Consultation document (accessible)

Question 1

1. Section 1: Underpinning principles

Accepted Answer

1.1 As part of our early work with the MoJ, the NLM Advisory Group, tribunal judges and others, the SSRB has identified some principles that will inform our recommendations about NLM fees structures and levels. Consultees should note that the principles that the MoJ may apply to inform their implementation of any changes may differ from those proposed by the SSRB.

1.2 NLMs play an important role in tribunal decisions, bringing personal or professional experience and expertise on a range of specialist areas. Although their views are given equal weight in decision-making, it is the legally qualified tribunal judge who advises on points of law and who (normally) chairs the panel and writes up the decision.

Principle 1: NLM daily sitting fees should not exceed those of the tribunal judge.

1.3 On occasion, NLMs are asked to hear cases alone, or act as the tribunal chair in the absence of a judge. We believe that the responsibility of this role should be reflected in the daily sitting fees.

Principle 2: NLMs acting as a tribunal chair should be paid the same daily sitting fee as the tribunal judge.

1.4 Currently, for medical members of the Social Security and Child Support Tribunal, a higher fee rate is paid for those who sit for 20 days or more in a financial year. Our early consultations and deliberations provide no rationale for this and indeed we believe it could impede recruitment of medical members to this tribunal.

Principle 3: Fee rates should not be differentiated by the number of sitting days undertaken over the course of a year.

1.5 The final principle we have identified is based on geographic location. While labour market factors might suggest differentiation of fees by geographic location, the principle of having a unified Tribunal Service argues against such distinctions. This principle is supported by the MoJ and the Northern Ireland Office and in effect mirrors one the principles in our 2018 Major Review of the Judicial Salary Structure^{[footnote 2]}.

Principle 4: The geographic location of the tribunal should not affect NLM fee rates.

Consultation questions on underpinning principles

Question 1: Do you agree with principle 1 that NLM daily sitting fees should not exceed those of the tribunal judge?

Question 2: Do you agree with principle 2 that NLMs acting as a tribunal chair should be paid the same daily sitting fee as the tribunal judge?

Question 3: Do you agree with principle 3 that fee rates should not be differentiated by the number of sitting days undertaken over the course of a year?

Question 4: Do you agree with principle 4 that the geographic location of the tribunal should not affect NLM fee rates?

Question 2

2. Section 2: Daily sitting fee rates (and salaries)

Accepted Answer

2.1 The aim of the Review of Tribunal NLM Fees is to introduce a simplified and transparent fee structure which provides consistency of pay for NLMs sitting on different tribunals. There are variations between the current daily sitting fee rates for NLMs of different types.^{[footnote 3]} For example, in England and Wales the daily sitting fee for a lay member in the Employment Tribunal is £195, whereas the sitting fee for a medical member in the Health, Education and Social Care Chamber is £508. These fees have not been reviewed since 2008. Moreover, there has also been no recent examination of the roles played by different types of NLMs.

2.2 As our Major Review of the Judicial Salary Structure showed, accurate job descriptions are an important starting point for our work. The MoJ and Judicial Office led a process which compiled and reviewed the job descriptions of the 37 different types of NLMs. While there are some differences in their roles, for the most part the roles and responsibilities of different types of NLMs in the various tribunals are broadly comparable.

2.3 This is an important piece of evidence for the SSRB, given the need for consistency between NLMs of different types. The SSRB also needs, however, to consider labour market facing evidence where NLM roles require specific skills, expertise and/or professional qualifications, and where there is evidence about recruitment challenges for particular roles. As set out in the Terms of Reference for the Review, as indeed with all its work, the SSRB must consider the need to recruit, retain and motivate sufficient numbers of high-quality NLMs.

2.4 While there was a hiatus in NLM recruitment for several years after 2010, recruitment of NLMs has restarted since 2017, though not for all types of NLMs or tribunals. This recent recruitment activity has been largely successful but has resulted in shortfalls for some NLM roles. Evidence submitted to the SSRB suggests that recruitment difficulties exist for some specialist occupations where it has been challenging to recruit enough high-quality individuals.

2.5 While NLM retention rates have historically been high (reducing recruitment pressures), the existing NLM workforce is ageing; given statutory retirement ages, a larger volume of recruitment will be needed in future. We also note secular changes in the growth of portfolio part-time working and changed expectations with regard to this, which work differently in some professions and occupations. The SSRB will therefore want to consider possible future developments as well as current evidence in making its recommendations.

