Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) Order 2025

Monday 24th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Prayer to Annul

17:46

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

That a Humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) Order 2025, laid before the House on 11 February, be annulled, as it damages the democratic accountability of local authorities to local residents, and has not been subject to full and proper consultation (SI 2025/137).

Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I was going to pause for a moment to see how many people flooded out; how nice it is to have your Lordships all here.

I thank the Minister for taking the time to discuss and explain the Government’s thinking on this decision to postpone some elections for at least a year. The promise to reorganise local government was in the Labour Party’s manifesto, but the method to be used was not, so this statutory instrument is not delivering a manifesto promise and therefore this House is well within its rights to vote against the proposition.

It is always a bad idea to cancel elections at the best of times, and this is clearly not the best of times; in fact, one could say it is the worst of times. We have more cuts to services at the moment than we have had for some time; they are already on their knees. We have council taxes going up again as people pay more for less. Local government is in a bit of a state, so I do not see the common sense in delaying elections and then starting them up or running them a year later with a plan to allow the current councils to devise the next move towards reorganisation. People have a right to vote—that is what being in a democracy means—and the timetable is set out and understood by the general public, so changing that seems a little unprincipled.

It is hard to think of anything less democratic than cancelling elections ahead of a significant change in local democracy; it is straight out of an authoritarian playbook. Creating a devolved mayoralty by cancelling county council elections just seems odd—in fact, nonsensical—and again is undemocratic at the very least. This rushed decision means that voters will not have the chance to have their say on new councillors for at least a year. That means that the councils that have delayed elections do not actually have a mandate to do the reorganisation that the Government are asking them to do. Voters should be able to decide which councillors will have the opportunity to plan for the new structure. Local political parties ought to put such plans into their manifestos for voters to see and vote for or against.

A lot of people who could potentially vote in May in the postponed elections will now be denied the chance to protest, complain and elect people who have a different vision of how their area should be run. I am told by a councillor in East Devon District Council that the council has already begun acting in line with the proposed reorganisation, despite no public consultation taking place due to an alleged lack of time, which is something that we have heard from the Government as well. Decisions have therefore been delegated to unelected officers and executives, raising clear concerns about democratic accountability and statutory obligations under the Localism Act 2011. In addition, the councillor admitted that neither councillors nor the electorate have a clear understanding of how this organisation will work or even what it will be, yet actions are being taken regardless. It seems that local authorities are already acting under the influence of centralised restructuring before it has even been democratically validated.

Is it really for the Secretary of State to select which elections can go ahead and which cannot? Does it not set a dangerous precedent to allow a Secretary of State to make these decisions? It is not a national emergency like Covid, when we understood why elections were postponed and which justified that decision. Do we accept that, for whatever good reason the Government think, the Secretary of State can disrupt the election cycle and delay elections to a convenient time? That is more than authoritarian, it is almost Trumpian—and I have to ask, is it legal? Earlier I consulted a member of the Bar, who is not in his seat. He said, “Oh, it depends”, which is probably what I should have expected. This fatal Motion would green-light the postponed elections to go ahead. But Labour have tabled this vote at the last possible moment on the last possible day so that the Government can now say to us, “It’s too late to go ahead”.

We are going to have mayoral elections next year, in 2026; I understand that the delayed elections will all be held then. Can the Minister reassure me that all delayed elections will be run next year? Then, in 2027, the new shadow principal authority will be elected. Again, this is quite fast. I understand that the Government promised this and therefore they need to move fast, but I am very concerned about the democratic processes here. Can the Minister confirm that this means that some councils and some councillors could be in post for three years beyond their original mandate?

There is also the problem of this being not about devolution at all but about making it easier for the Government to liaise with fewer stakeholders—that is, mayors. This is sucking power upwards and is not devolution at all. It is about the Government making life easier for themselves and giving local people less say in what happens in their local area.

Strategic planning decisions will be taken out of the hands of people who know the area and given to the mayor, who could take decisions against the interests of local residents. This is a reason not to rush into postponing elections. I am concerned about whether there has been an assessment of whether this arrangement will save money. Will it improve efficiency and support social cohesion? Will it give local people more access to knowledge and decision-making? If there is a report or an assessment, I am curious about who wrote it and when. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers, but clearly what is happening is not democratic. On that principle alone, I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I have relevant but not direct interests as a councillor and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Elections are the bedrock of our democracy and should not—indeed, must not—be cancelled. Some 5.6 million people are being denied the right to vote this May in elections to seven county councils and two unitary councils. The critical question is, why have the Government agreed to such an anti-democratic measure? The Secretary of State’s justification is that the Government have what they are choosing to describe as an

“ambitious programme of local government reorganisation”

and devolution that will eventually see the demise of councils based on historic counties and the abolition of district councils. In their place will be unitary councils with a population of 500,000, making them much larger than any of the London boroughs. Some yet-to-be-agreed combination of councils will then elect a single person, a mayor, with considerable powers on, for instance, strategic planning—as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—where the mayor will be able to allocate land for development without the agreement of residents.

The nine councils with cancelled elections were assessed by the Secretary of State to be more prepared than most in their reorganisation plans, and that therefore it

“would be an expensive and irresponsible waste of taxpayers’ money”

to hold elections

“to bodies that will not exist, and where we do not know what will replace them”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/2/25; col. 767.]

However, in a meeting with the Minister it became clear that the reason for elections being cancelled is that the first step in consulting residents and interested parties had begun in February and would continue until April during the election period. This, rightly, was not acceptable. The option that does not seem to have been considered was to delay the elections until June. That has occurred in the recent past, on more than two occasions, and would both accommodate the need to consult and enable a new mandate to be given to decision-makers.

Furthermore, the cancelled elections will apparently take place in 2026, when it is expected that there will be elections for a new mayor and councillors to the county councils, which will still exist, and district councils. That is the advice we have been given. County councils and district councils will then make decisions on the geography of new unitary authorities. A new mandate from the electorate is therefore absolutely essential before those decisions are made, and not after—which is what will happen if these elections are cancelled.

