a) Councillor Birch
The current first-past-the-post electoral system is unfair and undemocratic. It often results in a discrepancy between the percentage of votes received by parties and the number of seats they hold. This often leads to the underrepresentation of minority parties and the overrepresentation of majority parties, which distorts the democratic will of the electorate.
Proportional representation offers a fairer alternative by ensuring that seats are allocated in proportion to the votes received, thus more accurately reflecting the will of the electorate. Proportional representation is a fairer and more democratic electoral system.
Council resolves to:
1. Formally declare that it supports the principle of proportional representation in UK general elections.
2. Formally declare that it supports the principle of proportional representation in UK local elections.
3. Write to HM Government to request a change in our voting system from first past the post to proportional representation.
b) Councillor Thomas
This Council believes that car park solar canopies could have considerable potential to contribute to solar energy generation in Rushcliffe in an environmentally friendly way. The Council will encourage this by:
1. Including suitable text in relevant policies, strategies, and guidance notes.
2. Undertaking a feasibility study into installation of canopies on its own car parks, with a view to bringing forward a capital project or projects by way of an exemplar.
Minutes:
a) The following notice of motion was proposed by Councillor Birch and seconded by Councillor Chewings.
“The current first-past-the-post electoral system is unfair and undemocratic. It often results in a discrepancy between the percentage of votes received by parties and the number of seats they hold. This often leads to the underrepresentation of minority parties and the overrepresentation of majority parties, which distorts the democratic will of the electorate.
Proportional representation offers a fairer alternative by ensuring that seats are allocated in proportion to the votes received, thus more accurately reflecting the will of the electorate. Proportional representation is a fairer and more democratic electoral system.
Council resolves to:
1. Formally declare that it supports the principle of proportional representation in UK general elections.
2. Formally declare that it supports the principle of proportional representation in UK local elections.
3. Write to HM Government to request a change in our voting system from first past the post to proportional representation.”
Councillor Birch requested a recorded vote and referred to the importance of this issue, given that the recent General Election had been the most unrepresentative since 1928, with 58% of the votes cast being totally unrepresented, which was unacceptable. Councillor Birch stated that this could not be called a true democracy when the voting results did not reflect the will of the electorate, and the current First Past the Post (FPTP) system should be replaced by Proportional Representation (PR).
Councillor Birch reiterated that results in the recent General Election had been greatly distorted, with the largest party having its votes exaggerated, with smaller parties marginalised. He also shared details of the 2015 General Election results in Belfast South, when the winning party had only received 25% of the vote, which he considered an afront to democratic principles and confirmed that the current voting system was not fit for purpose. Councillor Birch also referred to the results in the 2019 Rushcliffe Borough Council Election and how unfair they had been, with that reflected across the country. He questioned why the current system was defended and whilst acknowledging that there were some reasonable defences of it, he considered that the disadvantages far outweighed any benefits.
Councillor Birch stated that there was considerable misinformation surrounding PR and advised that there was evidence to show that it had worked very well in many countries throughout western Europe since World War II. It usually produced strong, stable, coalition governments, which on average lasted longer than majority governments formed under FPTP. Councillor Birch stated that citizens in those countries also reported greater satisfaction with their political system, with voter turnout measurably higher. Reference was made to ongoing political instability in Italy, and Councillor Birch stated that this was not due to its use of PR, but rather to the very well-known regional, cultural and political differences experienced there, and he felt that Italy should therefore not be used as an example.
Councillor Birch referred to concerns that PR would lead to a break down in the link between constituents and their elected representatives and agreed that it was desirable to have that link and confirmed that he supported a mixed voting system, which would combine the best elements of the two systems. In conclusion, Councillor Birch stated that adopting PR would not just result in more accurate and fair elections, it would be a commitment to a more vibrant and inclusive democracy, moving away from the limitations of the current system to ensure that minority parties received their fair share of representation.
Councillor Chewings seconded the motion and reserved the right to speak.
