Commons Bill [HL]

My Lords, I, too, send good wishes to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for a speedy recovery, as will the whole House. I shall first speak to government Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. During earlier stages of the Bill, we had a number of debates about the role of the commons commissioners in the implementation of the Bill. In Grand Committee, my noble friend Lord Bach said:"““We think it unnecessary to retain the commons commissioners as a dedicated tribunal as before, but we also expect to appoint persons of similar experience to decide some cases which arise under Part 1””.—[Official Report, 25/10/05; col. GC 276.]" Amendment No. 13 enables us to appoint and retain persons of experience to form a panel—I will go no further than to call it a panel at this stage—and we will of course consult at a later date on whether regulations might confer a particular name on the panel. Once suitable people have been appointed to the panel, the amendment enables its members to be appointed to discharge the functions of a commons registration authority in any particular case. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, it is entirely possible under the government amendments that inquiries into the registration of greens could be referred to an inspector, appointed from a panel. That could happen, for example, where the registration authority required an independent person to deal with a very complex application. I hope that that gives the noble Lord and other noble Lords a degree of reassurance. Paragraph (b) in Amendment No. 13 leaves open who may do the appointing. For example, it may be possible for a registration authority to select a panel member when it identifies a conflict of interest which would prevent it determining an application itself. Alternatively, there may be an administrative unit attached to the panel which will assign panel members on demand. I hope that your Lordships will agree that these matters are also right for consultation at a later date. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, recognised, Amendment No. 12 retains the existing powers for the national authority to appoint persons to discharge any of its own functions in relation to orders for deregistration and exchange under Clauses 16 and 17. The amendment does not require individual appointments to be made from a panel, but regulations could nevertheless be made that would enable appointments from a panel. We believe it sensible to retain more streamlined provision in relation to the national authority’s functions, because there is the possibility that either the Secretary of State or the National Assembly may wish to delegate their decision-making powers to a separate body entirely. As your Lordships have recognised, Amendment No. 2 would go a little further than the government amendments to which I am speaking. However, as I have heard, noble Lords acknowledge that we have tried to meet them halfway. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, has great regard for the work of the commons commissioners, and I respect that. We know that the commissioners’ work is valued by many commoners, because of their experience and independence. That is precisely why we have tabled the government amendments: to ensure that we have the powers that we shall need to set up a panel of independent, experienced inspectors to advise on or determine applications that are too complex or inappropriate for the commons registration authority to deal with. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked whether lawyers could be appointed under the government amendments. Of course, the national authority would have discretion to appoint persons with a wide range of qualifications and experience, including lawyers where appropriate. We made it plain on Report that we would need to establish a panel, so to that extent we are in great agreement. We believe it appropriate that we should do that by regulations. It should not surprise noble Lords that we believe that it is unnecessary to stipulate in the Bill the kind of qualifications required by commons inspectors or the functions that they should be assigned. Comparison has been made—by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I think—with the Commons Registration Act 1965, which sets out in some detail the functions and status of commons commissioners. To a degree, we are bound by the inflexibility of that Act to the present day. We do not wish to repeat the mistakes that were made due to that inflexibility, so I hope that noble Lords will support the Government’s amendments to Clause 24 when we come to them. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me a small aside. I am not totally surprised that, if the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, sought the advice of lawyers, he was told that lawyers were probably the best and even possibly the only people who could do the job.