English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Pack Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Pack]

217: Clause 61, page 64, line 4, leave out “supplementary” and insert “alternative”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to change the voting system for five types of local government election to the alternative vote. Currently, Clause 61 and Schedule 28 changes the voting system from first past the post to the supplementary vote. This amendment is connected to others to Schedule 28 in the name of Lord Pack.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, the Bill proposes to replace first past the post for some of our elections with the supplementary vote, which is a step forward, but it is not a great step forward, which is why I propose Amendment 217, along with the consequential Amendments 226 to 241, to replace the supplementary vote with the alternative vote. Having the right system in place for mayors matters all the more with the Government’s vision for more mayors with more powers. That makes this the right moment further to improve their democratic accountability.

For single-member vacancies, such as for mayors, and indeed for police and crime commissioners, both first past the post and the supplementary vote rely in part on voters being able confidently to predict who will finish in the top two in a contest and therefore being able, if they wish, to cast a tactical vote, in effect, under first past the post, or with the supplementary vote being able to cast a second preference that has a chance of actually counting.

The problem is that in the multiparty world we are in, one populated as well by many independent candidates, neither of those systems is well suited for our politics. The reality with the supplementary vote is that often people cast a first preference for someone who does not make it into the top two and a second preference for someone who also does not make it into the top two and therefore end up impotent. It is as if the voter had only first past the post to use.

That is not a rare or theoretical problem. It is a widespread one that we have seen repeatedly with the previous use of the supplementary vote in England. I referred at an earlier stage of the Bill’s passage to research by the Make Votes Matter coalition carried out a couple of years ago covering 217 elections conducted under the supplementary vote in the UK. It found that more than half—54%—of people’s second preferences that were due to come into play after the first round had to be discarded because they were not for a candidate who made it into the top two. That research note is for elections using the SV since 2000. For many of those years, we had fewer large and medium-sized parties jostling for contention than we do now. Even in those more favourable circumstances in the past for the supplementary vote—those more favourable circumstances for people successfully to second-guess who would be in the top two—more than half of all second preferences, correctly filled out on the ballot paper and that should have been used, none the less got discarded because they were for candidates who did not make it into the top two. That is quite simply a flaw with the supplementary vote.

It also runs counter to what the Minister said in February in Committee, that

“the Government believe that mayors should have a broad base of support among their electors”.—[Official Report, 11/2/26; col. GC 173.]

Alas, discarding more than half of secondary preferences in the way that I talked about does not sit at all well with that aim of a broad base of support among electors. So often, for so many voters, supplementary vote ends up being the same as first past the post.

It is not only in local government elections for mayors in England that voters suffer from the limitations of first past the post; hence my other amendment in this group calling for the use of the single transferable vote. As well as its use in Northern Ireland, STV has been used successfully for nearly 20 years for local government elections in Scotland. As I suspect we may hear from some noble Lords opposing STV, I point out that it is used in Scotland with broad support across different parties, including those parties that oppose its introduction for local elections in England. I hope that, mindful of the widespread acceptance across the political spectrum of STV in Scotland for local elections and of its successful use over such a long period of time, perhaps noble Lords will consider that if it is good enough for Scotland, if it works in Scotland, why not have it in England as well?

I return to mayors. We are in a political world of more candidates, more parties and more confusion over who is going to end up in the top two, and that is why the alternative vote, not the supplementary vote, is the right voting system. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for this group of amendments. The Government recognise that the voting system used to elect our representatives sits at the heart of our democracy and is of fundamental importance. I welcome the noble Lord’s interest in this topic and I respect his great knowledge and expertise.

We acknowledge that different voting systems can be better suited to different types of polls and elections, especially for single executive positions such as mayors and police and crime commissioners. It is precisely for this reason that we are planning to reintroduce the supplementary vote system for these polls. This system has a proven history of successfully meeting the needs of the electorate and is well understood. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, mentioned the referendum that was held in 2011 with regard to parliamentary elections. I am sure we will go on debating electoral reform for some time to come—I do not think it is going to go away—but it is true to say that that 67.9% of voters rejected the proposal back in 2011.

