Clause 17 - Payments to Electoral Commission
Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill
11:30 am
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
I would like the Under-Secretary to tell the Committee something about his Department's budget. How much does he expect to pay to the Electoral Commission for the boundary committee's work? What estimates has he had? I presume that he has had meetings with the boundary committee and the Electoral Commission, and I presume that they have considered the work loads in the different regions. I certainly hope that they have. Ministers constantly refer to the implications for the boundary committee of undertaking more than one review simultaneously, which certainly implies that discussions have taken place. Figures must exist, so, before the Committee passes over clause 17, it would be most useful if the Under-Secretary gave us some numbers.
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
I can certainly oblige with an indication of what costs may be incurred by the boundary committee in carrying out local government reviews. As we have said before, the boundary committee would be reimbursed by the Government. We estimate that the cost would be between £750,000 and £1 million per region for local government reviews. The money would come from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's supply estimates. Money would be paid directly to the Electoral Commission, which is responsible for funding the boundary committee's work. Sums received by the Electoral Commission will be treated as income received, as can be seen in subsection (2).
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I have missed what he said, but did he give different estimates for conducting boundary reviews in different regions? I thought that I heard only a single estimate.
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
Estimates will range from between £750,000 and £1 million, depending on the region.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
Will the Under-Secretary explain how it can cost £750,000 in the smallest region, with a population of 1.6 million electors, and £1 million in the largest region, with a population of 6.5 million electors? To me, and I suspect to many other members of the Committee, that range is not intuitively obvious. How have those figures been arrived at?
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
I will explain. The figures represent the particular cost of carrying out the local government reviews, not the electoral area reviews, which obviously would be more detailed. Certain fixed costs are involved in setting up an exercise such as a local government review. Those fixed costs represent a large proportion of the total sum, which is why there is not necessarily a sliding scale in which the costs are
proportional to the population. I hope that that is clear.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
I have to press the Under-Secretary further because, apart from the obvious discrepancy between sizes of regions, the actual amount surprises me. He tells us, in effect, that the marginal cost of conducting a review of local government boundaries in the south-east, the population of which is 6.5 million, as compared to the north-east is only £250,000. That draws my attention to the long-time scale—a year, give or take—that he suggested would be required for such a local government review.
How much resource is going into that effort? The sad fact in these times is that we cannot get a lot of resource for £250,000. Why will the Under-Secretary allow the review process to take a year when the Minister for Local Government and the Regions suggested that the availability of resources to the boundary committee was a restriction that had to be taken into account? He said that that was not necessarily a reference to money, but a reference to physical resources. Are we talking about so few people being available that £250,000 of incremental salaries represents the maximum resource that could be deployed in a boundary committee review in, say, the south-east region?
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, although the estimates are those of the boundary committee and are also present in the explanatory notes. The boundary committee is currently working on more detailed estimates, and we will make those available in due course.
Mr Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby, Labour)
Surely one factor has to be the existing arrangements for local government and how many unitary authorities are already in place. As a consequence, for the Yorkshire and Humberside area, for example, the situation would be relevant so far as it applied to my county, North Yorkshire. Therefore, the costs would be quite different.
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
My hon. Friend points out one of several variables that could come into play when considering the costs involved. The boundary committee has been reasonable in its estimates, and has shown that it provides good value for money. It may not have done so in the world of expensive consultants employed by the Conservative party or those who normally come into contact with the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. Unlike some such expensive advisers, the boundary committee is prudent and reasonable, and has provided healthy suggestions including a range of options for the cost in those regions. The income would be reimbursed by the Government as income received by the Electoral Commission, for the purpose of estimate arrangements.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
The intervention by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) clearly reinforced the point that I was trying to make. The work load that will be involved in conducting such a boundary review in the north-east region, compared to the work load involved in
conducting such a review in the south-east region where the authorities are predominantly two-tier, is not effectively represented by the Under-Secretary's £250,000 differential.
I will take no lectures from a Minister in this Government on the employment of expensive consultants. The sum of £250,000 would scarcely cover the Government's advertising and PR bill for the boundary committee review in any region. The truth is that no one has bothered to think what the cost of conducting a boundary committee review in the south-east or the east of England would be.
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
As I explained, the estimates are those of the boundary committee. It is full of professional people who know the extent of work involved. There are reasons for the estimates that they have given, and they are working on more detailed estimates, which may not be the final ones but which will provide ball-park figures. Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that it is irresponsible of the boundary committee to provide such estimates?
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
I am not privy to the question that the Under-Secretary put to the boundary committee, but the figures seem to represent a reasonable estimate of the range of costs of conducting reviews in Yorkshire and Humberside and north-west regions. The range of figures could not credibly be applied to reviews in the north-east or south-east regions. The Under-Secretary says that the figures come from the boundary committee, so I shall pursue the matter with that committee.
I am a little surprised by the figures that the Under-Secretary has given me, including the relatively low cost of the boundary committee review—[Interruption.] The Minister for Local Government and the Regions is waving the explanatory notes at me. I hope that he will forgive me, but from my experience in Standing Committees, I have come to regard explanatory notes as little more reliable than the rest of Government spin. The explanatory notes tell us what the Government want us to believe about a Bill and invite the indolent to take the Government's expression of good intentions at face value. Our job, however, is to probe what powers the Bill actually gives the Government and, at the risk of being accused by Ministers of paranoia, to explore all the possibilities for misdeeds and malevolent interpretation.
Mr John Butterfill (Bournemouth West, Conservative)
Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not explore the same point again when we come to clause 28.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
Thank you for you inspiration, Mr. Butterfill.
Mr Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby, Labour)
I am still listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's argument.
Mr Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby, Labour)
So I should. That is why we are here—at least that is why I am here.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge knows the structure of local government in the north-east as well as I do, so why does he think that there would be such a gap between
the cost in the north-east and that in Yorkshire and Humberside? My understanding is that the number of local authorities in the north-east is equivalent to the number of local authorities that are not unitary authorities in Yorkshire and Humberside. North Yorkshire is the largest county in England—
Mr John Butterfill (Bournemouth West, Conservative)
Order. I have been lenient in this discussion, but this matter should be considered under clause 28.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
I will be guided by you on that, Mr. Butterfill. I thought that clause 17 dealt with provision of money to enable the boundary committee to carry out its functions under the Bill. Therefore, the cost of carrying out those functions would be relevant.
Mr John Butterfill (Bournemouth West, Conservative)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is questioning my judgment, which he is not entitled to do. The clause does not relate to actual amounts but to the right to carry out the function. The actual amounts can properly be discussed under clause 28. I will not tolerate any further discussion on this subject.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
In that case, I have nothing to say.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.