Examination of witnesses (Questions 280
- 297)
WEDNESDAY 5 APRIL
MR PETER
PIKE and MS
SUE TOLAND
Mr Benn
280. On the previous point we were just discussing,
we were told earlier today that the Inspectorate does carry out
customer surveys. Were you aware of that? Have you ever seen the
results that they discovered?
(Ms Toland) It might do but it has not to our knowledge
done one on customers of rights of way work.
281. So that is something you would like to
see if they are doing it in other areas?
(Ms Toland) Yes.
282. You have had some correspondence with the
Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate on this question
of transparency and consistency. You said you were not reassured
by the response you got. Are you following that up?
(Ms Toland) The Chairman followed it up with a letter
to the Minister.
283. You have had a response?
(Mr Pike) Yes.
284. What did that tell you?
(Mr Pike) We found the Minister's reply much more
helpful and the Minister indicated a willingness to meet members
from the Committee, as I indicated a moment ago, and we are in
the process of trying to find a mutually convenient date to do
that.
285. You have talked about a certain amount
of dissatisfaction about the way in which the Inspectorate deals
with complaints. What specific changes would you like to see?
(Ms Toland) I think our members would be much reassured
if there was a system in place to check that inspectors across
the country were interpreting the same sort of evidence in the
same sort of way. The nub of the problem is that you want to see
consistency and checking before decision letters are written because
once a decision letter is written—and the Committee understands
why—you cannot overturn it, and it is then too late for
people. Yes, they can write to the Inspectorate but the Inspectorate
is not going to say, "We took a wrong decision there. We
will do something about it", because they do not actually
have the ability to do that.
286. Do you think in the end the only way of
addressing this is to have an independent body dealing with the
complaints?
(Mr Pike) Yes, we do need to have some independent
body but you also need to have something that ensures that you
do not have to go to the High Court because if you have a complaints
system and the only way forward is still through the High Court
it does not necessarily solve the problem. You might agree that
yes there was a problem but—
287.—But you cannot do anything about
it.
(Mr Pike) Yes.
Chairman
288. Would an environmental court be more useful
in that it might be available for people without having to have
huge resources at their command?
(Mr Pike) I personally would think so. I do not know
what Sue and other members of the Committee think. I think that
is certainly a way forward because it would open it to people
with less resources and without the financial problems of going
to the High Court.
289. What is your understanding of the training
received by inspectors on Rights of Way issues?
(Mr Pike) There is a lack of knowledge of what the
training is. There has been a suggestion and certainly the Minister
said in his letter, which we did find helpful, that he would look
at the question of whether members of the Rights of Way Review
Committee could assist in the training. As there is a lack of
transparency in decisions, there is a lack of transparency certainly
in the training as well.
290. The Government are asking you to assist
with the training of inspectors?
(Mr Pike) It is one of the things which certainly
Michael Meacher has indicated he is willing to consider. There
is no decision taken on it but in his letter to us, in response
to my letter, he has indicated this is an area he is prepared
to discuss. Certainly we are willing to discuss that and see if
that is a way of improving the position.
291. It is reasonable to say that your conclusion
will be that the decision will get better if they have greater
training and what about clearer guidelines for them to work to?
(Mr Pike) Guidelines, Sue?
(Ms Toland) Again, if one saw them, if people could
see what the inspectors were given, deficiencies could be identified
and it would be a better process all round.
292. You note the need for a "change in
corporate culture" in the Inspectorate. What do you mean
by that?
(Ms Toland) Well, the Committee when it saw Mr Shepley's
letter, there was quite a high level of concern that he felt just
a few users were concerned about rights of way conclusions because
that did not reflect the discussions that we had in Committee.
Again, here the customer survey that we have mentioned before
could help to establish the level of concern. Despite correspondence
from the chairman and correspondence from individual members of
the Committee nobody has yet reported any change in the Inspectorate's
handling of the cases or complaints. The Committee felt, also,
that the Inspectorate has the ability but it has not ever, as
far as we know, appointed assessors to sit with inspectors on
complex rights of way cases. If they did that, that could help
to boost people's confidence in the consistency across the Inspectorate.
Generally the feeling is the Inspectorate is insensitive to people's
concerns.
293. Could that issue be addressed perhaps by
reducing a discretion that inspectors have as to how to run an
inquiry? Do you think that discretion is helpful or do you think
they need procedural rules?
(Ms Toland) Again, we have not discussed procedural
rules in the Committee but they would provide greater openness
and certainty. On the other hand, I think that people appreciate
that inspectors need a certain amount of flexibility because the
people who come to the inquiry may need a certain amount of flexibility
about when they may appear, who they may appear with or whatever
because certainly the people from user groups are people who have
to take time off work to come to the inquiry and they welcome
the flexibility on the part of the inspector handling the inquiry
as to when they may appear and how they may handle their evidence.
If I may return to an earlier point that you made, which is that
the Committee appreciates that it is up to the Inspectorate as
to how they deal with the evidence in front of them. The Minister
said in his letter that it was up to inspectors how they handled
each piece of evidence that came before them at inquiries. I think
our view is that it is not entirely up to the inspectors but it
is up to the Inspectorate. Inspectors should not decide on an
ad hoc basis what weight to give to a piece of evidence.
They need to be guided by the Inspectorate as a whole so you have
consistency across the whole of the country, across all of the
inspectors who are handling the case work.
294. You made a remark earlier about sensitivity
with which inspectors treat witnesses. We have had evidence giving
us an account of when one member of the public or a lobby group
was verbally abused by an inspector. Are you satisfied with the
way in which inspectors treat third parties at rights of way inquiries?
(Ms Toland) This is not a matter that has come up
in Committee discussions. One assumes, by and large, that people
are content, yes.
295. Evidence we had noted an imbalance in the
way that inspectors treated the landowners representatives with
great respect and members of the public less so.
(Mr Pike) Certainly we would think that should not
be the case. That should be part of the training and guidance,
obviously, that they have got to deal with all the people that
they are taking into account in an inquiry and listen to the case
and judge the case on its merits and treat all on an equal basis.
Certainly I think that is important. The objective has got to
be that an inquiry, whether it is in Reigate or Burnley or wherever
it is, ends up with the same result based on the same evidence.
296. Am I correct to say that this might be
an isolated incident, given that it has not been supported and
brought to your attention?
(Mr Pike) I would think so and I would like to think
it is an isolated incident, yes.
Chairman
297. Do you think the inspectors are paid enough,
given that perhaps in some of the footpath inquiries they have
to sit through very long boring, third party submissions but,
on the other hand, they have to have considerable skills to get
at the historic evidence and the present legal position?
(Mr Pike) Do you want to comment on that, Sue?
(Ms Toland) In fact, we do not know how much they
get paid.
(Mr Pike) I do not think the Committee have looked
at that. At the end of the day as an individual I believe that
if you want to get a proper job done you have to pay the proper
rate for the job to ensure that people are doing it properly.
As Sue has said, I do not know what they get paid and certainly
it is not something the Committee has looked at.
Chairman: On that note, can I thank you very
much for your evidence.
| 