Had we had elections, it would have had the benefit of alerting residents to the major changes being proposed, and getting their views direct to councillors. They would have been able to elect those they agree with and not elect those they do not agree with. That wide discussion is obviously not seen to be desirable by the existing council leadership—who called for the cancellation of the elections—and the Government.

It is on this particular aspect—the discussion element of this decision—that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has raised concerns and drawn them to the attention of the House. The first of these concerns is about the extent and depth of the opposition to the cancellation of elections. The committee is highly critical of the Government for having failed to provide a response to the issues raised. Can the Minister provide a response—which should have been given to the concerns raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—to the House before this vote is taken?

Surrey County Council is the exception to the situation I have described, because the reason for the cancellation of its elections is due to the dire financial state of some of its councils—one in particular has debts of more than £1 billion. The Government are enabling the county council, which is also in debt, to push through a reorganisation against the will of the districts. This is a democratic disgrace.

The Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is deficient in its statement, in that it fails to mention the substantial purpose, which is the reorganisation and devolution plans of the Government. It is most unfortunate that the noble Baroness was unable to agree to a single Motion to Annul that had been the subject of a tentative agreement last week. If the noble Baroness puts her Motion to a vote, we on these Benches will abstain, in favour of voting for the stronger and more comprehensive Motion in my name.

18:00

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, has tabled a regret Motion. I understand the intent and recognise the concerns about democratic accountability and the consultation process. However, we cannot fully support her Motion as it simply does not go far enough in defence of democracy. Although the convention to which her party adheres is not to support fatal Motions, it is not one that is absolute, as her party has voted on several occasions on fatal Motions in the past, including one on London elections. I urge the noble Baroness to make an exception today and support the Motion to annul. Democracy delayed is democracy denied.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I rise to express deep concern over this statutory instrument, which marks yet another step in the Government’s rushed approach to local government restructuring. While we continue to support meaningful devolution that enables local communities to thrive and prosper, we are concerned about the process being followed and the sweeping changes being imposed top-down on our local authorities. Quite simply, devolution should be locally led, and these measures are not. We believe that no council should be coerced or pressured into restructuring by a top-down diktat from Whitehall. It is wrong for the Government to adopt a divide-and-rule approach to local government.

I turn to the effect of these measures. This statutory instrument is not just a procedural shift; it is a clear manifestation of the Government’s top-down approach to restructuring local government, with little or no consideration for local consensus. We are particularly concerned about the unprecedented delays—up to three years—and the prospect of existing councillors serving up to a seven-year term. The Government’s decision to bypass any public consultation on this is a significant failure. I ask the Minister: why were the public not consulted on these changes? How can the Government justify proceeding with such a major overhaul without having meaningful engagement with local communities first?

Local councils themselves were given a mere deadline of 10 January 2025 to submit expressions of interest for restructuring, with no further opportunity for public consultation or engagement with those who will be directly impacted by these decisions. The entire exercise has been rushed: from the publication of the devolution White Paper to a minimal feedback period of only four weeks, which included the Christmas break. District councils were never properly consulted either and residents have not been asked for their views. Local government experts have warned:

“We are dealing with the worst white paper for local government in living memory and one which treats it with cavalier disregard”.


That was from the “Local Authority” podcast of 26 January 2025. Will the Minister please respond to what I consider to be serious concerns?

We have heard that this statutory instrument claims to postpone the May 2025 elections, yet this is far more than a postponement. We believe it is an outright cancellation for these councils—specifically, East Sussex, Essex, Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, Norfolk, Suffolk, Surrey, Thurrock and West Sussex—all under the guise of the devolution priority programme. Can the Minister provide a clear timeline for these new elections, including county, unitary, district and mayoral elections, taking into account any changes to ward boundaries?

While I am on the subject of boundary changes, the long-term implications of such changes are a matter of great concern. As we move forward with the creation of new authorities and the restructuring of local government, the role of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England will be crucial in determining how these changes are implemented. Will the Minister outline the timetable for these boundary changes? We need to know when the Local Government Boundary Commission will begin its review and how long it will take to finalise the new boundaries for the affected councils. If she cannot answer today, please will she write to me with all those details?

Can the Minister also provide any assurance that the Local Government Boundary Commission’s recommendations will be made publicly available well in advance, allowing local councils, residents and other stakeholders to fully engage with and review the proposed changes before they are finalised, as has always been the case? Without clear communication and ample time for consultation, we risk a lack of transparency and fairness in redrawing the boundaries.

Given the concerns I have raised today, some noble Lords may be wondering why I have tabled a regret Motion and not a fatal Motion, such as those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Pinnock. We are the Official Opposition and there is a long-standing convention under successive Governments of all colours, and recognised by the major parties at least since the 1950s, on the constitutional relationship between the two Houses of Parliament. It is the responsibility of the House of Lords to scrutinise and, where appropriate, revise legislation—and, ultimately, to respect the will of the elected House. But that does not detract from the concerns I have raised today.

While we all want to work collaboratively with local government to ensure that these changes are beneficial for our communities, the current process has been rushed and lacks the necessary consideration of local views and the needs of local communities. We urge the Government to pause, reconsider the pace of these changes and offer a clearer, more structured plan that involves local authorities and their residents in shaping the future of what is their local government.

If the fatal Motions fall, I shall be testing the opinion of the House on my regret Motion.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I support this Government’s plans for devolution. For years and years, the local government map has needed to be changed. That is a fact, but no Government have attempted to do it for many years.

Changing local government is not an easy task and requires political parties, and of course local authorities and the Government themselves, to look further than just at their short-term political advantage, so that England can enjoy a modern and effective local government system that has real power and influence, while taking some of the power away from the centre. This takes time and I commend the Government’s approach. The matter before the House today is of importance, but I really do not think that it is an attack on the principles of democracy. Those who say it is are mistaken.

