Introduction
H1. The March 1999 financial management and policy review (FMPR) reaffirmed that VTs should be retained as independent, lay and predominantly local, tribunals for hearing, council tax, rating and related appeals. However, it recommended that their administration should be brought together in a regional structure, and that central direction should be provided by a management board.
Legislation and past practice
H2. VTs were established under the Local Government Finance Act 1988, but have existed in one form or another since 1948. The Valuation and Community Charge Regulations 1989 govern the way that they work.
H3. The 56 VTs in England are organised on a broad county or metropolitan area basis. Members are appointed jointly by local authorities and presidents of the individual VTs. Each VT may appoint a clerk and other employees and maintain a permanent office.
H4. Some VTs maintain joint offices and appoint the same clerk and other staff. An earlier FMPR in 1992 sought to encourage this trend in order to improve the efficiency and economy of the service. As VTs are statutorily independent, this has been pursued by negotiation and agreement. By the start of the latest FMPR, the 56 VTs were administered from 38 offices. As local capacity is limited, DTLR continues to undertake a range of administrative functions on behalf of the VTs. These cover personnel, accommodation, IT and general finance matters.
Administrative change proposed in FMPR
H5. The 1999 FMPR proposed more joined-up arrangements for the service and noted the major benefits of the larger scale operations such as reduced overheads, improved flexibility and efficiency and levelling up towards best practice. Key recommendations included the establishment of:
- The Valuation Tribunals Management Board (VTMB) to provide central direction to the service.
- A small national office to support the VTMB.
- Fourteen administrative units to replace the 38 offices which existed at the start of the FMPR.
H6. A main aim is that the non-strategic functions undertaken by DTLR should be transferred to the VT service as its new administrative structure develops the capacity to deliver services efficiently.
Progress on new structure
H7. The VTMB was set up in March 1999 as an extra-statutory body. Its members have been drawn from the long-established but non-statutory National Association of Valuation Tribunals and Society of Clerks of Valuation Tribunals. It has appointed a national officer from within the service. It has met a number of times and has started to provide advice and central direction to VTs. However, its role is a purely advisory one and it is unable to guarantee delivery of required improvements and best practice, without the co-operation and agreement of all the independent VTs.
H8. Progress has also been made on establishing the new administrative units. All VTs have met to consider the new structure and by July 2000, 9 of the 14 units had been fully established. All areas had appointed a head of administration or regional representative to attend meetings arranged by the national officer to consider best practice. However, the employment position of the staff is complicated. Clerks must be employed separately by each of the VTs they serve. Other staff may be employed by one of the VTs (as lead employer) or mirroring the arrangement of their Clerk. Because of these complications, few administrative units have considered the employment position in the round.
Need for change to legislation
H9. The VT service is generally supportive of the changes made, and particularly supportive of the establishment of the VTMB and the national office. There is a general acceptance that the move to larger administrations is inevitable, and most look forward to greater freedom from direct administrative control of DTLR. However, some are concerned that they are being asked to change in a way that the legislation never intended. Most agree that the VT legislation needs to be changed to reflect the new more joined-up arrangements, but without affecting the independent judicial status of the individual VTs.
H10. In theory, it would be possible to formalise the extra statutory arrangements already made by:
- providing for the administration of more than one VT by the same unit, by making the 14 administrative units statutory bodies;
- providing for the employment of clerks and other staff by the administrative units, rather than by individual VTs; and
- establishing the VTMB as a statutory body with its own national office to oversee the general management of the VTs.
H11. This could be achieved by each of the 14 administrative units becoming independent non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) to serve the independent VTs within their areas. However, under such an arrangement, each NDPB would have to be served by a separate management board and have its own chief executive. Each would need to have its own budget, would be responsible for all its administrative arrangements and would be separately accountable to the Secretary of State through its own plans and reports. Boards would be responsible for the employment of their staff and related issues, including the appraisal, management and development of staff. They would be responsible for local accommodation policy.