The Leader, Councillor Clarke stated that no system was perfect and this proposal was not the answer and referred to Italy, which was a prime example of where PR did not work. The Leader stated that he was against this proposal because of the decision making process, as when a coalition was formed it did not necessarily mean that good decisions were made. The Leader also reminded Council that it was up to the Government to decide if the voting system should be reviewed.
Councillor R Walker agreed that the current system failed to reflect the votes cast compared to the proportion of seats held, although it was not always at the expense of minor parties. There were hundreds of systems, none of which were perfect, and it was important not to assume that proportionality was the only measure of how fair and democratic a system was. Councillor Walker agreed that strong, stable governments were good for democracy, whereas coalition governments were weaker and more unstable. A direct connection between the representative and constituents was good for democracy, and that should be contrasted to many PR systems, which had multiple representatives for a single area. Councillor Walker stated that it was good to use a straightforward system such as FPTP, which had produced results over the years that had reflected the national mood at that time. He felt that PR party lists with preferred candidates could be manipulated, and that many PR systems had built in barriers for smaller parties. Councillor Walker concluded by stating that post-election coalitions were disastrous for democracy, with agreements often made behind closed doors and policies put in place that no one had voted for.
Councillor Parekh stated that the current system had worked well for many years throughout the world and she could not support the motion. The PR system often resulted in a high number of parties gaining seats, which could led to fragmented, unstable governments, with coalitions having to be formed. Such instability often led to frequent elections being held, which had happened for many years in Italy. Coalition governments often resulted in policy compromises, which served no one and to the empowerment of extremist parties. Councillor Parekh also referred to the complexity of PR systems, which could led to voter confusion and disengagement.
Councillor Gaunt advised that whilst the Labour Group would be supporting the motion, it did have concerns over the timing and some of its content and reminded Council that the Labour Party had already committed to adopting PR at its conference in 2023. He agreed that the current system needed to be replaced, as it had not been fair for over 100 years, with parties now working out how to skilfully win majorities within the current framework. Councillor Gaunt felt that the motion was over simplified, with more work required to look at specifics and he called for Constitutional reforms and that the motion should demand that the Labour Government went ahead with its various manifesto pledges. Councillor Gaunt concluded by stating that the Council should also be looking at local elections in Rushcliffe, to ensure that they reflected the views of residents.
Councillor Billin stated that he would be supporting the motion, as it went to the core of everything that he had campaigned for over many years, and the motion was asking for the principle to be supported rather than referring to specifics.
Councillor R Mallender stated that this was an issue that many people were interested in, as the current system failed to accurately represent the number of votes each party received, and he agreed that a change to some form of PR system was required. The current system gave an artificially large majority to one party, which resulted in other groups being denied proper representation, which could led to unrest. Councillor Mallender advised that the current system had worked many years ago, when there were only two parties; however, that had changed as those numbers had increased, with the system producing an inherently unstable representation, and it was now time to look at the principle of having a fairer, more democratic electoral system.
Councillor Grocock stated that he was in favour of an electoral system using PR, as the current system often significantly distorted the preferences of the majority of voters. He felt that the PR system often led to more marginalised parties moderating their views, and it could promote compromise and collaboration, through effective coalition governments. Councillor Grocock reminded Council that a majority of western countries successfully used some form of PR in their elections, included three nations in the UK. Whilst agreeing with the ideals of the motion, Councillor Grocock was concerned that if passed, it would have no influence at a national level, and he failed to see how it would directly serve local residents.
Councillor Simms stated that he was frustrated with the current, outdated electoral system, with smaller parties marginalised; however, he felt after the recent election, it was too early to support this motion.
Councillor Chewings referred to the 2022 survey conducted by the Electoral Reform Society, with 51% in favour of electoral reform. Reference was made to the possible cynicism over the timing of this motion; however, Councillor Chewings advised that he had emailed all candidates before the election regarding this issue. He quoted from a speech by Keir Starmer in 2020, supporting electoral reform and he felt that this was the time to seek change and apply pressure, even at Borough Council level. Councillor Chewings stated that the motion was not asking anyone to choose a specific type of PR, it was asking for the principle to be supported.
