House of Commons · Bill Debate
20 September 2021 · 8 other contributors
Opened by Christopher Pincher Con Tamworth
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Christopher Pincher raised concerns about elections bill - instruction motion to amend voting system for various elections in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
Key points
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
The motion seeks to amend the Elections Bill to allow for the introduction of a simple majority voting system in elections for the Mayor of London, combined authority mayors, local authority mayors, and police and crime commissioners. The proposed change aligns with Conservative manifesto commitments and public opinion from the 2011 referendum where 67% voted for first past the post. It reflects a long-standing commitment to supporting first past the post voting.
The Labour MP questions why this amendment was not included from the outset, as it could have allowed for proper scrutiny on Second Reading. She argues that the supplementary vote system has been in use since 2000 for the Mayor of London elections and its absence from the original Bill is inconsistent with Government claims.
He criticised the Government for attempting to change the voting system on a whim for their own electoral advantage. He argued that such changes undermine democracy and fairness. O'Hara emphasised the importance of proportional representation, stating that reverting to first past the post is a backward step that undermines democratic principles.
He agreed with Brendan O'Hara's stance and highlighted that the Conservatives are gaming the system not only by changing the electoral system but also by using this instruction to change how the House scrutinises the Bill. He called it totally outrageous.
He interjected to question Brendan O'Hara's statistics, citing different figures from voter ID pilots compared to London mayoral elections. He suggested that these changes could lead to a loss of franchise.
Critiques the Government for disrespecting democratic processes by using an obscure mechanism to extend the Bill's scope. Argues that extending first-past-the-post voting systems is undemocratic and undermines proportional representation used in recent devolved elections. Highlights lack of pre-legislative scrutiny, misuse of parliamentary procedure, and suggests the change was slipped in quietly without proper debate on Second Reading.
States that just because the Government can do something, it does not mean they should. Highlights the lack of proper consideration given to the electoral systems for mayoral and police commissioner roles, arguing that proportional representation was used initially due to significant powers being devolved. Suggests this approach will lead to poorer representation and will oppose the motion.
Critiques the Government for rushing through significant constitutional reforms in a piecemeal fashion, undermining democratic principles. Questions how the new Department will lead on this Bill and expresses concerns about potential lack of proper scrutiny due to time constraints. Highlights that while the UK moves towards less proportional systems, Scotland continues to increase democratic participation.
Christopher Pincher defends the motion to instruct, arguing that it is a technical change allowing the Committee to consider various options for electing police and crime commissioners. He mentions that the first-past-the-post system has been supported by three consecutive Conservative party manifestos and was voted on in 2016 with a strong public mandate. Pincher also criticises opposition parties, suggesting they ignored or undermined previous democratic decisions, such as the vote for Brexit in 2016.