UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 749-iHouse of COMMONSMINUTES OF EVIDENCETAKEN BEFORECOMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY CHAIRS OF THE IPC
Monday 20 July 2009MR ROBERT UPTON CBE and DR PAULEEN LANE CBEEvidence heard in Public Questions 1 - 66
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
Oral Evidence Taken before the Communities and Local Government Committee on Members present Dr Phyllis Starkey, in the Chair Sir Paul Beresford Mr Clive Betts John Cummings Dr John Pugh Alison Seabeck Mr Neil Turner ________________ Witnesses: Mr Robert Upton CBE and Dr Pauleen Lane CBE, Government's preferred candidates for Deputy Chairs of the IPC, gave evidence. Q1 Chair: Can I welcome the pair of you and, just for the sake of the record, point out that Neil Turner, Alison Seabeck and myself all know Dr Lane. If I could start the questioning, and maybe I will start first with Mr Upton, but I am actually going to ask the same questions of Dr Lane, and ask about the recruitment process, Mr Upton. Can you explain whether you responded to an advert or were you headhunted? Mr Upton: I responded to an advertisement which I saw, I think, in the Sunday Times. Q2 Chair: What made you interested in the job? Mr Upton: I think this is an area of activity which I have been associated with on and off pretty much throughout my career, major projects and planning, and in my current professional post at the Royal Town Planning Institute I have watched the development of the Bill, now the Act, and I have to say that I am a great believer in the need for the Planning Act 2008 and the IPC, and it seemed to me something that I wanted to support tangibly by trying to be part of it. Q3 Chair: The final question is what have you done to prepare for this hearing. Mr Upton: I have read a great deal but I have read a great deal in rather a short space of time, as I have been furnished with documents, so I would not say that I had mastered all the documents that I have been given. Obviously, ever since the Bill became law, I have been following the developments towards the IPC and the developments of the drafting of the Regulations and the Guidance. Q4 Chair: Dr Lane, the same questions: did you respond to an advert or were you headhunted? Dr Lane: I did respond to an advert. I actually found it on the Public Appointments website. Q5 Chair: Again, what made you interested in the job and how have you prepared for this hearing? Dr Lane: You have probably gathered from my CV that I am interested in infrastructure generally from my background as an engineer. I had followed some of the debates that came out of Barker and Eddington, and I was similarly interested in the body that helps to move forward very difficult issues. I am somebody who likes a challenge, so that was my primary interest. Q6 Chair: And preparing for the hearing? Dr Lane: Again, a lot of reading and quite a lot of thinking actually. Actually, the interview process was quite challenging as well; we had several stages to it, which gave time to reflect on some of the big issues in the run-up to actually coming here, so things about sustainable development, human rights, et cetera - a lot of thinking. Q7 Chair: This role is intended to take up three days a week. Each of you has quite a considerable number of other commitments. Starting with Dr Lane, what are you getting rid of? What are you going to be doing in the other two days of the week? Dr Lane: I will be retiring from my main role, which is teaching a Masters
course in geotechnical engineering at Q8 Chair: How much time does the Coal Authority take at the moment? Dr Lane: The Coal Authority is one to two days a week but the issue there is primarily the question about balancing its role as a statutory consultee, and I think it is appropriate that I deal with that. Q9 Chair: How many days does that leave you contracted with the TSA and the New Local Government Network? Dr Lane: The New Local Government Network is primarily just an informal advisory role. I am a trustee. We have quarterly meetings for a couple of hours in the evening. The Tenant Services Authority is one stroke two days a month. Q10 Chair: And the Theatres Trust? Dr Lane: The Theatres Trust is one day a quarter. Q11 Chair: Finally, how many days a week do you devote your duties as a councillor? Dr Lane: Trafford Borough Council has almost all its meetings exclusively in the evening so it is less about time during the day and more about going to council meetings, which is about once every eight weeks, and then Saturday morning advice surgeries, that sort of thing. That is my primary commitment. I would say it is probably about one or two evenings a month, because I also do some scrutiny roles. Q12 John Cummings: How many working weeks are there in the year? Dr Lane: Forty-eight. Q13 John Cummings: Forty-eight working weeks; two days a week for 48 weeks. Dr Lane: Three days a week. John Cummings: Thank you. Q14 Sir Paul Beresford: I think you said you were staying on the Tenant Services Authority. Do you see the possibility of a clash there? Dr Lane: I have discussed that very clearly both with the Department and with the TSA themselves. There is no obvious overlap at all because, obviously, its primary role is establishing itself as the regulator for social housing. There is no conflict in terms of the planning role. I am on there for one term only as part of the setup process and actually that has been extremely busy over the previous year but I think is settling down now. I have read through the issues about conflict of interest very carefully and I cannot see any way in which that is a conflict in terms of process. Q15 Chair: Mr Upton? Mr Upton: I have no other paid employment other than my role as the Secretary
General of the Royal Town Planning Institute.
