Tribunals, now recognized as key institutions of the Welfare State, are attracting a good deal of attention. Despite a growing volume of criticism little systematic research has been undertaken into the way they actually function. Since almost every British citizen has rights of appeal to national insurance local tribunals (NILTs) it would seem that they constitute a good starting point. An earlier article presented a general view of NILTs. This paper examines the way the appeal system works from several different perspectives. Difficulties encountered by ordinary citizens at various stages in the appeal process are discussed. The research findings on attendance, representation and success rates are analysed. Attendance by the appellant at the hearing of his appeal is shown to be of particular significance. It is also clear that expansion of facilities for providing advice and representation would be advantageous to appellants. Problems connected with expansion of these facilities are discussed, and an ‘ideal type’ representative is outlined. This leads to a discussion of different tribunal models and a ‘participation model’ is developed. Finally, some implications of the research findings for the development of social policy are considered.

The article contains the authors' evidence to the Royal Commission on Civil Liability. It discusses the main sources of compensation for industrial injury: the State's industrial injuries scheme, occupational sick pay and common law damages. Under each head the role of trade unions is assessed.

State benefits provide compensation for injury, disablement and death, but impose a narrow definition of accident and disease. The adequacy of the level of benefits is also questioned. The common law system, moreover, is criticized on several fundamental grounds including cost, uncertainty, delay, legalism and the adverse effect on industrial safety.

The authors propose the abolition of common law damages, provided the resources involved are used within a reformed State scheme. State benefit payable during absence from work is envisaged at 90 per cent of average post-tax earnings, with the employer legally obliged to pay no less than the equivalent amount for the initial period of absence. There would also be payments for loss of earnings after a man returns to employment, for non-pecuniary losses and to compensate the widows of those killed in industrial accidents.

Eleven years after the publication of Richard Titmuss's essay on Income Distribution and Social Change, the official statisticians are still drawing optimistic conclusions about the tendency of income inequality to decline in Britain. This article re-examines some of the critical questions raised by Titmuss concerning the accuracy and interpretation of the official statistics. It considers the definition of income, the implications of capital gains, fringe benefits and the benefits from owner-occupation, the role of life-cycle factors, and the measurement of inequality. It concludes with an assessment of the impact of Titmuss's study on the quality of statistical information and on attitudes and beliefs.