Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) Order 2025
(6 days, 11 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) Order 2025 (S.I. 2025, No.137).
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Hobhouse. The postponement or cancellation of local elections in pursuit of local government reorganisation is a subject that has been much debated on the Floor of the House, and indeed, is a debate that has played out in the media. The Opposition have some concerns about the decision being made, and I will briefly summarise the reasons for that.
As Ministers have said repeatedly, the practice has been to postpone and cancel local elections where doing so is necessary to facilitate the reorganisation of local government. The practice has applied since the Local Government Act 2000, and it has been followed by Governments of all parties. We have concerns, however, about the messages that have gone out suggesting that these elections are merely to be postponed, and indeed, that is the substance of the Government’s proposals.
We know that the intention, as has clearly been set out—this was certainly our intention in government when dealing with this matter—is not merely a postponement for a 12-month period but that these elections will be cancelled, so that new local authority structures can come into being. We would not elect a council that is about to be abolished in 12 months’ time, but we might hold elections for the new local authorities that would come into being, and the new elected mayors who would serve those local government areas.
Clearly, that process is one in which there needs to be a degree of input, perhaps from the boundary commissioners or the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, in order to ensure that effective democratic representation is in place before those elections occur. That practice was followed, for example, with the reorganisation of the Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire councils during the previous Parliament.
At present, there is a lack of a clear timetable for local authorities. Members of Parliament and local residents in those areas have expressed concern that, while they understand the rationale for reorganisation, they want to know confidently when they will have the opportunity to cast a ballot to shape the political direction of their new local government representation.
The Opposition have set out a degree of concern that, contrary to previous practice—where local authorities were invited, if they felt it appropriate, to bring forward proposals—in this case, the drive for the proposals comes from Whitehall and the Ministry, and it is to a template that has been set out by Government on the likely size and population of the local authorities.
We are concerned that there is not a clear plan for how the reorganisation of local government will interact with other legislation that either has been passed or is making its way through Parliament, including the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which began its passage last week, and the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. All of that will have a significant impact on the organisational role of local authorities. Other legislation, particularly the envisaged wholesale reorganisation of planning in England, will also require significant input from local authorities if it is to work effectively. That lack of clarity is a significant concern to us.
Finally, I have two questions that I am sure the Minister will be able to answer, the first of which is about the treatment of vacancies that arise. The order sets out a process whereby elections that have already arisen, but which would have normally been postponed until the occurrence of the regular cycle of elections, will be required to be held between the order coming into force and a date in May. However, given that the postponement is part of an undoubtedly longer period, one issue that clearly arises is that it is likely to lead in due course to the cancellation of those elections, so how will vacancies be treated beyond that period? I am sure that the Minister has an answer, but it would be helpful to know what will happen if local authority by-elections cannot go ahead outside the period that is specified in the statutory instrument.
The second issue is the specific decision that the statutory instrument envisages for Thurrock, where elections are postponed until 2030. Clearly, that is a long time, and it would be helpful if the Minister set out the thinking behind that particular decision. What are the benefits to the residents of Thurrock of having those elections postponed until 2030?
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Ms Hobhouse. As the Committee knows, the Lib Dems are unhappy with the decision to cancel local elections in May. We think it is a denial of democracy. I have concerns about two specific things.
The first relates to the examples that have been given of other places where elections have been postponed: Somerset, Cumbria and places like that. In such places, that was discussed and decided at a local level over quite a long period. A number of options were discussed with local people, consultations took place, a lot of data went around and there was to-ing and fro-ing between local areas and Government about which option would go forward. At the end of that, the Government took a decision that some people liked and some people did not. Decisions about who to vote for were made on that basis.
In this case, the voices of local people have not been heard at all. Neither at the general election last year, nor on the last occasion that those people had the chance to vote, was this even a twinkle in the Minister’s eye. We knew that mayors were coming, but we did not know that local government reorganisation was. Therefore, those people have not had their chance to express a preference for this type of reorganisation. This case is therefore different. That is the main reason I have concerns.
