Examination of witnesses (Questions 268
- 279)
WEDNESDAY 5 APRIL
MR PETER
PIKE and MS
SUE TOLAND
Chairman
268. Peter, can I welcome you back to the Committee
although it is quite a long time since you sat on this side of
table on the Environment Committee. Would you like to introduce
yourself and your team for the record please.
(Mr Pike) Thank you for welcoming me back. It is,
as you say, quite a long time since I was on the Environment Committee.
I chair the Rights of Way Review Committee which is a body that
does try to bring about a consensus of views and is recognised
in that respect. We meet about three times a year. Sue Toland
is the Secretary and used to work for the Department and is very
well qualified on the issues that we are looking at this morning.
269. Do you want to say anything more by way
of introduction or are you happy going straight into questions?
(Mr Pike) We are happy to go straight into questions.
Mr Olner
270. What do you think are the main shortcomings
in the quality of the inspectors' decisions that cause you concern?
(Mr Pike) The shortcomings that are of concern to
the Rights of Way Review Committee are that there seems to be
inconsistency and differences in the way that decisions are reached.
We feel this is mainly from the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside
Act and the way that historical evidence is used is not consistent.
Also the only way of challenge is via the High Court and of course
it is outwith the means of most people to be able to challenge
in that way.
271. What do you think ought to be done to tackle
that sort of inconsistency?
(Ms Toland) The Committee has made several suggestions
both to the Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate and Michael
Meacher, Minister for the Environment, and the suggestions centre
on having a procedure for quality assurance or quality control
among inspectors who take decisions on the Secretary of State's
behalf. At the moment the only way of overturning a decision is
to challenge it in the High Court and that is too late if there
are inconsistencies or concerns about the decisions and beyond
the means of most people.
272. Are you basically saying this inconsistency
comes about because of lack of training?
(Ms Toland) It is hard to say. Training is not a public
issue. Training is carried out privately by the Planning Inspectorate.
It has invited particular members of the Committee to get involved
with training but generally people do not see what training is
undertaken. Clearly, if there are concerns about inconsistencies,
they ought to be addressed through training as one means of dealing
with it.
273. You mentioned earlier, Peter, historic
access to rights of way. Have you encountered inspectors without
that knowledge?
(Mr Pike) Personally no but there is one big controversy
in Lancashire at the present time on one particular right of way
and members of the Committee have experienced it and certainly
local authorities have views that the way that these cases are
dealt with is not consistent.
274. Going back to previous evidence which I
know you heard about human rights appeals, do you think that there
would be more scope if your Committee could appeal to a third
party?
(Mr Pike) Our Committee would not want to get involved
in specific cases. That is not the role of the Committee.
Mr Olner: But would you encourage people as
a Committee who were aggrieved to go through this route?
Chairman
275. The new legislation that is proposed that
is going through the House has in it proposals for some landowners
to appeal but it does not balance that with rights for third parties
who might want to use appeal procedures. Ought that to be balanced
if it is to be in line?
(Ms Toland) As I understand it, the Bill does not
affect procedures whereby these cases would be decided on behalf
of the Secretary of State. A right of appeal would be one way
of identifying and resolving cases where people think there are
inconsistencies, yes, it would be.
(Mr Pike) I certainly think if one is giving that
right to the landowners then it would be right to have some balance
the other way, if that is the specific point you are raising through
the legislation. We are of course also intending to meet the Minister.
I signed a letter indicating we are trying to agree a mutually
convenient date for him to meet members of the Committee to discuss
some of the points of concern.
Mrs Ellman
276. You called for more transparency on appeal
decisions. How do you think that could be achieved?
(Ms Toland) We would like to have more rigorous monitoring
of the way in which inspectors handle evidence backed up by published
targets for quality assurance of their decisions and also possibly
have customer surveys to monitor customer satisfaction. That would
then establish the extent of concern and also successive surveys
would enable people to monitor improvements in the Inspectors'
performance.
277. Who should do the monitoring?
(Ms Toland) Somebody independent ideally to do it,
yes. At the moment, if you have a concern you write to the Inspectorate
and I believe that they count those letters as part of their monitoring
of the level of concern, but if they feel there are no legitimate
criticisms in those letters they are discounted in any sort of
measure of errors or customer satisfaction or whatever. So at
the moment the Inspectorate is monitoring its own performance
and that does not seem to be a very healthy state of affairs when
there is such a high level of concern as there appears to be amongst
our members.
278. Do you have any suggestions to make on
how the presentation could be improved?
(Ms Toland) The Inspectorate has already, as part
of the correspondence that the Chairman has already mentioned,
informed that it is proposing to change the way decision letters
are written so they are more consistent and they are more transparent
so we will wait to see what that produces in terms of concern
amongst members of the Committee.
279. Do you think public inquiries should be
televised?
(Mr Pike) I do not think that would particularly help.
I think certainly the monitoring is more effective. I have no
objection to things being televised and being put into the public
domain, but I do not think it would be a particular help in solving
the issues of concern.
| 
