Appointment of the Chair of the Infrastructure Planning ... · Veredus conducted preliminary interviews with all the longlisted applicants in December and January. Following those

HC 354 Published on 23 March 2009

by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited

£0.00

House of Commons

Communities and Local Government Committee

Appointment of the Chair of the Infrastructure Planning Commission

Fourth Report of Session 2008–09

Report and appendices, together with formal minutes and oral evidence

Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 16 March 2009

Communities and Local Government Committee

The Communities and Local Government Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Communities and Local Government and its associated bodies.

Current membership

Dr Phyllis Starkey MP (Labour, Milton Keynes South West) (Chair) Sir Paul Beresford MP (Conservative, Mole Valley) Mr Clive Betts MP (Labour, Sheffield Attercliffe) John Cummings MP (Labour, Easington) Andrew George MP (Liberal Democrat, St Ives) Mr Greg Hands MP (Conservative, Hammersmith and Fulham) Anne Main MP (Conservative, St Albans) Dr John Pugh MP (Liberal Democrat, Southport) Emily Thornberry MP (Labour, Islington South and Finsbury) Mr Neil Turner MP (Labour, Wigan) David Wright MP (Labour, Telford)

Powers

The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publications

The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/clgcom.

Committee staff

The current staff of the Committee are Huw Yardley (Clerk of the Committee), Andrew Griffiths (Second Clerk), Josephine Willows (Inquiry Manager), Clare Genis (Senior Committee Assistant), Nicola McCoy (Committee Assistant), Stewart McIlvenna (Committee Support Assistant), and Hannah Pearce (Select Committee Media Officer).

Contacts

All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Communities and Local Government Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 1353; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]

Appointment of the Chair of the Infrastructure Planning Commission 1

Contents

Report Page

Summary 3

1 Introduction 5 Pre-appointment hearings 5 Our hearing 5

2 Background to the post 6 The Infrastructure Planning Commission 6 The role of the Chair 6

3 The recruitment process 7

4 The candidate 8

5 Our questioning 9

6 Conclusion 10

Appendix 1: Infrastructure Planning Commission Chair: Key responsibilities 11

Appendix 2: Curriculum Vitae of Sir Michael Pitt 12

Formal minutes 14

Witness 15

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 16


Summary

On 16 March 2009, we held a pre-appointment hearing with the Government’s preferred candidate for Chair of the Infrastructure Planning Commission, Sir Michael Pitt.

On the basis of the evidence provided by Sir Michael at this hearing, we have concluded that he is a suitable candidate for the post.


1 Introduction

Pre-appointment hearings

1. The July 2007 Green Paper The Governance of Britain proposed the introduction of pre-appointment hearings for key public officials in which Parliament has a particularly strong interest. It stated that in each case, it should fall to the relevant Select Committee to conduct the hearing, which should cover “issues such as the candidate’s suitability for the role, his or her key priorities, and the process used in selection”.1 Following consultation with the Government on the conduct of such hearings, the Liaison Committee has published guidance for committees to ensure that they are conducted appropriately.2 The outcome of the hearing is non-binding, though the Report from the Committee should inform Ministers’ decision-making on whether to proceed.

Our hearing

2. The post of Chair of the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) is one of the positions to which this procedure applies. Not originally proposed in the list of appointments which the Government put forward to be subject to the procedure,3 it was nevertheless one which we were especially keen to ensure we would have the opportunity to scrutinise. In proposing the procedure, the Government expressed the view that it should apply to

positions in which Parliament has a particularly strong interest because the officeholder exercises statutory or other powers in relation to protecting the public’s rights and interests.4

As is apparent from the description of the role below—and from interventions by Members during passage of the Bill which became the Planning Act 20085—that criterion applies with especial force to this post. We are therefore very pleased that, following the intervention of our Chair during the consultation between the Liaison Committee and the Government on the posts which should be subject to pre-appointment hearings, we have had the opportunity to question Sir Michael Pitt, the Government’s preferred candidate for the very first Chair of the IPC, and to express our views on the suitability of his appointment.

1 Ministry of Justice, The Governance of Britain (Cm 7170), July 2007.

2 First Report of the Liaison Committee, Session 2007–08 (HC 384), Pre-appointment hearings by select committees, pp. 8-9.

3 HC (2007–08) 384, Annex A.

4 ibid

5 See, for example, Planning Bill Committee, 10 January 2008, col 172, 180-81, 184, 202-4, 219-25; HC Deb, 25 June 2008, cols 349, 362, 363, 366-7.

6 Communities and Local Government Committee

2 Background to the post

The Infrastructure Planning Commission

3. The Infrastructure Planning Commission was established under the Planning Act 2008. It is one of the key components of the new regime for consideration of applications for the development of major infrastructure, intended to be “more efficient, transparent and accessible”6 than the system of public inquiries which preceded it. The Act defines certain projects as “nationally significant infrastructure projects.”7 Such projects are to be considered not by the local planning authority, but by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). The IPC will have the power to grant all the necessary consents to allow a project to proceed: the so-called “single consent regime”.

4. The IPC’s primary responsibility will be for determining applications for an order granting consent for the development of a nationally significant infrastructure project (“development consent”) in respect of nationally significant infrastructure projects referred to it under the Act. It will also be responsible for giving pre-application advice and guidance to promoters of projects and others about the process of applying for development consent.

The role of the Chair

5. The overall purpose of the job, as described in the information pack made available to prospective applicants for the post of Chair, is “To lead the Board and oversee the overall strategic direction of the Infrastructure Planning Commission.” Since the IPC is a new organisation, the Chair will be instrumental in establishing it as a body: recruiting Commissioners; making preparations, including producing advice and guidance for prospective applicants, to ensure that it is able to function effectively when it begins operation; and putting in place the necessary internal structures for appropriate corporate governance. Throughout that process, and once the Commission is fully up and running, the Chair will have to ensure that the Commission functions effectively and to the highest standards of probity; “actively promote the principles of sustainable development”; and represent the IPC publicly, gaining the confidence of key stakeholders and partners, including infrastructure providers and environmental organisations. The Chair may also—though will not be obliged to—hear cases personally; and will be responsible for making appraisals of the performance of Commissioners and making recommendations to Ministers for their reappointment.

6. The full description of the key responsibilities of the Chair is appended to this Report as Appendix 1.

6 Infrastructure Planning Commission implementation: Route map, CLG, January 2009, para 5.

7 Planning Act 2008 (c.29), Part 3.


3 The recruitment process 7. The Chair of the Infrastructure Planning Commission is appointed by the Secretary of State, in accordance with paragraph 1(1)(a) of schedule 1 of the Planning Act. The recruitment exercise was conducted by Veredus, a firm of recruitment consultants appointed by the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG). The process was overseen by an Independent Assessor appointed by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA). The post was advertised on 2 November 2008 in the Sunday Times, on the Cabinet Office Public Appointments website and on the CLG website. CLG told us that Veredus also conducted an executive search to identify high calibre candidates who might be interested in applying for the post.

8. There were 30 applicants for the job. The applications were considered by a Selection Panel consisting of senior officials from CLG and the Department of Energy & Climate Change, together with the independent OCPA Assessor. The Selection Panel drew up a longlist of 12 applicants to proceed to the shortlisting stage. Veredus conducted preliminary interviews with all the longlisted applicants in December and January. Following those interviews, the Selection Panel met to consider the applicants to be invited to formal interview. The Panel selected four applicants for interview.

9. The Panel then met again to interview the four shortlisted applicants. Following those interviews two candidates were put forward to Ministers. The Minister for Housing and Planning, Rt Hon Margaret Beckett MP, interviewed both candidates and decided to offer the post to the preferred candidate, Sir Michael Pitt, subject to our endorsement. The Minister wrote to our Chair on 10 March naming the candidate and inviting us to hold a hearing; a CLG press statement making the public announcement was released the same day.


4 The candidate 10. Sir Michael Pitt trained as an engineer. His early experience, working for the Civil Service, private sector and local government, involved planning, designing and constructing transport infrastructure in this country and abroad. In 1987 he was appointed as Director of Property, Humberside County Council, then as Director of Technical Services.