On my other concern, I have a question that I hope the Minister can answer. I am aware that some wobbling is going on already in at least one of these areas. If there are any wobbles, or concerns that these reorganisations are not ready to go for an election in May 2026, what will happen? If this is indeed a delay of a year and the new authority is not in place for elections in any of these places, so an election takes place in May 2026 on what is currently there, the Government will have undermined their values, because people will be electing something that they are about to abolish. I am not convinced, given that there has been no consultation, that there is a guarantee that every single one of these reorganisations will happen and every one of these councils will be ready to go by May next year.
For those reasons, we will oppose the statutory instrument, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments.
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Hobhouse. This Government have been clear on their manifesto commitment to widen and deepen devolution across England. We have moved at pace to realise the benefits of devolution for more people in more places. However, a lot of change is being undertaken at the same time. That requires focus and capacity. We have been clear on our vision for simpler, more sustainable local government structures and the transfer of power out of Westminster through the devolution revolution. Taken with the work being undertaken to fix the broken audit system, introduce a new standards regime and rewrite the local government funding formula so that it truly takes into account needs and resources, we are doing the hard work of rebuilding—not simply returning to what was there before, but using a new approach that is both efficient and more effective.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I note that, in his helpful statement released two days ago, my hon. Friend made it very clear that core to the Government’s approach is ensuring that there is a starting point, which is
“to support and empower local leaders and to respect their knowledge, expertise and insight.”—[Official Report, 24 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 25WS.]
That listening approach was also in evidence in the comments that he made to the District Councils’ Network conference, where he stated clearly that the 500,000 figure was potentially an “average”. Does he agree that the clarity that bids of significantly below 500,000 are acceptable is useful for smaller cities that are engines of economic and housing growth but which have populations significantly below the 500,000 mark?
Jim McMahon
We have tried to strike a balance between answering the demand—the fact that all 21 counties have submitted to the interim phase is testament to the support in the system for this—and finding enough of a framework at a national level so that areas know what to report to, while building enough flexibility to take into account that England is very different in its construct and make-up. There are huge variations between urban centres, rural communities and coastal communities. In forming local authorities that have a clear anchor that can be understood and respected by the local community, we have to allow for flexibility in that system.
The statutory invitation that went out was clear that that means population sizes of 500,000 as a starting point, but we have been clear with the County Councils Network, the Local Government Association and the District Councils’ Network, and in trade press interviews, that we will see a range. Some will say that the mid-300,000s is right for them, and we are seeing some city districts looking at moving their boundaries outwards. But others will say, “Actually, our county does not have that characteristic—we haven’t got that city anchor or coastal issue that might be present elsewhere—and we think the best option for our place is maybe 600,000 or 700,000”.
We want to be flexible enough to take into account local representations as we receive them. Our working assumption is that when all that balances out, we will end up with an average of 500,000, but who knows? We need to see the submissions that come in, but flexibility is important, and it challenges the idea that this is a top-down, mandatory system of uniform councils that all look the same, regardless of local circumstances. It is not that. It is very important nationally that we give the framework and direction—and we have done that—but this is about co-operation and partnership. I appreciate that that point has been picked up on.
We have been clear about our willingness to drive forward to deliver this vision, and to work with local councils to support communities to fix the foundation of local government in delivering that ambition. Alongside the English devolution White Paper, I wrote to all places in the 21 areas inviting them to express a clear commitment to delivering to the most ambitious timeframe, and to flag any requests for a delay in elections to take place.
Where authorities made such a request, we have judged it to meet a very high bar that was rightly set, and we have kept our commitment that clear leadership locally would have to be met with an active partner at a national level. We have taken the necessary decisions to postpone local elections where it will help to smooth the transition process and deliver the benefits of mayoral devolution, supported by strong and stable local government reorganisation as quickly as possible. We are now working with those areas to prioritise in parallel the necessary steps to explore the establishment of new mayoral authorities in time for the May 2026 mayoral elections, and to deliver plans for new unitary local government.