2.6 Based on its initial examination of the evidence to hand, the SSRB wishes to consult about some aspects of its early thinking. The SSRB will then use all the evidence, including responses to this Consultation, to develop its final recommendations.

The fee system

2.7 Based on our initial examination of the evidence, and the submission from the MoJ, we are considering the following elements of a system for sitting fees:

a. On the basis of the evidence from the job descriptions, much of the data about recruitment, and our remit for consistency and simplification, we are considering whether to recommend a ‘base rate’ for daily sitting fees for all NLMs. This would recognise the valued roles played by NLMs of all types.

b. Given the evidence of recruitment shortfalls or difficulties and labour market-facing evidence about why those might arise, we are also considering whether to recommend a small number of levels of ‘supplementary sitting fees’ to be paid in addition to the ‘base rate’ for NLM roles requiring specific skills, expertise and/or professional qualifications, where evidence exists of recruitment shortfalls. Our aim would be to have the smallest number of supplementary sitting fee rates that we judge necessary to meet specific skills needs or recruitment challenges.

c. We are currently reviewing evidence about these issues. Among the roles we are considering as eligible for supplementary sitting fees are those requiring medical qualifications, and some requiring specific property or financial expertise or professional qualifications where there is evidence of recruitment challenges.

d. A final issue is about the role of NLMs sitting on Upper Tribunals. Their job descriptions and responsibilities are comparable to those sitting in first-instance tribunals. We will consider if there are compelling reasons why NLMs sitting on Upper Tribunals should receive a higher daily sitting fee.

Views on the perceived merits or disadvantages of such an approach are welcome.

Consultation questions on daily sitting fee rates (and salaries)

Question 5: Do you agree or disagree that all NLMs should receive the same base rate but with provision for a small number of levels of supplementary sitting fee rates for roles requiring professional qualifications or expertise where recruitment and labour market evidence suggests they are needed?

Question 6: In your view, are there compelling reasons for NLMs sitting on Upper Tribunals to receive a higher daily sitting fee?

Question 3

3. Section 3: Additional fees

Accepted Answer

3.1 As set out earlier in this document, additional fees – fees other than daily sitting fees – are outside of the remit of the SSRB’s Review of Tribunal NLM Fees. Given the range of evidence the SSRB is considering, however, it has been agreed that the SSRB may make observations on the issue of additional fees if there is evidence that would be useful to the proposed MoJ review of these additional fees.

3.2 In addition to the daily sitting fee, NLMs in some tribunals can claim additional fees for tasks such as preparation and writing times. Current inconsistences in the both the quantum of and the eligibility for these payments affect the total remuneration for the NLM role; some of these apply to tribunal judges as well. There are also different policies regarding training fees.

3.3 The response to the SSRB’s survey of NLMs suggests that the main concerns of respondents were about fees paid for reading and preparation time and cancellation fees. Many respondents highlighted concerns that the additional fees paid did not adequately compensate for either the amount of preparatory work required or the impact of short-notice cancellations. The SSRB would therefore welcome views on these two particular issues.

Consultation questions on additional fees

Question 7: One possibility is that the daily sitting fee could include some recognition of basic ‘preparation time’, leaving additional fees for a smaller number of circumstances when they are warranted. This was an issue also raised by the SSRB 2008 Review. What is your view on this?

Question 8: In your view, what would be an adequate compensatory mechanism to reflect the impact of short-notice cancellations (of 48 hours or less)?

Question 4

4. Section 4: Recruitment and retention

Accepted Answer

4.1 For many years there was little recruitment of NLMs as numbers were deemed sufficient for tribunals to function and austerity reduced all court and tribunal recruitment. More recently, however, recruitment activity has increased, though there remain some NLM roles for whom little recruitment activity has taken place since 2017.

4.2 Evidence submitted by the MoJ and the SSRB survey of NLMs in May 2021 indicate that existing NLMs have the following characteristics:

the majority of NLMs are over 60 years old
the large majority of NLMs sit on a part-time or occasional basis
NLM positions are often filled by people who have either retired or do only part-time paid work alongside their NLM role. This may in part be to do with age, but also due to other requirements of NLM service, which make the role difficult to combine with many other paid roles unless employers positively enable it or NLMs are self-employed
NLMs generally do not wish to retire before their current statutory retirement age of 70, so that the main reason for NLMs leaving the role is often retirement. As the judicial retirement age is expected to rise to 75, it is likely that NLM retirement age will also rise. This provides some additional time for workforce planning but active recruitment of future NLMs will still be important.