Various roles as, for example, Secretary of the Planning Summer School
and as a member of the Board of the RTPI Services, the trading company, would
simply fall away when I left the RTPI.
The other roles that I have listed in my CV, such as Visiting Professor
at Q16 Chair: It has been pointed out, Dr Lane, that you are also on the Football Licensing Authority. Dr Lane: Yes, that is one day a month. Q17 Dr Pugh: Mr Upton, how does your experience to date prepare you for the role of Deputy Chair and equally, what are the gaps in your experience that you are going to need to fill in order to perform adequately in that role? Mr Upton: As said, I have been involved in one way or another with many major
projects, some infrastructure, some new towns projects, both in my 20 years
with the old Hong Kong Government and indeed in my local government service,
and then in the policy work which I have involved in with the Royal Town
Planning Institute. So it is certainly
something that I have been thinking about and exposed to. I have taken part in decision-making processes
on significant developments, certainly when I was Director of Planning in Q18 Dr Pugh: Dr Lane, you have a wide diversity of experience possibly but, again, what do you think has prepared you for this particular role and what omissions are there still that you would like to fill? Dr Lane: I obviously have some advantage in having been a deputy chair of a significant public body for a number of years so I have some idea as to the likely roles within that. I have fairly wide experience as a non-executive director in terms of the question of organising a body and challenging its arrangements. Obviously, the big issue for us is in terms of the technical detail that will be required when considering individual proposals. That is something which I have some background in to start with, but will be something that I would wish to turn a lot more attention to as we move towards the actual consideration of applications. Q19 Dr Pugh: Following through on that, there are going to be some controversial plans you will have to oversee decisions on, things like nuclear power stations, wind farms and so on. What is there in your previous experience to demonstrate you have the necessary skills to see those safely through? Dr Lane: I cannot claim a specialism in relation to nuclear power or in relation to wind farms but I have had a fairly extensive technical training as an engineer and I do have some experience expertise in the area around underground workings, which I think will be--- Q20 Dr Pugh: It is not just about technical matters. Dr Lane: No, I understand that. Q21 Dr Pugh: It is about dealing with groups and interests and so on. Dr Lane: Absolutely, in terms of dealing with the question as to handling people who wish to be involved in the process, actually I would say my experience as a local councillor has been extremely valid in that respect. I have had to deal with a number of very difficult applications in my own environs, and had to help people through the process of applications, both that have been determined locally and at other levels. So I hope that would give me some idea as to what is involved. Q22 Dr Pugh: Mr Upton, how do you cope with controversy, or how have you coped hitherto with controversy? Mr Upton: I have faced a good deal of controversy around planning issues. Q23 Dr Pugh: Can you give us an example? Mr Upton: I once had a very serious threat on my life when I was serving in Q24 Dr Pugh: So you have relevant skills apart from knowing how to seek security where necessary? Mr Upton: They did not offer any security, I am afraid. Q25 Dr Pugh: Could I ask you then, following on from that, what experience you have of actively promoting the principles of sustainable development? Obviously, that is pivotal to this role. How would you expect to push that forward? Mr Upton: I think a great deal of the work done by my Institute on the policy side over the last few years, and certainly to an increasing extent in recent years, has been focused on issues around sustainable development and what it means in practice. One has to, I think, understand that there is no blueprint for sustainable development; we are talking about something which is developing all the time in terms of its demands and which has changing technical aspects to it. My Institute has recently produced its own set of commitments on the way in which we believe the planning profession should measure up to climate change and this covers everything from education through to actually investigating good practice. I think that is the key actually, that we have to continue to learn and to evolve better understanding and application. Q26 Dr Pugh: You do not want to