On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Pack, about our devolved Administrations, the voting system used for elections to devolved bodies in Scotland and Wales is the responsibility of those devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales. For historical reasons the single transferable vote has been used for local elections in Northern Ireland and elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is appropriate for different voting systems to be used for different polls, but we believe that the supplementary vote is appropriate for selecting single-person executive positions such as mayors.

I noted the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, about the elections for police and crime commissioners. He rightly says that those positions will go. I have not had a definitive answer, but I assume that we are putting in the provision for PCC elections in case a by-election needs to be held between now and when the positions would normally come up for election, at which time those posts will go. We therefore do not support plans to introduce an alternative vote system for these particular elections, as we believe the supplementary vote is much more appropriate. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Pack, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

I thank noble Lords for this short but succinct and apposite debate. As several have said, this is a long-running topic of discussion that I am sure we will return to on occasions in the future. I will not rehearse all the arguments, but given that reference was made to whether the supplementary vote or the alternative vote might be too confusing for people, I simply point out that the single transferable vote, which is a more complicated ballot paper than either a supplementary or an alternative vote, is used successfully without a problem by voters in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I certainly would not want to suggest in any way that if people in Scotland and Northern Ireland can manage it, somehow voters in England would not be up to the task.

We have rehearsed the main arguments. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, in particular, had some apposite comments about the practical experience we have of how problematic the supplementary vote can be when it is used in London. Given the importance of the democratic point, I would like to test the opinion of the House on this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this group covers three substantive issues: supplementary voting for the election of mayors, election delays and flexible voting pilots.

On supplementary voting, the Conservative Party has long supported first past the post, which allows voters to vote out top politicians who do not deliver, both locally and nationally. We introduced it for the mayoral elections; that was a manifesto commitment in our 2017 manifesto, and we recommitted to first past the post in our 2019 manifesto and our 2024 manifesto. We are committed to maintaining that important link with the local voter, and we stand by our changes to mayoral voting, which had manifesto backing. In contrast, Labour’s proposals on supplementary voting for mayoral elections are not backed by manifesto commitment. Therefore, we do not support this reintroduction of supplementary voting, and we intend to test the opinion of the House at the conclusion of this debate.

The amendments on flexible voting challenge the Government on the parliamentary procedure that will follow if Ministers seek to roll out flexible voting. We are clear that flexible voting must not be rolled out without proper parliamentary scrutiny. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us on that point in her response.

The important issue of local election delays has been a topic of deep controversy over the last year, and it has caused enormous problems within local government particularly. I am very pleased that, in the face of campaigning by those on this side of the House, the Prime Minister chose to U-turn on plans to deny millions of people a vote this May. It is right that those elections are now going ahead, but we must not get into a place where this can ever happen again. My Amendment 220 would prevent the Secretary of State from delaying any local government elections by more than one year, if the delay resulted from local government reorganisation. That is the right approach, and I thank the Minister for her engagement on this. I am pleased that the Government have listened to our case and have tabled their own Amendment 218A, which delivers the same legislative outcomes as our Conservative amendment. This is an important achievement, and we support the Government’s Amendment 218A.

Before I conclude, I should briefly mention Amendment 219, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pack, which we have considered carefully. I think the noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches have much the same concerns as we do about local election delays. But we do not agree that Amendment 219 is a workable proposal. We believe that the principle behind government Amendment 218A is the right one, and we will support that amendment to prevent future denials of local democracy. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

We have discussed the issue of the Government’s power to cancel elections several times, and as has already been mentioned, it is only fair to acknowledge that the Government have responded, with their plans being put forward in this group. However, for reasons I shall set out, I do not believe they go far enough, which is why I wish to speak to my Amendments 219 and 222 in this group. Given where everyone’s views currently appear to stand, I shall concentrate on Amendment 219 and simply note that Amendment 222 perhaps offers an alternative route to address some of the points raised previously by noble Lords, if that would find favour.

