Agenda item

Please note that the list of Motions is shown under Item 21 in the agenda pack.

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda item 21 (a) refers) submitted in the name of Councillor Adrian Abbs relating to proportional representation (submitted on Councillor Abbs’ behalf by Councillor Justin Pemberton).

Prior to the moving of the Motion, Councillor Jeff Brooks explained that it was being moved on Councillor Abbs’ behalf at his request (Councillor Abbs being away on a long standing and pre-arranged holiday).

Councillor Pemberton was therefore doing so.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Justin Pemberton and seconded by Councillor Clive Taylor:

“Overview

First Past the Post (FPTP) originated when land-owning aristocrats dominated parliament and voting was restricted to property-owning men.

Historically FPTP and the whole structure of elections, created absurd anomalies with the existence of “rotten boroughs” such as Old Sarum, Dunwich and Gatton. Old Sarum was by local reckoning “one man, two cows and a field” and yet returned two MPs to Westminster! Gatton, a village in Surrey, returned one MP yet had just one voter in it.

The 1832, 1867 and 1884 Reform Acts changed a lot of the more absurd abuses that surrounded the electoral system so vividly described by Charles Dickens in “Pickwick Papers”.

In 2019, 43.6% of the vote produced a government with 56.2% of the seats and 100% of the power.

Therefore, Council Notes that

•        Internationally over 90 countries use either a form of Proportional Representation or a mixed system to elect their primary chamber.

•        PR is already used to elect the parliaments and assemblies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

•        PR ensures all votes count, have equal value, and that seats won match votes cast.

•        PR would end minority rule.

•        37 councils have already passed a motion to write to HM Government demanding a move to PR

•        PR is the national policy of the Liberal Democrats.

The Motion

This Council therefore resolves to write to H.M. Government calling for a change in our outdated electoral laws and to enable Proportional Representation to be used for UK general elections.”

The Chairman informed Council that the Motion would be debated at the meeting in order to facilitate the discharge of business in accordance with Procedural Rule 12.6.3.

AMENDED MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Justin Pemberton and seconded by Councillor Clive Taylor:

The Motion

This Council therefore resolves to write to H.M. Government calling for a change in our outdated electoral laws and to enable Proportional Representation to be used for UK general elections under the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system and;

To call upon West Berkshire’s two MPs to push for a change to electoral law to implement Proportional Representation (under the STV system) and to promote the matter for debate within Parliament.”

Councillor Pemberton referred to the recent General Election. The Labour Party won with a high majority but the turnout of voters was low. Councillor Pemberton also referred to the number of seats won by the Liberal Democrats in 2019 and the relatively high increase in 2024. However, there was only a 0.6% increase in the Liberal Democrat’s total share of the vote.

Councillor Pemberton felt that it was time for a changed system where elected representatives were more representative of the votes cast. He considered that the STV system would result in politicians changing their offering and appealing to a wider cohort of voters.

Should there be concern that this could result in the need for coalition governments, Councillor Pemberton referred to the most recent coalition government which was not unsuccessful.

Councillor Abbs felt that it was timely to be considering this Motion. He understood, at a national level, that the turnout of voters was only 52%, with the Labour Party receiving 35% of the votes cast. He was concerned that this was undemocratic.

While the first past the post system had some positive aspects, there were a number of negatives.

Councillor Abbs felt that this alternative election system would create a platform for greater political stability and the ability to set longer term plans.

Councillor Brooks noted that a similar Motion had been put at 37 other local authorities.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon noted that Council had considered a number of important Council functions at this meeting, but in his view this matter was a concern for Westminster and not the Council. If residents had concerns on this matter they could take it up with West Berkshire’s two MPs.

Councillor Lee Dillon declared an interest in paragraph two of the amendment as the MP for Newbury. He would therefore not participate in the debate or vote on the Motion.

Councillor David Marsh felt that the Motion could have benefited from making mention of local elections. He considered that the STV system could benefit local democracy and therefore West Berkshire’s residents. As well as potentially increasing the level of turnout. Nationally, this change would help achieve greater representation of parties with a significant number of votes.

Councillor Nick Carter felt that residents had other reasons for choosing note to vote. He questioned if low turnout related to the voting methodology.

Councillor Clive Taylor stated that while he was of course pleased at the outcome of the General Election, he was concerned that there was not a higher turnout. He added that it was important for voters to feel they could have a say and that their vote could make a difference. Councillor Taylor concluded by stating that he would raise this with Olivia Bailey, the Labour MP for Reading West and Mid Berkshire.

The Amended Motion was put to the vote and declared CARRIED.

It was then debated.

Councillor Abbs reiterated the concern that a number of people felt it was not worth voting. Change was needed to give voters a greater choice.

The Motion was put to the vote and declared CARRIED.

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda item 21 (b) refers) submitted in the name of Councillor David Marsh relating to companion bus passes.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor David Marsh and seconded by Councillor Carolyn Culver:

That the Council notes that:

“Companion bus passes enable people with disabilities that prevent them travelling alone, such as blindness, to take a companion, free of charge, on their journey. This could literally transform the lives of some of our residents.

West Berkshire Council offered a companion bus pass scheme until the “austerity” cuts of 2016. However, neighbouring councils continue to offer companion bus passes, in some cases allowing reciprocal travel between different authorities.

Companion bus passes are funded, in full or in part, by central government so reintroducing them would not put a large financial burden on council tax payers.

By failing to enable all its residents to enjoy the benefits of bus travel, West Berkshire is in effect discriminating against some of them.

Council accordingly resolves to:

Reinstate a companion bus pass scheme in West Berkshire at the earliest possible opportunity.

Explore the possibility of reciprocal arrangements with neighbouring authorities.”

The Chairman informed Council that the Motion would not be debated at the meeting. It would be considered by the Transport Advisory Group and then the Executive, in line with Procedure Rule 12.6.1 of the Council’s Constitution. 

Councillor Marsh presented the Motion and explained that people with a severe disability who could not travel independently needed to be accompanied by a companion. This was previously provided without charge, but currently companions needed to pay for the transport. The scheme remained without cost in many other local authorities.

A companion may not always be able to afford the fare, creating a restriction to the disabled person’s ability to travel. Councillor Marsh hoped the scheme, which would not be overly costly, could be reinstated as it would make a real difference to people’s lives.

In response, Councillor Stuart Gourley advised that the matter would be considered at the next meeting of the Transport Advisory Group.

Councillor Gourley clarified that there was no central government funding for companion bus passes. The scheme, if reintroduced, would need to be funded from the Council’s revenue budget.

He also added that central government would be reviewing the eligibility on concessionary travel and this guidance would be reviewed when received alongside the Council’s approach.