11. In 1990, he became Chief Executive of Cheshire County Council, and in 1997 Chief Executive of Kent County Council, where he stayed until 2005. In 2005, he was requested by the Government to act as interim Chief Executive of Swindon Borough Council for a period of 12 months in order to help with its recovery following its classification as a failing council.

12. In 2006, he was appointed as Chair of the Board of the South West Strategic Health Authority, responsible for the performance of hospital, mental health and primary care trusts in the region. In 2007, he was appointed to chair the year long independent review of last summer’s floods (“the Pitt Review”), leading an 18 strong team of specialists and experts.8 He is now working with the Government on implementation of the 92 recommendations of the review, which the Chair of one of our sister Committees has described as “extremely good and thorough”.9

13. Sir Michael has also acted as Board member and Chair of two private sector firms, and undertaken a range of consultancy projects for public and private sector clients. He was awarded a knighthood in the 2005 Birthday Honours, for services to local government.

14. Sir Michael’s full curriculum vitae is appended to this Report as Appendix 2.

8 Learning lessons from the 2007 floods: an independent review by Sir Michael Pitt, Cabinet Office, June 2008.

9 Oral evidence from Sir Michael Pitt to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, 9 February 2009 (HC 245-i), Q1.


5 Our questioning 15. The evidence of Sir Michael’s curriculum vitae and his track record clearly establish that he is able to lead a large organisation effectively. He also has professional skills of direct relevance to the work of the Infrastructure Planning Commission. He is experienced in the ways of government at both local and national level.

16. The demands of this role will, however, require skills and personal qualities over and above those which can be demonstrated by even the most impressive CV. It is readily apparent from the description of the role of the Chair above that

• in selecting Commissioners to examine applications and making assessments of their performance;

• in leading the preparation of guidance for applicants and others affected by the new regime;

• in hearing individual cases;

• in defending the IPC’s decisions before the courts and, if necessary, Parliament;

• and in ensuring that the IPC runs smoothly overall,

the Chair of the Infrastructure Planning Commission will be intimately involved on a day-to-day basis in protecting the public’s rights and interests in one of the most controversial areas where decisions of public authorities impinge on the general public, namely the planning system.

17. The ability of the Chair to stand up to robust questioning and to account for his own performance and that of the organisation which he leads is therefore crucial. Our questioning was designed to test Sir Michael’s professional competence and personal independence, as recommended by the Liaison Committee. We also took the opportunity to ask Sir Michael about his plans for establishing this new organisation, and the approach which he would take to its task of making decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects. Throughout our questioning, we concentrated on Sir Michael’s role in the vital task of “protecting the public’s rights and interests.”

18. The transcript of our cross-examination is published with this Report.


6 Conclusion 19. We are satisfied that Sir Michael Pitt has the professional competence and personal independence required for the post of Chair of the Infrastructure Planning Commission, and that he will be well-placed to lead the organisation charged with “protecting the public’s rights and interests” in respect of the development of major infrastructure projects. We therefore welcome his nomination and encourage the Secretary of State to make the appointment. We wish Sir Michael every success in his new post.


Appendix 1: Infrastructure Planning Commission Chair: Key responsibilities

The Chair shall initially:

• Participate in the recruitment of the other Commissioners (including Deputy Chairs) and the IPC’s Chief Executive and ensure the right ethos and approach for the new organisation.

• Working closely with the new CEO and senior management team, ensure that necessary preparations are made—including producing guidance for applicants—to enable the IPC to function effectively from the date it begins operation.

• Support the CEO and other senior executives, in establishing internal structures as necessary for the appropriate corporate governance of a public body.

The Chair will be responsible for:

• Ensuring that the IPC effectively, and to the highest standards of probity, carries out its key tasks of managing the development consent process for nationally significant infrastructure projects and taking decisions on nationally significant infrastructure cases, in line with the National Policy Statements.

• Actively promoting the principles of sustainable development both in the set up of the organisation and in the decisions it will be making.

• Overseeing around 45 major cases a year (plus a larger number of less complex cases) consideration of which will need to be carried out to statutory time limits. This will involve:

• deciding whether a case should be handled by a panel or by a single commissioner, and deciding, for any particular case, whether and who to appoint as an assessor to provide specialist or technical advice;

• chairing the IPC Council which will take the final decision in Single Commissioner cases; and

• appearing before Parliament and in the courts as necessary to explain (and defend) particular aspects of decisions.

• The Chair need not necessarily hear IPC cases personally although he or she may choose to do so.

• Representing the IPC publicly, including before Parliament and in the media, and gaining the confidence of key stakeholders and partners, including infrastructure providers and environmental organisations.

• Undertaking appraisals of Commissioners and making recommendations to Ministers of CLG for reappointments.


Appendix 2: Curriculum Vitae of Sir Michael Pitt

Date of Birth: 2.2.1949 (59 years)

Education :

Devizes Grammar School A and S levels in Maths (A), Physics (A) and Chemistry (A) with Distinctions.

University College, London First Class Honours in Engineering, awarded Chadwick and Goldsmid Prizes (1970).

Institution of Civil Engineers Chartered Engineer and Fellow, awarded George Pike Prize (1975).

Post Graduate Various engineering, planning, management and leadership programmes including Ashridge, Inlogov and Sunningdale.

Early Career—1970 to 1987

Working for the civil service, private sector and local government. Early experience involved planning, designing and constructing transport infrastructure in this country and abroad.

Senior Local Government Appointments— 1987 to 2005

1987–1988 Director of Property, Humberside County Council 1988–1990 Director of Technical Services, Humberside County Council 1990–1997 Chief Executive of Cheshire County Council 1997–2005 Chief Executive of Kent County Council

Recent Assignments

NHS South West (2006–now) Appointed as Chair of the Board of the Strategic Health Authority responsible for the performance of Hospital, Mental Health and Primary Care Trusts with 130,000 staff and budgets totalling £8 billion.

Floods Review (2007–now). Appointed by three Secretaries of State to Chair the year long independent review of last summers floods, leading an 18 strong team of specialists and experts. The final report was published during June and I am now working with the government on implementation of the 92 recommendations.

SEL (2003 to now). Appointed as Board Member and now Chair of a successful private sector consultancy with a turnover of £12m.


SCS (2005 to now). Appointed as Board Member and now Chair overseeing the transformation of a Direct Labour Organisation into an arms length private sector company. SCS employs 1200 people, has a turnover of £70m and delivers a wide range of contracted out services.

Swindon Borough Council (2005–2006). Requested by the Minister to act as interim Chief Executive for a period of 12 months in order to help with SBC's recovery. Swindon was classified as a failing council; rated ‘zero stars’ had lost its education service and was heavily criticised in a series of independent inspection reports. Services at SBC have been transformed and all national interventions withdrawn.

Other consultancy work (2005 to now). Involved in a wide range of projects for public and private sector clients.

Recognition and previous appointments.

— Awarded a Knighthood in 2005 Birthday Honours

— National President of Solace—The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (2002/3)

— National Chair of the Association of County Chief Executives (1997/8)

— Clerk to the Kent and Cheshire Lord Lieutenancies

— County Returning Officer

— Secretary to the Committees for Appointment of Magistrates and Income Tax Collectors

— Secretary to the Cheshire Probation Committee

— Secretary to the Manchester Airport Committee

— Secretary to the North West Regional Association

— Non-Executive Director to three Training and Enterprise Councils

— Non-Executive Director of the Crown Prosecution Service

Voluntary Work and Interests.

Until recently, Kent Chair for MacMillan Nurses; supporting fund raising and events. Currently taking up the Chair of a local charity supporting families in north Wiltshire.

Playing tennis for fun, walking and cycling, and also the proud owner of a temperamental Moto Guzzi 1100cc motorcycle.

MEP December 2008


Formal minutes

Monday 16 March 2009

Members present:

Dr Phyllis Starkey, in the Chair

Sir Paul Beresford Mr Clive Betts John Cummings

Emily Thornberry Mr Neil Turner

Appointment of the Chair of the Infrastructure Planning Commission

Draft Report (Appointment of the Chair of the Infrastructure Planning Commission), proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 19 read and agreed to.

Summary read and agreed to.

Papers were appended to the Report as Appendices 1 and 2.

