Examination of Witness (Questions 380
- 399)
TUESDAY 11 APRIL 2000
MR MICHAEL
FITZGERALD
QC
380. How do you merit applying the 99 per cent
test separately to each category of the Inspectorate's work? Would
it be passed for each of the main 12 categories of PINS' work?
(Mr FitzGerald) It would still be within the 99 per
cent even if those four which we looked at actually went the other
way, if that is the question.
Chairman
381. What about the question that some bits
of the work may be better than others and, therefore, they have
to move the statistics up for the whole?
(Mr FitzGerald) I think some bits of work are better
than others.
382. Which ones?
(Mr FitzGerald) They vary, funnily enough, from year
to year if you measure it against complaints.
383. Let us take this year.
(Mr FitzGerald) I think this year you will find that
the section 78 appeals are—
384. You will have to tell me what section 78
is?
(Mr FitzGerald) Those are the appeals against planning
refusal which actually go to a public inquiry. I think they demand
the greatest workload on the Inspector because there is the holding
of the public inquiry, the writing of the report, the inspection
to be made. It does demand a very high quality and calibre of
person. I think that those are showing exceptionally well.
385. What is not "showing exceptionally
well"?
(Mr FitzGerald) I think it is rather invidious of
me to say this but I have a feeling, and here one needs to look
at the statistics, at the moment probably it is some of the Rights
of Way cases.
Christine Butler
386. Has your Panel ever commented specifically
on Rights of Way cases?
(Mr FitzGerald) No, we have not. I notice that the
Committee are obviously very alert to this point. We have been
in correspondence ourselves with the organisation responsible
for them. I think this is rather a difficult one. Our remit is
most emphatically not to look at any individual cases, we have
to look at quality as a whole.
387. How do you look at quality as a whole without
seeing anything? It is like woody trees.
(Mr FitzGerald) I absolutely agree with that. What
we are saying is, yes, we will want to have that specific category
of case analysed by the Inspectorate and then we will return to
that and see whether that is exhibiting either a particular defect
in that one area or, indeed, something more at large.
388. Do you agree that there is a disproportionately
large number of quality problems in Rights of Way cases? You do
not have to be part of the Panel, I think most people in any town
would have pointed to that one rather than any of the other sectors.
(Mr FitzGerald) I have to say we have not been alerted
to that. My own personal experience, such as it is, would not
actually support that I have to say.
389. What action do you propose to take about
the complaints passed to you by the Rights of Way Review Committee?
(Mr FitzGerald) We put in our last report last December
that we had noted a complaint, yes we were interested in it and
we were requiring from the Inspectorate that they advise us because
they were in correspondence with the organisation and we would
want to be informed as to where they had got to on that and we
would look at the matter.
Chairman
390. Have they done that yet?
(Mr FitzGerald) Not yet, no.
Christine Butler
391. Will they?
(Mr FitzGerald) I am sure they will.
392. What happens if things find their own level
and tend not to go anywhere, is there anything that you can do
about that? How sharp would you be on expecting some results?
(Mr FitzGerald) I think on that particular one we
would want to have satisfaction on it because we have put it in
our report as one of those aspects that we have flagged up.
393. It would not have to wait until one of
your meetings, would it? You do not meet that often and you do
not do that much work because it is a voluntary panel, we appreciate
that.
(Mr FitzGerald) About every two months.
394. That is right. So do you have to wait to
have another meeting before you can suggest you might do this
about it? Is there delegated responsibility amongst you so you
can think "hang on, we can do something about this"?
(Mr FitzGerald) Ordinarily I would say straight away
we would wait for our next meeting. If something extraordinary
did emerge which required very urgent attention then I have no
doubt at all that we would have a special meeting.
395. But it has to be a joint decision on action
at the time, the whole Panel?
(Mr FitzGerald) Yes, but there are only three of us
so it is not difficult to arrange.
Mr Brake
396. Can I just ask you whether you are aware
that some witnesses have apparently given up complaining to the
Inspectorate about decisions because they do not think that the
Inspectorate will discuss their concerns?
(Mr FitzGerald) I am not aware of that in the sense
that anybody has alerted us to it and with any reasoned justification
behind it. I can well understand, and I am a lawyer, I am aware
of people's reactions to court decisions, that people frequently
say "they are not going to look after us and that is all
there is to it". Hopefully this system does protect against
it.
397. This is particularly in relation to Rights
of Way apparently.
(Mr FitzGerald) I saw the representation of the Rights
of Way Review Committee and I saw what they said. Funnily enough,
they have not alerted us at all at any earlier stage and we have
been around now since 1993. All I can say is that we take their
point seriously and we will look at it, but I am afraid I cannot
help the Committee on any of the validity behind it at all at
the moment.
398. Obviously the Committee is pleased that
you are going to look at it but can you be a bit more specific
as to what proactively that means you are going to do after today's
meeting?
(Mr FitzGerald) After today's meeting we still await
the result of the final correspondence, or at whatever stage they
wish to send it to us, between the Inspectorate and the Rights
of Way Committee. That is what they have promised us. That was
what we said we wanted to see in our last report and we shall
want to see that in sufficient time to comment in this report.
The timescale is up to them. We do not go out proactively and
say "what about that complaint that you told us about back
in November, how are you getting on with it?" We do not do
that. If it is sufficiently serious for them still to have the
complaint they will alert us to it. The Inspector will need to
satisfy us on it because we do not like to see a complaint on
the file of that sort, which is a sort of generic complaint in
respect of Rights of Way cases against the Inspectorate, without
being satisfied ourselves that it has been properly considered
by the Inspectorate and either alterations have taken place or
it has been found not to be justified.
399. Is the reason that you do not proactively
chase in that way to do with the resources you have got, or is
it not something that you would perhaps consider doing, that it
is not your role?
(Mr FitzGerald) I certainly do not think it is our
role to do that. Our role is to be sure that we are advising the
Secretaries of State that the Inspectorate is delivering a quality
service. One of the ways we can gauge that is by complaints. For
a complaint to be sufficiently important to really undermine the
integrity or quality of the service I suspect it has to be a pretty
sustained complaint, not just a one-off by somebody who is annoyed
at a particular decision for example. I do not think we would
go on and say to somebody who had sent a complaint "are you
still complaining or are you happy now?" Certainly we would
follow something up which is sustained.
| 
