House of Lords Bill [HL]

My Lords, the Bill is very welcome in principle, with its provisions for an all-appointed House at least 20 per cent of whom are to be non-affiliated and all of whom are to be appointed by a commission. I have one point to make about a commission that has been mostly overlooked or ignored in the furore about cash for peerages. Now, for the first time, we have someone in the commission who has taken action and prevented the granting of certain peerages that were alleged to have been recommended in return for payment. This is surely a very welcome development, for which the commission deserves credit and recognition, and is a very strong argument for putting the commission on a statutory footing. Although I believe, as do many on these Benches, that the Bill’s principles are welcome, several of its provisions cause considerable concern, particularly to those who regard as vital the preservation of a substantial element of genuinely independent Members. Those points need to be made, especially if we are not going to reach the remaining stages of the Bill. I make it plain to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, that these are comments not about lucidity but about the effect of some of the provisions. The sole test of eligibility as an independent—a word that sadly is not used—whether as a Member of the House or as a member of the commission, is that one is, "““not affiliated to any registered political party””." This is too vague and too weak. It relates only to the situation at the moment of appointment. According to the United States Supreme Court, there is no definition of the rather vague word affiliated. The only exception is in the very specialised field, such as insolvency, where it is used to describe bodies corporate both of which are in the same sort of control. It certainly is not sufficient to exclude people who have been actively speaking on behalf of a party or have made substantial donations to that party but are not a member of it. In my view, the definition needs to be very much strengthened to exclude such people. The second point concerns who is to do the selection and the rule-making for the commission. As the Bill stands, appointment to the commission is solely in the hands of the Speaker of the House of Commons. The approval of the criteria for selection by the commission is solely in the hands of the House of Commons. While there may well be no objection to a substantial degree of participation by the Commons, it seems strange and wrong that this House is not also to play a substantial part in these vital functions. Under the Bill as it now stands, one could end up with a commission which had on it not a single Member of this House, which I would suggest is wrong. The Bill rightly and desirably allows one to retire by taking permanent leave of absence, but that can be done only by people who apply for it. We all know that there are a number of Members of this House who are now too old, infirm or whatever to make and execute a decision to retire. Surely, there should be a provision that, if a Member does not come for a year and does not answer, say, three or four letters asking, ““Are you coming?””, you are deemed to have retired without the need for a letter.