My Lords, I am troubled that my body language should be coming under examination, particularly since most of my family are saying that I am getting so grotesquely fat, it should never be examined in any circumstances. Perhaps that is an argument to reinforce the case that a number of noble Lords have put and with which I personally profoundly agree: there is great merit in our proceedings being in the Chamber, where body language can be examined, as it cannot with these glass screens.
For accuracy, I should say that there have been a number of strictures about this discussion taking place in Grand Committee. All your Lordships will understand the exigencies of the present situation. We are all chafing against the limitations placed on us, but the reference to Grand Committee was agreed in the usual channels and supported by the other political parties. The conduct of our business by the usual channels is traditional. It is not reasonable, in the circumstances, to impugn the Government, or indeed the House authorities, on that point. I add to what others have said about the great work that has been done in putting this Room together.
This is a very important debate, body language or no. The amendments have been very skilfully spoken to by all noble Lords, from my noble friend Lord Cormack onwards. Noble Lords have largely said the same thing so it would be invidious to pick out anybody, but obviously the now poacher, my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, made a very powerful case to the Committee.
A six-month figure has been suggested, as has three months. I regret to say that both those deadlines could bring problems to the closing stages of a boundary review. I will return briefly to that point, but I start by
explaining why the Bill is as it is. It is drafted to give some flexibility, but it demands that the Secretary of State submits the boundary order:
“As soon as reasonably practicable”.
This terminology is widespread in legislation and in this case it allows for some small degree of flexibility in the scheduling and completion of the work needed to prepare and submit the boundary order and the associated orders. However, it is only a small degree because, as has been pointed out, any Government who unreasonably delayed a piece of work as high-profile as this would likely come in for swift legal challenge, so there is not, in a sense, an untrammelled power, as my noble friend Lord Cormack contended. None the less, many parliamentarians would agree that leaving resource to the courts is not always the best or most agreeable way of conducting our proceedings. I will return to this point later.
5.15 pm
The preparatory work is the reason given for the demur on too tight a time limit. I have a full set of figures for all the periods, all the reviews and all the Boundary Commissions going back to the first review. While I do not contest some of the figures put forward by my noble friend Lord Young—nor do I submit that there was any selective quotation—other figures suggest that there have been longer intervals. We need not go into the reason: I am not talking about the deliberately political ones. There is room for discussion in theory without arriving at the point of a specific date in the Bill. There certainly is room for discussion about how much time the thing takes and could legitimately take.
There is a lot of policy and legal work involved in the drafting of a boundary order and the associated orders that designate returning officers for all new constituencies in Great Britain, requiring some consultation, and the charges orders which set out the fees and expenses payable to returning officers at an election. The orders are not always brief. The 2007 order was 76 pages long. Although I listened very carefully to the arguments of my noble friend Lord Hayward, unfortunately a lot of this work cannot be done in advance. We cannot commit public money to resource it because the final report has not been delivered. There are limits on the ability of government to undertake contingent work—although that is not absolute, I concede.
In addition—and it is a lesser issue, I am sure, for some—there is the question of the reference to the Privy Council, the destination of the orders. As many noble Lords will know, the Privy Council sits on average nine times a year. It is not a fixed schedule. Its meetings do not necessarily happen at regular intervals. As a rule, meetings do not take place in January, August or September. The constraint of this schedule is another reason that a small amount of flexibility is allowed and why six weeks might be a very small period.
Powerful arguments have been put forward in Committee. I repeat that the fundamental position of the Government is to place—I would not necessarily use the same arguments as my noble friend Lord Blencathra did, although I am always hugely
entertained by his speeches—the purposes of not just this party but all parties and all Executives beyond temptation, as I said on an earlier amendment, and that we should have a system that attracts trust.
The Government believe that “as soon as practicable” is a suitable constraint and should deliver that trust. I have heard what noble Lords have said. I will reflect on the discussions my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and I have had. I found them extremely informative and helpful. If my noble friend Lord Cormack is prepared to withdraw his amendment, I will certainly take this matter away and give it the most serious consideration. I am very ready to have discussions between now and Report.
It is of great importance that it should not be felt that Parliament in its wisdom or unwisdom has left it open for a degree of political interference—or worse, from my point of view, that anyone should think that this Government have any kind of ulterior motivation in this. We most certainly do not. With the assurance that I will reflect further on the points made and that I am ready to meet colleagues in the Committee and outside between now and Report, and that I have listed carefully to the arguments put forward today, I hope that I may be able to persuade my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.