Councillor Birch advised that he had been campaigning on this issue for over 20 years and questioned again the fairness of the recent election. He went onto reiterate that coalition governments lasted longer, producing better policies than majority governments, and it was a positive that many parties could win seats using PR. Reference had also been made to the complexities of PR, but Councillor Birch reminded Council that this system was widely used very successfully and he reiterated his previous comments regarding Italy. The motion had been brought to advocate for residents and Councillor Birch felt that it was important to discuss this issue.
In accordance with the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, a recorded vote was taken for this item as follows:
FOR: Councillors J Billin, T Birch, J Chaplain, K Chewings, G Fletcher, M Gaunt, P Gowland, C Grocock, R Mallender, S Mallender, L Plant and J Walker
AGAINST: Councillors M Barney, R Bird, A Brennan, A Brown, R Butler, N Clarke, T Combellack, J Cottee, A Edyvean, S Ellis, E Georgiou, D Mason, P Matthews, H Om, H Parekh, A Phillips, N Regan, D Simms, D Soloman, R Upton, D Virdi, R Walker, T Wells, G Wheeler, J Wheeler, and G Williams
ABSTENTION: Councillor C Thomas
The motion was lost.
b) The following notice of motion was proposed by Councillor Thomas and seconded by Councillor S Mallender.
“This Council believes that car park solar canopies could have considerable potential to contribute to solar energy generation in Rushcliffe in an environmentally friendly way. The Council will encourage this by:
1. Including suitable text in relevant policies, strategies, and guidance notes.
2. Undertaking a feasibility study into installation of canopies on its own car parks, with a view to bringing forward a capital project or projects by way of an exemplar.”
Councillor Thomas referred to the pressing need to increase green energy generation in the UK, and whilst solar power was not the most efficient form, it had a part to play. She referred to a briefing note that Councillors had recently received, the “Solar Farm Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study”, which provided guidance on where Rushcliffe’s countryside solar farm developments could be sited. Councillor Thomas felt that where possible, most Councillors would prefer to see solar panels on rooftops, brown field land and carparks, of which Rushcliffe had many, with the Council itself owning much that could be turned to solar generation without any detriment impact. Council was reminded that this motion just looked at car parks, to break consideration down into more manageable chunks.
Council was advised that in January 2023, the French Parliament had approved legislation requiring all new and existing car parks with more than 80 spaces to have at least 50% coverage with solar panels, which could generate as much electricity as ten nuclear power plants and she highlighted some of the companies and councils all over the UK that were introducing car park solar canopy schemes.
Councillor Thomas referred to the first part of her motion, which would encourage other organisations to have solar panels on their existing and new car parks through the inclusion of suitable wording in planning policies and conditions and providing guidance. The second part looked at what Rushcliffe could do directly with its own car parks, and it was hoped that a Feasibility Study would identify a suitable site or sites for future projects.
Councillor Thomas stated that the financial viability of any project would need to be checked, although she advised that this should not be evaluated just as a revenue generating opportunity, as carbon savings and other environmental benefits should be factored in. The possibility of the Council using any generated electricity to reduce its energy bills should also be considered, together with exporting any surplus energy and battery storage. There would be many factors to consider when looking at individual sites, but if other organisations and councils were looking at this, then Rushcliffe should do the same
Councillor S Mallender seconded the motion and reserved the right to speak.