4.3 The SSRB recognises the need both to ensure that the incentives to apply for an NLM role are sufficient, and for strategic workforce planning, including the development of a cadre of experienced NLMs who can assist the tribunals in various ways.

4.4 Apart from pay rates, the SRRB is interested in the views of NLMs on how the role of an NLM could be made more attractive, particularly to younger or more diverse prospective applicants.

Consultation questions on recruitment and retention

Question 9: What changes other than changes to fees could be made to make the role of an NLM more attractive? Question 10: How could the role of an NLM be made more attractive to younger or more diverse applicants?

Question 5

5. Section 5: Consultation questions

Accepted Answer

5.1 For ease of reference, the consultation questions are listed here.

Underpinning principles

Question 1: Do you agree with principle 1 that NLM daily sitting fees should not exceed those of the tribunal judge?

Question 2: Do you agree with principle 2 that NLMs acting as a tribunal chair should be paid the same daily sitting fee as the tribunal judge?

Question 3: Do you agree with principle 3 that fee rates should not be differentiated by the number of sitting days undertaken over the course of a year?

Question 4: Do you agree with principle 4 that the geographic location of the tribunal should not affect NLM fee rates?

Daily sitting fee rates (and salaries)

Question 5: Do you agree or disagree that all NLMs should receive the same base rate but with provision for a small number of levels of supplementary sitting fee rates for roles requiring professional qualifications or expertise where recruitment and labour market evidence suggests they are needed?

Question 6: In your view, are there compelling reasons for NLMs sitting on Upper Tribunals to receive a higher daily sitting fee?

Additional fees

Question 7: One possibility is that the daily sitting fee could include some recognition of basic ‘preparation time’, leaving additional fees for a smaller number of circumstances when they are warranted. This was an issue also raised by the SSRB 2008 Review. What is your view on this?

Question 8: In your view, what would be an adequate compensatory mechanism to reflect the impact of short-notice cancellations (of 48 hours or less)?

Recruitment and retention

Question 9: What changes other than changes to fees could be made to make the role of an NLM more attractive?

Question 10: How could the role of an NLM be made more attractive to younger or more diverse applicants?

Question 6

6. Section 6: Next steps

Accepted Answer

6.1 Responses to this Consultation will form part of the evidence for the Review of Tribunal NLM Fees, as discussed in Section 1. We are grateful for everyone who takes the time to read, consider and comment on the Consultation questions. The Review Body’s consideration of the evidence and the conclusions it draws will be included in its final published report on the NLMs Fees Review which it aims to submit to the Lord Chancellor in the summer of 2022.

Submitting a response

6.2 This Consultation will run for 10 weeks from Thursday 3rd February 2022. All responses must be submitted by 17:00 on Thursday 14th April 2022.

6.3 All responses should be submitted electronically to the following email address: NLMreview@beis.gov.uk on the response form provided. The SSRB’s secretariat team will email to confirm receipt of all responses to this Consultation.

6.4 In addition to answering the listed questions, the form includes a Section in which you can specify whether you are responding as an individual or on behalf of a representative organisation. If you are responding as an individual, please select the relevant options to indicate this. If you are responding on behalf of a representative organisation, please complete the relevant boxes to enter the name of your organisation and to briefly describe whom the organisation represents, the size of its membership and, where, applicable, how the views of members were obtained.

6.5 All respondents should note that this is not a general Call for Evidence. Responses are requested to the specific questions set out in this Consultation document. If relevant material has already been submitted and you wish to highlight it, you may cross-refer to it. Please do not replicate material already provided.

Confidentiality

6.6 The responses to this Consultation will not be published but the SSRB may include references and quotations from evidence provided in its report. The review body will not identify named individuals when reporting on the responses that it receives to this Consultation unless it relates to parties the SSRB routinely quotes in its normal annual review processes or if it is agreed with the individuals concerned in advance.

