Clause 12 - Assessors
Inquiries Bill [Lords]
4:00 pm
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.