H12. In practice, this arrangement would be extremely cumbersome. The relationship between the administrative units (executive NDPBs) and the VTMB (an advisory NDPB) would be a complicated one and difficult to capture in legislation. Local VTs would get more bogged down with further administration at the expense of their main function of hearing appeals. It would be difficult to guarantee best practice or consistent procedures from the centre to the benefit of the public that the individual VTs and their administrative units should serve. It is doubtful whether the Department would be sufficiently confident to devolve to such small units responsibility for the functions which it currently carries out centrally on behalf of VTs. In short, the arrangement would not fulfil the main aims of a more joined-up, uniform and well-managed service.
H13. VT appointment arrangements were changed from 1 April 2000. These are now made jointly by local authorities and the presidents of the VTs, rather than by local authorities alone. We believe these arrangements are consistent with the Human Rights Act, which comes into force in October 2000 and that no further changes are necessary.
The proposal
H14. The aims of a more joined-up service might be better achieved by setting up a national executive NDPB to run the VT service. It would be served by a single management board, which would be responsible for the strategy of the service and for the full range of administrative and management functions including the employment of all staff. This would effectively leave the individual VTs free to concentrate on their main function of hearing and determining appeals. However, the legislation could provide for most board members to be representatives of the VTs, who would be appointed by the Secretary of State (perhaps following nominations from the service).
H15. Under this arrangement, the board would appoint a chief executive to run the service in accordance with its policies and decisions. The chief executive would be responsible for national co-ordination and financial management of the service, operated within a single budget. While undertaking some of the roles of the recently appointed national officer, the role of chief executive would be more high powered, including direct accountability to Parliament for financial management of the service.
H16. The 14 administrative units would form the new body’s regional administrative structure with local heads of administration. Local liaison meetings could be held at which presidents and the heads of administration considered regional and individual VT issues. The administrative arrangements could be enshrined in a management statement and financial memorandum. The independence of the VTs could continue to be covered in legislation with locally appointed members and locally elected chairmen and presidents.
H17. While the setting up of a central body was effectively ruled out in the FMPR, this was partly because of a perceived lack of legislative opportunity. Other reasons given were the need to consider linkages with other jurisdictions, the additional cost involved in setting up a more formalised centre and concerns that a central body might compromise the independence of the support service to the VTs. Consideration will need to be given to any recommendations emerging from the wider ranging ‘Review of Tribunals’ being undertaken by the Lord Chancellor’s Department. In addition, the extra management costs of a formalised centre will need to be considered and arrangements will need to be made to safeguard the important aspects of the local service. However, experience of running the VTMB so far suggests that the fears expressed in the FMPR may have been exaggerated.
Consultation
H18. Individual VTs and their representative bodies have already been consulted on the proposal. Over half of the VTs responded and a large majority were in favour of the establishment of an executive NDPB, but subject to their later consideration of more detailed proposals. The main points mentioned by respondents were:
- the need for membership of the management board to be drawn mostly or exclusively from the service;
- the need for more information to be provided on the appointment and role of the chief executive;
- the need to safeguard the independence of VTs and to maintain local input into the more centralised administration; and
- the need for continued local involvement in the appointment of staff and protection of the terms and conditions of staff under the proposed central employment arrangements.
Conclusion
H19. Consideration will need to be given to these and other issues in working up these proposals. However, the Government believes that the establishment of a single executive NDPB is the best way to formalise the new and more independent administrative structure that the VT service now needs. Under such an administrative arrangement, the individual VTs’ judicial roles could continue to be protected in legislation.
H20. On the basis of the responses received so far, it appears that the proposal has the broad support of the VT service. The Government would now welcome further views from the VTs and other interested bodies.
[ Annex G ] [ Contents ] [ Annex I ]
Published on 19 September 2000
Return to Local Government Finance Index
Return to Local Government and the Regions Index
Return to DTLR Home Page
DTLR Web Site Terms