Electoral Administration Bill

I have decided that I am not going to get into the issue of areas any more. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, will not mind if I start with Amendment No. 11, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Having looked at where it fits into the Bill, I think that we should look at the wording again. If the noble Lord is happy, I shall take it away and have a chat with parliamentary counsel about whether what has been suggested would be a better way of tightening up the wording. I completely see the point raised by the noble Lord. Of course, my noble and learned friend the Secretary of State will take the decisions on this matter. So any issues that noble Lords have—particularly the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard—will disappear instantly, as they will be with the Department for Constitutional Affairs, which is the right and appropriate place. As my noble friend Lord Evans of Temple Guiting said in my ear, we are trying to achieve joined-up government, and it is important that we do this in partnership with colleagues in other government departments—not least, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, for obvious reasons. Noble Lords will have seen me frowning a little as I went through this. I take on board what my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours said. I agree: these subsections are very important in giving us flexibility, although I hold no hostages to fortune, knowing what is coming later in Committee. I had hoped that Clause 6 would address some of those concerns. Clause 6(4) states:"““An order establishing or varying a CORE scheme must not be made unless the Secretary of State first consults . . . the Electoral Commission . . . the Information Commissioner . . . the ERO who acts for each area proposed to be specified in the scheme””" and,"““the ERO who acts for an area the specification of which the Secretary of State proposes to remove from the scheme””." So we need flexibility as we develop the scheme appropriately. I think that a large number of the concerns raised should be addressed by that subsection. As noble Lords have indicated, it is right that those people should be consulted before anything is done. I think that that should address the concerns that led to the amendments being tabled.