I will make one further point before I sit down. The Government have proposals that had to be put in by 21 March—last week. They want and need time to consider them, and to come up with views and proposals themselves. I think that will be by the end of the year. It is one of those proposals that I want to talk about.

I want the Government to consider, when they make their proposals, something that, if acted on, will put right what I consider to be a serious mistake, or accident, that occurred many decades ago in the 1970s in England. Some noble Lords will remember the dividing up of English cities into metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. Very sensibly, many cities had their boundaries increased so that they could accord with reality. They could have the space and the geographical diversity to offer their residents all that a city should, including space for new housing, green spaces and facilities of all kinds.

Examples of metropolitan cities which were properly extended include Leeds, Bradford and Sheffield. However, the non-metropolitan cities were not so lucky; their boundaries remained precisely the same. In many cases, these are boundaries that are now over 100 years old. This has led to city boundaries sometimes being totally artificial, with nowhere to build up housing. Any reasonable person using their common sense can see how ridiculous some of the boundaries are for cities at present. I should add that I have been a police and crime commissioner for an area that had unitary authorities, a county council and district councils. I have also been a local councillor in both a city and a district.

Leicester is a classic example of a non-metropolitan city at that time that suffered, as others did, from the ridiculous decisions taken in the 1970s. Its present boundaries are genuinely ridiculous. It is one of the most tightly constrained cities in the whole United Kingdom. Its boundaries have remained largely unchanged for 100 years. It has no chance of delivering, for example, the extra housing that is vitally needed. The population density is enormous compared with the cities I referred to that were lucky enough to have their boundaries extended. The figures speak for themselves. In Sheffield the population per square kilometre is 1,200 people. In Leicester, the population per square kilometre is 5,000 people. That is totally wrong.

I make these points in this debate because the Government will have to make their decision on issues such as this when it comes to the right time to make those decisions. I want to give the Government a chance to make the right decision as far as cities and other parts of local government are concerned. That is why I think the Government deserve our support tonight.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, there are times when it is entirely appropriate to postpone elections. Such times include during a wartime emergency; we postponed general elections throughout the Second World War. We also postponed local elections following the outbreak of the Covid pandemic in 2020. But there are at present no such extreme circumstances and, hence, I believe, no democratic justification for the postponement of the right of people to choose their local representatives according to the timetable previously agreed by both Houses of Parliament.

I mention both Houses of Parliament in this context because this House is in a unique position in relation to the postponement of elections. While all other legislation can be subject to the Parliament Acts, no government majority in the House of Commons can force the postponement of a general election without the specific consent of the House of Lords. That constitutional protection is to prevent the abuse of power by a party with a majority in the other place changing the rules of democratic engagement.

18:15

There may be many reasons why this Government do not want there to be many local elections in May. There may be many reasons why some Conservative administrations do not want elections in May either. But fearing electoral consequences should not take away people’s right to vote. Without it, people will not have a say on issues such as the effective abolition of many local councils and their replacement by new authorities covering far wider areas and with great power vested in a single person.

I am sometimes asked what my view is of local government in this country. I believe that we should try it. I am grateful to Professor Tony Travers of the London School of Economics for pointing out to me that there are about 18,000 councillors in the UK—a figure soon to be reduced significantly—while in France there are 36,000 councils or communes. The UK is often cited as the most centralised government in the western world, notwithstanding the post-1999 constitutional settlements.

Do we, in an unelected Chamber, have the right to say no to this? I believe that powers across both Houses cover general elections, but there are also more recent precedents concerning other levels of elections. My noble friend Lady Pinnock referred to the London mayoral elections of 2000, when the then Labour Government decided they wanted to bring in the London mayor and assembly elections but without the provision of a candidate’s election address in the traditional way. This House, with the support of Conservative Peers, considered this to be a significant abuse of power. Those elections were not allowed to take place until we had changed the rules to make them fairer.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, referred to the precedents for saying no—for fatal Motions—in these circumstances. I remind her and her colleagues of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in his report on statutory instruments in 2015:

“Since 1968, a convention has existed that the House of Lords should not reject statutory instruments (or should do so only rarely)”.

The occasion in the year 2000 was one of those rare occasions, when I was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Several fatal Motions have also been carried out by this House on other occasions. I consider this to be an appropriate occasion for this House to say that Governments should not be allowed to postpone elections at the last minute in this fashion.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

We need a sense of perspective. I am a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which drew this statutory instrument to the attention of the House, primarily because we thought the Explanatory Memorandum was inadequate and did not answer a number of the questions that had been raised. I do not recall us discussing in the committee whether democracy was in danger.

Two points seem to me to be relevant. First, 18 councils sought a postponement of their elections. It came bottom-up from the councils; it was not a postponement imposed by the Government. These were postponements sought by the democratically elected representatives of the people.

Secondly, only nine of the 18 secured government agreement to the postponement of their elections, so the statutory instrument concerns only nine. Clearly, then, if this is the rights of the people being denied by the wicked Government—by the Ceausescus of the Front Bench—clearly, we are looking for the Trotskyite regimes that run the councils of East Sussex, Essex, Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, Norfolk, Suffolk, Thurrock and West Sussex. It does not feel like that to me. I do think we need to retain a sense of perspective and I would vote against both fatal Motions.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, but let me just point out to him that politicians do not want elections when they know they are going to lose, and they like elections when they know they are going to win. The fact behind this decision is that, despite the Conservatives’ regret Motion, most of the councils that are postponing their elections are Conservative-controlled. They know that they had a very good year in 2021—an exceptional year—and that they were going to lose control of most of the councils that had elections this year. Sadly, with Labour in government, it knows that its vote is going to be difficult to get out and it has concerns about how well it is going to do. We know we did quite well and have to accept that.