6.7 Information provided in response to this Consultation, including personal information, could be subject to a request under access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004). The Office of Manpower Economics (OME), which provides secretariat support to the SSRB, will deal with any such request in accordance with relevant statutory framework. If you consider that any of the information that you have provided is confidential, it would be helpful if you could explain why; there is a Section on the response form in which you can provide this information. This will mean that, if OME receives a request for disclosure of the information, it can take full account of your explanation. However, it cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances.

Further guidance

6.8 If you require any further guidance or assistance, please email the SSRB secretariat team NLMreview@beis.gov.uk.

Question 7

7. Appendix A: Terms of reference for the Non-Legal Member Fees Review

Accepted Answer

7.1 Background

1.1 Fees for non-legal members (NLMs) in the tribunals were last reviewed in 2008 as part of the major overhaul of the Tribunals Service following the implementation of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Fees for NLMs in devolved tribunals in Northern Ireland have never been subject to over-arching review. Fee-paid NLMs were out of scope of the Senior Salaries Review Body’s (SSRB) Major Review of the Judicial Salary Structure in 2018.

1.2 The rate of fees paid to individual NLMs will not decrease as a result of this review due to the statutory protection for salaries paid to judicial office holders in the courts, which is applied, by convention, to tribunal judicial office holders, given the importance of judicial independence from the Executive.

Purpose

1.3 The objectives of the NLMs’ fees review are to:

review whether the current daily sitting fee rates (and salaries) are correctly set and appropriate
review the consistency in the rate of remuneration paid to NLMs for comparable work across the different tribunals, and provide options to achieve greater consistency
assess the extent of any issues with recruitment and retention of NLMs and examine the causes and impact of any issues identified
make recommendations on the appropriate salary or fees for NLMs in scope of the review in light of evidence received and the SSRB’s judgement
make observations on the consistency (including when and on what basis they are made) and quantum and other relevant issues relating to the payment of Additional fees ^{[footnote 4]} paid to NLMs
make any other relevant recommendations as appropriate in light of the information received and the SSRB’s judgement

1.4 In reaching its recommendations, the SSRB must consider:

affordability, and legal and operational constraints
the relative responsibilities, experience, qualifications and skills of different NLM roles
the need to recruit, retain and motivate sufficient high-quality NLMs
the rates of daily sitting fees / salary paid to comparable NLM roles in the unified tribunals and to other relevant external market comparators for NLM roles where there is a specific recruitment or retention issue, where appropriate
the impact of any proposals on diversity and inclusivity, having regard to obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and Northern Ireland Act 1998
NLMs now receive pension benefit (this is under consideration for devolved Northern Ireland NLMs), and this should be taken into account.

Scope

Tribunals and NLMs

1.5 Appendix B provides a list of all tribunals in scope.

1.6 NLMs in the devolved tribunals Northern Ireland are in scope of this review, whilst those in the devolved tribunals of Wales and Scotland are out of scope, in line with the stated wishes of the Devolved Administrations.

1.7 NLMs in tribunals which fall outside of the unified tribunals structure or which are sponsored by other government departments, other than those listed at paragraphs 5 and 6, are not in scope of this review.

1.8 Valuer Chairs in the Property Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal are out of scope as they receive the same pay and benefits as a judge in that Chamber, despite being described as “Other Member” in the Tribunal, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. For the avoidance of doubt, fee-paid Valuer Members are in scope of this review.

1.9 Surveyor Members, Upper Tribunal (Lands) are out of scope of this review as their pay was reviewed in the SSRB’s Major Review. Based on those recommendations, this office moved to salary group 6.1 with effect from 1 October 2019 (subsequently to 5.1 following the 2020 Annual Review).

1.10 Although out of scope for assessing appropriate remuneration, the SSRB may have regard to the responsibilities of these two NLM roles (Valuer Chairs and Surveyor Members) if it considers it appropriate to do so when considering consistency across the tribunals.

1.11 The Non-Legal Chair in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeal Tribunal can be authorised to act as a Chair of the panel, even when a legal member is present. The SSRB will need to consider the appropriate remuneration for NLMs both as a Panel Member and as a Chair. 1.12 A full list of all NLM offices in scope of this review is set out at Appendix B^{[footnote 5]}.