On devolution, public consultations are already under way, running from 17 February to 13 April in these areas. More than 12,500 responses have already been received in that process. We are getting on with delivering reorganisation as well. All district and county councillors in the two-tier areas, and their neighbouring smaller unitary authorities, were invited, and I am pleased to say that every area—comprising of councils of all political stripes—has responded to the invitation to reorganise. They shared with Government an interim plan containing updates on their thinking about options for creating new unitary councils. The response demonstrates without doubt the groundswell consensus from communities that change is overdue and needed. Earlier this week, I made a written statement setting out the details of this, providing parliamentary transparency and supporting the commitment we made to ensure there was active reporting during the course of the process.
Local engagement with Members of Parliament, public sector providers, residents and other key local partners will now be led by the councils as they develop detailed proposals to establish strong, stable unitary councils that are fit for the future. This order is essential to allow the first wave of this ambitious programme to be delivered. It grants postponements for 12 months only, and only for the nine councils whose requests met the high bar we set.
We are extremely clear that these decisions were made on the basis of local requests to free up capacity and enable the practical steps needed, which would not be feasible so quickly if the 2025 local elections went ahead in those areas, for reasons that are self-evident. These areas have demonstrated the clear and strong local leadership and the necessary ambition to drive forward the programmes to the timelines that the Government have set out to deliver for those areas, including taking the difficult decisions that are needed.
Let me address the points that have been made. I sense that a lot of the debate today has picked this process out as being unusual in English local government, but it is not. Members will know that between 2019 and 2022, 30 sets of elections were cancelled: 17 to allow preparatory work for local government reorganisation, which is what we are talking about here, and 13 as part of legislation to allow the unitarisation process to take place after the proposals had been submitted. So this is not unusual; it is a natural part of the cycle to free up capacity and enable those proposals to be developed— I can go through the list, and provide the details in writing.
But I do think we need to be careful here. First of all, we absolutely believe that this is the right thing to do, and that is not because we have an ideological view about how local government should sit. All the Members in this room are here because we care about local government and local communities, and we cannot have a hand-to-mouth funding regime where local government is just not sustainable. We have to find a solution that really fixes the foundations, and this is one small part of that—there is a lot more we need to do—but it is important. If we did everything else but not this, it would just not hold together. I think that it would devalue—I will be honest and direct about this—the work that local leaders have put into this at a local level to build consensus and show leadership. I am not talking about exclusively Labour leaders; in many areas, they are Conservative, Liberal Democrat or independent. We have a collective responsibility to at least mirror the leadership that they have shown across political parties in the interests of their communities, and to reflect that here in the national Parliament. I do not think that is too much to ask.
Vikki Slade
For clarification, I do not think we would object to the process or intent of reorganisation— I have been through it as a local leader, but the process was quite different. I am thinking about the suddenness and the shortness, and my concern is about consultation in advance of the decision to take this particular route. When Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole and Dorset were merged in 2019, I think the process started in 2016, and then went through a local referendum in one place, which actually said, “No, thank you.” That went ahead anyway, but the decision was taken after a period of consultation. I ask the Minister to reflect on whether local consultation in advance of a decision to cancel an election would have been a better option, had time allowed.
Jim McMahon
To be clear, there is not time to do that. In the finance settlement this year, I think we have done a good job in building a bridge to the multi-year settlement, but it is only a bridge. That does not answer the fundamental, underlying questions that are leading to the financial vulnerabilities of local councils.
We have had a cash injection—£5 billion of new money is not insignificant—and it has made a significant difference. Introducing £600 million for a recovery grant gets the money to areas that need it most. That is reflected in the fact that we have not had a single section 114 notice issued as a result of financial distress. But let us be clear: 30 local authorities needed exceptional financial support through the budget process, so a lot of work is required here.
As we move to the multi-year settlement, we have to reconcile reorganisation within the lifetime of the three-year multi-year settlement, so that at the end of the settlement, the transition has been completed, the funding has been settled and all councils in England are on a firm footing for the future. Had we waited, we would not have achieved that, and we would have allowed the reorganisation to go beyond the multi-year settlement. I think that would have provided more uncertainty for a system that is quite fragile at the moment, when actually, it needs certainty and direction. We are not doing this because we are gung-ho, but because we believe that these structural reforms are needed and necessary.