The top-down model that the Conservatives were talking about—in respect of the reorganisation of local government—is actually pretty much the model they had in government, for what they were going for. Their main motivation is that they would lose against the results in 2021. In my area, there are no elections in Surrey, Sussex and Hampshire. I understand that the Government want their reorganisation, but I think they could have either postponed the consultation a little bit by a month or two, or, indeed, arranged that the elections should be held in June, a month or two later, after the consultation.

I will give you the example of my own patch of Hampshire. We have big financial problems in Hampshire. The Conservative-run county council has a deficit coming up of £183 million next year. It wanted to put council tax up by 15% and asked the Government to put council tax up by that much. A lot of the problems go back to their Government, because they did not provide the money, but that is the reality in Hampshire. We are going to end up, in Hampshire, as a result of having no elections, with a fag-end county council, which I would say is unrepresentative, having to impose pretty severe cuts on services when it knows it probably will not exist in three or four years’ time. Probably, in our patch, we will have no elections until 2027 or 2028, unless the Government promise we will have county elections next year. If we are going to have county elections next year, we might as well have had them this year.

There are three conclusions I draw. One is that it is better to have elections this year than wait for possible elections in 2027 or 2028. I think the Government should declare whether we are going to have elections next year or, if there is a reorganisation, whether we are going to have a further extension of councillors’ remit, so that they will have been in power in the county council for seven or eight years by the time we get around to having elections.

The second thing that is really important is that, for God’s sake, we must sort out the finances of these councils. Southampton is Labour-controlled and Hampshire is Conservative-controlled, and they are frankly in deep, deep trouble. If those problems are handed over to a reorganised Hampshire local government organisation, it will not succeed. That is why we need reform, but we do not benefit that reform by getting a postponement of the elections. Unless the financial situation is sorted, reorganisation in my county of Hampshire will not get off on the right foot. We will have all the local authorities in that area blaming each other for the fact that it is not going well, and trying to push the financial deficits on to each other. It will be a disaster.

Let me just give your Lordships a bit of hope, which I hope, by having elections, we might see. Southampton, Hampshire and Farnborough in the 1930s were the Silicon Valley of the United Kingdom. We had a very successful aviation industry, with the invention of the Spitfire; Farnborough was also a big centre of research and Southampton was one of the main ports to America. The Blitz and the war led to a lot of those industries moving north or to the south. What we need in our county is a well-funded series of unitary authorities and a mayor who will lead us back to that growth that we want and which the Government want.

However, we are not going to do it if we start off with unrepresentative councils as a result of elections being suspended. The county council is hugely unrepresentative now, because it had an exceptionally good year in 2021 and will probably be in power for six or seven years through this period. The county council is going to be leading some of the discussions on reorganisation in Hampshire, and that is the problem. We want to start with representative councils and do not want to postpone the elections.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, it is a funny thing when the unelected House of Lords has to regret the cancellation of elections. Democracy is the foundation stone on which the fabric of our nation is built. It is not to be carelessly discarded and requires the most careful consideration. I accept that general elections are far more important than most, but local elections are not any less valuable in shaping the local doorstep issues that people value the most in their towns, villages and cities. I am a councillor, and a veteran of many local elections, so I know more than most how they keep councillors on their toes, and refresh and reinvigorate those councils.

I accept that elections have been cancelled before—under the Local Government Act 2000 and in special circumstances such as Covid or foot-and-mouth. Those are truly exceptional circumstances, mostly in cases of national emergency where all elections in all areas are cancelled, but that is not the case here. We are not cancelling elections in an emergency, where Section 87 of the Local Government Act 2000 is engaged. No, this is a case of devolution and local government reorganisation, where, last week, the Minister in the other place could give no assurance that the process would be complete even in this Parliament, by 2029. Time is clearly not of the essence, so what is the rush today?

When the Secretary of State wishes to move the local government deckchairs around the deck, Parliament has determined the process to be followed in bespoke legislation: Section 7 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. It lays out in excruciating detail the particular processes, statutory tests and consultation requirements that must be engaged before elections can be cancelled in local government reorganisations. I am grateful to the Library for all the research it has done on this.

The Government say that they are following the precedent set in 2021, when Somerset, Cumbria and Yorkshire were reorganised, but they are wrong, and I will explain why. Back in 2021, the process started in October—fully seven months out from the proposed elections. Back then, all principal authorities and other interested parties were invited to make proposals. Those proposals resulted in the number that came forward, and Members of Parliament and the public were fully engaged. Later that February, the Government expressed a preference in a well-defined timetable and laid orders and cancelled the elections, following the process established by the Labour Government in 2007.

Let us contrast that with this time. This time, the majority of the cohort of principal authorities were excluded from the discussions, as the Minister will know. Only about 30 of the 200 or so principal councils affected by the proposals were engaged before the Secretary of State made her decisions. How does she justify that? Invitations were circulated to those 30 or so councils, mostly the county councils, to endorse the concept of a mayoral devolution, with carrots—nods and winks—to agree that they would cancel their elections. There was no public consultation. Consider for a moment the conflict of interest in asking the councils facing elections whether they would like to cancel those elections without asking the other principal authorities what they thought of the idea, to say nothing of asking the public what they felt. In January, 18 of the councils wrote to say that they would quite like to dispense with those elections in exchange for a connivance on the mayoralty and, oh yes, early LGR.

I am reminded of my noble friend Lord Pickles, who is no longer in his place. He told me, as a young council leader, “If you don’t trust the folks, don’t go into politics”. So in February, when the Secretary of State said that nine of them had got lucky, if that is an appropriate phrase for denying electors their democratic right, it was announced that their elections would be cancelled. You have to feel for the 10 that were suckered into asking for cancellation but got the mayor anyway.