mention at this stage any specific projects you have been involved in? Mr Upton: I cannot think of any specific practical project that I have been involved in in recent years. Q27 Dr Pugh: Dr Lane, again, the theme is the principle of sustainable development. What is your experience of promoting that? Dr Lane: I supposed I would talk about when I first started work as a graduate engineer. I did schemes involving, for example, re-use of materials in situations where otherwise there would have been primary use of materials, so, for example, reinforced earth rather than concrete solutions. I have to say that I am probably of an age where sustainable development is actually mainstream engineering practice now, right the way through the system. In terms of what I have done in my non-executive roles, I was very supportive of the agenda through English Partnerships in terms of pushing forward the question of sustainable construction practice, innovation in house building, and I am currently Chair of the Environment Group for the Coal Authority and I am working through with the Coal Authority opportunities for them to rethink their environmental strategy, which includes, for example, the use of renewables on their legacy sites. It may seem a bit of a contradiction in terms but I am working it through with the Coal Authority. Q28 Sir Paul Beresford: This probably applies more to Dr Lane than to Mr Upton but neither of you have anything on your CV showing you have worked closely with or as part of the private sector at all. How are you going to overcome that? How are you going to show the private sector that you understand? Dr Lane: I would slightly challenge that. My CV is quite summarised. I had secondments to both North West Water and W. S. Atkins as part of my engineering training so I have worked on the other side of the fence, as it were, but you are right in the sense that I have a public sector background but, as an engineer, nothing happens in engineering without funding, finance and the whole context. I work through those issues, so, for example, I undertook an MBA on my own volition because I wanted to understand more about private accounting arrangements so I could better learn the inside issues. You are right; I have not worked for a private sector employer but I hope that I have a good understanding as to the way in which decisions are made and some of the drivers around those issues. Mr Upton: I think I have quite a lot of experience actually of working
alongside the private sector, certainly on some of the major developments I was
involved in in Q29 Sir Paul Beresford: You were on the other side of the fence. Mr Upton: You can say you are on the other side of the fence but, actually, I think that you have to develop a keen understanding of what is driving the private sector, otherwise you cannot negotiate with them sensibly. Q30 Mr Betts: The role you will be taking up is very much a quasi-judicial role. You are going to be making decisions which are not going to be referrals to anywhere else and even the Secretary of State. The responsibility is going to be with you and your colleagues. Have you any experience of quasi-judicial decision-making in any of the rules that you have performed? Mr Upton: Yes, I have, I think, in the decisions which I was involved in, again,
when I was Director of Planning in Dr Lane: I suppose the nearest equivalent I have is that I have served two terms as an Audit Commissioner, which, as you know, gives you a certain degree of independence in terms of the decision-making process and the need to determine situations around performance. So I have exercised a quasi-judicial position in that respect over six years. Q31 Mr Betts: Do you expect to hear cases yourselves? Mr Upton: I am sure that we will be involved in casework. We have yet to have any discussions about how the Commission is going to organise its work in practice but I am sure we shall be involved, both as Chairs of Panels and quite possibly in individual cases. Dr Lane: That is certainly also my expectation. The way the Act has been drafted it allows for the fact that it does have both the Chair and the Deputy Chairs involved in the process, and I think that is probably right. Q32 Mr Betts: So how do you expect to support the Chair? The Chair is very much the public face that people will see and will no doubt be dragged on to Newsnight and elsewhere at various times. Do you expect to have a public face as well yourselves, or have you had any discussions about how you might operate? Mr Upton: We have not had any discussions together but I think our expectation is that we should, if necessary, be part of the public face. It would be not properly supporting the Chair to let him do it all himself. I