Schedule 1
Planning
5:00 pm
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East, Conservative)
This is a sensible group of amendments. Amendments Nos. 214 and 215 get to the heart of the problem and the scale of the IPC, if it goes ahead.
I am confused by the question of the numbers. The schedule mentions two deputy chairmen, and the impact assessment mentions three. Could the Minister clarify that, simply so that the IPC will not come to a grinding halt legally if there is a transition period when one person leaves before a replacement is appointed? I am concerned about the numbers and justifying the IPC in terms of both cost and effectiveness. Page 31 of the impact assessment estimates the cost of a deputy chairman at some £130,000. Nowadays, you can get a half-good Minister for that, so it seems rather expensive.
Why does there need to be more than one deputy chairman? A deputy chairman has two functions: one is to deputise for the chairman; the other is a broader function, in which case, there might be multiple deputy chairmen. Originally, and in the impact assessment, three deputy chairmen were proposed, along with 30 commissioners. Before the Bill has even become an Act, that figure has increased from 30 to 45. Can the Minister confirm that the number of deputy chairmen will remain at three? If there is indeed a wider function beyond simply deputising for the chairman when he is incapacitated or in some way unable to perform his duties, does the number of deputy chairmen need to increase much beyond three? Is that why the schedule refers to at least two deputy chairmen but does not apply a cap, which concerns me greatly?
I will be intrigued to hear the Minister’s reasoning for not accepting amendment No. 216. Presumably, there is some other alternative to the schedule’s effectively saying that the commission can act in a manner that is not fair—that is very confusing—if the Government do not want to include that amendment in some shape or form.