The Government have wilfully conflated two separate, albeit linked, ideas: devolution and the creation of a mayor; and LGR and the abolition of councils. We were told that the population size for the new councils would be at least 500,000, with no upper limit. We now learn from the Minister that the figure is between 350,000 and 500,000, with the possibility that 500,000 may just be the average within a territory. The 30 councils that connived were misled and entered into the process on a false prospectus. They were suckered. Councils and mayoralties are different. You do not speed the creation of one by cancelling elections to the other. That exposes the dishonesty of the Government’s approach and is why we are right to regret their actions.

18:30

We find ourselves debating this on 24 March. By law, the publication of notice of election must be made tomorrow. You have to admire the way the Government have run down the clock on this. The Secretary of State said that the rationale for cancelling this year’s elections hinged on the fact that it would be pointless to have elections for councils that could just be abolished a year later. But next year, on that timetable, there will still be two years to go to 2028, so unless those elections are cancelled on that basis, councillors will serve, as the noble Lord has said, an unprecedented seven-year term. In what universe is that acceptable? What assurances can the Minister give, on the record, about not cancelling next year’s polls as well? By her reasoning, there may be better justification to cancel then than cancelling now: at least the public would have a chance to have their say on the devolution opportunity before their plans become a done deal. Or is that the real plan?

When all is said and done, we have ended up in a situation where the Secretary of State has picked and chosen the elections she would like to avoid, and then only in those areas where, to party advantage, it has been expedient for Labour. For there is to be no reorganisation in London, or in the failed Birmingham authority where the rubbish is piling up in the streets, or in Manchester. There are more councillors within the M25 than in all the county councils of England, and Labour is using all this to create a permanent, structural metropolitan bias in the way our country is governed, extending its war on the countryside to the fabric of our constitution.

The Minister has previously pointed to a PwC report that suggests that all this will make significant savings, but of course that is not how it has worked out in Somerset. I am fresh from chairing the Local Government Pension Scheme this morning, and I can tell the House for the first time that that PwC report makes no allowance for the pension strain costs of all these reorganisations and the astonishingly eye-watering pension strain costs that will allow senior local government officials to take retirement on a full pension at either 55 or 57 on efficiency grounds. I heard today that additional pension strain could easily be £500,000 per person. In their haste, the Government are sleepwalking into a billion-pound pension strain black hole entirely of their own making.

Most of all, it will not save any money for the ratepayer. The counties and districts, the most efficient and local parts of government, will be merged, but then a new, more remote layer is being applied on top, with towns and parishes that were unconstrained on revenue-raising remaining. The Government are moving too quickly, and local people will pay for this devolution sleight of hand that will see us moving from three value layers to three expensive layers, while taking the electors for fools and playing fast and loose with democracy. I am not against local government reorganisation, but the Government need to remember that all the orders for their plans must pass through this place and, once bitten, this House will be twice shy.

My heart would like to support the fatal Motion and, had it been more prompt, there would have been strong reasons and precedent from 2000 to do so, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said, but I am conscious of the conventions of the House and, importantly and practically, that elections must be called tomorrow. It is too late to cancel them now, not just for the parties to get their candidates in place but for the officials who need to book the village halls and staff the count. So I will support the regret Motion, but my biggest regret is that it was, for the most part, my Conservative councillor colleagues who turned into the biggest losers, by conniving with Labour on their own destruction while allowing the Labour Party to pick and choose the elections it does not want to fight.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support the spirit of all three of these Motions and I especially commend the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Pinnock, for making their Motions fatal. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, reassure us and tell us, in effect, not to worry our pretty little heads and to stop panicking—he did not use that language, I am. It was then interesting that there was quite a lot of laughter on the Benches opposite; there is this sense of, “What is all the fuss about?” I suggest that this is not a game and it really matters for voters. There is a lot at stake here, not least the reputation of the democratic process.

For the last week or so, Government Ministers have talked about a fictional drama as though it is factual evidence, concluding that a Netflix series should inform policy on countering the radicalisation of young boys, so maybe the Government will accept my factual, if anecdotal, evidence of how the cancellation of council elections is fuelling the radicalising of young people to become cynical about democracy. I was recently giving a talk to a student group about the importance of democratic engagement to a free society, and I was taken aback by just how cynical they were. The majority said, “Democracy is a sham”—that was the popular sentiment. I was even more surprised when their evidence centred on councils, not something that the young generally chat about. One of them summed it up when he said, “They cancelled the Romanian presidential elections and banned the popular candidate from standing. Now our Government have cancelled the council elections because they are scared that austerity Labour will get a drubbing”. Whether we like it or not—and I argued against that slightly conspiratorial tone, by the way—we can see why they might draw that conclusion.

Beyond those young cynics, there is a lot of anger about this issue. Five and a half million people feel that they have had their votes cancelled and they feel cheated. It is being discussed in workplaces, in the pub, on phone-ins and on social media. People will say things like, “There are challenger parties doing well in the polls. They don’t want to see how they get on”. There is a certain volatility around politics at the moment and people want to make their views heard. People are frustrated that, for example, just when voters are facing council tax rises and horrible cuts in local council services, they do not get a chance to comment locally. In rural areas, where those on family farms are so worried about recent policies, so worried that their livelihoods are going to be destroyed, they do not get a chance to vote. We have been told that these are being postponed for only a year, but a lot can happen in a year: in less than a year, some devastating policies have been brought in by the Government that people might have a view on. That will be true as well, so I would rather that people were given a vote, even if then they had to have the election again, than just be told, “Don’t you worry, you’ll get a vote eventually”.

Local issues matter to people. If noble Lords were listening this morning to the discussions on the media about rats as large as cats and the bin strike in Birmingham, they will have heard people passionately talking about what is happening in their local area. We have to understand that people want their voices and their views to count, and many feel robbed by this decision. They do not want to be fobbed off by technical excuses about the importance of devolution and somebody at the top making a decision that will give them more democracy at some time. They are basically being told that voters’ access to the ballot box should be trumped by a policy reorganisation. Also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, suggests, it seems to make a mockery of the notion that these devolution changes will bring more accountability.

