I believe it is 6 May. The first argument, which has been made several times, is by no means the strongest. In my mind it is a relatively weak argument. However, I think the arguments about cost are made relevant. I have seen figures suggesting that the cost between holding the referendum on the same day as the elections next May and on another day might be £15 million. I have also seen figures suggesting £30 million. Whether that is a big sum of money to pay for democracy, it is a relevant argument, but it is used very frequently by the opponents of reform. I regret the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is not in his place at the moment, because almost his main weapon for arguing against any measure of reform, moving our electoral system on from where it was nearly 140 years ago, is that it would cost too much to ask the people to have a vote on this issue. Since it would be used as an argument in the referendum, I believe that holding it on a day when it would be more cost-effective to do so is at least a relevant argument. Above all, I believe 6 May is a good day for the convenience of the voters—I should have said 5 May. I beg your pardon. The voters would be voting in 84 per cent of the country in elections on the same day—in local elections for most of England, and in all of Scotland and Wales. Being expected to turn out on this issue on another day would not, I think, be welcome. The next opportunity in the United Kingdom when there would be so many elections would not be until 2014, when we would be voting in the European Parliament elections. I believe that it would be less satisfactory to hold this referendum in 2014, a year before the general election. The voters should know, and we should know, for a longer period than that what voting system we will have.
As I said at Second Reading, having the referendum on the same day as a lot of other elections will, I think, strengthen the legitimacy of the vote. Legitimacy of the vote is argued by a number of people. I do notice that some noble Lords argue with inconsistency. They say that there needs to be a big turnout for these elections in order for there to be legitimacy but at the same time they argue that there should not be any other elections on the same day. I honestly wonder how many people would go along to the polling station if there were no other elections on the same day.
We have had arguments about confusion. Let us turn again to the Scottish Parliament elections of 2007. One of the most notable things about them was that when people had a complicated ballot paper for choosing their MSP for their constituency and their regional list MSPs they also had the opportunity to vote in a preference voting system—with choices one, two and three—in the local elections. In those local elections in Scotland in 2007, on the same day as the Scottish Parliament elections, virtually none of the local election ballot papers was spoilt. People easily understood one, two and three on a ballot paper on the same day as they were also electing list MSPs and constituency MSPs. Therefore I believe that we are respecting the Scottish voters. I will give way briefly, although the noble Lord has spoken at some length already.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Rennard
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 30 November 2010.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
722 c1442-3 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 19:38:22 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_687648
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_687648
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_687648