Specific issues

1.13 Within the scope of the review as set out above, the SSRB should also consider the following specific issues:

the difference in responsibilities between Salaried (Regional) Medical Members and fee-paid Medical Members in the Social Entitlement and War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Chambers, and whether different rates of remuneration should be paid to these groups taking into account the day-to-day responsibilities of their roles
the impact of paying a higher rate to medical members in Social Security and Child Support (SSCS) who sit for 20 days or more per financial year on recruitment, retention and morale, and whether this practice should continue

1.14 The SSRB should also have regard to the potential impact of HMCTS reform on the NLM role.

Governance

The Ministry of Justice

1.15 Remuneration for non-devolved judicial office holders, including NLMs, which are determined by the Lord Chancellor.

1.16 The relevant policy team within the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) will be responsible for setting the remit and evidence-gathering in consultation with the SSRB.

1.17 The MoJ team will convene an officials-led group consisting of HMCTS, Judicial Office and a representative from the Senior President of Tribunals’ office to help compile the data and other evidence required for the review.

1.18 MoJ, working with Judicial Office, the SPT’s office and the Northern Ireland (NI) Devolved Administration, will lead on compiling evidence for the review. This will comprise a joint data pack and additional evidence pack. Evidence will be approved by Lord Chancellor and SPT before submission to the SSRB.

1.19 MoJ, (and the NI Devolved Administration for NI devolved tribunals) will produce its own written evidence submission for the SSRB representing the views of the Department on the issues to be addressed within the review and proposals.

1.20 MoJ will publish its response to the SSRB’s recommendations. This will have been agreed by the Lord Chancellor and cross-government prior to publication.

1.21 MOJ will consider recommendations by taking in to account, the evidence, operational viability, legal and equalities considerations and other relevant factors in the context of the prevailing public sector pay policy. This may make it is necessary to delay or stage some or all elements of implementation.

Judicial Office

1.22 Judicial Office is responsible for co-ordinating judicially-agreed role descriptions for all posts in scope of this Review (except posts in devolved tribunals for which the relevant Devolved Administration will be responsible).

1.23 Judicial Office will also assist the senior judiciary in producing the joint data pack and subsequent judicial written evidence submission for the SSRB, which will represent the views of the senior judiciary on the issues to be addressed within the Review.

Northern Ireland

1.24 Remuneration for devolved judicial office-holders in Northern Ireland, including NLMs, is determined by three Northern Ireland departments: the Department of Justice (DoJ), the Department for the Economy and the Department for Communities. The Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission (NIJAC) is responsible for appointing some NLMs and departments are responsible for others.

1.25 Decisions on the Northern Ireland administration’s response to the Review’s recommendations will be made independently of those made by the Lord Chancellor in relation to non-devolved NLMs.

1.26 DoJ will publish the Northern Ireland response to the Review recommendations. This will have been agreed by the three relevant departments in Northern Ireland prior to publication.

Advisory Group

1.27 An Advisory Group will be convened by MoJ to provide advice in the gathering of evidence for the review.

1.28 The Chairs and members will be appointed to the Advisory Group by the Lord Chancellor, in consultation with the Senior President of Tribunals.

1.29 The composition of the Advisory Group will be representative of a range of different NLM roles, and other relevant stakeholders. Members of the Advisory Group must be capable of reflecting objectively on evidence and data.

1.30 The Advisory Group should consist of;

A judicial representative and an MoJ official (Joint Chairs)
NLM of the First-tier Tribunal
1 NLM of the Upper Tier Tribunal
1 NLM of the Employment Tribunal
1 Medical Member
1 Disability Member
1 Valuer Member
2 NLMs from NI Tribunals
1 Legal Member from either Upper or First-tier Tribunal
1 Legal Member from outside tribunals
Sharon Witherspoon (SSRB, ex officio)

Note: Although not members of the Advisory Group, officials from Ministry of Justice, Judicial Office or Office of Manpower Economics may attend as appropriate and with the agreement of the Joint Chairs.

1.31 Fee-paid members of the Advisory Group will be paid for their time.

1.32 The Advisory Group will provide advice during the review to inform and shape the evidence base. Frequency of meetings, the time commitment expected of Advisory Group members and the rates at which fee-paid members will be remunerated for their time will be agreed by MoJ and the SSRB in consultation with the SPT.

Senior Salaries Review Body

1.33 MoJ will commission the SSRB to undertake this Review.^{[footnote 6]}

1.34 The SSRB is responsible for making recommendations and observations to government which fulfil the Review’s purpose and objectives as set out in paragraphs 3-4 above.

