Thank you for your letter requesting some additional information from the Advisory Panel on Standards as part of the inquiry into the Planning Inspectorate. I have consulted the Panel and the information is as follows:

  1.  An exposition of the amount of time which the Panel members spend on Panel business each year, the limitations imposed by this or by the voluntary nature of the work, and any other constraints on the Panel's effectiveness.

  When the panel members were originally approached to serve on APOS they understood that APOS conducted its business via three to four meetings a year. In actual fact there are between six and seven meetings a year which last all afternoon and involve around two hours preparation. The Panel do not feel inhibited in their role, and consider that it is essential that the work is voluntary and that the Panel members have quality experience. In addition to the Panel meetings, the Panel also have meetings annully with the Planning Minister to report their work over each year. The Panel also spend extra time reading and conducting the quarterly monitoring exercise which takes at least four hours. Each year one member attends the Planning Inspectorate Training Week.

  2.  The amount of attention the Panel gives to proficiency in each area of the Inspectorate's workload (as against the generality of proficiency).

  The Panel look at a wide range of the Inspectorate's workload. Panel access to the customer satisfaction survey information and their attendance at the annual training week help to reinforce a wider perspective of the Inspector's work. Each year, in their Report, and in discussion with the Minister, the Panel identify particular aspects on which they will concentrate and comment on in their Report for the year ahead.

  3.  The Panel's views on the 1996 Evaluation Report's comment that the means of testing the achievement of the Inspectorate's "quality" target check the procedures by which decisions are made more than the qualitative aspects of decisions.

  No comment.

  4.  The adequacy of "justified complaints" as a measure of quality in the Inspectorate and a commentary on alternatives which the Panel has considered.

  A key part of the Panel's remit is that the Panel should be satisfied that the inspectorate's work is being maintained at a high standard and that 99 per cent of its casework is free from justified complaint. However it is for the Inspectorate to say whether they have achieved the numerical target and to develop its own assessment of quality. The Panel than judge the Inspectorate's own assessment and the Panel insist on quality being assessed by Inspectors in the reasoning of decisions.

  5.  A note of any "one-off" studies which the Panel has undertaken either at the request of a Secretary of State or of its own volition.

  The Panel undertakes an annual complaints monitoring exercise as requested by the Secretary of State.

  6.  The impact on proficiency across the Inspectorate of the instruction given by Ministers to focus on development plans work as a priority.

  The Panel have noted that the priority for development plans led to serious deterioration in other work targets which amounted to a failure in quality (see paragraph 41 in the Advisory Panel's Fourth Report).

  7.  The advantages and disadvantages for quality control of the roles of Chief Executive of the Agency, Agency Accounting Officer and Chief Planning Inspector being combined.

  No comment.

  8.  The adequacy of the measures which the Inspectorate has in place for Inspectors to keep abreast of the continually-changing policy framework.

  The role of the Quality Unit is central to the Inspector's ability to keep abreast of changing policy. The production of Guidance notes plus the annual training week serve to alert and advise Inspectors. It seems to the Panel that, from time to time, there is still a problem with policy statements appearing in speeches, sometimes to professional institutes. The Panel is concerned that the Committee should scrutinise the work of the Quality Unit as part of its review.

  9.  A note on how the Panel monitors the balance struck by the Inspectorate between quality and costs: whether quality problems have appeared in the past, and whether they would arise in future if costs were further constrained.

  The Panel do not appraise the cost against the quality but do monitor quality. However, the Panel advises that cost should not undermine quality. If the Panel is advised of any specific instance where quality has suffered as a result of cost implications it will comment and very probably adversely; there has been no such examples yet. Panel reports have included the comment that quality should not suffer as a result of costs control.

March 2000