Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-66)
MR ROBERT
UPTON CBE AND
DR PAULEEN
LANE CBE
20 JULY 2009
Q60 Alison Seabeck: Do you have any
sense of the weight of the workload? Have any estimates been made
about the number of applications you will be looking at?
Mr Upton: The figures that I have
seen are around 45.
Dr Lane: About 45 applications.
Mr Upton: About 45 applications
a year.
Dr Lane: If you look at that against
the number of Commissioners that is almost one per application
with some group arrangements.
Mr Upton: Presumably the economic
situation as it develops will have some impact on that. It is
a guestimate, not a prediction.
Q61 Alison Seabeck: Dr Lane, do you
have any other views on the measurements by which you will be
judged as being successful or not?
Dr Lane: Clearly there are items
laid out in the statute in terms of timescales, and obviously
we hope we will be able to apply those wherever possible. I think
qualitative measures are important and it would be about reputation
and people's perceptions around accessibility, the use of clear
English and ensuring that procedures were advertised in a manner
that made it very accessible to people. One of the issues I raised
in my interview was it said about advertising in the local newspaper
and one of the problems is where I live we do not have a local
newspaper any more. Thinking through issues so that the Commission
ensures that it is well regarded in terms of how it goes about
making difficult decisions even if, as you say, people may not
be happy with every decision, but that it will be seen to be open,
fair and legible in terms of people's involvement in the process.
Q62 Alison Seabeck: What do you both
see as the main obstacles to achieving those ends?
Mr Upton: I would not talk about
an obstacle. I am very conscious that the adequacy of the National
Policy Statements is absolutely critical to the success of the
Commission's work.
Dr Lane: And that is going to
be a learning process because there are obviously some coming
through immediately, some coming through in a slightly later timescale,
and in the meantime, of course, there is an issue about the way
in which policy is expressed. Yes, I think that is the potential
hurdle.
Q63 Alison Seabeck: Would you see
the possibility of a general election in your first two years
as a potential obstacle?
Dr Lane: That is a certainty,
is it not, that there will be a general election within the next
two years?
Q64 Alison Seabeck: Is it something
which in your view could unbalance the work that you are doing
if there is a change of attitude?
Mr Upton: I would not want to
stray on to political grounds which are not for me. Those who
commit themselves to being part of the IPC have to go in on the
basis that they believe in the task, that they will do it to the
very best of their ability and try to make the case for the IPC
in the process.
Dr Lane: It seems to me that there
is political unanimity about the fact that there are some very
difficult decisions that have to be taken. A lot of detailed work
needs to be done to facilitate those decisions almost in whatever
form, and I am sure that the IPC will be ensuring that that work
gets done.
Q65 Alison Seabeck: It is two years
before the guideline date for first review. In your view, is that
too long or too short given the complexity of some of the planning
proposals that you will be looking at?
Mr Upton: I think it is probably
as right as anybody could make it at this stage. Two years in
we will have some idea of how it is going. I do not think it should
be any later than that and it probably should not be earlier,
so I think it is about right.
Dr Lane: I would agree with that.
I think from an organisational point of view it is about right.
In terms of the question of outcome of decisions, that may be
a generation.
Q66 Chair: Finally, you are being
appointed for five years with the possibility of renewal at the
end. If you were to make yourselves available for reappointment
at the end of the five years, on what criteria should we judge
your individual record as a Deputy Chair?
Mr Upton: A very challenging question.
I think that it could only be on the basis that I could demonstrate
that I had made a real and substantial contribution to establishing
the reputation of the IPC as a rigorous and independent but effective
body.
Dr Lane: Obviously similarly in
terms of the reputation of the organisation and hope that I had
been a supportive but constructively challenging Deputy Chair
in terms of my relationship with the Chair, that I had been able
to work constructively with stakeholders and that I had been able
to contribute to the enhancement of the organisation.
Chair: Thank you both very much.
| 