1.35 As part of its normal way of working, the SSRB will ensure there is an opportunity for judicial associations, the SPT’s NLM working group, individual NLMs and other relevant stakeholders to submit evidence directly to the SSRB to be considered as part of its deliberations.

Miscellaneous

1.36 MoJ cannot guarantee that there will be no tax implications as a result of any changes introduced in response to this Review. The twin priorities for MoJ are to ensure the effective use of public money and ensure that NLMs are appropriately remunerated for the work they do.

1.37 MoJ will conduct an Equality Impact Analysis of any proposed changes to ensure the policy is consistent with the Lord Chancellor’s statutory equality duties and supportive of the government’s aim of promoting judicial diversity.

Timings

1.38 The Lord Chancellor will write to the SSRB to formally commission the review.

1.39 Once the SSRB has accepted the Lord Chancellor’s commission, the evidence phase will commence. This is expected to be completed by June 2021.

1.40 SSRB will draft a report which is expected to be submitted to MoJ and the relevant Northern Ireland departments in January 2022 (subject to evidence delivery).

1.41 We anticipate that MoJ will respond to the SSRB’s report by March 2022. Note: later completion of the evidence phase (paragraph 1.38 above) means that the SSRB now expects to submit its report in the spring of 2022.

Question 8

8. Appendix B: Posts in scope of the Non-Legal Member Fees Review

Accepted Answer

The tribunals and non-legal members set out in the table below are in scope of this review.

Tribunal	Chamber	Jurisdiction	Types of non-legal member
Upper Tribunal	Administrative Appeals Chamber	Disclosure and Barring Service Appeals	Fee-Paid Other Member
Upper Tribunal	Administrative Appeals Chamber	Information Rights	Fee-Paid Other Member
Upper Tribunal	Administrative Appeals Chamber	Traffic Commissioner Appeals	Fee-Paid Other Member
Upper Tribunal	Immigration and Asylum Chamber	N/A	Fee-Paid Other Member
Upper Tribunal	Lands Chamber	N/A	Surveyor Member
Upper Tribunal	Tax and Chancery Chamber	N/A	Fee-Paid Tax Member
First-tier Tribunal	General Regulatory Chamber	Estate Agents	Fee-Paid Other Member
First-tier Tribunal	General Regulatory Chamber	Immigration services	Fee-Paid Other Member
First-tier Tribunal	General Regulatory Chamber	Environmental and Nitrate Vulnerable Zones	Fee-Paid Specialist (Hydrologist) Member, Fee-paid Other Member
First-tier Tribunal	General Regulatory Chamber	Transportation	Fee-Paid Other Member
First-tier Tribunal	General Regulatory Chamber	Charity	Fee-Paid Other Member
First-tier Tribunal	General Regulatory Chamber	Information Rights	Fee-Paid Other Member
First-tier Tribunal	Health, Education & Social Care Chamber	Care Standards	Fee-Paid Other Member
First-tier Tribunal	Health, Education & Social Care Chamber	Primary Health Lists	Fee-Paid Medical Member, Fee-Paid Other Member
First-tier Tribunal	Health, Education & Social Care Chamber	Mental Health	Fee-Paid Medical Member, Fee-Paid Other Member
First-tier Tribunal	Health, Education & Social Care Chamber	Special Education Needs and Disability	Fee-Paid Specialist Member
First-tier Tribunal	Immigration and Asylum Chamber	N/A	Fee-Paid Other Member
First-tier Tribunal	Property Chamber	Residential Property	Fee-Paid Valuer Member, Fee-Paid ‘Professional’ member, Fee-Paid Other member
First-tier Tribunal	Property Chamber	Agricultural Land and Drainage	Fee-Paid Other Member
First-tier Tribunal	Social Entitlement Chamber	Criminal Injuries Compensation	Fee-Paid Medical Member, Fee-Paid Financial Member, Fee-Paid Disability Member, Fee-Paid Other Member
First-tier Tribunal	Social Entitlement Chamber	Social Security and Child Support	Chief Medical Member, Salaried (Regional) Medical Member, Fee-Paid Medical Member, Fee-Paid Financial Member, Fee-Paid Disability Member
First-tier Tribunal	Tax Chamber	N/A	Fee-Paid Other Tax Member ?Tax
First-tier Tribunal	War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Chamber	N/A	Fee-Paid Medical Member, Salaried Medical Member, Fee Paid Service member
Employment Tribunal (England and Wales)	N/A	N/A	Fee-Paid Other Member
Employment Tribunal (England and Wales)	N/A	Reserve Forces Appeal Tribunal	Fee-Paid Other Member
Employment Tribunal (Scotland)	N/A	N/A	Fee-Paid Other Member
Employment Appeals Tribunal	N/A	N/A	Fee-Paid Other Member
Gender Recognition Panel	N/A	N/A	Fee Paid Medical Member
Proscribed Organisation Appeal Commission	N/A	N/A	TBC
Special Immigration Appeals Commission	N/A	N/A	Fee-Paid Other Member
National Security Certificate Appeals Tribunal (NI)	N/A	N/A	Fee-Paid Other Member
Pensions Appeal Tribunal Northern Ireland	N/A	N/A	Fee-Paid Other Member
Pensions Appeal Tribunal for Scotland	N/A	N/A	Fee-Paid Other Member
Lands Tribunal (Scotland)	N/A	N/A	TBC