Resolved, That the Report be the Fourth Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chairman make the Report to the House.

Ordered, That written evidence received in connection with the inquiry be reported to the House for printing with the Report.

Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 134.

[Adjourned till Tuesday 24th March at 3.00 pm


Witness

Monday 16 March 2009 Page

Sir Michael Pitt Ev 1


List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament

The reference number of the Government’s response to each Report is printed in brackets after the HC printing number.

Session 2008–09

First Report Work of the Committee in 2007–08 HC 120

Second Report Communities and Local Government’s Departmental Annual Report 2008

HC 238

Third Report Housing and the Credit Crunch HC 101

Fourth Report Appointment of the Chair of the Infrastructure Planning Commission

HC 354

Session 2007–08

First Report Coastal Towns: the Government’s Second Response HC 69

Second Report DCLG Annual Report 2007 HC 170 (Cm 7335)

Third Report Local Government Finance—Supplementary Business Rate: the Government’s Response

HC 210

Fourth Report Work of the Committee in 2007 HC 211

Fifth Report Ordnance Survey HC 268

Sixth Report Refuse Collection: Waste Reduction Pilots HC 195

Seventh Report Existing Housing and Climate Change HC 432 (Cm 7428)

Eighth Report The Supply of Rented Housing HC 457-I & II (Cm 7326)

Ninth Report New Towns Follow-Up HC 889

Tenth Report Community Cohesion and Migration HC 369-I & II (Cm 7489)

Eleventh Report Planning Matters—labour shortages and skills gaps HC 517-I & II (Cm 7495)

Twelfth Report The Provision of Public Toilets HC 636 (Cm 7530)

First Special Report Ordnance Survey: Government’s Response to the Committee’s Fifth Report of Session 2007–08

HC 516

Second Special Report Refuse Collection: Waste Reduction Pilots—Government Response to the Committee’s Sixth Report of Session 2007–08

HC 541

Third Special Report Local Government Finance—Supplementary Business Rate: the Government Response: Government Response to the Committee’s Third Report of Session 2007–08

HC 1200

Session 2006–07

First Report The Work of the Committee in 2005–06 HC 198

Second Report Coastal Towns HC 351 (Cm 7126)

Third Report DCLG Annual Report 2006 HC 106 (Cm 7125)

Fourth Report Is there a Future for Regional Government? HC 352-I (Cm 7119)


Fifth Report Refuse Collection HC 536-I

Sixth Report Equality HC 468 (Cm 7246)

Seventh Report Local Government Finance—Supplementary Business Rate

HC 719

Eighth Report Local Government Finance—Council Tax Benefit HC 718

First Special Report Local Government Finance—Council Tax Benefit: Government’s Response to the Committee’s Eighth Report of Session 2006–07

HC 1037

Second Special Report Refuse Collection: Government’s Response to the Committee’s Fifth Report of Session 2006–07

HC 1095

Session 2005–06

First Report ODPM Annual Report and Accounts HC 559 (HC 1072)

Second Report Re-licensing HC 606 (Cm 6788)

Third Report Affordability and the Supply of Housing HC 703-I (Cm 6912)

Fourth Report The Fire and Rescue Service HC 872-I (Cm 6919)

Fifth Report Planning Gain Supplement HC 1024-I (Cm 7005)

First Special Report Government Response to the Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2004–05, on the ODPM Annual Reports and Accounts 2004

HC 407

Second Special Report Government Response to the Committee’s Eleventh Report of Session 2004–05, on the Role and Effectiveness of The Local Government Ombudsmen for England

HC 605

Third Special Report Government Response to the Committee’s Seventh Report of Session 2004–05, on the Role and Effectiveness of the Standards Board for England

HC 988

Fourth Special Report Government Response to the Committee’s First Report of Session 2005–06, on the ODPM Annual Report and Accounts 2005

HC 1072

Processed: 19-03-2009 20:10:38 Page Layout: COENEW [SO] PPSysB Job: 423883 Unit: PAG1

Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence Ev 1

Oral evidence

Taken before the Communities and Local Government Committee

on Monday 16 March 2009

Members present

Dr Phyllis Starkey, Chair

Sir Paul Beresford Emily ThornberryMr Clive Betts Mr Neil TurnerJohn Cummings

Witness: Sir Michael Pitt, Government’s preferred candidate for Chair of the Infrastructure PlanningCommission, gave evidence.

Q1 Chair: Can I welcome you, Sir Michael, to thispre-appointment hearing. If I could start with a fewquestions about the recruitment process which youhave just been through up until this point and whichwe are not entirely clear about. Can I ask you, first ofall, did you respond to an advert or were youheadhunted?Sir Michael Pitt: I had a phone call from recruitmentconsultants called Veredus and that started theprocess. Then I think I joined in with everybody elsewho was being considered as a candidate.

Q2 Chair: And had you had any dealings with thatheadhunting agency before? Were you on theirbooks?Sir Michael Pitt: Probably in the distant past. I thinkwhen I was Chief Executive of Kent County Councilwe used Veredus for one or two appointments, but Icannot think of any other occasion, but I think theyhave done some work for the NHS quite recently inCornwall.

Q3JohnCummings: Wereyououtof workbeforeyouwere approached by the headhunters?SirMichael Pitt:No, sir. I have been involved inquitea lot of activities. I am not sure if you want me to listthem now but I have been doing probably about fiveor six diVerent jobs.

Q4 Chair: Are you still doing them, or will you still bedoing them?Sir Michael Pitt: At this particular moment in time Iam still doing them. If I were lucky enough to beappointed to this job then I will be resigning from allthe major activities I am currently involved in.

Q5 John Cummings: What would be the minoractivities?Sir Michael Pitt: If I can run through those veryquickly for you. I currently chair NHS South West,that is the strategic health authority which overseesall of the NHS services in the South West of thecountry. I currently chair two small companies, one isSEL, which is a small consultancy company based inLondon, and another is the Direct LabourOrganisation of Swindon Borough Council, quite alarge DLO with a turnover of £60–£70 million a year

and over a thousand employees. I run my owncompany which undertakes quite a wide range ofconsultancy work on behalf of both the private andpublic sector, and I also chair a charity based in myhome county of Wiltshire. So that is the range ofactivities I am currently employed in.

Q6 Chair: Would all of this continue if you were to beappointed?Sir Michael Pitt: The things I would like to continuewith are the work with the charity, that takes upprobably about half a dozen days a year so it is not ahuge commitment, and the other one which I need toconsider carefully is the chairmanship of theRevalidationBoardonbehalfof theGeneralMedicalCouncil. You are all wondering what that is, butbecause of Shipman and other problems within theNHS it is now going to be an obligation for alldoctors, 150,000 of them, to be appraised andrevalidated on a regular basis for them to carry onpractising. I have been asked to chair, and I amcurrently chairing, a board which is overseeing theimplementation of that across England, Scotland,Wales and Northern Ireland. That role is 12 days ayear but since I will be giving up my NHSchairmanship of NHS South West I need to ask theGeneral Medical Council—and I should qualify myremarks by saying if I am lucky enough to beappointed—whether they would like me to carry onin that role or whether they feel that somebody who isan SHA chair is better suited to it in the longer termfuture.

Q7 Mr Betts: I would just like to pursue the issue ofoutside interests. In time commitments it does notseem a great deal but I am sure you are aware of theperception of the need to be absolutely independentand removed from any of the decisions that not onlyyou but the new Commission is going to take. Do youthink, therefore, itwouldbeappropriate, even if thesetwo roles you identify, first of all, are acceptable, thatas a matter of general practice you would not haveany interest with any private companies or privateorganisations?Sir Michael Pitt: No, I would have absolutely noconflicting interests at all. If I were oVered this job,there is nothing I would be doing in the future which

Processed: 19-03-2009 20:10:38 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 423883 Unit: PAG1

Ev 2 Communities and Local Government Committee: Evidence

16 March 2009 Sir Michael Pitt

would conflict in any way, and I feel very stronglyabout that. There will be a code of conduct which willgovern the way in which commissioners carry outtheir jobs and they will be obliged to conform withthat code of conduct, and I think it should be prettystrict in terms of when commissioners are allowed tomake decisions on individual applications.

