and on
any concerns he may have concerning procedures and working of
The Appeals Service, including if necessary, matters of administration
and funding (paragraph 39).
The use of Clerks
18. We recommend that The Appeals Service should
work with the Council on Tribunals to ensure that the recruitment,
organisation and training of clerks is sufficient to bring them
up to the standards necessary to meet their new judicial responsibilities
and that the President should be given formal responsibility for
the training, guidance and monitoring of tribunal clerks in the
fulfilment of their judicial role (paragraph 41).
Fair hearings for appellants
19. We recommend that more should be done to encourage
appellants to attend the hearing of their appeal. In particular,
we recommend that the enquiry form sent to appellants asking them
whether they wish to attend their appeal should include a warning
on the low rate of success of appeals where the appellant does
not attend (paragraph 43).
20. We recommend that the results of the evaluation
of the 1996 changes regarding the requirement to opt for an oral
hearing should be published, giving details of the effect of the
1996 changes on tribunal attendances and outcomes (paragraph 44).
21. We recommend that, where a deadline of 14
days exists for the return of a reply to a tribunal clerk's direction,
both the direction and the pre-paid envelope for the reply should
be sent by first class post (paragraph 47).
22. We recommend that at the time the new Appeals
Service is launched next April, a revised complaints system should
be made available to all tribunal users, which sets out clear
standards of conduct for all staff, both judicial and administrative,
and clear means of seeking redress (paragraph 50).
23. We recommend that the Annual Report of The
Appeals Service should give an analysis of complaints made during
the year in each region and action taken in response to complaints
(paragraph 51).
Monitoring performance
24. We recommend that targets should be set for
the hearing of interlocutory matters such as applications to set
aside a decision, or applications for reinstatement of an appeal,
and for the production of full written reasons for a decision
(paragraph 52).
25. We recommend that in setting targets designed
to improve the system of appeals, the Secretary of State for Social
Security should take a co-ordinated approach across the Department's
Executive Agencies, thus ensuring that targets cover aspects of
appeals which are dealt with by the Benefits Agency and the Child
Support Agency, as well as The Appeals Service (paragraph 54).
26. We recommend that the time taken from the
date an appeal is lodged with the first-tier agency to the date
the appeal is determined by an appeal tribunal should continue
to be measured, in order to ensure that overall performance by
the Agencies involved is improving (paragraph 55).
27. We recommend that the publication of quarterly
statistics by DSS Analytical Services Division relating to appeals
should be re-introduced as soon as possible (paragraph 56).
28. We recommend that the DSS and the Lord Chancellor's
Department should jointly commission a comprehensive programme
of research on the impact of the decision making and appeals reforms
(paragraph 57).
The monitoring of 'first-tier' decisions
29. We recommend that the results of the pilot
exercise concerning the monitoring of first-tier decisions coming
before appeal tribunals, and the conclusions reached regarding
future monitoring, should be published before the President assumes
his new responsibilities in April 2000 (paragraph 60).
|