Putting users first
On 15 May 2008, AJTC member Bernard Quoroll gave a speech to Tribunals Service Judicial Conference on behalf of the AJTC Chair Lord Newton of Braintree on the AJTC's central strategic objective of 'focusing first and foremost on the needs of administrative justice and tribunal users'.
Lord Newton sends greetings from Euston station and regrets he cannot be with you. He (and therefore I), was very pleased to have been invited to participate in this Judicial Conference, which presents a timely and necessary opportunity for us all to pause, take stock and reflect on why we are implementing this radical programme of structural reform of the tribunals system and for whom this is in service of.
What follows is largely what he would have said from notes faxed to me this morning and in time honoured tradition, what you hear that you like are his thoughts and any things you don't like are probably mine.
Call it, if you like a return to first principles or an exercise in remembering Leggatt as it were:
Often, when implementation activity is at its peak (as it has been in the tribunals world), it can be easy to lose sight of the fact that structural change, rationalisation and standardisation are not ends in themselves. But rather, we need to remember that all of this is part of a wider reform process that should have at its heart, the needs of users.
Indeed, this was the key driver for reform set out in Sir Andrew Leggatt's review - Tribunals for Users: One System, One Service – and thematically carried through in the 2004 White Paper - Transforming Public Services: Complaints, Redress and Tribunals - which as we all know, went further than Leggatt, in that it looked to ensure that the wider landscape of 'administrative justice' was accessible, fair and effective for the user.
The AJTC, which was created under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, is a central player within this landscape. Or to use Leggatt's visionary words, it is 'the hub on the wheel of administrative justice'.
It is fair to say our remit is bold in scope. We are here to keep the various components of the administrative justice system under review to ensure that these relationships are clear, complementary and flexible. This remit embraces not just tribunals and inquiries but original decision-makers, Ombudsmen, complaint handlers, dispute resolution providers of more or less every kind and not least the courts. And like you we have to fulfil our functions with fewer resources than before but that just means we will have to focus our efforts well.
In considering how we are to address this very wide remit and where to prioritise our efforts, we have been abundantly clear that the needs of users must sit at the core of all our work. We have already begun to focus our work through this 'users' prism.
Already, our relationship with tribunals is changing with the creation of the Tribunals Service, for whom we see ourselves as a constructive 'critical friend'. Our members will continue to make visits to observe a small number of tribunal hearings, and to work with judges and officials in ensuring that the reform programme keeps its eye, first and foremost, on users' needs. Where we see weaknesses from the user perspective, we will draw attention to these and seek to support the Tribunals Service in addressing them. But frankly we can learn more and faster by attending events like these.
One example of this is user group work we have undertaken recently in the area of mental health.
For some time, we have been concerned about the performance of the Mental Health Review Tribunal and, with the willing co-operation of the judiciary and tribunal management, we were able to set up an advisory group, enabling key stakeholder groups to have an input into the development and implementation of the Mental Health Review Tribunal's programme of improvement. We have been very impressed both by the constructive approach of all members of the group and the amount of progress the tribunal has made in a relatively short time.
Another area that we have been mindful of paying attention to is the Tribunals Service communications strategy, which is accompanying the restructuring of the tribunals system. Since the AJTC occupies a somewhat unique position, we can engage directly with stakeholders in ways that the judiciary and officials in the tribunals world can not. To this extent, we are the 'eyes' and the 'ears' and can feed back what we're seeing and hearing on the ground as the reform programme unfolds. But we also want to hear from you in aid of doing that because you can help us fill in any gaps in intelligence.
What we are seeing and hearing at the moment is a lot of unease and uncertainty among various stakeholders about the pace and manner of reform. We all know that change is never easy, particularly change of this scale. Familiar tribunal names are disappearing and new chambers are being formed. One anxiety we are hearing is that of the potential loss of judicial expertise from particular jurisdictions or the danger in insufficiently experienced and knowledgeable judges being sent to bat before they are ready.
We have said this from the outset and we continue to press for this – users and stakeholders must be given regular, timely and comprehensible information about these changes as the reform programme continues to be implemented. This is essential. Among other things, this would serve to provide reassurance, and demonstrate clearly, that the wider agenda is not being lost in the operational process of reform and users will not lose the role and expertise of individual jurisdictions.
Looking forward as well, I think it is important that we all keep an eye on the horizon when it comes to pioneering new ways of providing justice to the public. As most of you can appreciate, we live in a time where choice and efficiency are the dominant mantras. It makes sense that the public should have at hand alternative forms of proportionate dispute resolution that can provide more effective remedies at lower cost and with less pressure on the user. Over the longer term, the restructured tribunals system will be expected to explore and promote new approaches to dispute resolution in the interests of the user, other than the formal hearing process. At this point though I should say that I prefer to use the terms "appropriate" and "proportionate" in relation to dispute resolution techniques because they are no longer alternatives as has been demonstrated in the civil system where they are now mainstream.
Again, we see the AJTC as having a key role in this process. In February 2008, we published a report in the AJTC's Adjust newsletter following a survey of tribunals about techniques being employed. We plan to build on this work and await with interest the results of the mediation and early neutral evaluation pilots currently under way in the Employment and Social Security and Child Support Tribunals. However the intelligence we have had is that they are both delivering useful results.
Let me close by saying that I believe that we are at an exciting and important juncture, although it may not feel quite like that now in the midst of all the churn of restructuring. Fifty years on from the first piece of significant legislation on tribunals arising out of the Franks Report, which established 'openness', 'fairness' and 'impartiality' as the watchwords for how tribunals and inquiries should operate, we have a real and immediate opportunity to modernise the tribunals world and make a difference in terms of promoting the highest standards of excellence and best practice for tribunals. But we can only do so if we keep the 'why' and the 'who' firmly in sight as this change programme gathers momentum.
If we take our eye off the 'prize' so to speak, if we lose sight of Leggatt's vision of 'tribunals for users, one service, one system', then we would have missed a significant opportunity, which history will judge us poorly by. We must constantly remind ourselves of the primacy of the user in all of this, lest we end up with a change programme for its own sake. We have the opportunity to deliver better venues, to improve further all aspects of what we do, for example in the design of forms and in the provision of better information and support to users and not least, in the quality of judicial decision making. But if the measure of success is only in cost savings, important though that is, users may become losers from this exercise. However efficiencies redirected into greater fairness and consistency could only be welcomed.
For our part, we hope you will enjoy all the benefits of being visibly the third pillar of the justice system but also retain your unique position at the interface between users and the state. You know that fairness does not have to mean formality for its own sake, especially in relation to matters which touch the daily lives of individuals. You also know that the ability to engage directly in resolving disputes is an important element of citizenship.
Thank you.