The reason for my amendments, and why I would suggest they are preferable to the Government’s new plans, is that there is an important point of principle here. It is that Governments should fit their plans around people’s democratic rights, rather than mess around with people’s democratic rights in order to fit them around the Government’s plans. Democracy, in that sense, should come first.

Although the Government’s amendment in this group would absolutely be a step forward from the status quo, it still would, alas, leave many steps not taken. The full protection of primary legislation should be required to axe a scheduled polling day or, as Amendment 222 offers, only in very tightly constrained circumstances should it be done by secondary legislation. Parliament can legislate, at pace if needed, due to a crisis that requires elections to be put off, but primary legislation means full scrutiny. It means the ability to make amendments, the ability to probe neglected consequences properly, and the knowledge that the Government, to get their measure through, have to be supported not only in the Commons but in this House.

We have seen in other countries how quickly people can lose what were thought to be very basic democratic norms. Our democracy should have full legislative protection for our elections, because there is a fundamental weakness in relying on secondary legislation, as do both the Government’s amendment and the amendments proposed by noble Lords in the Conservative Party.

With such secondary legislation we run into the difficulty that on a point of principle, which we can leave to debate another time, whichever of Labour or the Conservatives is in opposition in this House, those parties are committed not to support fatal Motions on secondary legislation. Any Government therefore know that however controversial their proposal on a piece of secondary legislation is, this House will almost never oppose it. That is a fundamental problem: if the idea of the safeguard is a piece of secondary legislation and that safeguard is also one that the two largest groups in this House are essentially committed never to using, it is not much of a safeguard at all.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Pack]

219: After Clause 61, insert the following new Clause—
“Restriction on powers to change years of local elections(1) In the Local Government Act 2000, for section 87 (power to change years in which elections held) substitute—“87 Restriction on changing years of ordinary elections(1) The years in which ordinary elections of any local authority councillors or mayors are held may be changed only by an Act of Parliament.(2) No provision may be made under this Act enabling the Secretary of State or any other person to change the years in which ordinary elections of councillors are to be held by order, regulations or other delegated legislation.”(2) In section 88 (separate power to make incidental provisions) omit “or 87” in both places it occurs.(3) In the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, in section 50 (ordinary elections), after subsection (5) insert—“(5A) An order under this section must not include provision to cancel, postpone or otherwise change the year in which an ordinary election of Police and Crime Commissioners would otherwise be held.”(4) In the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007—(a) in section 7 (implementation of proposals by order), after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) Except where an order provides for the dissolution of a local authority, an order under this section must not include provision to cancel, postpone or otherwise change the year in which an ordinary election of councillors for a local authority or mayors would otherwise be held.”;(b) in section 10 (implementation of recommendations by order), after subsection (4) insert—“(4A) Except where an order provides for the dissolution of a local authority, an order under this section must not include provision to cancel, postpone or otherwise change the year in which an ordinary election of councillors for a local authority would otherwise be held.”.(5) Any existing power in any other enactment which permits the Secretary of State by order or regulations to change the year in which a local government election is held shall cease to have effect in relation to that power.(6) Any Act whose effect shall include or solely be the changing of the years in which ordinary elections of councillors, mayors, or Police and Crime Commissioners are to be held, shall not be presented to His Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified, unless and until the Secretary of State has—(a) made a statement to both Houses of Parliament certifying that due regard has been given to the impact of the proposed change on the administration and costs of any other elections or referendums scheduled to be held on the same day, (b) made such relevant financial provision as is necessary to ensure that parish councils, town councils, or other smaller authorities do not incur additional financial liabilities resulting from the loss of cost-sharing arrangements with the cancelled or postponed election, and(c) laid before Parliament a written statement setting out the arrangements for ensuring that the democratic mandate of any authority not subject to the change is not undermined by the administrative separation of the polls.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the years in which ordinary elections for local councillors, mayors, and Police and Crime Commissioners are held can only be changed by an Act of Parliament.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

The Minister described this amendment as one that would significantly restrict the powers of Ministers, which I agree with. The question is obviously whether that restriction is a good idea or not. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House on the matter.