Inquiries

The historically conceptual distinction between a tribunal and an inquiry was that, whereas a tribunal usually had statutory authority to reach a final decision which, subject to any right of appeal, determined the dispute before it, an inquiry gathered information, in the light of which a government minister would decide the issue.

In practice, this distinction has become somewhat blurred. Mental Health Review Tribunals, for example, when dealing with mental patients who have been detained in a mental hospital as a result of a court order, can only make a recommendation to the Home Secretary that a patient should be released from hospital; it is the Secretary of State (or his officials) who takes the final decision. So too in the sphere of the inquiry, many inquiries now result in a decision being reached, rather than a report to a minister which would form the basis for a decision.

The principal use of the inquiry as an institution in the administrative justice system is now found in the context of the planning process. In a geographically small country with a substantial population, it has long been accepted that the state has an interest in determining how land should be used. The planning process seeks to balance the competing interests relating to land use of urban dwellers, rural dwellers, industrialists, scientists, the pursuers of leisure interests, the providers of transport systems and other utility providers (gas, electricity, water), to give just some examples.

The bulk of planning decisions are taken by local authorities, acting as local plan­ning authorities. Strategically key decisions—for example over the siting of a new airport—may be 'called in' for determination by the Secretary of State within central government.

Once a planning decision has been reached, rights of appeal are provided. Whereas in other contexts a tribunal has been established to deal with appeals, in the planning context appeals are dealt with by way of inquiry, supplemented by two additional procedures: written representations and hearings. All these procedures are dealt with by a special team of decision-takers, known collectively as the Planning Inspectorate. Originally, planning inspectors did not reach decisions in planning appeals; they held inquiries and in the light of their findings made recommendations to the Secretary of State in the central government. These procedures were 'inquiries' in their original sense. As a result of changes in the law, planning inspectors now have the authority to make the final determination in all save the most complex or important cases, where they still make recommendations to the Secretary of State. In the majority of cases, the functions of the planning inspectorate are indistinguishable from the functions of a tribunal.

As noted, planning inspectors have three mechanisms for reaching determinations:

· written representations;

· hearings;

· inquiries.

Statistically, the inquiry is the least frequently used mode for determining planning appeals.

• Written representations are, as the name implies, a means of dealing with an appeal purely through written representations. This is the speediest and cheapest of the procedures and is particularly suitable for the determination of relatively small matters, e.g. an extension to a dwelling.

• Hearings involve the appellants and the local planning authority in a hearing before a planning inspector, but the process is consciously 'low-key'. Planning inspectors are trained to run hearings proactively to try to avoid the need for the use of expensive legal representation. The inspector shapes the hearing by assisting the parties to identify the issues that need to be addressed. Typically, the hearing is used in cases slightly more significant than those dealt with by written representation, but not as large scale as those going to inquiry.

• Inquiries are much more formal. They are used primarily for major planning issues. (Inquiries are also used to determine the shape of local planning authorities' local plans—which provide the background against which individual planning applications are decided.) Inquiries involve hearing a wider range of persons with an interest in the decision—for example, environmental groups or trade associations—than written representations or hearings. Procedurally they are more formal, with the parties usually using barristers or solicitors to represent their interests. Inquiries can take a very long time; the public inquiry into the Fifth Terminal at London Heathrow Airport took over five years to complete.

Particular and ad hoc inquiries

In addition to planning inquiries, which are held on a regular basis, many other particular forms of inquiry are put in place as the need arises, for example, inquiries into serious rail accidents or other disasters.

The government may also use an ad hoc inquiry to deal with the aftermath of a particular incident. Examples include the inquiry into events at the Bristol Children's Hospital, or the Scott inquiry into the Arms for Iraq affair. The Council on Tribunals has issued advice on matters that government should take into account when establishing such ad hoc inquiries. Local authorities and other public bodies may also establish inquiries into a range of issues, as they arise.

Questions