You are in the company
of
Roger Warren Evans
Roger Warren Evans
|
|
You are in the company
of
Roger Warren Evans |
|
| Part of www.LivePolitics.net < Back to Home Page |
|
|
item0021C 514, 515 514 11 November 2002 More thoughts on My own experience of how the housebuilding industry works generates quite different perceptions from those of laymen. Take a new look at its processes, through the eyes of a professional - let's look at the lay fallacies. It is said - "It is more profitable for housebuilders to build on green fields than to redevelop brownfield sites"
It is said - "Housebuilders have to build up large landbanks, requiring large-scale capital lock-up"
It is said - "Housebuilders are inefficient: the average estate house takes over 14 weeks to build, and the industry has failed to improve its on-site production methods"
It is said - "Housebuilders always try to increase densities, because they always make more profit out of high-density sites".
Are there any questions which you have, about this fascinating and pivotal industry? I would be delighted to explain - Drop me a line
515 11 November 2002
Jacqueline and "Administrative law" is my subject. As a young Barrister, my political interests led me naturally to specialise in litigation between the individual and the State - and that is the subject-matter of "administrative law". Orthodox lawyers argued at that time that in the UK there was no such thing as administrative law, because the State was subject to the jurisdiction of a unitary system of Courts, and a unitary system of law. That is quite unlike the Continent, where there are dual systems of Courts, with special administrative courts adjudicating on State v Citizen issues, and distinctive bodies of administrative law - Verwaltungsrecht, droit administratif.But I have never found such arguments convincing - either as a lawyer or a politician. There is indeed a special jurisprudential zone, in which lawyers seek to understand and encompass the distinctive features of state/citizen relations. Somewhere in the academic annals of international law there is an absurdly learned article from me, comparing the administrative law jurisdictions of the UK, France and Germany - in 1964, I knew more about that arcane subject, I suspect, than anyone else in the UK... And State "licensing" is one of the most problematical of all legal topics. The State assumes the power to select and nominate individual citizens (natural persons or companies) to perform certain functions, pursue certain trades. What legal principles should govern that contentious process? In recent years, conflicts have surrounded the allocation of TV franchises, railway franchises, the Lottery franchise, as well as a multitude of PFI decisions. But it was the Patagonian toothfish, this week, that hit the legal headlines. The Falklands fishing-grounds are prolific, but nevertheless under threat of over-fishing. And in 2001, Robin Cook decided to introduce a system of licensing, to control catches. The good ship Jacqueline, owned by the Quark Fishing Company, had fished successfully for the previous four years (1997-2000), landing 300-400 tonnes a year. When the licensing system was introduced, the Jacqueline was refused a licence. Only two ships were licensed, out of nine applicants. And the Quark company challenged the Government's decision. The High Court upheld Quark, and HMG appealed. This week, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Government has created a heavy rod for its own back, by refusing to accept the lower-court decision. The licensing process, the Appeal Court held, had been unfair. That invalidated the administrative decision. It was not the Judges' job to re-take the decision, they could not replace Robin Cook's judgment with their own. But, the Judges thundered, the administrative process itself was defective - the criteria for granting licences was obscure, and a key factor (loyalty to the fishery) wrongly discounted. "I cannot see why that beauty contest should have been conducted in secret, as in my judgment it clearly was", said Lord Justice Laws. The Foreign Office also showed a "want of frankness" in handling the Quark challenge. For the administrative lawyer, this reasoning is like gold dust. Rarely do the Government lawyers allow conflict of this kind to get as high as the Court of Appeal - indeed, this represents a cock-up on somebody's part. As a matter of tactics, the Government should have accepted the High Court decision, and not embarked upon such a high-profile appeal. For there are here two valuable principles of good administration.
This case-law - it should be noted - does not raise any "human rights" issue, nor does it rely on the European Convention of Human Rights. It is entirely home-grown, rooted in the commonsense of English common law, interpreted by the judges in the light of prevailing conditions.
What do you think? Drop me a line
|
|
|
|
Created by GMID Design & Communication COPYRIGHT NOTICE
|
New