Q8 Mr Betts: I think there is an even greater need foryou as the prospective chair of the Commission tohave absolute independence, because while clearly itwill be potentially possible for you to have an interestwhich you declare and therefore do not get involveddirectly with a particular application, thatapplication will then have to be heard by acommissioner who ultimately is responsible to you. Ithink there is an issue here of perception as much as adirect conflict of interest.Sir Michael Pitt: I completely agree with the pointyou are making, and if I can turn to my personalcircumstances, I thinkeither the rolewith theGeneralMedical Council or the role with the charity seem tome to be so far removed from anything that the IPCmight be involved in that it would not create anyconflict of interest.

Q9 Mr Betts: What is the charity?Sir Michael Pitt: The charity is a family mediationcharity. It is about securing the safety of children andtheir families and sorting out disputes betweenteenagers and their parents or guardians. It is arelatively small charitybut it is something Iwasaskedto do last year and I was very willing to take on.

Q10 Sir Paul Beresford: And what area is your owncompany consulting in?Sir Michael Pitt: My personal company is just mereally. I have done work recently, for example, for aunitary council. They had problems in relation totheir planning processes and I wrote a 20-page reportwith recommendations for that council after a 3-month detailed investigation, and based on theirreaction to the report thathasbeenverywell received,so thatwouldbeoneexample. Ihavedone someworkfor a private company which is involved inoutsourcing, again giving advice on how to deal withthepublic sectorandhowtomarket theirproducts, soa variety of jobs on a relatively small scale butsomething which has kept me reasonably welloccupied since I left Kent County Council.

Q11SirPaulBeresford:Yousayyouare settinguptheCommittee for the GMC 12 days a year. Does thatmean that you are intending to set up the Committeein theproceduresandthenchair theCommittee itself?Sir Michael Pitt: The Committee is alreadyestablished; it has met on one occasion so far. There isa strong team based within the General MedicalCouncil itself which is undertaking all the detailedwork, and my role in this is to chair the board itself, tomake sure that the meetings are successful, and toliaise with the Secretary of State and other interestswithin the NHS and Department of Health.

Q12 Sir Paul Beresford: Will it be anticipating havinghearings, et cetera, of doctors who disagree with youand the Committee?Sir Michael Pitt: That would not be the role of thisparticular board, that is very much a GMC role, butthis board is focusing all of its energy on rolling outthe revalidation process for doctors across the fourcountries.

Q13 Chair: So they are not actually doing therevalidation?Sir Michael Pitt: No, they are overseeing thearrangements. There are other boards, sub-boards,one for each of the countries concerned, and teams ineach of the countries, who are doing the hard work.Whatweare trying todo isoversee theoverall processand make sure it keeps to time.

Q14Chair:For thesakeofcompleteness,doyouhaveanysharesor interests in thecompanieswhoseboardsyou have been chairing?Sir Michael Pitt: No, not at all.

Q15 Chair: Just to get back to where we were in thefirst place, what actually made you interested in thisjob?Sir Michael Pitt: I have been involved in planning insome form or another and in infrastructure verymuch so in the earlier parts of my career, and I think Ihave always felt that there were significantimprovements that could be made to planningarrangements, certainly for major infrastructure. Ithink the new Planning Act is exciting; I think it is aradical change from the existing arrangements; Ithink the proposals there are very much in the publicinterest, and I think this is a chance to make realimprovements in terms of providing betterinfrastructure for the country and a better quality oflife forpeople,butalsosavingtimeandmoneygettingthrough these complex and detailed processes.

Q16 Chair: And given the range of responsibilitiesand the powers you will be exercising, do you thinkthat “non executive” is an appropriate description ofyour role?Sir Michael Pitt: I think that is a good question. Iwouldsayduring theearly stagesof settinguptheIPCthe chair is going to have to be quite hands-on anddirective. I think it is vital that the Commissionestablishes itself asan independentorganisation fromDay 1; that the new organisation is fit for purpose;and I think as a chair I would be quite focused onaction and delivery, hitting programmes, hittingbudgets, and making sure that we are recruiting theright people as commissioners, and to the secretariatas a whole. I suspect once the Commission is up andrunning hopefully the chair would be standing back abitmore, takingamore strategic viewofwhat is goingon, holding the chief executive and the secretariat toaccountandbeingvery involved inqualityassurance.Imightcomebackto that later if Igetachance. I thinkquality assurance will be a significant priority for thechair.

Processed: 19-03-2009 20:10:38 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 423883 Unit: PAG1



Q17 Sir Paul Beresford: You said you had had quite alot of experience in planning and looking at thesynopsis of your CV you have predominantly been atHumberside County Council and then CheshireCounty Council and then Kent County Council.They do not have much to do with planning—or notthe nitty gritty.Sir Michael Pitt: I want to go back to my earliercareer. During the first 10 or 20 years of my career Iwas very heavily involved in motorway design andconstruction,a lotof themotorways thatwenowtakefor granted were being built during the 1970s and Iwas heavily engaged in the planning of that majorinfrastructure, and I can tell you about some of thoseschemes if you like, and therefore I was caught up inthemakingofmain line, sideroadorders,compulsorypurchase, public inquiries and so on. If I go back farenough in my career—and I do admit it is quite a longtime ago—I was quite heavily engaged in theplanning and evaluation of major infrastructure.

Q18 Sir Paul Beresford: That is 25 years ago. Aquarter of a century.Sir Michael Pitt: Indeed, sir. Then, moving to morerecent times, as a county council you are the structureplanning authority, the waste disposal authority andthe minerals authority, and so plans are beingprepared by the county. Added to that, one getsheavily involved inplanning matters across theboardbecause of being a highway authority as well. Then ifI can just mention, the year I spent at SwindonBorough Council, which is very recent, a unitaryauthority and, therefore, with full powers in relationto all forms of development control.

Q19SirPaulBeresford:Theproblemwithacounty is,as you say, it is strategic. You are going to be lookingin thisparticular role at individual applications, okaythey might be of strategic importance but they arequite diVerent from a strategic approach as a county.Do you feel there are gaps there? How are you goingto fill them?Sir Michael Pitt: I think there are always going to begaps and I think it is up to anybody holding anappointment of this sort to be constantly learning,building on their experience, making sure that theyreally deeply understand the business of theorganisation. I am going to add, though, that I thinkI have had a big enough variety of experience duringmy career to move into this job without feeling thatthere are huge problems or huge gaps in mybackground.

Q20 Sir Paul Beresford: What about wind farms andnuclear power stations? Do you think you need sometechnical knowledge there? How are you going to fillthose gaps?Sir Michael Pitt: Good point. I think it is going to bevital that I have a good understanding of those sortsof applications: I think it is important that theCommission is not just seen to be dealing with oneapplication after the other but has a strategic view ofwhat is going on in the country, how individualapplications fit into the much bigger picture, so I

think it is right, andyouare right, todrawattention tothe fact that I wouldneed toensure that I dohave thatwider understanding.

Q21Sir PaulBeresford: Wouldyoube choosing someof your commissioners to fill those gaps in yourknowledge?Sir Michael Pitt: I think that brings us then to a reallyimportant issue about who do we want ascommissioners, we are looking at probably up to 35commissioners. I am anticipating that I would beinvolved in that recruitment process, and clearly wewill be looking for commissioners who have a widerange of knowledge, not just of those sectors likeenergy, transport, water and so on but who have agood understanding of planning law, I think that isgoing to be vital given the nature of the IPC, andcommissioners who can understand environmentalissues and the social impact of projects. So we arelooking for a wide variety of experts who can bebrought together onto panels for the majorapplications, and I hope come through with the rightdecisions at the end of the day.

Q22 Sir Paul Beresford: You say you hope to have anopportunity of being able to help appoint theCommissioners. So you have walked into this jobwithout knowing whether you can or cannot?Sir Michael Pitt: No, I am pretty confident that isgoing to happen. I am already being told that, subjectto this appointment, I would be involved in theappointment of the two deputy chairs and the threecommissioners, and also the appointment of the newchief executive.SirPaulBeresford:Areyougoingtostrategicallyplanor going to take some of these cases yourself?Chair: Just before we move on to that, John, did youwant to press any more about the appointment of thecommissioners and the deputies?JohnCummings:Not really. I thinkhehas covered thepoints I was going to ask.Chair: Emily?

