Electoral Administration Bill

That would be nice but I can do that only so many times in one day. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, as always, put succinctly the issues that need to be addressed. I do not have anything other than praise for that and I completely understand what he is seeking to do. Regarding the first amendment, it would at best be unusual to have scrutiny in that way. My noble friend resisted the temptation to leap in, but I know that he will be keen, given his earlier comments, to ensure that we have clear and appropriate parameters around which we can operate. Parliament will have an opportunity to scrutinise the order that will come before your Lordships’ House and another place. That must set the business parameters in which CORE will operate. That is an appropriate way for Parliament to approach this matter. It is then for government to take that and to look at the budget that will need to be put forward as a consequence. In my experience, and that of every Minister, the first question that is always asked when any scheme is proposed is, ““What is it going to cost?”” I have no doubt that, rightly, noble Lords will want to see the detail of that—indeed, the business parameters include that. The way that we plan to proceed will cover what the noble Lord, Lord Norton, is seeking, without the need for separate procedure. I agree with the noble Lord’s intention, although I do not agree that we are being opaque. I understand the need, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said, to extract more detail, which is the purpose of this stage of our discussions. As we develop the scheme, within the business case that we put to Parliament we will, of course, address issues of cost because that would be right and proper. There is always a need for flexibility in government, and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, knows, particularly from his experience in local government, how important that can be. It would be beholden to us to achieve that. We would take that approach rather than do something separately. I would apply the same argument to the second amendment because, if we start for example with a region, which is what we are considering—not a ““big bang”” approach, for all the reasons that noble Lords could mention in relation to IT systems—that would be designated as a CORE scheme and would go through the parliamentary procedure. If we want to expand it, we have to go back to Parliament. Under the legislation, we have to lay a new draft, which has to be approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. What the noble Lord seeks to do by his amendment, I argue we will achieve by the fact that the CORE scheme cannot develop or change without coming before Parliament. Members of the Committee and Members of another place would expect us to come forward with a review. Of course we want the CORE keeper and the department to keep a very strong watching brief on the system and to ensure that it is working effectively, but it will undergo parliamentary scrutiny again. I am sure that Members of the Committee and others would expect us to produce clear evidence of what has happened and what we have learnt. I am not arguing against the spirit of the amendment; I think we have achieved what the noble Lord is seeking via a different route. I hope that the noble Lord will reflect on that and come back to me before the next stage.