Councillor Upton proposed an amendment to the motion as follows:
“This Council believes that car park solar canopies could have considerable potential to contribute to solar energy generation in Rushcliffe in an environmentally friendly way. The Council will encourage this by:
1. Including suitable text in relevant policies, strategies, and guidance notes.
2. Undertaking a feasibility study into installation of canopies on its own car parks.”
Councillor Upton confirmed that the Conservative Group supported the spirit of the motion, with solar energy generation already a key part of the Carbon Management Action Plan, and a reference could be made in the Council’s emerging Design Guide, and any other appropriate documents. There was already a small-scale solar canopy installation at Gamston Community Hall car park, linked to EV charging ports; however, it was noted that such installations could be costly, and small wind turbines might be more financially viable. It would be appropriate to do a Feasibility Study; however, until it was completed it would be inappropriate to commit to a capital project.
Councillor Om seconded the amendment to the motion and reserved the right to speak.
Councillor Thomas confirmed that she would accept the amendment.
Councillor Gowland confirmed that the Labour Group supported the motion, although she expressed sadness about the amendment, and stated that if it was cost effective to have solar farms then surely brownfield sites and car parks would be just as good. Although she was not entirely against solar farms, Councillor Gowland felt that it was much better to use brownfield sites, and whilst there were issues with linking to the grid, it was appropriate to undertake a Feasibility Study, which she hoped would led to investment in the Borough.
Councillor Gaunt was also disappointed that the amendment had been agreed as he was hoping that Ruddington could have a car park with solar panels. Council was reminded that in 2006, the Labour Government had put in place a law that required any new housing from 2016 to be net zero but this had been removed in 2011 by the Coalition Government, and if that law had stayed in place, the country would be in a much better position. Councillor Gaunt referred to a sustainable city of 100,000 people in Abu Dhabi, which was sustainable mainly due to its solar panels on roofs of buildings and car parks.
In supporting the amended motion, Councillor R Mallender advised that in the last year, nearly 39% of power in the UK had been produced by renewables, and the use of solar panels in car parks and large buildings should be encouraged, with housing developers required to put them on all new houses. He stated that this was very important and should have been done years ago.
The Leader reiterated support for the principle of the motion and advised that the amendment had been put forward to make it clear that a Feasibility Study was required before any commitment to take action could be made, and as part of the study potential projects could be looked at. Council was reminded that British weather was very different to countries with sunnier climates, which could use solar panels a lot. The Leader stated that reference could also be made to having solar panels on all new industrial and commercial buildings, but he did not want to add this and detract from the spirit of this motion.
Councillor Parekh supported the amended motion and referred to various worldwide case studies, which outlined the wide ranging benefits of using solar panels in car parks.
Councillor Birch stated that in supporting the motion and understanding the reasons for the amendment, he would far prefer to see solar panels in urban environments than on viable farmland. He advised that it was surprising how inefficient solar panels were but this motion was important as it would set a good example to other councils.
Councillor Regan supported this excellent motion and advised that a Feasibility Study had been undertaken on Council owned commercial properties in Bingham, with a payback of between four and five years. To overcome efficiency issues Councillor Regan advised that it was better to have an on-site power bank and he was confident that the Feasibility Study would result in solar panel use being supported.
In seconding the motion, Councillor S Mallender advised that she would have preferred to keep the original motion, although it was better that everyone worked together, as had happened previously. From personal experience Councillor Mallender found solar panels worked very effectively and reminded Council that it was light and not heat that was important. She referred to a report on solar energy by the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE), which highlighted that 97% of its members wanted a standard requirement for all new buildings and car parks to have solar panels. Solar car parks produced electricity in areas that were often close to facilities that used lots of energy, which was ideal, rather than more rural solar farms, which required more infrastructure to take power to the grid. The CPRE and UCL’s Energy Institute report advised that the potential in the built environment was about 117gigawatts, with 11gigawatts of that from car parks, which equated to sixty million solar panels, powering twelve million homes, and Councillor Mallender felt that this motion would be a good start and example to developers. She concluded by hoping that the Government would bring in planning legislation to have solar panels on new buildings and even encourage retrospective installation.
Councillor Thomas thanked everyone for their support and stated that in accepting the amendment she still wanted projects to come forward but it was a question of working together to reach a compromise and this motion was a starting point.
On being put to the vote the motion was carried.