Q23 Emily Thornberry: Given all the questions thatare being asked about people on high salaries I thinkmy constituents would expect me to ask whether wethink it can be justified that if you were to get this jobyou would be paid the equivalent of nearly a quarterof a million pounds a year? I do not know how muchthe deputy commissioners would get buthow much isthis Board going to cost the country?Sir Michael Pitt: Well, to start with, because I will notbe working five days a week but four days a week, thesalary is reduced proportionately. Also, there is arange of salaries there, so the figure you have quotedis more optimistic than the actual salary would be inpractice.

Q24 Emily Thornberry: It is £184,000, is it?Sir Michael Pitt: Absolutely, it is, indeed. Thedecision about the level of salary is one that wasobviously takenbefore I became directly interested inthe job, and I can only assume that there has beenbenchmarking by oYcials and advice to ministersabout what level that salary should be. I do




understand that this can be controversial, of course itcan. In my judgment, it feels to me that this isprobably the right sort of salary for a job of this scale.

Q25Chair:Whenyouwere talkingabout thediVerentpeople that you wanted to have on board you talkedabout experts in this, that and theother.Doyou thinkeverybody should be a technical expert?Sir Michael Pitt: No, I do not think that is going to bepossible. I think what we have to do is look at the fullrange of commissioners and make sure that there is abody of expertise amongst individuals within thecommissioners, so that when we are dealing with aparticular application we can handpick thecommissioners most suited to that task.

Q26 Sir Paul Beresford: If there are still gaps, wouldyou be using outside advice?Sir Michael Pitt: That is included within the Act andis certainly available to the Commission, and Isuspect if wewere doinga one-oV, an application thatwas not the general business of the IPC, one thatperhaps has new technology that might be quitechallenging for the Commission to deal with, we maywant to bring in anadviser who is nota commissionerbut somebody who could be part of the evaluationprocess to provide some expert advice on thatparticular application.

Q27 Sir Paul Beresford: Do you intend, as I saidbefore, to be strategic or take some of the reins?Sir Michael Pitt: My view at the moment is that theimportant role for the chair is creating a fit-for-purpose IPC, and I would want to give absolutepriority to ensuring that the Commission is up andrunning as quickly as possible and is fully eVective inall the diVerent roles that it has to undertake. I thinkthere are some activities that only the chair can do, soif it is an issue about how much time is available thenthings like, for example, acting as coach and mentorto the commissioners and supporting them in thediYcult decisions they have to make would be a keyrole for the chair; liaising with the outside bodies,stakeholders, again would be a key role for the chair;sorting out corporate governance of the organisationand making sure that the board is really eVective inrunning the Commission again would be key. Isuspect that itwouldbewrongfor thechair tobecomeheavily distracted, spending large amounts of timedealingwith individualapplications, especially if thatwas at a cost of those other activities I described. I donot think that rules out the possibility of the chairtaking on individual applications; I just think it is farless important than those other things I havedescribed.

Q28 Sir Paul Beresford: As I understand it, acommissioner can run one of the inquiries and thenreport back to the Commission?Sir Michael Pitt: That is right. There are two basicways in which this can happen. For the very big,complicatedapplications the chair cancreateapanel,usually three or five commissioners would beappropriate, and again, coming back to this pointabout expertise, you wouldget the spread of expertise

across those commissioners to deal with thatapplication. That panel will be able to determine thatapplication but for the smaller applications there canbe just one commissioner sitting alone takingevidence and coming to a view, but that singlecommissioner then has to report to a council of theIPC and the chair, whoever becomes appointed aschair, then chairs the council with a number ofcommissioners to decide finally whether thatapplication is agreed or not.

Q29 Sir Paul Beresford: What happens if there is adisagreement between the two tiers?Sir Michael Pitt: The Council overrides theindividual commissioner.

Q30 Sir Paul Beresford: That could be interesting!Sir Michael Pitt: It could be interesting. Let’s hope itdoes not happen!

Q31MrBetts: Onemighthave thought that really theSecretary of State ought to be making final decisionson applications of this significance, but you will bethere instead if your appointment goes through,perhaps to take the flak which politicians are notprepared to take for these major decisions?SirMichaelPitt:Thatmaywell turnout tobe the caseand I think if that iswhat comes with the job then thatis what comes with the job, but I am quite clear thatthe idea of having a commission to take thesedecisions is a step in the right direction. I know it is acontroversial issue. I believe the existingarrangements are to a large degree unsatisfactory. Ithink it places ministers in a diYcult position in thatsometimes they are both the applicant and also thedetermining minister, and I am sure that from thepublic’s perception that seems to be an unusual wayof doing things.

Q32 Sir Paul Beresford: It is common in localgovernment, and it is accepted.Sir Michael Pitt: Yes, with delegated powers in localgovernment that can happen as well, but usually in acouncil decisions are made by a group of councillorsrather thanan individualperson,whichI thinkmakesthingsverydiVerent indeed,and,secondly, incouncilsyou can separate those members dealing with theapplication side from those dealing with the decision.I think you have more flexibility in a local authoritysituation than you have in the current arrangementswith the Secretary of State or ministers acting in threediVerent capacities.

Q33 Mr Betts: I suppose the cynical members of thepublic might say two things. First they might say:“Well, we know ministers in the end now haveremovedthemselves fromthisfinalbitof thedecision-making role in terms of major planning applications,but they are putting in someone whom they can reallytrust to make sure they get the decisions throughanyway on this, someone whom they trust to runSwindon Council to do the review of the floods, soyou are a bit of an institutional appointment.




Sir Michael Pitt: Well, if they think they have donethat they have made a very bad mistake. I feel verystrongly that theCommissioncanonly function if it iswidely regarded as independent, and if thatindependence was thrown into doubt then I think theCommission itself would be in grave diYculty.

Q34 Mr Betts: You may be personally independentand feel, as you do, very strongly; nevertheless theremust be a perception, surely, that there is a problemwith the current arrangements for major planningapplications in this country at present, and there wasa need to identify what should be done to deal withthat. So your new Commission was established forthe purpose of getting quicker decisions on thesemajor applications and making sure we get on withthe infrastructure; that is your purpose. So how canthe objectors out there in the community who do notreallywantsomethingbuilt in theirbackyard,ontheirdoorstep,be convincedofyour independence in thesematters when you are going to be part of anorganisation created to get quicker decisions and getthese applications through?SirMichael Pitt: I thinkwe have to take thatquestionstep by step. First of all, the Secretary of State, orSecretaries of State, still carry out the crucial role ofpreparing the National Policy Statements, and thosepeople who object or feel concerned about nationalpolicy have a major opportunity at that stage to puttheir point of view and to try and influence whatfinally appears in a National Policy Statement. Iwould not for one minute want to in any way give animpression that ministers are losing control ofnational policybut that is verymuch apart of the newlegal framework. Once that policy has beenestablished, however, the case for and/or against anindividual application rests on the analysis of highlycomplex evidence, and I think it is probably the job ofthe chair to try and convince objectors and thegeneral public that they get a better outcome if expertpeople are looking at that evidence, spending a greatdeal of time in coming to their conclusions, andtaking into account national policy, but neverthelessmaking it quite clear that there can be localcircumstances, local disadvantages to thatapplication, which might well mean that anapplication is turned down. Soall wecan do is try andconvince those objectors that this system is better forthem, that they have three diVerent opportunitiesalong the way to put their case, and that it is for theCommission to make sure that it is listening carefullyand seen to be listening carefully.

Q35 Mr Betts: And on each individual applicationyou will make the decision in light of the evidence andon the basis of the National Policy Statement settingthepolicy framework for that, butultimately in termsof those decisions do you see any way in which youshould be held politically accountable for what youdo on a daily, weekly, yearly basis as a Commission?Sir Michael Pitt: Well, let us separate that. Clearly onindividual decisions on individual applications acommission must act independently, and the chairmust be seen to be totally independent, but there areprovisions in the Act for an annual report to be

written shortly after the end of the financial year; thatannual report will be laid before Parliament. I amassuming that select committees and probably thisCommittee would want to call me to account, toinvite me and the Chief Executive to speak about theworkof theCommission,andalsoIwouldexpect thatfrom time to time I would meet the relevant ministerto talk about progress and how well the Commissionis doing. But I see that as something quite separatefrom individual decisions on individual applications.

