Examination of Witness (Questions 460
- 479)
TUESDAY 11 APRIL 2000
MR CHRIS
SHEPLEY AND
MR BRIAN
DODD
460. Why does it take so long to reach decisions
on matters that are being determined by the Secretary of State?
(Mr Shepley) The Planning Inspectorate has charge
of the case from the moment when it is called-in, to the moment
when the Inspector's report leaves us and goes to the Government
office. I am reluctant to comment on what happens either before
or after that period because I do not have any direct knowledge
of it. I am sorry to be so evasive but I really do not have the
authoritative information to give to you.
461. Can you suggest any improvements? Do you
know enough to suggest any improvements that can be made?
(Mr Shepley) I am not sure that I do. We do talk to
the Department about this, it is not as though it is a closed
book to us. There are a whole series of stages that both Government
offices and the centre of DETR go through and each case is different
and they are complex cases. It is hard to generalise about what
improvements there might be. I think you may hear next week that
targets are set internally for those within the Department and
I think there has been some improvement recently and no doubt
there is room for more.
Mrs Dunwoody
462. If you talk to them, what do you talk to
them about if you do not know what happens before or after?
(Mr Shepley) We do talk to them mainly about the part
where it is with us. We recently took over the procedure part
of that, as you know, from the call-in to the inquiry itself,
and we have managed to make some improvements there. We only talk
in very general terms about what happens after that.
463. Do you give them gentle hints?
(Mr Shepley) I guess we might do that, yes.
464. Seriously, you take a civil servant's document
which is exceedingly detailed and which will have a very clear
trail so that you can follow what has happened to it before it
comes to you. Do you discuss with Government departments a clear
trend where you believe there could be distinct improvements?
(Mr Shepley) I think the answer is no mostly. One
of the areas that has already been raised is the question of the
quality of the Inspectors' reports and whether that can be improved
and whether one of the reasons for the delay after it leaves us
is the quality of the reports. We have had quite a lot of discussion
about that and how it can be improved. We have also discussed
with the Department the call-in letter itself and the clarity
of the grounds on which an appeal is called-in. There are certain
areas where there is an overlap between what they do and what
we do which we discuss in some detail. We honestly do not discuss
with them how they deal with the matter internally and what sort
of steps they might take in, I do not know, getting whatever advice
they get. I really do not know exactly what those processes are
and I have no particular reason to.
465. You would not think that your experience
of dealing with these various cases is such that you could say
"the problem from our point of view is it arrives with us
in this state and if you were to deal with this we would find
life a little simpler"?
(Mr Shepley) No. I think now that we have taken over
the procedure stage we do not have a problem with the state in
which it arrives with us. We deal with it from the moment it is
called-in. There is a process in deciding whether to call something
in. From the moment it is called-in it now comes to us and getting
the evidence together, making the arrangements and so on, we now
deal with it. We do not have a problem at that end.
Christine Butler
466. Proportionately you have it for so long,
you are busy working on that and you are putting forward an inquiry
and discussing what the issues are going to be for the inquiry,
you hold the inquiry and the Inspectors are doing work on that,
so where are the biggest time delays? Typically is the biggest
time delay with the Government office, with the Planning Inspectorate
during the inquiry and getting a report out or back with the ministerial
department subsequent to that?
(Mr Shepley) It is difficult to generalise because
some of these cases are very large and some of them are quite
small. The smaller cases probably spend longer with us than they
do with the Department. The larger cases, and most of them are
larger cases, probably spend longer with the Department than they
do with us. I think you have to look at it on a case by case basis.
I am sorry to be difficult about that, I am trying to be helpful
but it is hard to give a very general answer.
467. I am just wondering who is sitting on it
the longest, that is all.
(Mr Shepley) We do not sit on information.
468. The topic on which the Committee has received
more complaints than anything else has been Rights of Way matters.
How do you explain this and what should be done about it?
(Mr Shepley) This is for Mr Dodd.