I absolutely believe not just in consultation, but in collaboration and co-operation. That is about how ideas and proposals can be co-produced. It is for local areas to do that. There will be a statutory consultation on the proposal, and that will happen as a matter of course. But in the end, it is for local areas to make sure that they are having those local conversations and are coming forward to the Government with proposals that mirror what the local desire is, within the art of the possible. I have confidence that local leaders have that shared commitment, too.
This order, which was laid on the 11 February, is essential to delivering the Government’s commitment on devolution and reorganisation to the fastest possible timescale, for the reasons that I have set out. The order was made using delegated powers, which have been given in primary legislation granted here, and have been previously used in the same way. All the appropriate steps were taken, and both process and precedent were carefully followed. Nothing is being imposed on local areas—the Government are committed to the devolution priority programmes, and the emerging proposals for the new unitary councils are, by their nature and result, bottom-up. All requests for election delays to deliver reorganisation and devolution to the fastest possible timeframe follow direct requests from local leaders of the affected councils.
Devolution and strong councils with the right powers will mean that hard-working councillors and mayors can focus on delivering for their residents on a stable financial footing. It will strengthen the democratic accountability of local government to local residents. A final point that I have not covered is the ordering of by-elections that will take place. The guidance will set out that by-elections will be dealt with in the usual way; they will not be affected by this order.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Hobhouse. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a local councillor.
I have just a few comments. The delay in elections for these local authorities was not really a choice for them; it was a mandate from Government. The Government’s White Paper set out their expectation for all two-tier areas, regardless of their personal views, to move to unitary structures. The Minister said that 21 areas have replied to the Government’s letter in support of that move, but the Government’s letter was intended to make them come forward with proposals. The Government have quite clearly said, “If you do not come forward with proposals for your area, we are going to do this to you.” They will introduce a managerial direction within the White Paper.
Jim McMahon
I think it is important that the record reflects the actual situation. First, there was no mandating, because this is about postponing elections to allow reorganisation; it is not about the reorganisation process itself. To be clear, 18 councils applied to have their elections postponed and we agreed to nine, because not all met the high bar that we have set. Also, to be clear, 24 of the 33 elections that were due to take place in May 2025 are going ahead as normal.
Lewis Cocking
I thank the Minister for his intervention. However, if the Government’s White Paper sets out their expectation for two-tier areas to reorganise, those two-tier areas do not have a choice. They either get on that train and do what the Government are telling them, or they wait by the sidelines and get forced to do it by the Government. This is definitely a top-down approach, not bottom-up.
The decision to delay elections should not be taken lightly. Other Members have touched on this, but nine councils have asked for delays in elections because the Government are making them reorganise. What happens if they are delayed for longer than 12 months? When we were last in government, three areas were done over three years, so the Government are very ambitious in doing nine.
If we are to believe what is in the news about a 15% reduction in the civil service, how will the MHCLG cope and get those nine councils done within a year? As has been alluded to already, how will the MHCLG get consensus within the local area, and how will it take those councils through that process of reorganisation? The process should be thought about over a longer period of time, rather than rushed through over 12 months. I have concerns that some of these elections, which we may agree today should happen in a year, will actually need longer.
I also have concerns about what the Boundary Commission will do with these delayed elections, and its capacity to draw up new boundaries for whatever authorities come forward. We have touched on the half a million population figure; but I have seen very little evidence to show that that is an appropriate figure for a new authority. The Minister’s own authority is well below half a million people, so I do not understand where the Government have got that number from—I think they have just plucked it out of thin air.
Lastly, it has been suggested that, when we go through this process, there will be loads of money for local government, as local government will save millions of pounds. I ask the Minister to comment on this: Somerset council has gone through reorganisation to a unitary structure; it has asked the Government to increase council tax bills by 7.5%, which was accepted, yet it is still in financial difficulty. So if reorganisation is the answer to all of local government’s problems, why do we have a council that has just gone through the process still asking for extra money, and still in financial difficulty?
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I think my hon. Friend will find that the problem, of course, is that Somerset is run by the Liberal Democrats, and run very badly.