think it is a responsibility which falls on the Deputies. Dr Lane: I would particularly hope that that relates to the question of particular groups of stakeholders. That has certainly been my experience of Deputy Chair, to support the Chair by assisting in relationships where you have a particular interest or specialism. Q33 Mr Betts: This is to Dr Lane in particular: do you have any practical experience of implementing large-scale infrastructure projects or is it mainly academic experience? Dr Lane: I would suggest that the Imperial War Museum North was a project which I initiated and saw through. I have done some private finance projects as the executive member. I would say that I have left my days of actually running a construction site behind, that is correct, but I have had very significant involvement with projects like the way through, including through English Partnerships. Q34 Alison Seabeck: The need for nationally significant infrastructure projects will be prepared by government and obviously scrutinised by Parliament. In terms of the delivery which has been identified by Ministers and Parliament, where does the interest fall? You have a population which may take an entirely different view. How do you balance your role? Whose side will you take? Will you take sides? Mr Upton: I think it is the role of the Infrastructure Planning Commission to be solidly independent and to be seen as such. It is the role of the Government to prepare the National Policy Statements and there is a role for Parliament, obviously, in scrutinising those National Policy Statements but thereafter it is for the Commission, in considering applications, to consider the extent to which an application falls within the policy framework set by a specific National Policy Statement, and the other consideration is whether there is any overriding reason why it should not be approved. Dr Lane: I think the guidance is fairly clear, in the sense that the question of the principle of a form of development is set nationally, and the issue is about considering locally, except for those items that are set as a local issue through the NPS process. No, I think the guidance surrounding the Act is that it is a presumption of development but you have to consider whether the impact of that development on that local community is so severe that it would be adverse in the net balance overall. I would not say it is for and against; it is weighing up those two interests and looking for the best balance of the outcome. Q35 Alison Seabeck: Planning is always a controversial area. You are going to be looking at some very significant schemes. You have both already commented that you intend to get very involved, you think, in casework. Do you envisage having some real conflicts with large tranches of the public, demonstrations outside your door? Dr Lane: I think it is inevitable with large projects that there is going to be a lot of public attention and I absolutely understand that, not least because I have experienced that in my local area. I think the most important thing for the Commission is to ensure that people have a chance to have their say and to ensure that the process is clear and that they can see how to have their input and that that does not get lost in the noise of the process. So I am absolutely certain that there will be very controversial issues, that people will feel very strongly about those issues and they will want to make those views felt. Our role as a Commission is to ensure that those views are also made in a way which has the most effective in terms of the detailed nature of their representations and, as I say, that does not get lost in the noise. Mr Upton: It is, if I may say, more clearly a two-stage process, where the issues of principle around what policies should be should have been thrashed out and thoroughly debated in the drafting of the National Policy Statements, so that a reworking of those issues of principle does not become something which actually frustrates the decision-making process on the specific application. Q36 Alison Seabeck: Have there been any occasions in your professional careers where you have had to resolve conflicts between your personal interests and wider corporate or public interests and how have you gone about doing this? Dr Lane: Do you mean in terms of things that you felt strongly about? Q37 Alison Seabeck: Yes, or your own personal interests, in that you had a stake in something, indirectly or directly. Dr Lane: I understand. I would say
that has come about largely through my work as a local councillor in terms of
balancing issues about which I may have felt strongly and residents felt
differently. For example, the
introduction of CCTV cameras in public places.