Q36 Mr Betts: But you would not expect, then, selectcommittees to question you about individualdecisions?Sir Michael Pitt: No. There is provision for you to dothatandI think that, providing thatconversationwastaking placeat the right time—inother words outsidethe six-week period when a decision can be reviewedunder judicial review—and providing we were not re-making the decisions, you know, going into so muchdetail, then it would be quite right for the Chair andtheChiefExecutive to talkabout individualdecisionsthat have been made and the underlying reasons as towhy that particular decision was an outcome fromthe IPC.

Q37 Mr Betts: But also presumably other questionssuch as how the Commission is dealing withprocedural matters. One of the issues that certainlycame up indiscussions on the Bill was a right to cross-examination, for example, whether that would aVectobjectors’ ability to properly question.Sir Michael Pitt: Yes, and the Commission hasdiscretion to allow that to happen now as a result, butI do take your point verymuch. It is the processes andprocedures of the Commission which I think shouldbe most open to analysis and scrutiny, because if wedo not get those right we will lay ourselves open tojudicial review, and bearing in mind the sheerimportance and scale of some of the applications thatthe Commission will be dealing with there is a veryreal risk that judicial review could get in the way, andthe Commission must act and behave, therefore, verycarefully indeed.

Q38 Mr Betts: Just in terms of perception, becausethese things do have a habit of getting out at somepoint even if not now, have you got any history ofpolitical activity or views strongly expressed in any ofthe key issues which your Commission is likely tohave to deal with in terms of applications that mightthen lead somebody to question your independencein such matters in the future?Sir Michael Pitt: Absolutely none at all.Mr Betts: I must say you have led a very sheltered life!

Q39 Chair: Are you absolutely tabula rasa, as theysay, as regards political activity, political viewsexpressed, any view whatsoever on nuclear power,wind farms, environmental sustainability—whatelse? You cannot have been saying much, is myfeeling.Sir Michael Pitt: The question was directed inrelation to political activity, and all I can say is that ifyou have been chief executive of a local authority




members expect impartial advice, theydonotwant tohave chief executives who show any interest at all in aparticular political party, so I can say withouthesitation that I am totally agnostic when it comes toindividual political parties. I cannot imagine I haveever stood on a platform and expressed strong viewsabout climate change or whatever it might be, so Isuspect it would be very hard for anybody to find anyquote which might in any way embarrass me.

Q40 Chair: Have you expressed strong views aboutanything?SirMichaelPitt:When it comes todoing the jobs thatI do I express very strong views, but I make sure theyare in the right context and in the right place.

Q41 Chair: Can I just go backwards slightly on thisissue about sustainable development? Do you haveanyexperienceofactivelypromoting theprinciplesofsustainable development, which is part, I believe, ofyour task?Sir Michael Pitt: What do we mean by sustainabledevelopment? We mean not prejudicing futuregenerations and their quality of life, so we put it intothat wider context, and the work which I did on thefloods review was very much to do with what were thesustainable solutions dealing with flooding. We allknow that flooding will not go away and we areanticipating that in fact intensive rainfall will getworse rather than better over the years, and the floodreview, which came out with 92 recommendations,deals with a great variety of things: what issustainable development, where development shouldbe allowed to take place, sustainable drainagesystems and how we can protect both newdevelopments and existing property, so that report,which is some 400 pages long and based on a vastamount of evidence that we collected during that 10-month period, has as a backdrop what is sustainableand how we can ensure that the actions that theGovernment and private sector companies—we hada lot of work with power companies, watercompanies, the National Grid—take are trulysustainable.

Q42 Mr Turner: Government intends that newregimes should allow greater participation from thepublic in the planning process. How do you proposeyou will be able to do that?Sir Michael Pitt: What the new Act does is to giveboth the public and objectorsmuch clearer and betteropportunities to make their views known, and thereare three stepsalong thewaywhere thoseviews canbeexpressed. First, in the preparation of NationalPolicy Statements; secondly, at the pre-applicationstage, because there is now a duty on applicants toensure that there is proper and formal consultationbefore their application is made to the IPC, and,thirdly, during the evaluation stage itself, when theCommission is handling the particular application.There is a clear duty on local government to beinvolved in public engagement and I welcome that, Ithink local authorities are best placed to understandwhat the feelings and views are of their localpopulations, and in fact local authorities will be

requiredtoproduceareportonpublic consultationtomake sure that that has been comprehensively andproperly carried out. The Commission can refuse toaccept an application from any organisation whichhas not properly conducted a public consultation.When it gets to the application evaluation stage, inother words the application has been made to theCommission, there are again opportunities formembers of the public and objectors to make bothwritten representations and to speak at an openhearing. Of course we are moving away from therather traditional styleofpublic inquiryhere tooneofdirect questioning, and I think it is going to beimportant that commissioners are skilful at askingthe right questions and are skilful at ensuring thatmembers of the public are given a good hearing, sothat everybody fully understands their point of viewbefore any conclusions are drawn.

Q43 Mr Turner: The process is designed to speed upthe time it takes, and that clearly has advantages forthe developers. Can you see any advantages that itwould have for the people who are being adverselyaVected by it?Sir Michael Pitt: I think the current regime presentsreal obstacles for members of the public, objectorsand local authorities that might want to be resisting aparticularapplication.Theexistingarrangementsarecomplex, sometimes obscure and often veryexpensive from the point of view of groups who arewanting to object to a proposal, and somewhatdominated by the legal profession. I think what wehave here is a big opportunity to strip a lot of thataway and to simplify processes and dealsympathetically with the public and with objectors sothey genuinely feel involved.

Q44 Mr Turner: Is there not a conflict, though,between the speeding up of the process and giving thegeneral public the opportunity of doing that? If youare going to reduce the time, then you reduce theamount of the time that the general public will have?Sir Michael Pitt: I think there could be a conflict, thatis fair, and it has been made clear that the timetable ofa year, which is spoken about from the point ofapplication through to decision, can in exceptionalcases be extended beyond that 12-month period, andI think the commissioners concerned have to reach aview about whetheror not enough time is available toproperly listen to all those objections. As we havealready discovered I come from the world of localgovernment, and local government thrives onengagement with the public and making sure that thelocal authority is close to its public, and I would liketo think that the Commission could be seen as achampion of the public in that respect.

Q45 Mr Turner: I am just a little bit bothered aboutthe way that the public will get involved. One of thethings you have at the moment is that diVerentorganisations will be making the same point on anumber of occasions and that drags the thing out.How can you prevent that from happening so thatyou focus on the very real concern,without it actuallybeing dragged out far too long?




Sir Michael Pitt: That is going to be down to the skillof thecommissionersconcerned.The intention is thatmuchmoreof thedetailedargumentsandevaluationsare put into writing and therefore there is more spacefordealingwiththepublic intheopenhearing, so ifweare careful and skilful about this we can make thismuch better for the public, rather than worse.

Q46 Mr Turner: So the role of the Chairman or theCommissioner is going to be very important.Sir Michael Pitt: Yes. As in most things.

Q47 Mr Turner: Planning inquiries almost inevitablyraise legal issues that could lead to judicial review, etcetera. Those cannot possibly be eliminated but howwill you ensure that they are at least minimised asmuch as possible?SirMichaelPitt:TheIPCisacreatureofstatute, thereare 200 pages of Act to wade through. The way inwhich the Commission undertakes its work is highlyregulated by statute, and that says to me that theremustbepowerful legaladvicewithin the secretariatofthe IPC, and as I mentioned before I think a numberof commissioners—a small number but a number—should bevery experienced in terms of planning law. Isuspect thatwe will be taking legal advice ona regularbasisand,again, this comesbackto thepoint that Idonot thinkwecanpreventaltogether theriskof judicialreview but we can conduct our business to try andminimise that risk as much as possible, and thatmeans having very strong legal advice available tocommissioners.

Q48 Mr Turner: And in the Commission itself?Sir Michael Pitt: And in the Secretariat itself, ofcourse.