Vikki Slade
Actually, the Liberal Democrats took over after a long time when the whole area had been run by the Conservatives, and so picked up a complete car crash.
Lewis Cocking
The area is under Liberal Democrat control now, and they have gone for a massive council tax increase of 7.5%, even though when the Prime Minister launched his local election campaign he said everyone’s council tax would be frozen. I will leave that there.
When we talk about the millions of pounds to be saved through local government reorganisation, we need to be very careful about the figures we use, because that is not the answer to all the local government questions. We need to look at population size again, and really I want the Minister to comment on capacity in the civil service. If we managed three areas over three years with strong local support, how will the Government be able to do nine within 12 months—having elections and making sure all the structures are in place—and what happens to people’s right to vote in those areas, if it goes on for longer than 12 months?
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Hobhouse.
I would be delighted to invite the Lib Dem leader of Somerset council to elaborate on the condition in which he found the council when he took over, if I thought that the hon. Member for Broxbourne wished to read it; I suspect he would not.
I thank the Minister and the Government for some things, such as for including the districts in the final invitation to participate in this process. I thank them for not allowing Devon county council in its outrageous attempt to stop the elections in Devon, knowing that 66% of the existing Conservative councillors now intend not to re-stand. I wonder why they wanted to stop the elections. They put forward a proposal that had no consensus across Devon whatever. I also thank the Minister for the multi-year settlements that are in sight, stopping the hand-to-mouth and “Hunger Games”-type funding that has been the scourge of local councils across the country.
I am, however, very worried about the timescales, the volume of work and the cost of the work required of local councils. I am particularly worried about what might happen with the projected 2027 elections if the timescales are not met. Will the Minister clarify the dates that we are looking at in this process? Which are fixed and which flexible? How will the process be managed as we go through, and should we not meet the fixed dates that are set out so far? What will happen with multi-year settlements for councils that are not involved in this first phase of reorganisation? Can we expect to see those coming through sooner rather than later, please?
Jim McMahon
All those are fair questions. On the timetable, there are in effect three tranches. The first tranche is Surrey, which is being brought forward because there cannot be devolution as a single county unless we do the reorganisation and create a combined authority after that. This is fairly well covered, but it has quite significant issues of debt that need to be reconciled as part of that process. Surrey has 9 May as the deadline for its final proposals.
Areas that have had their elections postponed are in the devolution priority programme. They have until 26 September to submit their final proposals. All other areas have until 28 November to submit their final proposals. I will just say that there is sufficient time. Surrey is clearly the exception, and that is an accelerated timetable by agreement with the local authorities in that area—we will ensure that adequate resources are provided to meet that challenge. For all other areas, however, we believe that there is sufficient time. I should also say that the difference between September and November as the end date takes into account the election period, recognising that the preparatory work that would take place otherwise would not take place then.
Martin Wrigley
The issue with most such situations in the past has been not only a short period of time for councils to respond, which they typically have managed to do, but the prolonged period of radio silence once those responses have been sent to Government. Can the Minister assure us that the Government will respond quickly to the proposals, so that councils can get on with them?
Jim McMahon
We absolutely understand that that gap of silence can be undermining to the process. Even conflicting advice or information allows people to fill in the gaps or exploit the situation. Clarity is needed. I think we have done that. Whenever we have brought a statement to the House, it has been extremely well attended. I think that the two on this issue have run for more than an hour, in terms of parliamentary interest.
On the interim proposals, the deadline was on Friday and we submitted the written statement to Parliament on the Monday; we submitted that the minute that Parliament reconvened. So we do want to ensure that that communication is there.
We will marshal departmental capacity. We are speaking to the LGA, to the County Councils Network and to the District Councils’ Network, and we appreciate the leadership that they have shown. They have been quite challenging in their representations at points, but I think they have done an excellent job in reflecting the on-the-ground reality back to us, and we have appreciated that.