I have had to work through issues like that. I have been very clear on any issue which
relates to personal conflict that you have to be absolutely upfront about
matters, and be very clear that you can do the explanation to a member of the
public as to where you have sat in a particular position. For example, I have had a lot of dealings
with Manchester United, and one of the reasons for that is that I am not a
football supporter, so I am the person who deals with the club locally because
I am not biased in terms of one side or the other. I am very supportive of knowing
principles. You need to be clear what it
is people could think about you and try to avoid ambiguity. For example, there was a decision on the
North West Development Agency that related to Mr Upton: I cannot think of any incident or issue where I have had a personal interest which put me in conflict with my work. I have to say that, as a civil servant for 20 years, I was certainly sometimes involved in dealing with policy with which I did not approve or could not wholly support in my heart but the discipline is that you get on with it. In this case I think the whole point is that policy as such is not a matter for the Commission; policy is a matter for the National Policy Statements and a resolution of Parliament. Thereafter it is for the Commission to interpret the policy framework that it is given. Q38 Mr Turner: Mr Upton, I have had a look at your CV and you do not actually say in there whether or not you have any past political activity. Could you just confirm or tell us if you have any? Mr Upton: I have in fact never been involved in any political activity and I have never been a member of any political party. Q39 Chair: Apart from voting, presumably? Mr Upton: Yes, but it is a secret vote. Q40 Dr Pugh: Dr Lane, you have said in the context of the interview but you did not say on your CV you are a Labour Party councillor. It is nothing to be ashamed of presumably. That is not a leading question. Did you say you are an Executive member? Dr Lane: I was previously an Executive member. I am no longer. Q41 Dr Pugh: There are many people on all sides in this room who probably have some experience of working on councils. It can be very demanding. Why are you not considering stepping down from your seat on Trafford Council in order to free yourself up for this challenging role? Dr Lane: That is an absolutely fair question. I think at the moment my expectation is that I would like to simply see out my term of office, on the basis that it is not something that is a conflict. It is covered by the code of conduct for both Commissioners and employees. I am a in a fairly humble position as a member now but I do have a lot of experience in terms of working with my local community which I do not want to just walk away from overnight. I appreciate the concern that you would have but I think it is at the level of I regard myself now as somebody who supports local people in issues that need attention. Q42 Dr Pugh: I do not presuppose or think it is a matter that you should; I just wanted to know what your view was. Obviously, there are going to be circumstances in which you need to reassure people of your impartiality. Dr Lane: Of course. Q43 Dr Pugh: How would you endeavour to do that? Dr Lane: Firstly, I would point to my track record, which is, having served two terms as an Audit Commissioner, I have had to deal with matters on a cross-party basis and I would hope that, for example, if you spoke to any of my fellow Commissioners, they would be happy to reassure you on that point. Similarly, with English Partnerships, I had to deal with authorities of all shades and colours and no overall control in many cases, and I have a track record of dealing with that absolutely neutrally, I hope. It is a perfectly fair question and I understand why you would ask it but I am somebody who has concentrated on improvement in local government. I have worked alongside colleagues to achieve that. That is something that I intend to step back from in the immediate future gradually, because I can see that there is going to be a point in the future where, although it is three days a week, it is 156 days a year and, if you are holding hearings, for example, you are going to need to be available for blocs of time. So I intend to gradually move away from things that make it more difficult for me to do that. I did not feel the need to do that summararily, as it were, not least because the cost of a by-election would not be justified. Q44 John Cummings: Would you tell the Committee why you think it is necessary for the IPC to have two Deputy Chairs? Dr Lane: I would imagine - this is only my summary - is that they envisage the workload as firstly, the question of establishing the organisation, which is to a challenging timescale, but secondly, in terms of managing particular issues like the relationships with stakeholders that I referred to earlier. It is a lot of work to do in a short period of time. That workload needs to be shared. In the longer term I imagine it would be to do with managing the level of the casework. I presume that was in the minds of the people who set up the organisation. John Cummings: Do you think two Deputy Chairs will be enough? Q45 Chair: Perhaps Mr Upton can reply to this one. Mr Upton: I would just like to support what Dr Lane says about managing the caseload. I think it makes it easier to have more than one Panel running at the same time, which I think is a very likely scenario. Q46 John Cummings: Do you expect that there will be a hierarchy of Deputy Chairs? Will one of you be more senior than the other? Mr Upton: I think