Schedule 1 - Amendments to Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943
Armed Forces
10:15 am
Mr Colin Breed (Shadow Minister, Defence; South East Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)
I shall make a few brief comments on the general principles of the schedule. I accept that the Minister wants to ensure as far as possible that claimants can make their own representations and present their case. I, too, would not want to encourage the involvement of legal representation, but we must recognise the specific references in new paragraphs 6A and 6B. New section 6A(3) states:
''If each of the parties to the appeal expresses the view that the decision appealed against was erroneous in point of law''.
That phrase is repeated twice in new section 6B. One might expect that someone who expressed why they believed a decision was erroneous in point of law had some understanding of the legal processes. One wonders how they could do so in their own capacity without at least some involvement or advice in legal terms to enable them to do so.
In my limited experience of appeal processes generally, the incidence of which seems to be increasing, decisions often rest on the interpretation of a point of law. Many appellants go in rather naively, expecting to receive what they consider to be natural justice for their case, only to find that although everyone appears sympathetic to them and understands precisely what they are getting at, regretfully the interpretation of the narrow point of law finds against them. I understand the theory and the hoped-for practice. I simply wonder whether the measure will work in practice as the Minister hopes.
New section 6D(4) states:
''If it appears to a Commissioner that a matter before him involves a question of fact of special difficulty, he may direct that in dealing with that matter he shall have the assistance of one or more experts.
In this subsection 'expert' means a person appearing to the Commissioner to have knowledge or experience which would be relevant in determining the question of fact of special difficulty.''
The idea of expert witnesses has undergone a bit of a transformation in recent times. As a lay member of the General Medical Council, I see a number of cases in which people have used medical gentlemen and women who are expert in their field, only to find that there is a counter-expert. Remarkably, expert advice rather depends on who is paying the expert.
If we arrive at a situation in which the commissioner is the sole person to decide who the expert is, one wonders whether, to ensure equity and fairness, the expert should be agreed by both sides or whether both sides should have an opportunity to have their own expert witnesses. I know that that would involve additional cost, but the clause is drawn rather narrowly, enabling the commissioner to decide whether an expert witness is required. There should be at least some input from the other side, perhaps in the
decision as to who the expert is. Perhaps the other side should be able to have its own expert witness, for which it would be recompensed.
In theory, the narrow provision may be right. In practice in recent times, however, there have been conflicting expert witnesses, which sometimes adds to confusion rather than allaying it. The clause looks back to the golden age of expert witnesses and does not recognise the current practice of expert witnesses appearing at tribunals.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.