Supplementary Memorandum by the Institution
of Professionals, Managers and Specialists (PI 17(a))
PAY
We do not have detailed information about the number
of inspectors who have other incomes in the form of pensions from
previous local government service or other private earnings. We
suspect that many of those who do not have such income are employed
as Consultants, only a handful of whom are members of IPMS. Our
main point is that pay levels should be adequate to encourage
people of the highest calibre, with several years' professional
experience, to join the Inspectorate as a second career. At present
a large proportion of inspectors are town planners, who in general
are poorly paid compared to some other professions. We are very
concerned that current salary level and prospects of progression
will not prove attractive to good professionals with other backgrounds,
and could hinder initiatives to recruit more women and people
from ethnic groups.
ON -LINE
WORKING
Our members have already taken on new technology
and have no opposition in principle to on-line working, subject
to safeguards concerning Health and Safety issues. If inspectors
were generally satisfied with their overall pay package, using
direct links to our head office would not be an issue. However,
for many years we have been seeking extra remuneration for the
costs of working at home, which save the taxpayer many thousands
of pounds each year. At our IPMS PINS Section AGM last week members
instructed their officers to negotiate an agreement with Management
which would formalise the existing arrangements and agree new
practices for working on line, subject to additional rewards.
Although informal meetings have proved constructive, no firm offer
has yet been made to our members. We are trying to reach agreement
on this matter, and hope that we shall be able to ballot our members
with a recommendation to accept the negotiated agreement and to
remove our opposition to on-line working.
INSPECTORS' DECISION
RECORDS
Appeal decisions are public documents. For some
time commercial firms have offered summaries of inspectors' track
records on various types of cases, such as food superstores, housing
schemes. Participants in the appeal process, usually appellants,
frequently use these services. However, we consider that any public
summaries of these records should be made available in a way which
is readily understandable to "lay" people, and which
does not undermine the authority and integrity of the inspector.
We should be consistent with the practice of other independent
tribunals, to ensure that the Inspectorate does not suffer under
undue pressure from parties to change an inspector whose record
may on the surface appear unfavourable to their particular case.
Jenny Thurston
Deputy General Secretary
April 2000
|