Q49 Mr Turner:Obviously you are going to be takingor giving pre-advice. This could be seen ascompromising your independence. How would youovercome that?Sir Michael Pitt: That is a very important point.There are several thingswe can dohere. First, I wouldsee the commissioners coming into action once theapplication has been made. There is a little bit ofbusiness that may have to be done pre-application bya small number of commissioners but, just settingthat to one side, I would see commissioners primarilydealing with applications post-application. Pre-application advice should be undertaken bySecretariat staV. What is more I think there should bea firewall between those staV who are giving pre-application advice and those who are supportingcommissioners once the application has beenreceived, and we have to be very careful about this.The other thought that crosses my mind is that itwould be very easy for secretariat staV to slip intoconversations where they appear to be giving toomuch advice about the nature of an application andalmostpre-determiningtheapplication,whichby lawis certainly not allowed, both in the Town andCountry Planning Act and also in these newarrangements, so I think theskill that isneededhere isabout challenging questions rather than giving toomuch advice. If an applicant is coming forward with

a proposal which clearly does not have enough in theway of an environmental assessment, then I think theSecretariat should be asking challenging questionsabout the nature of that environmental assessment.The objective here must be to get applications fromproposers which do not have to be sent back andwhich provide the Commission with the full range ofevidence and advice needed to deal with thatapplication, so there has to be an engagementbeforehand but I think it has to be done with greatcare.

Q50 Sir Paul Beresford: Related to that, you did saythat the government is very used to consultation.Applicants are not. How are you going to makeabsolutely sure that it is adequate and if it is notadequate, bearing in mind your time constraints, areyou going to be able to turn down the applicationbecause the consultation is inadequate?Sir Michael Pitt: Yes. There is a legal duty onapplicants to properly carry out that consultationexercise. They must get appropriate advice if they feelthat they do not have enough expertise within thecompany concerned. I would advise any applicant toturn to the local authority itself and ask the localauthority what form should this consultation andpublic engagement, which is something diVerent,take and then rely upon that advice in drawing uptheir consultation arrangements.

Q51 Sir Paul Beresford: In presenting the case theapplicant is likely to have use of highly experiencedQCs presenting the case, would you think?SirMichaelPitt: Idonot thinktheIPCcanpreventanapplicant using Queen’s Counsel or whateverprofessional advice they want. The Commissionerswho are for example at a hearing can say, “We haveheardenoughabout this particular issueor that issue.This is the thing thatwe want to concentrateonnow.”Commissioners will have the right to supervise andcontrol hearings in the way that they see fit.

Q52 Sir Paul Beresford: That sounds like judicialreview territory. What about the protestors? Are youquite happy for themto use aQC or someone similar?Sir Michael Pitt: Again, I do not think it is possible tostop them doing so but the Commissioners shouldencourage protestors—in fact, all people providingevidence—to come and give that evidencethemselves, to tell the Commission straight what theyfeel, why they are objecting or proposing a particularapplication.

Q53 Sir Paul Beresford: Do you not think it wouldspeed it up? I deal with protestors’ groups too. Quiteoften the safest way is to get a top QC to pickeverything up and just go for the planning points,taking the emotion out.Sir Michael Pitt: That has not been everybody’sexperience on public inquiries. If there was a QC whowas equipped to do it in that particular way and wasable to bring together a whole range of complicatedissuesandsummarise themonbehalfof theobjectors,that could be extremely helpful to the Commission.Again, I think it comes back to the Commissioners




who are listening to the evidence to try and direct theway in which that hearing takes place to ensure that itis both comprehensive but also eYcient.

Q54 Sir Paul Beresford: I understand there will be nocross-examination of witnesses.Sir Michael Pitt: There can be. There are specialcircumstances in which that can be allowed. Again,that comes back to the Commissioners making adecision about whether or not it would beappropriate.

Q55SirPaulBeresford:Canyougive someexamples?SirMichael Pitt:The mainexample I am awareof is ifthe Commission is dealing with a very complex pieceof technology, say, something that is untried anduntested, and wants quickly to get to the essence ofwhether this is going to be safe and operationallysuccessful. Under those circumstances you mightthenhaveaperiodofcross-examination to tryandgetto the issues more quickly.

Q56 John Cummings: What do you see to be the mainmeasurements by which the success of the IPC willbe judged?Sir Michael Pitt: Are you thinking about two or threeyears’ time, looking backwards? Is that the idea?

Q57 John Cummings: Looking forward.Sir Michael Pitt: What would be my indicators ofsuccess? Firstof all, Iwould like to think thatwithin afew years there is a wide body of acceptance that thelegislation has been successful, that the Commissionis truly independent and objective and, if I could saythis in the widest sense—I am going to steal a strapline here—that we are getting the right developmentsin the rightplaceat the right time,becausethat iswhatthe public interest is. That is the thing that reallymatters.

Q58 John Cummings: You have obviously given thissome thought. What do you see that the mainobstacles will be to achieving those objectives?Sir Michael Pitt: I think it is mainly about time.People are going to be impatient to see theCommission up and running and making decisions.The reality is that the Commission cannot makedecisions on applications until such time as thenational policy statements—and there are a dozen ofthem being prepared over the next two or threeyears—havebeenapproved.TheCommissioncandono more than recommend to the Secretary of State. IfIhave aconcern, it is about ensuring that those policystatements are prepared as quickly as possible inorder that the Commission itself can function in itsfull sense.

Q59 John Cummings: In order to achieve yourobjectives as you perceive them to be, are youconfident that the Government have given yousuYcient resources?Sir Michael Pitt: The funding as it currently stands is£5 million set up cost, which is a one-oV cost, and anannual running cost of £9.3 million. Those are thefigures which I understand are being made available

to theCommission.OYcialshavepreparedan impactstatement. It was first of all prepared alongside theoriginal Bill and it has now been updated in the lightof the Act. That impact statement looks at staYnglevels, the likely number of applications that theCommission will receive every year and the total levelof resourcesneeded tohaveasuccessfulCommission.Based on what I have read so far, it looks reasonable.I think more work needs to be done though onworkload and resourcing to make sure that we dohave all of the resources we need.

Q60 John Cummings: You are talking in terms of £10million a year?Sir Michael Pitt: £9.3 million a year.

Q61 John Cummings: For 35 commissioners?Sir Michael Pitt: Indeed.

Q62 John Cummings: For support staV andremuneration for the board members?Sir Michael Pitt: Yes.

Q63 John Cummings: Are you confident that can beachieved?Sir Michael Pitt: I am relying heavily upon the workof oYcials who have been evaluating the costs and itdoes seem to make sense.

Q64 John Cummings: How would you maintainmorale and performance given the uncertainty of thefuture of the IPC?Sir Michael Pitt: I suppose by my enthusiasm forwhat is being done. I am a huge believer in the role ofthe IPC. Iamreally sure that, even if certainaspectsofthe IPC’s role were to change in the future,nevertheless the huge economies that can be made byhavingaCommissionwill bemorewidely recognised.Ihaveneverhadany realprobleminenthusingpeoplewith the things that I want to get done. I think theCommission will be optimistic about the future and Ithink we will be highly motivated.

Q65 John Cummings: Can you remind me of thenumber of board members?Sir Michael Pitt: I have to be careful here. Thenumber of commissioners—

Q66 John Cummings: No, not commissioners; boardmembers.Sir Michael Pitt: There is nothing written down yetabout the nature of the board that runs the IPC. Mypreliminary thoughtsonthisare that theboardwouldcomprise the Chair of the Commission, the twoDeputy Chairs, the three Commissioners who arecurrently being recruited, the Chief Executive of theCommission and the immediate reports to the ChiefExecutive of which there will be either three or four.That will form a corporate board to run the businessand that I see as something quite separate from thecouncil that we talked about a little bit earlier and thewider commissioners.