we should be fairly equal. Dr Lane: That is our anticipation. Q47 John Cummings: Are you sure? Dr Lane: I could possibly say it is a matter for the Chair but I think our expectation is we are employed on the same terms and conditions. Q48 John Cummings: If the Chair is incapacitated for any reason, would you expect that one of you will stand in for the Chair or will you split the work of the Chair between you in some way? Dr Lane: I would say it is entirely dependent on the circumstances, which is, short term it would be a matter of who was best placed to fill in in the short term. If it became more serious, I think that would be a matter for longer consideration. Q49 John Cummings: You see, the Act does not say that the Deputy Chairs are going to be of equal standing. It does not say whether there is going to be a hierarchy. Should the Chair become incapacitated for any reason, it is not clear whether one Deputy Chair will stand in as Chair or whether the functions of the Chair will be split between all the Deputy Chairs. Who will decide upon what is going to happen? Mr Upton: I think that is a good and challenging and important question but if you could forgive us, we have not actually had the chance to rehearse these issues and get into the procedural matters yet because we have not been appointed yet. I think there is a great deal of very hard work to be done by the Chair, the Deputy Chairs, and the first few Commissioners and the staff to actually work through rigorously all these important questions. I do not feel today I can give you a categorical answer. Dr Lane: I think it is difficult in a hypothetical situation. I imagine from my previous experience as a Deputy Chair the focus will be on getting done what needs to be done in the immediate term and then focusing on what the length of the issue is. Q50 Mr Betts: A lot of the discussion around the legislation, when it was proposed and then when it went through Committee, was around the issue that the IPC has been set up for one simple reason, and that is the great, lengthy delays some people have experienced on planning applications for major infrastructure projects around the country and a desire to make sure that those delays are not repeated. The feeling has been around that this is really a Commission to assist development, maybe at the expense of those people who object to the development. What is your reaction to that? How would you avoid that being true in practice? Mr Upton: I would repeat what I believe Sir Michael Pitt said at his hearing, which is that - and I paraphrase - in my view, the Commission will in effect stand or fall on its ability to establish its reputation as being a properly independent body, without fear or favour, that is fulfilling rigorously the task placed upon it, which is interpreting applications in the context of the National Policy Statement that applies to that, and considering what other circumstances should come into the determination of the application. I think that is hugely important. If I did not think that the Commission was intended to be or would be that independent, then I would not be interested in working for it. Dr Lane: I think it is not just about the question of the final hearing, it builds also on experience of good practice in dealing with large planning applications which perhaps did not necessarily go to previous either ministerial call in or public inquiry. For example, the question of pre-application work has been recommended practice for a number of years at local authority level and I think actually that has provided us with a lot of insight into what happens when you expose projects to genuine access to the communities affected at an early enough stage that they can have an influence. For me, it is not just the question of the final stage, it is the whole process of the national debate about what needs to be done and then the developer's requirement to talk openly with people at an early stage about the issue in their local community which makes it better for the final decision, it will improve the quality of the final decision-making. I do not see it as a juggernaut approach, I see it as building on best practice which in the end has to balance the dilemma between national needs and local impacts, but at least it has done so in a manner which is open and clear. Q51 Mr Betts: Can I just pick that point up about the pre-application consultation and the involvement of the Commission. Is there not always a danger that as a facilitator for that and encouraging that and requiring it to be done that you can end up compromising your eventual decision? Mr Upton: I think the job of the Commission is clearly to advise on procedural matters, not on the merits of the application. Dr Lane: I think there are ways that you can look at that, whether it was perhaps in Chinese walls arrangements within the Commission and having some people who specialised in advice and encouragement about the process versus the decision-making side, so you could do that at a organisational level as well to avoid that possible implication. Q52 Mr Betts: A faulty process there could be an eventual reason for refusal. Dr Lane: That is correct and, therefore, you would have to be very clear that your limits were around advice and not giving, as it were, a rubber stamp to proposals. Mr Upton: I think it is also important, though, that the whole structure and flavour of the Act is that it encourages applicants to do the very best they can to avoid getting into an adversarial situation or to limit those areas where an adversarial situation is necessary. I agree with Dr Lane that it is well established