Northern Ireland Devolved Tribunals

Tribunal	Chamber	Jurisdiction	Types of non-legal member
Care Tribunal	N/A	N/A	Fee-Paid Lay Member
Charity Tribunal	N/A	N/A	Fee-Paid Ordinary Member
Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal	N/A	N/A	Fee-Paid Medical Member, Fee-Paid Ordinary Member
Fair Employment Tribunal and Industrial Tribunal	N/A	N/A	Fee-Paid Panel Member
Review Tribunal	N/A	N/A	Fee-Paid Medical Member (Consultant), Fee-Paid Medical Member (GP), Fee-Paid Experienced Member
NI Valuation	N/A	N/A	Fee-Paid Valuer Member, Fee-Paid Ordinary Member
Rent Assessment Panel	N/A	N/A	Fee-Paid Chair, Fee-Paid Ordinary Member
SENDIST	N/A	N/A	Fee-Paid Ordinary Member

The following non-legal members / tribunals are out of scope of this review:

County Court Assessors including Lay Assessors from the Employment Tribunal as this is not a judicial appointment but instead a person appointed by the court to assist in the determination of the proceedings.
Valuer Chairs of the First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber and Surveyor Members, Upper Tribunal (Lands) as they were considered by the SSRB in their recent Major Review of the Judicial Salary Structure.
Assessor for Appeals against decisions of Re-instatement Committees as these assessors hold a legal qualification.
Appointed persons sitting on Gangmaster Licensing Appeals as these office holders are appointed by the Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

NLM fees were last reviewed in the Review of Tribunals’ Judiciary Remuneration 2008. Fee-paid NLMs were out of scope of the SSRB Major Review of the Judicial Salary Structure in 2018. ↩
Major Review of the Judicial Salary Structure, para 3.23 on page 69. With regard to London weighting, where applicable we would not anticipate NLM pay rates to depart from the approach applicable to the tribunal chair. ↩
See Appendix B for the different types of NLM roles. ↩
For example, medical examinations, preparation time, writing up etc. (see Appendix B for list). ↩
In this Consultation document the NLM offices in scope are set out in Appendix B. ↩
Terms of Reference for the SSRB ↩

Consultation document (accessible)

1. Section 1: Underpinning principles

2. Section 2: Daily sitting fee rates (and salaries)

3. Section 3: Additional fees

4. Section 4: Recruitment and retention

5. Section 5: Consultation questions

6. Section 6: Next steps

7. Appendix A: Terms of reference for the Non-Legal Member Fees Review

7.1 Background

8. Appendix B: Posts in scope of the Non-Legal Member Fees Review

Is this page useful?

Help us improve GOV.UK

Help us improve GOV.UK

Cookies on GOV.UK

1. Section 1: Underpinning principles

2. Section 2: Daily sitting fee rates (and salaries)

3. Section 3: Additional fees

4. Section 4: Recruitment and retention

5. Section 5: Consultation questions

6. Section 6: Next steps

7. Appendix A: Terms of reference for the Non-Legal Member Fees Review

7.1 Background

8. Appendix B: Posts in scope of the Non-Legal Member Fees Review

Is this page useful?

Help us improve GOV.UK

Help us improve GOV.UK