Agenda item

Bill for an Act of Common Council

To:-

·         Provide for the date of next ordinary Common Council elections being postponed from 18 March 2021 until 23 March 2022.

 

(First and Second Reading).

 

(Together with a report of the Policy and Resources Committee thereon).

Minutes:

A Bill for an Act of Common Council, to provide for the date of the next ordinary Common Council elections being postponed from 18 March 2021 until 23 March 2022, was presented to the Court for its first and second reading, together with a report of the Policy and Resources Committee thereon.

 

The Chair of the Policy and Resources Committee spoke to introduce the report, outlining the rationale for the proposal and, in particular, commenting on the difficulties associated with voter registration in the current climate.

 

Several Members spoke to oppose the proposal, with the following comments made:

  • Whilst concerns around the impact of COVID-19 on turnout were noted, it was argued that protecting the democratic mandate should take precedence. It should be for voters to decide whether or not to go to polling stations, not for the City Corporation to presume to judge whether they would wish to or not.
  • The opportunity to push for increased use of postal votes and to explore electronic voting was also raised, with it suggested that this could go some way towards off-setting turnout concerns.
  • It was also observed that turnout varied significantly across Wards and across elections in any case, depending on the candidates and the specific issues in play.
  • The rationale given for postponement was questioned, with it cautioned that there would be an external perception of Members voting in their own interests in delaying elections. The fact that the US Presidential Elections were proceeding demonstrated that such things were possible and reflected poorly on the City should it not also seek to proceed.
  • Questions were raised as to the legalities of Bill, with it noted that a response on these matters was expected from the Recorder prior to the Bill’s third reading.
  • A Member suggested that the impact of COVID was such that many businesses might not return to the City in any case, so the arguments in relation to business voter registration were not compelling.
  • Noting the implication that no by-elections could take place in the coming period, a Member expressed concern that this potentially forced incumbents to continue serving against their will or, should they resign, would leave the affected Ward short of representation.

 

Several Members also spoke in favour of the proposal:

  • It was argued that it was desirable to postpone elections given the significant difficulties in compiling a full electoral registration list at this point in time.
  • The precedent for delaying elections, including the next Greater London Authority elections, was noted, as was the precedent in terms of accepting that the quality of electoral registers at the current time would be inadequate, with the example provided of the ongoing Boundary Review in Parliament.
  • It was observed that the shortened second electoral period proposed would mean that there would still be two elections within the eight-year cycle.
  • The limitations and requirements of the City’s franchise were outlined, with it noted that the electoral registration process could only happen at this time of year and that it was only Parliament which could change this. Given the requirement to facilitate the business vote and being cognisant of low office occupation levels at present, to proceed would lead to very material concerns around the legitimacy of results, particularly in some smaller Wards.
  • The opportunity to use the window provided by any postponement to make significant efforts to reach out and increase registration was noted, with Members commenting on the discussions at Policy and Resources Committee which had made clear that this would be a condition of any delay.
  • It was suggested that this proposal would provide a measure of stability and certainty in what were unprecedented and uncertain times. In particular, with a second wave of the COVID-19 outbreak likely, this stability would allow the City Corporation to focus on support for businesses and residents at this crucial time.
  • In relation to concerns about potential vacancies caused by resignations without the facility for by-elections, it was observed that the City benefitted from a larger number of Members per Ward than other local authority areas and so there would still be Ward representation in such a circumstance.

 

A Division being demanded and granted, there appeared:-

For the Affirmative - 84

ALDERMEN

Edhem, E.

Howard, R.P.S.

Masojada, B.

 

Garbutt, J.

Hughes-Penney, R.C.

Scotland, Baroness Patricia, Q.C.

 

Gifford, Sir Roger

King, A.N.

Wootton, Sir David

 

Gowman, A.J.

Langley, S., O.B.E.

Russell, W.A.B., The Rt Hon The Lord Mayor

 

Goyal, P.B., O.B.E.

Luder, I.D., J.P.

 

 

Hailes, T.R.

Mainelli, Prof. M.R., Sheriff

 

 

COMMONERS

Abrahams, G.C.

Fairweather, A.H.

Moss, A.M., Deputy

Absalom , J.D., Deputy

Fernandes, S.A.

Murphy, B.D.

Addy, C.K.

Graham, T.

Packham, G.D.

Ali, M.

Haines, C.W.

Petrie, J.

Ameer, R.B.

Hayward, C.M, Sheriff

Pleasance, J.L.

Anderson, R.K.

Hill, C.

Priest, H.S.J.

Barr, A.R.M.

Hoffman, T.D.D., M.B.E., Deputy

Pritchard, J.P.

Barrow, D.G.F.

Holmes, A.

Regan, R.D., O.B.E., Deputy

Bastow, A.M.

Hudson, M.

Rogula, E., Deputy

Bennett, P.G.

Hyde, W.M., Deputy

Sayed, R.

Bensted-Smith, N.M., J.P.

James, C., Deputy

Seaton, I.C.N., M.B.E.

Bottomley, K.D.F., Deputy

Jones, H.L., Deputy

Sells, O.M., Q.C.

Bradshaw, D.J., Deputy

Joshi, S.J.

Shilson, Dr G.R.E., Deputy

Broeke, T.

Knowles-Cutler, A.

Simons, J.L.

Chadwick, RAH, O.B.E., Deputy

Levene, T.C.

Sleigh, T., Deputy

Chapman, J.D.

Littlechild, V., M.B.E., J.P.

Snyder, Sir Michael

Ingham Clark, J., Deputy

Lodge, O.A.W.

Thomson, J.M.D., Deputy

De Sausmarez, H.J.

Lord, C.E., O.B.E., J.P., Deputy

Upton, W., Q.C.

Doshi-Smith, G.M.

Mayer, A.P.

Wheatley, M.R.P.H.D.

Dostalova, K.

Mayhew, J.P.

Wright, D.L.

Duckworth, S.D., O.B.E., D.L.

McGuinness, C.S., Deputy

 

Durcan, M.

Mead, W., O.B.E.

 

Edwards, J.E.

Merrett, R.A., Deputy

 

Everett, K.M., Deputy

Meyers, A.G.D.

 

Tellers for the affirmative – Deputy Edward Lord and Susan Pearson.

For the Negative - 22

ALDERMEN

Estlin, Sir Peter

Parmley, Sir Andrew

 

COMMONERS

Bell, M.L.

Harrower, G.G.

Pimlott, W.

Bennett, J.A., M.B.E., Deputy

Fredericks, M.B.

Pollard, J.H.G., Deputy

Bostock, M.

Lloyd-Owen, N.M.C.

Quilter, S.D.

Clementi, T.C.

McMurtrie, A.S., J.P.

Scott, J.G.S., J.P.

Colthurst, H.N.A.

Newman, B.P., C.B.E.

Tomlinson, J., Deputy

Dunphy, P.G., Deputy

Patel, D., O.B.E.

Woodhouse, P.J., Deputy

Fentimen, H.L., O.B.E.

Pearson, S.J.

 

Tellers for the negative – Henry Colthurst and Deputy Jamie Ingham Clark.

Abstentions were recorded from Alderman David Graves, Deputy Brian Mooney, and James Tumbridge.

Upon the results of the Division being announced, the Lord Mayor declared the report to be carried.

 

Resolved – That the report be agreed to and that the Bill be read a first and second time.

Supporting documents: