Examination of Witness (Questions 400
- 419)
TUESDAY 11 APRIL 2000
MR MICHAEL
FITZGERALD
QC
400. In your Fifth Report you noted that you
would be working with the Inspectorate to minimise delays in response
times to complaints. Have you got anywhere with that particular
proposal?
(Mr FitzGerald) I think we have, yes, in this sense:
in our monitoring of complaints we picked up coincidentally through
reading the files that there was quite a distinction between some
of the answers, both in terms of the speed of answer, tone of
answer, and content. We said we did not think that was at all
satisfactory, there must be a much more comprehensive and, indeed,
universal form of answer. I think what we were saying there was
what we meant. We do not put that sort of thing into our Annual
Report, we simply said to the Inspectorate "we think that
part of it is not looking right, so you ought to do something
about it" and they have done. They have improved enormously,
as I think we put in our Sixth Report.
401. So are you happy that they are dealing
with complaints within a period of time that allows cases to be
taken to the High Court if necessary?
(Mr FitzGerald) A very good point. There have been
some which were not, that is to say a complaint was registered
and the complainant never got any answer at all within the six
weeks which is otherwise available. We made a comment about that
and are still unhappy about that. We are not aware of any at the
moment in that category. There was one in the previous year which
we identified.
402. Have you told the Inspectorate that you
demand that they deal with all cases within six weeks so that,
if necessary, it can go to the High Court?
(Mr FitzGerald) I have to say I do not think I would
put it quite like that. We say "It is up to you, Inspectorate.
This is what we have identified as being wrong, if you do not
get it right we are going to adversely comment on the quality
of your service". In that sense, yes, I suppose "demand"
is one way of putting it.
Chairman
403. It does not do anything for the complainant,
does it, if you adversely comment? Would it not be better if there
was some mechanism which brought some sanction down pretty quickly?
(Mr FitzGerald) I think that is a huge question. It
applies across the whole gamut, the whole range of everything.
404. Would it not be a simple sanction that
they had to notify you as a body as soon as they ran over six
weeks? Would that not concentrate their minds?
(Mr FitzGerald) Yes, I think it might entirely. If
that is what is meant by "sanctions" certainly. They
know that we will comment adversely, it is up to them to find
a way of making sure that we do not do so and that would include
being certain that all of their answers were within the six week
period, and we say it should be even shorter than that, we say
there is no reason why they should not be within 14 days. Okay,
they need to go on and elaborate that because they are having
to investigate a difficult matter but they should certainly be
responding within 14 days and I think they are doing so. The mechanism
they use is the 85 percentile and they are doing that.
Mr Brake
405. Could you tell us what you think should
happen in a case where a complaint has been found to be significant?
Would an inquiry be reopened?
(Mr FitzGerald) That is slightly out of our remit,
I have to say. If you are inviting me to make a personal observation
I will very happily respond.
406. Indeed I am.
(Mr FitzGerald) Inevitably it depends. In some cases
undoubtedly, yes. There are some cases where because of an error
the wrong decision has been reached and some mechanism ought to
be available for the matter to be reopened. There is one, a planning
application can be made all over again, but that costs money,
they have to pay for the planning application.
Mr Olner
407. Only if the planning application is acceptable
to the authority that you put it into.
(Mr FitzGerald) Supposing the Inspectorate has acknowledged
a mistake, the current position, and its correct position in law,
is that they cannot do anything about it because they are functus
officio, they have finished their remit there, so there is an
acute sense of aggravation either by an applicant who wrongfully
has had his application refused or by a local authority or a third
party opposing it that something has been gone wrong. In the case
of an applicant he of course can make another application but,
as I say, there is a cost and there is delay. Yes, there ought
to be a mechanism, I believe personally, for reopening a public
inquiry to examine whether the fact that something has been done
wrong has affected the outcome.
Mr Brake
408. Finally, how do you think the advent of
the Human Rights Act will affect your Panel?
(Mr FitzGerald) I think we will be significantly alerted
to complaints arising from the Human Rights legislation, particularly
Article 6. How it will affect us and the Inspectorate obviously
depends on how the Inspectorate reacts to that. We are alert to
this certainly. I suspect that it will be a new source of complaint.
Chairman
409. In a sense you have got to convince anyone
who is making a judgment based on that legislation that there
is a proper complaints procedure in place. Do you really think
that with the sort of cosy, comfortable relationship you have
got with the Planning Inspectorate you will convince the law courts
that you are independent and vigorous?
(Mr FitzGerald) It is a question of whether I can
convince this Committee I suppose. At the risk of repetition,
I would certainly deny any cosiness, very certainly not. All I
can say is that our work, I do not know what has been said to
your Committee but certainly every single word that has been said
to us, both formally and informally, has attracted a claim. People
believe that we have done an important job in alerting the Inspectorate
to their own needs which they have quickly responded to and brought
into the public domain an air of confidence and accountability.
I am very proud to be able to say that. As far as the courts are
concerned, I do not think it has been tested anywhere in the courts,
which I suppose is a good thing, but we have to remember what
we are trying to do. In assessing the complaints we are, and in
a very open way, monitoring what the Inspectorate has done. I
am comfortable about that. In our aspiration to raise the standards
of quality in the Inspectorate we put it on to the Inspectorate
to raise their own standards, which they are doing, and I think
that has also been judged by others to be a success.
410. I was not really asking you whether it
was a success or not, I was asking you whether you felt comfortable
with the perhaps more vigorous criteria that the Human Rights
legislation was going to impose?
(Mr FitzGerald) It is easier for us. The more vigorous
the criteria, the easier it is for us to apply it. What is difficult
is the judgment of how do you assess quality.
Mr Olner
411. Turning to inquiries that are called-in
for determination by the Secretary of State, do they figure in
your statistics on complaints?
(Mr FitzGerald) Yes, they do. All of the Inspectorate's
activities in relation to reports, whether they are called-in
or whether they are still Inspector matters, come under the same
heading.
412. They are within your Panel's brief, are
they?
(Mr FitzGerald) Yes.
413. How many of those do you look at?
(Mr FitzGerald) We do not distinguish between them
at all. I just do not know the answer.
414. So it could be in that 75 I mentioned earlier
you would not have looked at one?
(Mr FitzGerald) It could be.
415. That have been called-in by the Secretary
of State.
(Mr FitzGerald) That is quite possible.
416. Do you think they ought to be classified?
Do you think you ought to take some from each of the categories
just to get a feel for it?
(Mr FitzGerald) I think from our point of view we
do not see any distinction in the requirement of a qualitative
approach by Inspectors as to whether it is a call-in, and therefore
reserved for the Secretary of State, or whether it is the Inspector's
own decision, we would expect them to have the same standard of
quality for either. We do not see the need ourselves to try to
distinguish between whichever form of report it is.
417. Do you see that there is a difference in
standards between the Inspectorate and the Government Offices
in the regions?
(Mr FitzGerald) I do not think I can comment on that
other than it is clear to me on the one matter that we were very
interested in indeed up until very recently, still are interested
in but not as much as we were because that has been got over,
that is delay, that the delays in the planning system are now
clearly more attributable to the delays once the Inspector has
finished his job and a report has been submitted to the Secretary
of State, that is where a lot of the delay takes place now.
418. So you have expressed severe concern about
the length of time it takes?
(Mr FitzGerald) As I say, it is not really within
our remit but we have hinted at it, yes.
Chairman: You have hinted at it. Why not call
a spade a spade?
Mr Olner
419. Having hinted at it, would you welcome
the use of time-based targets for the completion of this type
of inquiry?
(Mr FitzGerald) Personally yes.
| 