(Mr Dodd) Good afternoon. Rights of Way cases are
undoubtedly contentious. I say Rights of Way cases but I think
in particular it is the Wildlife and Countryside Act cases that
are the problem. I think the Public Path Orders do not tend to
generate the same difficulties for us. The reason for this, so
far as I can tell, is that the Wildlife and Countryside Act cases
usually turn on the significance to be attached to historical
evidence, either documentary historical evidence or arguments
about the use made of a way, in some cases many years ago. Those
are difficult and contentious issues. Added to which in many of
those cases there are opposing groups of people with very strongly
held views. I do not think it is surprising that given the nature
of the subject they do generate a lot of contention.
469. Could I ask you about reasoning. Our last
witness was talking critically somewhat of the reasoning produced.
I have seen some of the reasoning produced from the Inspector
on Rights of Way cases and it is very difficult to follow sometimes
and causes a lot of hoo-ha. Would you say that this is still a
problem? I have very limited experience but I thought the reasoning
on Rights of Way cases was considerably worse than the reasoning
on straight forward planning applications.
(Mr Dodd) I take that point very, very seriously indeed.
470. Do you agree?
(Mr Dodd) Whether I would agree in simple terms that
it is worse or better is something I would want to go into in
a little more detail probably. The first thing to say is I am
very concerned if that is the perception. If people feel that
the reasoning is not clear I am very concerned about that and
it is something that we would want to address in particular in
the training of Inspectors. One of the things that we are looking
at doing this year is to introduce a different format for the
decisions which the Inspectors will produce which will hopefully
set things out a little more clearly and will try to expose the
issues more clearly to the reader of the decision. Yes, I take
it very seriously and, yes, we are always striving to improve.
What I do say is that the subject matter itself is complex and
I do not think there is any getting away from that.
471. If you are going to do a professional job
you have professional training for it and that is not really an
excuse, is it? Do they have training and guidance on the historical
aspects?
(Mr Dodd) Yes, they do.
472. So they should not be failing on that.
(Mr Dodd) One of the things that we have done over
the years is to engage in quite considerable discussions with
many of the groups who have written to the Committee. One of the
things that we have done is to try to introduce in our training
of Inspectors, both in the initial training which they receive
on Rights of Way matters and also on the regular training events
that happen throughout their careers, sessions from leading lights
in the field. This is a contentious and difficult area again because
there are very few experts in the field of Rights of Way, and
in particular there are very few experts on the question of documentary
and historical evidence. We have had many of the leading figures
in the world talking to Inspectors during their training. I give
as an example John Trevelyan, John Riddall, Professor Kain, Christine
Wilmore, these are acknowledged as the leading experts in the
field. We do invite them to address Inspectors in training and
we seek from wherever we can the best information to pass on to
the Inspectors. As I say, there are many different views about
the way in which the evidence should be interpreted.
473. What about the Options Study Final Report
going back now some four or five years, has anything been done
about that?
(Mr Dodd) Which report?
474. This problem was identified about four
or five years ago in the Prior Options Study Final Report?
(Mr Dodd) Yes.
475. Has anything happened subsequent to that
to address the problem?
(Mr Dodd) Yes, it has.
476. Is it what you have been discussing with
us now or something more specific?
(Mr Dodd) The specific issue which was raised in the
Prior Options Study Report I think was to do with the composition
of the Panel of Inspectors who deal with these cases. I can tell
you we made strenuous efforts the last time we recruited to see
if we could address the issue raised in the Prior Options Study.
In particular we tried to get a broader spectrum of experience
amongst the people recruited. I think we were successful in doing
that. Also, we were able to recruit two women to the panel as
well which was something else we were very keen to do.
Chairman
477. Two women out of how many in total?
(Mr Dodd) We recruited 12 and of those 12 two were
women. That reflected the balance of the applications we received.
478. It did not improve the overall balance
of the number of Inspectors, did it?
(Mr Dodd) So far as the Panel dealing with Rights
of Way cases, yes, it did. It is something we are very concerned
about.
479. Perhaps you could tell us, that Panel,
how many women are now on it?
(Mr Dodd) Two.
| 
