Daniel Rogerson (Shadow Minister (Arts, Culture and Heritage), Culture, Media & Sport; North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 286, in clause 67, page 33, line 21, at end insert—

‘(3) The vote of each member of the panel in respect of each decision shall be recorded.’.

I am beginning to feel like a one-man show here. [Interruption.] I apologise; there have been some excellent responses from the Minister. The amendment relates to votes being taken within the panel when determining an application. That raises the possibility  of different commissioners serving on a panel taking a different view with regard to an application that they are considering. They may have different areas of expertise and experience, and it is part of their role to use that experience to consider an application, to take into account the evidence before them and to reach a conclusion following discussion.

If it were to come to a vote, the amendment would require each vote on an application to be recorded. As commissioners may acquire a reputation in certain fields, with the implication that they hold certain opinions and views, were any trend to become obvious, it might be suggested that they were prejudging applications based on a certain point of view. To record the commissioners’ votes on each application would help transparency and make it more likely that those who are concerned about how an application has been handled would have the evidence, or contributory evidence, in order to call the judgment into question.

The amendment is simple. It would not damage the Bill or obstruct what the Government are trying to achieve in any way, but it would mean that people concerned about individual commissioners taking individual views would have the evidence in front of them. It may help the Government, because it would help to allay any fears by showing that there is no bias and that the commissioners are considering each individual application on its merits, with no trends developing at all. It could work both ways, but whichever way it works, I cannot see how it would be anything other than helpful, and I therefore hope that the Minister will consider taking it on board.

David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

I normally find myself in agreement with my Cornish friend, and the fact that this time I am not sure that I do probably means that the Minister is about to accept the amendment. If the commission is to work, it must operate on the basis of collective responsibility, which means that the decisions must be indivisible. The trouble is that if commissioners get a reputation for voting in a particular way, like the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, the minute that they are appointed to a case, the first thing that will happen is that their past history will be wheeled out and presumptions made about how they are likely to react.

I see the obvious attractions of recording and publicising votes, but I also see the drawbacks in terms of developing collective wisdom, with individual commissioners being separated out and comments being made about the appropriateness of certain appointments to carry out certain tasks. It is a conundrum to which, happily, I am not in the position of having to provide an answer, but the Minister is, and I am interested to know what it is.

John Healey (Minister of State (Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Wentworth, Labour)

All members of the Committee accept that, as far as possible, the commissioners sitting on a panel will operate best if they operate collectively, reflecting the equal role of the members and the skills that they bring to the table in consideration of any particular application. At the same time, there are circumstances in which commissioners will disagree, and it may be that a vote on a decision will be necessary in order to avoid a deadlock. In those circumstances, a panel would take a decision by a majority and the lead  commissioner—the commissioner chairing the panel—would have a casting vote, if there were a tie.

In order to avoid confusion, significant splits and some of the drawbacks outlined by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, the Bill provides that once a decision has been taken, in the spirit of the ambition to see the panel and the commission operating collectively, all members of the panel will be bound by collective responsibility. The proposal to record and publicise votes in such circumstances would undermine that principle. I hope that the hon. Member for North Cornwall will not press the amendment to a vote.

Daniel Rogerson (Shadow Minister (Arts, Culture and Heritage), Culture, Media & Sport; North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

I understand the argument put forward by both the Minister and the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. However, it depends where one is coming from on this issue. If we want the commission to build up the reputation that the Minister is talking about, it might help to have a collective responsibility, which is unfashionable nowadays. My concern is that such allegations will be made anyway. If two or three members of a panel are looking at an application within a certain sector, it may well be that, because of their expertise, they find themselves on another panel considering another application of a similar type. People will start to read into that. They may say, “Mr. Smith was on the last panel and that decided that, and this one has decided that.” It might help if people can base whatever they say on evidence rather than supposition. I do not think that we can stop potential criticism of the panel. It is more likely to be unfounded or founded on supposition rather than the facts. I will not press the amendment to a vote, but there could be concerns about opacity in the decision taking of a commission or a panel.