Political Parties and Elections Bill

We broadly support Clause 5 as it is, and in doing so, support subsection (3), which we are largely discussing today, dealing with the three nominated commissioners put forward by the leaders of the three largest nominating parties—like the three parties represented in this Room. This has been a useful debate and I am looking forward to the Minister's response, particularly to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, on the dismissal of subsection (3) commissioners. I presumed that it would be the same process as the other commissioners, but no doubt the Minister will let us know that they have the appropriate independence once they have been appointed. This debate has enabled us to discuss the sort of people who the leaders of those parties should put forward. However, in the end, as subsection (3) makes clear, the party leaders will decide who they will appoint. Like my noble friend Lord Brooke, I have problems with the second part of the amendment which seeks diversity. It might be an admirable thing to do, but as my noble friend pointed out, it is difficult to go for diversity when you have the sole right of appointment of one commissioner, someone else has sole right of appointment of another and the third is appointed by a third person—unless the three leaders get together to discuss their appointments to see that they are being diverse. I would have thought that there would be sufficient diversity in the fact that the three appointees will be of the three different political parties, which would make them sufficiently diverse for the noble Lord. That is what we expect from appointees from the leaders of the three parties. We broadly support Clause 5 as drafted, so I do not think that I can offer any support at this stage for the amendment.