On the areas in scope, we have provided an additional £7.6 million to enable proposals to be developed, so it is not a financial pressure entirely on local government to do that. We want and expect, in some areas, that they will have a unified proposal that they can rally around and for which there is broad support, as that would make everyone’s lives easier. We also live in the real world and understand that there may be different views on what a good outcome is. I think that is legitimate, and it should be allowed for in the process. The Government’s role at that point will be to take a view on the proposal that best meets the criteria set out in terms of efficiency, sustainability and, importantly, identity, as having that local anchor is a very important part of that too. With that within the process, we can take into account the range of different views.
I have covered the population size issue, in terms of that being a starting point. That does not mean that it is the end point for every area; but we do not want to reset that number. I can guarantee that if we were to say, “Right, it is not 500,000 any more; it is the mid-300,000s, and that is the new starting point,” I would get a queue of councils asking, “Can we have a conversation about the mid-100,000s?” That completely undermines the principle for doing local government reorganisation and takes us back to square one. Having a starting point that can be flexed, with some give—I think going to the mid-300,000s is give, but let us see, given that the other way is give too—is where we need to be.
Even though this SI of course deals with the election postponement in these county areas, district council elections will follow, and with a fair wind—I accept there is a way to go yet, and we are still in the consultation phase, which is important—they will also have mayoral elections in those areas for the first time. For the first time, they will actually be able to receive further powers and further budgets from central Government in a way they have not before. So, this should be welcomed. For democrats in the room, this is additional democracy, accountability, freedoms and flexibility, which is genuinely rewiring the way that we govern England. It is long overdue.
David Simmonds
I will not detain the Committee for long. There has been quite a rich debate—unusually so for a Delegated Legislation Committee—a lot of which has focused on some of the politics and the structures around local government reorganisation. I think the intervention from the right hon. Member for Oxford East was a good illustration of that. The proposed footprint for the new local authorities has been a key subject of debate, and we know that the Treasury clearly has one view about that, and I suspect that the Ministry has a slightly different one.
Certainly, historically, 300,000 was seen as about a reasonable minimum, broadly reflecting the size of London boroughs, for example, which are unitary authorities; but clearly a move to a larger footprint is an opportunity to spread the overheads over a greater population area. However, it remains a significant challenge for authorities that are coming forward, where they may be happy to consider a footprint of 300,000 but 500,000 does not work for them, and the Government and the Minister will have some significant challenges taking that forward, with his task of unitising local government in England by the end of the Parliament.
Turning to the specifics of the instrument before us and how we got here, again I have some sympathy with the Minister’s point that the invitation was sent out, and it was very clear from the outset that the first step was an invitation for those who were willing; but for those who were not initially willing there would be a statutory invitation—an invitation you can’t refuse—to come forward with proposals for local government. I think that justifies the concern expressed by a number of Members that there is a significant top-down element to this.
However, in order to deliver that process, the key thing that we are—and remain—concerned about is that, in this case, the Minister is a little bit boxed in by the legislation that says that this instrument will postpone these elections. He took us through a list of actions by previous Governments such circumstances, and described, in all of those examples, that those were about the cancellation of those elections—those elections would not take place any longer. This instrument merely postpones these elections. I think it is the clear understanding of all the local authorities on this list that they will not hold elections to their local authorities ever again because they are about to be abolished through the process of local government reorganisation. Exactly as the Minister has described, cancellation is about those elections never being held again because some new local government structure will come into being at some point.
However, the instrument says to all those local authorities that their local elections are expected to go ahead on the due date in 2026—that the election is merely postponed in Essex and the other local authorities listed. While I absolutely support colleagues in local government who have said, “We accept that this is going to be done to us whether we like it or not—we need to make the best of this opportunity,” and there is logic in coming forward in the first tranche, the legal implication of what we are being asked to decide is that those elections will take place, but at a point when the abolition of those local authorities is even closer than it is today. That does not seem to be a good choice for us to make.
There should be a clear and structured plan, so that residents understand not just that they are losing the right to vote that they had hoped to have in Essex, or wherever it may be, this year, but that elections will take place to those new structures; so that they can see that they will have the opportunity both to exercise the democratic right that they enjoy and to shape the new structures as they come into being. Those are the reasons that we find ourselves here today.
Question put.