Elections: Alternative Vote System

Lord McNally Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Willis of Knaresborough]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what they estimate will be the cost of a general election held under the alternative vote system.

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

My Lords, the features and associated costs of holding a general election using the alternative vote system would broadly be the same as under the existing system. A notable exception to this is the count, which, depending on the extent of preferences expressed by voters, could take longer and lead to some additional costs.

[Lord Willis of Knaresborough]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that interesting Answer. There is undoubtedly a polarised debate about the future of our voting system. However, does my noble friend agree that it behoves politicians in both Houses of Parliament, particularly Ministers, when making statements to base them on facts and not simply make them up to further an argument? Will he state quite clearly today that there is no requirement in the legislation and no estimate in the Government's plans for any additional costs for electronic voting or electronic counting? Can he bury that argument?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, reading very carefully, I say that we have no current plans to introduce electronic counting for the Westminster parliamentary elections. The Government have made no estimate of the costs of electronic counting for them.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Will the Minister confirm that the Scottish Government have introduced an electronic counting system for local government elections in Scotland, at a cost of £5 million next year—the contract has gone to a firm called Logica, which will be counting votes under STV and AV in by-elections—and that there is an electronic counting system operating in the London mayoral elections under SV, which is again a variation on the AV system? Is not electronic counting effectively inevitable in the end?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, whether it is inevitable in the end I simply do not know. As to the other information that the noble Lord imparted to the House, I am sure that it will, as ever, be accurate.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, is not the Minister correct and the noble Lord opposite also correct? There are no current plans but it is inevitable.

[Lord McNally]

Nothing is inevitable, including the outcome of the AV referendum.

[Lord Kinnock]

Will the Minister confirm that in 90 years of using alternative voting in Australia, no one has ever proposed or used machines for voting or counting under such a system? Will he also confirm that if there were alternative voting in a general election in this country, there is no proposal from anyone, no provision and no finance allocated for the introduction of machine voting? Will he advise people on both sides of this argument that it is disreputable as well as misleading to the electorate to make repeated claims, as some have, that it is necessary and inevitable that machines are used in AV voting systems?

[Lord McNally]

Gosh, we are getting a lot of information today. This is all extremely useful for the electorate. In less than 48 hours, the power will pass to them. I have always been one of those politicians who trusts the people and I will wait to find out what they say. As to the earlier point on the Australian experience, the noble Lord is perfectly right.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

As the noble Lord has just acknowledged, the reality is that under AV the count would take longer. Will it not be the case that if we were to have an AV system, people would expect to know the result of the general election quickly, as they are accustomed to do? For that reason, is the Minister not absolutely right that if we were to have AV it would be inevitable that we would have to invest in counting machines?

[Lord McNally]

I think we have already had at least three questions on that to which the answer was no. As the noble Lord will know from his experience on the AV Bill, the Government are remaining aloof from the debate itself. However, I found it interesting that a Political Studies Association author at the University of Reading thought that the introduction of AV would imply an annual cost across a five-year electoral cycle of around only 30p per person. That sounds to me like a bargain.

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that in Australia, in certain tightly fought constituencies, it can take two weeks to declare the result? Is that acceptable?

[Lord McNally]

I often think that getting the right result is better than getting quick results. Even if it takes the Australians two weeks to get the right result, that is still the right way to do it.

[Lord Peston]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that electronic voting system machinery is irrelevant because elections under AV, which I sincerely hope we do not have, would not be decided by the electoral process at all? They would be decided in smoke-filled rooms. The equipment required would be the equipment needed to fumigate those rooms.

[Lord McNally]

The interest of this House in voting systems never fails to fascinate me, particularly from Members who will run a mile from voting for this House.