Q67 Sir Paul Beresford: £9.3 million is a Civil Serviceguesstimate. Most people on this Committee wouldagree that the economic situation in this country ispretty disastrous. Therefore, an educated guesswould be that the number of applications will beperhaps down next year and as the economy starts tocomeup,applicationsare likely togoup.Therewillbeother fluctuations. A couple of JRs would knock ahell of a hole in £9.3 million if you lost them. Is there arollover? What happens if you are under or overbudget?Sir Michael Pitt: It is important that the Commissionisadaptive, elastic. I thinkithas tobeable togrowandshrink rapidly according to the workload concerned.That is why for example I think it is right to have alarge number of the commissioners on what I call acall oV contract. You employ them when they areneeded and when they are not needed they are restedand not being paid. Likewise with the administrationitself, the secretariat. I think it should be quite flexiblein terms of the numbers of staV. Try and keep them tothe bare minimum. Bring in temporary staV fromtime to time, perhaps bring in consultants from timeto time, to support the Commission, but I did notimagine for one minute that we would recruit to acertain size and then regard that as more or less static.I think we are going to be growing and shrinkingaccording to the economic situation.

Q68 Sir Paul Beresford: Your budget is always goingto stay the same.Sir Michael Pitt: If we can underspend that budget,that will be money that is saved to the public purse.

Q69 SirPaul Beresford: Itwill not be a rollover. Whatif you overspend?Sir Michael Pitt: I do not like anybody whooverspends.

Q70 Sir Paul Beresford: A couple of JRs —?Sir Michael Pitt: Yes. The policy is about nosurprises. If there is a risk, all good corporate boardshave risk management. Part of the risk managementis trying to manage a fluctuating workload and thepossibility of judicial review. If it looks as thoughthere is the possibility of an overspend, first of all, itshould be signalled very early in the financial year.Secondly, there should be urgent conversations withthe oYcials within CLG to talk about whether or notthat budget is adequate. If I felt that, because ofcircumstances beyond my control, the Commissionwas going to be underfunded in any particular year, Iwould take that up directly with the ministerconcerned and spell out clearly what theconsequences would be of being underfunded.

Q71 Mr Turner: Excuse my ignorance but I knowlocal authorities charge for planning applications.Does the IPC? If so, in what kind of range?Sir Michael Pitt: The intention is that there will befees. Proposers will have to make a payment whentheysubmit theirapplication.At themoment,work isbeing done on working out a scale of fees. I have noidea what those fees are going to be. They will befinally decided by the minister concerned. If you

wantedmytuppenceworthonhowtodothis, Iwouldsay that there would be a base funding for theCommission and then the fee would be equivalent tothe variable cost. Every time an extra applicationcomes in, there would be some additional costsarising and that would make a good basis for the feeitself. I have no particular idea at the moment exactlyhow these fees are going to be calculated.

Q72 Chair: Would you expect to be involved inworking out the fee structure?Sir Michael Pitt: I would hope that all aspects ofCLG’s work, subject to my appointment, would bediscussed with the Commission and with me if it wasa major issue. The impression I have at the moment isthat the oYcials I have been working with areextremely open to discussion and conversationsabout all things.

Q73 Chair: Can we move on to the national policystatements? How closely would you expect to beinvolved in drawing up national policy statements?Sir Michael Pitt: The policy statements are a matterfor the individual government departments and forthe Secretaries of State concerned. One would expectthe lion’s share of activity and work to be done inthose departments. Nevertheless, I would hope thatthere would again be conversations between theCommission and myself and those governmentdepartments and ministers, because it is important tolook at those statements from the perspective of theIPC. After all, it is because of the creation of the IPCthat this has all been brought forward in thePlanning Act.

Q74 Chair: What would you need to be within thenational policy statement for it to be a usefuldocument for the IPC?Sir Michael Pitt: I am probably mentioning judicialreview too many times in this conversation. What wecan anticipate is that if there are judicial reviews legalmindswill beporingovereveryword,dotandcommain the national policy statements. The perspectivethat the IPC can give is where we think that the formof thedrafting of those statements could be improvedto avoid the risk of judicial review.

Q75 Chair: Do you mean made more explicit?Sir Michael Pitt: Absolutely, but also to help theCommission and the Commissioners in theirjudgments because having great clarity in a policystatement first of all puts the responsibility where itbelongs with the Secretary of State and secondlyclarifies the roleof theCommission. If it is ambiguousand uncertain in the policy statement, then I think itmakes the job of the Commissioners very muchharder.

Q76 Mr Betts: In giving that advice, will that bepublicly available advice or will it be privateconversations with ministers?Sir Michael Pitt: The Freedom of Information Actseems to make almost everything open to the publicthese days. I think all of us tend to conduct ourbusiness thesedaysonthebasis that, if it isnotalready




public, then it is going to be made public at somestage. I seeno reasonwhythe IPCshouldnotmake itsviews known. In fact, if I could just broaden thatquestion to a wider point, I think pretty well all of thebusiness of the IPC should be in the public domain. Iseenoreasonwhyall thevariousdocumentspreparedby the IPC, correspondence the IPC might be havingwith applicants or objectors or diVerent interestgroups, should not be on the website. I would like tothink that, as far as we humanly can, we would makeour business as transparent as possible.

Q77MrBetts: Intermsof thatprocessofcommentingon the policy statements, we certainly havediscussions with ministers about the parliamentaryrole of scrutiny in terms of the policy statements. Inthe end it will be a government decision butParliament can look at the statements in advance ofthe final decision. Would you be looking to make anycomments you would have at a time when they weregoing to be available for a select committee, say,which does the scrutiny of the policy statements tohave regard to them before it makes its final scrutinyrecommendations?Sir MichaelPitt: If any select committee thought thatthere was something useful that the IPC or I, as chair,couldaddto thatconversation, Iwouldbeveryhappyto participate.

Q78 Chair: Were you to be appointed and, at the endof the five years, you wished to be considered forreappointment, what do you think should be used toassessyour initialfiveyear termandtodecidewhetheryou should be given another three?Sir Michael Pitt: That is probably partly what MrCummingswasaskingmeaboutaswell. If I could justrepeat one or two of the points I did make then, it isreally important that a cross-section of people andpolitical parties believe that the IPC has been a greatsuccess. I would be particularly delighted if objectorsalso felt that they had a better hearing, that thearrangements were more eVective. I would like tothink that the Commission has made a diVerence interms of the provision of infrastructure for thecountry, that the country has—whether it is thetransport system or the energy suppliers orwhatever—what the country really needs. Althoughwe are not entirely responsible for that of course, itshould always be in the backs of the minds of

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery OYce Limited3/2009 423883 19585

commissioners that that is one of our roles, that weare there tohelp facilitate theprovisionof that criticalinfrastructure. I would be quite delighted if we hadnotbeen judicially reviewedbut Iamnot sure if that ispossible. If we are judicially reviewed, we should winour cases by the sheer force and quality of thearguments that we have presented. One thing that wehavenot talkedaboutatall is theconditionswhichareplacedonplanningapprovals.This isnot justabinaryyes/no decision. The Commission has a big role toplay, I believe, in ensuring that the mitigating factorsthat minimise the environmental and other impactsof the localityofanewdevelopmentcanbeminimisedas far as possible. One of the areas where we can add alotof value is in ensuring that those conditionsplacedon approvals are well thought through andsometimes probably quite challenging in terms ofwhat they demand of the applicants.

Q79 Chair: Do you haveany powers to enforce them?Sir Michael Pitt: The enforcement of conditions isundertaken by the local authority. They are draftedandapprovedbytheCommissionand thenhandedtothe local authority to ensure that they areimplemented.

Q80 Mr Betts: Are you monitoring whether the localauthority carries that out? In our experience, evenwith very small planning applications withconditions attached, very often they are forgottenabout or not properly monitored.Sir Michael Pitt: I think it would be important for theIPC to have confidence in local authorities and toensure that those conditions are delivered. This isabout feedback, is it not? It is important that we donot just keep getting on with the job, that every sooften we look back at the success and sometimes thefailures of the things that have been done, so that weare continuously learning about better ways of doingour work. Looking back a few years later at whetherthose conditions were properly implemented wouldbe a useful piece of information.

Q81 Sir Paul Beresford: Would both sides of thediscussion see if the conditions were likely to applybefore you apply them?Sir Michael Pitt: Yes, they would be and they wouldhave to be very, very carefully checked.Chair: Thank you very much.

Appointment of the Chair of the Infrastructure Planning ... · Veredus conducted preliminary interviews with all the longlisted applicants in December and January. Following those

Documents