Elections: Costs

Lord McNally Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, the costs of running the referendum will be similar to the costs of a general election. The costs of the boundary review will depend on the task set for the Boundary Commission in the legislation.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, at least the noble Lord does not surprise: he did not answer the Question, which I have to say is becoming a habit from his department. We need to know the figures; I think that we are entitled to know them and it should be possible for the Government to give them to us. This is particularly surprising because last week, as he will remember—indeed, he repeated the Statement—the Deputy Prime Minister was proudly telling the House that there would be savings associated with some of these constitutional reforms: £12 million from reducing the number of MPs and £17 million from holding the referendum on the same day as other elections. How can he be precise about the savings but not have the remotest idea of the costs? It is becoming increasingly clear that this series of constitutional experiments is of interest only to people in this House and not of remote interest—certainly paying for them is not—to the vast majority of people out there in the real world.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I fully appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is a small “c” conservative on constitutional reform. The coalition is committed to this programme. When I say “similar to the costs of a general election”, the previous general election cost £82 million. When I say that we will have to look at the precise proposals for the Boundary Commission, the last Boundary Commission review cost just under £14 million. I point out that legislation will be brought forward very shortly and, at that time and thereafter, the House will have ample time to explore these matters, including the costs.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, as referendum campaigns are sometimes dominated by issues that are not directly connected with the question to be decided by the electorate, will the Government consider commissioning and circulating to every elector who will participate in the referendum an objective account of how the alternative systems work, so that the alternative vote is properly understood before a big response is made by the public?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, as your Lordships know, the plan is to set up two organisations that will receive public funds to campaign. Therefore, the general public will get not just one objective account of how AV works but two objective accounts.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in relation to Boundary Commission proposal, it is imperative in the interests of equity and justice that every opportunity should be given for interests and persons to be heard at a public inquiry? Will he give an assurance that there will be full budgeting with regard to time and financial resources in relation to such a principle, in respect of which I suspect that nearly all of us are conservatives with a small “c”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

Of course we are going to give the time. The last Boundary Commission review took seven years and came into practice after nearly nine years, so there is clearly an opportunity to find a more efficient way of undertaking the task. The legislation will bring forward proposals that will then be thoroughly examined by both Houses.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, how much more would it cost to offer people the option in the referendum to vote for a proportional electoral system? Have not the Liberal Democrats sold their souls to the coalition too cheaply?

[Lord McNally]

It has been decided in the coalition agreement that this is the clearest and simplest alternative to offer to the electorate. I would have thought that it would be extremely welcome to the Benches opposite, because that was their preferred option, too.

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, has the Minister had the opportunity to look at the costings in the recent Labour Party manifesto, which pledged the party opposite to hold a referendum on the alternative vote, as those costings may have guided him in his Answer to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott? In relation to the Boundary Commission processes and the saving of costs, will the Minister consider allowing the Boundary Commissions to conduct some of their consultation using online methodologies, which may be rather more effective and rather cheaper in terms of consulting people about their deliberations?

[Lord McNally]

On the last point, I will certainly pass that suggestion to the Deputy Prime Minister, who is working on this legislation. On whether the Labour Party’s proposal had been fully costed, I have some experience of Labour Party manifestos, so I am sure that it was fully costed. If the Labour Party would like to send us the outcome of that costing, I will feed it into the preparations as well.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, why cannot the referendum question simply refer to a preferential voting system? That leaves the option open for varying forms of alternative vote to be considered.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, there will be legislation, and legislation can be amended. I suggest that the noble Lord puts down an amendment when the Bill is before this House.

[Earl Ferrers]

My Lords, in view of the coalition Government’s desire to save public money at every possible opportunity, would my noble friend not agree that an expenditure of the amount that he referred to on a referendum is a complete waste of money and that nobody understands the alternative vote system or any of the other proportional representation systems? They all understand first past the post, so why do the Government not drop this policy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

I do not know why the cheers are coming from the other side, because we are following their policy. My goodness, is it not welcome to get some comments from a large “C” Conservative?