---

Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 249: 249: Schedule 16, page 237, line 7, leave out ““Tribunal business arrangements are”” and insert ““The President shall make”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak to amendments up to and including Amendment No. 253. I apologise to the House that there is a certain amount to be raised under this group of amendments and, although I appreciate the time, I do not want to abbreviate my notes too much. These provisions relate to the Valuation Tribunal Service for England. I should declare an interest, which at the last stage I did not know that I had: the president of the Council of Valuation Tribunal Members, His Honour Judge Ian Morris, is a personal friend. I did not know that he was the president until I got home after the debate in Committee to find a message on my answer phone from him telling me that. I shall speak to the five amendments individually, but the nub of it is the matter of judicial independence—in other words, that the new structure and the powers of the Valuation Tribunal Service must not compromise judicial matters. When we looked at the provisions in July, the Minister told the Committee that the purpose of the Valuation Tribunal Service is, "““to secure the efficient and independent operation of valuation tribunals in England and to improve customer service””.—[Official Report, 19/7/07; col. 478.]" I am not sure where ““independent operation”” comes from. One would, of course, expect independence from the Government but ““independent”” means different things to different people and the concern here is judicial independence. The statutory functions of providing staff, accommodation and so on to tribunals and giving general advice to members of the public and to tribunal members give rise to concern centring on the advisory function. The Minister explained that the VTS board is appointed under the rules of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. I shall give her a few minutes to think about this. I mentioned it outside the Chamber. I understand that some, if not all, of the concerns could be met if the person to be appointed president had the appropriate qualification and experience to sustain judicial independence and to give advice on law and procedures to members. The qualification required would be similar to that for a recorder or a circuit judge. In Committee the Minister said that a national president would strengthen judicial independence. I suspect that this would be the case only if that president had judicial qualification and experience. The concern about the need for judicial separation is such that about 10 days ago, 35 of 44 presidents present—that is, presidents of the current local tribunals, of whom there are 54 in total—signed a motion to be debated at a meeting in November, which states: "““That this meeting of Presidents of Valuation Tribunals considers that the proposed President of the new Valuation Tribunal for England must have the legal qualifications, judicial ""knowledge and experience to provide authoritative legal guidance to the lay members of the Tribunal on a day to day basis and the ability to recognise issues of judicial significance in order to protect their judicial independence””." I understand that this motion was signed after suggestions to the conference from members of the VTS board that the president of the Valuation Tribunal for England could conform to the existing structure of lay membership. I believe that the level of support, which includes two presidents who have not joined the council, is evidence that the vast majority of presidents are not satisfied that existing arrangements sustain judicial independence. Before today’s debate I passed to the Minister 15 examples sent to me which suggest that the present VTS board structure does not sustain judicial independence. I shall not read them all out this evening, not least because I know that the Minister will have done so, but I shall mention a selection. For example, despite government decision following consultation on sustaining the judicial independence of valuation tribunals that provision be made so that valuation tribunals or their presidents should be able to meet locally and nationally, without the involvement of the VTS, to discuss and agree judicial matters, the VTS abolished that arrangement and has not provided for an alternative. There has been active obstruction of attempts by valuation tribunals to arrange meetings of their chairmen and/or members. Further, despite government decision that the content of member training should be under judicial control, the VTS abolished the structure recommended but has not agreed a replacement. Let me give another example. The VTS has published at least two documents as ““approved by Presidents”” when neither has been so agreed, and I am told that both had judicial significance. My final example is that the VTS has involved itself in matters that are regarded as being wholly judicial, such as member appraisal. I have also been told that the department has allowed and indeed encouraged the VTS to become involved in matters within the remit of the tribunals and outside the statutory remit of the VTS because of the presence on the board of a majority of Valuation Tribunal members. The then Minister said: "““The constitutional model adopted, of incorporating service members as a majority of the Board has permitted the VTS to engage in those aspects of its agenda that have a bearing on wider judicial matters in full confidence that it is properly informed about judicial and service issues whilst fully respecting the concept of judicial independence””." I suggest that that comment exemplifies the lack of recognition of what is needed to uphold judicial independence. Amendment No. 249 deals with appeals. Unless the matters dealt with here are exclusively within the remit of the president, the provision in the Bill does not meet the point. Amendment No. 250 concerns functions relating to an appeal that may be discharged by the clerk or other staff under regulations. The amendment would require the president’s consent, which the Minister said in Committee was unnecessarily bureaucratic. She will have since seen that it was intended to apply to the regulations and not to each individual exercise of the function. I would understand if the Government said that it would be unacceptable for the Secretary of State’s power to be fettered. What I do not understand is that the Minister said that this was unnecessary. Amendment Nos. 251 and 252 would retain the provision in the 2003 Act that the majority of the board are presidents or chairs of tribunals and the provision on disqualifying members of the tribunal other than the president. Amendment No. 253 is consequential. This is not an attempt to sabotage the rearrangement of the service. The council of Valuation Tribunal members for England welcomes the concept of a single Valuation Tribunal for England. It agrees that a single president should help to sustain judicial independence, but only if the person appointed has the appropriate judicial background, qualifications and experience. It fears that, despite the selection of the president being in the hands of the Judicial Appointments Commission, there may be an attempt to remove judicial experience from the job specification. It believes that the presence of three other members of the tribunal on the VTS board creates unnecessary conflicts of interest and may well undermine the authority of the new president. The council, in summary, considers that the removal of the provision included the 2003 Act—that there should be a majority of serving Valuation Tribunal members on the board of the VTS—is the most important of the suggested amendments to the Bill. I repeat that an assurance that the person appointed as president would have the appropriate experience and qualifications to give advice on law and procedures to members, have the stature to represent the tribunal to the outside world and, most important, be able to sustain judicial independence would go some way towards meeting my concerns. I beg to move.