Electoral Administration Bill

moved Amendment No. 10:"Page 2, line 8, leave out subsections (8) and (9)." The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 10, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 37. The amendments are grouped together as they both address the unruly order-making powers of the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 10 would remove subsections (8) and (9) of Clause 1. As the Bill stands, subsection (8) gives the Secretary of State the power to vary a scheme by moving it from area to area and, mysteriously,"““in such other respects as he thinks appropriate””." In effect, the Secretary of State will be the grand designer of the CORE schemes. He or she will have to have no recourse to consultation, even with the Electoral Commission. Yet reading further into the Bill, we learn in Clause 6 that any order made under Clause 1 to establish CORE schemes can,"““make different provision for different purposes””." At first sight, this seems fairly harmless. But combined with the rest of the order-making powers, it seems unnecessarily broad. Surely Clause 1(1) allows for the Secretary of State to make an order in any case. Why is it necessary for the Secretary of State to be able to make any order in whatever manner he or she chooses? If the Bill is to provide a safe, secure and effective administrative framework for the running and maintenance of elections, it is essential that the necessary safeguards are in place. What is more, if the CORE schemes are to be lastingly effective, they must be set out more comprehensively. Such an enormous system will need consistent management. At the moment, the Bill provides no consistency at all. My noble friend Lady Hanham referred to the consultation paper published, interestingly, by the ODPM. I understand that the ODPM and the DCA are working together to oversee the establishment of the CORE schemes. I wonder how effective that partnership will be. Which Secretary of State and which department will take final responsibility for the CORE scheme? I beg to move.