Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Huntingdon, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 10, in clause 12, page 5, line 17, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

‘In deciding whether or not it is in the public interest to appoint an assessor, the Chairman must have regard to the need—

(a)to ensure that the panel has available to it the necessary expertise to undertake the inquiry; and

(b)to avoid incurring unreasonable cost.’.

The Conservative peers originally proposed this amendment as they felt that the Bill placed too much stress on costs to the detriment of other factors such as expertise. The Government addressed this by removing the reference to costs and replacing it with the current reference to expertise. That was welcomed at the time by the Opposition. However, our amendment today underlines the need also to consider costs. This is not the most crucial amendment of the afternoon, but why should the subsection, which concerns the regard chairmen must have when appointing assessors, address only expertise or costs? Why can it not address both?

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Shipley, Labour)

Subsection (4) of this clause is very important, because it contains what is, in essence, a definition of the role of an assessor. An assessor is a person who has

“expertise that makes him a suitable person to provide assistance to the inquiry panel”.

If one removed that subsection, as the amendment would do, the Bill would give no indication of the requirements for being an assessor. I am not, per se, opposed to either the Minister or the chairman considering the cost of appointing an assessor. I am sure both will do so. One of the main aims of the Bill is to enable inquiries to reach conclusions and make recommendations in reasonable time and at a reasonable cost.

The hon. Gentleman has already alluded to the fact that earlier drafts of this clause included a specific requirement obliging the chairman to have

“regard in particular to the cost”

when appointing an assessor. But concerns were raised in the House of Lords that too much emphasis was placed on cost at the expense of other factors. An amendment identical to this one was proposed in its place, to include the balancing factor of a need for expertise, but my noble Friend Baroness Ashton found another satisfactory solution, which was to remove the subsection completely. That ensured that the chairman would still have to make a decision that took into account all the relevant factors, but that cost was not highlighted in particular.

I also have a concern about subsection (a) of the amendment, because it places an obligation on the chairman to ensure that the panel has the necessary expertise. Keen readers of the Bill will recall that clause 9(1)(a) already places that obligation firmly on the Minister. It would therefore be confusing to create a second explicit obligation and to place it on the chairman. For that reason, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Huntingdon, Conservative)

I hear what the Minister says, and I do not intend to die in a ditch on this clause. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.