now that in all planning matters pre-application discussions can be immensely fruitful in terms of understanding what people's concerns are and putting in place mitigation measures from the outset. Q53 Mr Betts: The Government said as well as to get more appropriate timescales for decisions on these projects, this is also meant to get more public participation by ordinary members of the public who are affected in these matters. Do you think there is a degree of cynicism around those statements? People say if you are going to timetable it, and you are going to push things through more quickly, and you are going to stop the right to cross-examine at the various hearings - I think the cross-examination issue could be discretionary to the person hearing the particular issue - then that really does not smack of much more involvement and certainly lots of the pressure groups were highlighting those issues as matters of real concern. Dr Lane: Absolutely, but of course the timescale applies to the post point at which you start to consider the application. The time for people to do the pre-application consultation is indefinitely long in that sense in terms of what they wish to do. The question would be if you ask it the other way round as well, if you take many years to come to a decision does that help people's involvement, does it make it easier, does it make more accessible for them, and I think the general answer would be no. Certainly my experience would be no. Whereas a clear timetable with identified points in which people can have their input is very helpful for people to guide people through a process. Mr Upton: This is potentially a very, very much more transparent process than we have at present and I think that is hugely important for engaging meaningfully with the community of public engagement. At present the system is such that people are very uncertain as to what their opportunities are, when they might be consulted or who might consult them and the basis on which they might be consulted, the basis on which they can get involved. I think there is much greater clarity and transparency about this, and I think that is an excellent thing. Q54 Mr Betts: What about the issue of cross-examination and the removal of the right to do it? Mr Upton: The Act makes it plain that it is primarily an inquisitorial process but it does allow, where that is necessary, in the interests of fairness for cross-examination. Q55 Sir Paul Beresford: The Government is expecting you to move things very much faster than currently. What do you do if in your cross-examination you look at it and you find there are more questions than answers? Do you refuse or do you send them back again to come forward with more information? It could just be the same delay. Dr Lane: Obviously we would hope that with the pre-application processes some of those questions would be answered in the sense that there would be greater focus by applicants on what issues were likely to be asked and, indeed, with the pre-application consultation we would hope they would have been subject to a good deal of scrutiny. I think it would depend on how serious the fault was in terms of what was missing. If it was absolutely material then, yes, you may well have to say, "No, we cannot progress this". Mr Upton: I think the process requires and encourages the applicant to do as much work as possible upfront. If there is real doubt or ambiguity or lack of detail that comes out in the process of examination and that ultimately reflects back on the applicant, that there are issues which they have failed to identify and put forward. It is in their interests to be as open and complete as possible in their application. Q56 Sir Paul Beresford: What do you do if that situation arises? Do you say no? Mr Upton: There must always be the possibility that the answer will be no. Q57 Sir Paul Beresford: You do not say, "Come back again with more information"? Dr Lane: I think it would probably depend on how material the issue was. Q58 Mr Betts: In terms of possible legal challenge, the last thing that anyone would want, I presume, apart from maybe those people who are a bit disappointed with your decision and want to challenge it, is the possibility of you making a decision after a still quite lengthy time on a major project and then it goes on to the courts where your decision gets challenged in judicial review. What steps do you think you would want to take to make sure that the possibility of that is minimised? Mr Upton: There is an important role for the Council of the IPC in a very proactive form of risk management here actually, and the possibilities for judicial review arise around illegality, irrationality and proportionality. Illegality is something which one takes care of primarily through having the most rigorous procedures and checking procedures. Proportionality and irrationality are matters which are best guarded against by having thorough discussion within the Commission, if necessary from the time when an application comes in so that the issues are identified and either the single Commissioner or the panel involved is very mindful of what an appropriate response is. Q59 Alison Seabeck: What do you see as the main measurements by which the success of the IPC will be judged? Mr Upton: For me, primarily qualitative. Obviously there is a workload issue and I would hope that the IPC will cope very well with the workload which falls upon it, but I would like to think that in a few years' time the IPC has earned and received real respect for being both rigorous and thoroughly independent. 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. |