The lack of consultation mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Byford, is especially egregious. Although I have a lot to say on devolution, on these devolutionary forms and their shortcomings, now is not the time and I will not say it now, but I think it would be wrong for the Government not to at least note that people feel that this is a contemptuous disregard for voters’ aspirations to exert their rightful right to vote for or vote out politicians as they choose, as they expected to. They are disappointed and many people are actually looking at parliamentary TV, for once, to see which way we go today. Who would have thought that that would happen? But there you go.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire who is not participating in this process. I speak in support of the regret Motion tabled by my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. As chairman of the Local Government Association, I campaigned vigorously for greater devolution, and I am still very supportive of devolution. I also led a unitary council for 10 years and can testify to the benefits of unitary councils. However, if we are genuinely to have devolution and well-run services, it needs to be locally led, with real powers and local accountability. We cannot treat local government as little more than a delivery arm of central government, tied up in regulation, with budget controls and with central targets and funding pots.

When this country saw the biggest improvement in health, education, social support, infrastructure and so forth, it was all locally led. If you go back to the turn of the 20th century, local government was truly empowered, delivering education, health, social care, social support, infrastructure and even gas and water supplies. It was genuinely financially independent of central government. Over the last century, central government has steadily eroded the role of local government, placed more controls and reduced its financial freedoms while increasing burdens on local councils.

I am a believer that form should follow function. We should see real devolution which would enable genuine financial independence from central government, with a much greater role in economic development, community health, education and skills for getting people back to work; this would enable every area to flourish with real levelling up. This is what the Government should have started with, because locally we could have then answered the question of what would be appropriate structures to deliver this. It would also significantly reduce local argument as the prize and objective would have been clear to all.

Instead, we have top-down reorganisation. The Government have been clear that they intend to use their large majority in the other place to force through unitarisation and have mayors across the country. There is a clear message that funding will be tight, so councils will have to make significant savings, which the Government expect to be delivered by unitarisation. It is understandable that, in these circumstances, many councils have concluded that it is better to participate in order to have some control over their destiny and potentially some meagre rewards, rather than be done to by government diktat.

So I have sympathy with those councils that, due to the need to meet a government-imposed timetable, asked for a delay in their elections. But it did not need to be this way. The Government could and should have worked with local government. They should have brought forward real proposals for real devolution with a clear timetable that respected the democratic process. They should have brought forward proposals to address some of the biggest issues in local government, such as social care and SEND. They should have looked at how, by addressing the perverse incentives, the blockages in the system and creating genuine local place-based working, these could have been addressed.

You cannot look at local government reorganisation without looking at, for instance, the healthcare system and how that works. But, no, this Government are favouring imposition over co-operation, avoiding the difficult decisions and not delivering real devolution. That is why I will be supporting by noble friend Lady Scott’s Motion to Regret.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, that has been a really interesting debate. I understand and I have listened to the concerns around the Chamber. The Government have been very clear on our manifesto commitment to widen devolution to more areas. We have been clear on our vision for a simpler, more sustainable local government structure, alongside transfer of power and funding out of Westminster through a devolution process. We have been clear on our willingness to take all the appropriate steps needed to deliver this vision, working with councils to fix the foundations of local government and support communities to join the devolution revolution.

18:45

The noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Pinnock, asked why the public were not asked. As they both stated, however, this was a manifesto commitment, so they were consulted in the general election about the fact that we need a reorganisation of local government and a devolution agenda. The English Devolution White Paper set out the scale of our ambition for a programme of local government reform and a mayoral devolution on such a scale that we believe this is a once in a generation reform. We will not miss the opportunity to deliver these benefits to people as quickly as possible. So, we have taken this step to help those areas which have expressed their firm commitment to deliver to the most ambitious timeframe.

In our White Paper, we were clear that strong, decisive and collaborative leadership locally will be met with an active partner nationally. We were also clear that we would take decisions to postpone local elections where this would help to smooth the transition process. We will follow through on these commitments and we will not miss this opportunity to deliver the benefits of mayoral devolution and fit and stable unitary local government to the people we serve as quickly as possible.

We have taken the step to make this order to help those areas which have expressed their firm commitment to deliver to the most ambitious timeframe. We are now working with those areas to prioritise, in parallel, the steps necessary to develop plans for new unitary government. We are also consulting widely on the proposals to establish the new mayoral authorities in time for the May 2026 mayoral elections.

If successful, the fatal Motions would impact councils’ ability to deliver on the mayoral elections in 2026 and deprive the people in those areas of the powers and funding that they should have. It would not be possible to do this at such a pace when also holding the 2025 local elections in those areas. Councils were invited to make their case, and we considered requests for elections to be postponed until May 2026 only where it was clear this would be necessary to deliver the significant amount of work needed to unlock devolution and deliver reorganisation to the fastest possible timescale.

I must stress that decisions were taken on the basis of local requests to free up capacity to take the practical steps needed. These steps include public consultations from 17 February through to 13 April in affected areas and working towards delivering elections to new mayoral strategic authorities in May 2026. The local engagement is needed to develop detailed proposals to establish strong and stable unitary councils that are fit for the future.

I can therefore assure noble Lords that the Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) Order 2025 is essential to allow this first wave of an ambitious programme to be delivered. This order grants permission for postponement for 12 months only and is only for the nine councils whose requests met the high bar we set. These areas have demonstrated the clear and strong local leadership and ambition that is needed to drive forward this programme to these timelines. The Government will get on with delivering what areas need, including taking the difficult decisions that are needed.

I turn now to some of the comments made by noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, mentioned the manifesto commitment. Our commitment was to deliver devolution to the fastest possible timescale. Our manifesto was explicit that the Government would seek to widen devolution to more areas, and we are now seeking to deliver our manifesto commitment to the fastest possible timescale, which requires these election delays.

