---

Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [HL]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I shall clarify, so far as I can, what we seek to do. He knows far better thanI do that appeals correct errors of law and that decisions can be reviewed for a number of different reasons, either through the tribunal’s own initiative or through an application from a person who has a right to appeal. We deliberately designed the provision to ensure that only cases that need to go to appeal do so and that other issues can be dealt with in a simple and speedy way as befits our ambitions for the Tribunals Service both at present and in future. We do not want parties to feel that they have to go to appeal when we are dealing with errors that are obvious and can be speedily corrected. For example, if a document for a hearing in the first-tier tribunal is mislaid or goes astray in the post, we would want to be able to review if the document came to light. We would not want the process to have to be started all over again. The Committee is aware that the notion of being able to correct a mistake without a full appeal is not novel; it has been used for years in the civil and criminal courts. As I understand it, the slip rule for the criminal courts, which is in Section 155 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, enables the variation or rescinding of a sentence within 28 days. Section 142 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 allows justices to amend any order they have made; if that order appears invalid, they can replace. This is about building a new structure of tribunals which is user-friendly, speedy, easily accessible and which recognises that there are occasions when the ability to review a decision should rest with the tribunal rather than having to go to full-scale appeal. That is what we are seeking to do. I hope that that answers the noble Lord’s question.