Both the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, also referred to local government’s financial situation, and it is that very resilience and financial stability in local government that make this kind of reorganisation essential now. Of course we must sort out the finances; we made a start this year and we will continue that work in the spending review looking ahead.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, said that what we need is well-funded unitary authorities and mayors. I totally agree with him. The quicker we can get that moving, the better.

A fatal Motion would be an unprecedented step by the House of Lords. Similar election delay SIs were laid by the previous Government, with no fatal Motion from the Lords or the Commons. These Motions undermine the convention of the primacy of the Commons and the principle of delegated powers, which have been previously used, as set out in primary legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, Lady Jones and Lady Scott, referred to divide and rule, in relation to the local request for postponement. Ministers wrote to all areas following the publication of the White Paper and acknowledged that, for some areas, the timing of May 2025 local elections would affect their planning, particularly for those keen to deliver to the most ambitious timeframe. We have been very clear that the bar for postponing 2025 elections was set very high and would be permitted only if it could help deliver both reorganisation and devolution to that most ambitious timeframe—unlocking, importantly, the opportunities that will bring for local people in those areas.

In response to the Government’s letter of 24 December, 18 councils made requests that involved postponing their elections. Nine requests were agreed and the councils have had their 2025 elections postponed until May 2026. I will go into more detail about the timetable in a moment.

I have never been described as either Ceau escu or Trotskyite before. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred to the Trotskyite regimes of Sussex and Essex and urged us to have a sense of perspective. That is very important and I am grateful for his comments and his clarification of some of the comments of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Of course, we take those seriously.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, mentioned that county councils were involved in this. I have met with all the groups that are concerned and they have very much been working in collaboration with their district councils. It has been really good to see the way that this has brought about local governments working together. County councils were consulted about the postponement because they were their elections: that is quite straightforward. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, mentioned that. Of course, it has to be local government reorganisation and devolution going hand in hand. The two work together for that.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

Does the noble Baroness accept that, under Section 7 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act—which governs local government reorganisation—it is a statutory requirement that all principal authorities are engaged with? By that I mean not just the county councils but all the districts, upper tier unitaries and so forth—not the parishes but the principal authorities. Does the noble Baroness further accept that only 30 or so of the 200 or so councils that should have been consulted were actually consulted?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will answer the noble Lord’s point further in a moment. Following a question he asked me earlier, I checked the legal requirements, and my understanding is that all the legal requirements have been met in this process.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, Lady Jones and Lady Fox, raised the issue of democratic accountability and elections. To clear up a point, there are no elections postponed in Devon. I do not know whether that was raised with the noble Baronesses, but elections are not postponed in Devon. Nothing is being imposed on local areas. The commitment to join the devolution priority programme and the emerging proposals for new unitary councils were all bottom-up. All requests for election delays to unlock reorganisation and devolution to the fastest possible timeline followed direct requests from the leaders of affected upper-tier councils—not the Secretary of State, as was stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.

Devolution and strong councils with the right powers mean that hard-working councillors and mayors can focus on delivering for their residents. That will strengthen the democratic accountability of local government to local residents. Postponing this small number of elections will enable mayoral devolution to be delivered in parallel with reduced timescales, so that working people and communities get those benefits—the powers, funding and freedoms—far more quickly, with mayoral elections and elections to new councils increasing democratic accountability, not reducing it.

We do not agree that there is a lack of consultation. We are consulting now in eight of these council areas on mayoral devolution, and we have asked councils to engage widely as they develop their proposals for reorganisation. Once a proposal has been submitted, it will be for the Government to decide on taking a proposal forward and then to consult, as required by statute. Some 13,000 people have responded to those consultations already, so people are engaging with the process.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the timetable. I think there has been some misunderstanding, so I will cover this. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked for clarity on the timetable, and I understand why she would want that, as did the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, Lady Scott and Lady Fox, and the noble Lords, Lord Stoneham and Lord Fuller. The starting point is for all elections to go ahead, unless there is strong justification. In May 2026, we intend that mayoral elections for new strategic authorities will take place, alongside those district and unitary elections already scheduled and elections postponed from May 2025. For any area in which elections are postponed, we will work with areas to move to elections to new shadow unitary councils as soon as possible, as is the usual arrangement in the process of local government reorganisation. For areas in the priority programme, this will mean mayoral elections in May 2026, alongside and in addition to the rescheduled local elections. We will work with areas to move to new shadow unitary elections as quickly as possible.

Postponement is essential for the delivery of the devolution priority programme, with inaugural mayoral elections in May 2026 and complementary reorganisation. We have no plans to postpone district council elections in 2026; we intend these to take place as scheduled, alongside elections postponed in 2025. The date of any unitary council elections will depend on the nature of proposals for local government reorganisation and progress on the development of those proposals. They are moving on different timetables.

On the issue of strategic planning, raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Pinnock, local plans will still be the responsibility of local authorities. Strategic planning at mayoral level will inform that planning, not replace it. It is done at mayoral rather than national level, so this is increasing devolution, not reducing it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made a point about saving money. We have had a PwC report, which set out the opportunity for areas undertaking reorganisation to achieve efficiencies when moving to a single unitary structure. In fact, North Yorkshire Council, established in 2023, expects to achieve more than £40 million in savings by March 2026. There is precedent for significant savings.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned Surrey. This single-year postponement is intended to give local leaders the time and capacity to plan for new structures, with local leadership in place until after the full reorganisation proposals have been submitted. We agreed to delay elections in Surrey to expedite local government reorganisation because of the perilous financial state of some of the authorities in that locality. The Government are getting on with delivering this.

All two-tier areas have been invited to develop proposals for reorganisation. I am delighted to confirm that every single area, comprising councils of all political stripes, has responded to the invitation to reorganise and submit an interim plan by 21 March. A Written Ministerial Statement has been laid before the House today, setting out the details.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked about the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I think the noble Lord, Lord Khan, probably replied better than I could on this. In response to her question about the date, we do not have powers to delay a date; we can delay only the year, not the date. It would require primary legislation to postpone until June.

The noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Fuller, raised the issue of precedence in postponing elections. Between 2019 and 2022, the Conservative Government legislated to postpone 17 local council elections for one year and cancelled a further 13 elections as part of legislation giving effect to unitarisation proposals, with the latter having the effect that the elections did not take place, as the councils were abolished. All local elections scheduled to take place in 2020 were subsequently postponed, of course, because of Covid. I could go into further detail, but I will not take up noble Lords’ time.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, raised the issue of boundary review. I am very happy to write to her further on the timetable. On the process for local government boundary review, I know, because we have just gone through it in Stevenage, what a thorough process that is. There is no intention to curtail the process of extensive consultation as we go through this process.

My noble friend Lord Bach referred to the process of devolution and the need for a modern and efficient local government system, and I agree with him 100%. We have had three decades of delay in moving this forward, so to noble Lords who said this is rushed and hurried, can I just say that it does not feel that way to me? I have been in local government for 30 years, and we have been trying to do it for all that time. In relation to the English cities, for councils which have not already been part of a reorganisation process, if those areas feel it is appropriate, they will have submitted those changes in their plans or they will be working them for the second stage of planning.

19:00

The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, spoke about his view of local government being that we should try it and see if it works. But local government without powers and funding is not local government at all. My budget was cut every year for the 16 and a half years that I was a council leader. No councillors go into local government to cut services. By reorganising them, we can give them the powers and funding they need to get on with the job.

The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, asked a question about pension strain. I do not have the answer, but I will reply to him on that point. In response to his question about what is the rush, I refer to my earlier comments.

To the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I say it is a bit of a stretch to blame local government reorganisation for fuelling the radicalisation of young people. However, I take her comment seriously because it is a serious issue. In my local elections in May, we had more young people coming forward to be councillors than we have ever had. For young people to be engaging in local government, it must be meaningful, and the opportunities of the new role in the newly reorganised local council present fantastic opportunities for young councillors, and I hope that they will step forward for those.

The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, commented that the best improvements are locally led. I totally support that; he is right. But the biggest erosion of powers and funding we have seen was over the last 14 years. I just point out that his local council was one that was, and remains, keen to take part in this process.

The Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) Order 2025, which is the subject of the Motions laid by the noble Baronesses, and which was laid on 11 February, is essential to delivering our Government’s commitment on devolution to the fastest possible timetable. It will get powers and funding out to serve the people that we all serve. I hope that the Motions will be voted down this evening, and I urge your Lordships to join us in doing that.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, on the question of the manifesto and devolution, I do not think it was very clear to communities or individuals that “devolution” also meant local government reorganisation.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I hear the noble Baroness’s view, but the councils that have come forward feel that they need that reorganisation to enter properly into the devolution process. If we are going to get powers and funding out of this bit of Westminster and out to the areas, that elected representation at local level is key.

The Motions put forward by the noble Baronesses would be an unprecedented step by the House of Lords, with serious constitutional and practical consequences. The Motions undermine the convention of the primacy of the Commons and the principle of delegated powers, which have been given in primary legislation granted here and have been previously used in this way. All appropriate steps were taken, and both process and precedent carefully followed.

A vote to agree with these Motions for Annulment at this stage, the evening before the last day by which elections must be called, would throw areas into chaos, damaging the safe running of those elections and confusing the live consultations that are under way, in which we are receiving significant public interest, with, as I said, over 13,000 responses already. The people engaged believe, as we do, that the order is in the interests of the people we all serve. The Motions would slow down the delivery of the benefits of mayoral devolution and strong unitary local government to those areas. It is these Motions, not the order they object to, that are damaging to local democracy. I urge you in the strongest terms to deny them.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I forgot to mention that I am also a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. A lot of issues were raised and the Minister has given a very full answer, which I am sure I will read with great interest in Hansard tomorrow. Clearly, she and the Government will be held to account on that.

It seems a little mean to accuse us of bringing this so late to your Lordships’ House when actually it is the Government’s timetable that we are operating to. We had no choice. The fact that it is 7 pm on the night before is not our choice; it is the Government’s choice to do it, so the Government have made it too late to do this.

There is also the fact that Labour has completely changed the meaning of devolution. What is happening is not devolution; it is actually sucking power upwards. My Motion is not about devolution but about the way it is being done. I think that is deeply undemocratic, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, had to say about it. I am quite disappointed that the Conservatives, His Majesty’s Opposition, could not vote for a fatal Motion. I did use their wording in my fatal Motion to encourage them, but clearly that did not work. If the Government are wrong—on this side of the Chamber we all agree that they are wrong—surely we want to draw that mistake to their attention. They are making a terrible mistake, and if we are not going to draw their attention to something like this now, when are we going to do it?

I also regret that the Liberal Democrats did not reach out before tabling their Motion. That is a real shame. I am not known for my powers of compromise, but I am, I think—I hope—known for my principles, and I would have done my best to come to some agreement. The Liberal Democrats did not attempt that, so to me what they are doing now looks like game playing, not a principled move. Surely a fatal Motion is a fatal Motion, and whether you vote for mine or for theirs, it does the same thing: it draws attention to the fact that many of us are not happy about what is happening. We care about local democracy, not game playing.

Affected councillors and residents do not have a vote here, but we do, and there are times when we really ought to use that vote for the common good. I feel that is not happening this evening. I hate to waste the time of your Lordships’ House, despite the fact that it is only 7 pm—it is not even my bedtime yet, and I go to bed very early.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Too much information!

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Who said that?

I do not play games and I vote on my principles, so I am going to withdraw my Motion. I will vote for the Lib Dems’ Motion, but I am appalled at their behaviour this evening and I think it will come back to haunt them.

Motion withdrawn.