(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Government have sown confusion and imposed unnecessary costs upon the taxpayer by cancelling local elections, only to reinstate them weeks later and then seek to distance themselves from the consequences. What was presented as a firm and settled judgment has unravelled in short order, leaving uncertainty in its wake. That matters, because it is not an isolated U-turn or rethink or change of position; it joins a growing catalogue of reversals, each compounding doubt and carrying a financial price.
Stability in public administration is the foundation upon which local authorities plan, candidates prepare and citizens place their trust. Against that background, it is important to recall how we arrived here. The original decision to cancel these elections was taken by the Secretary of State. He defended it repeatedly in the other place, and the Minister defended it consistently in your Lordships’ House. In the press, the Secretary of State went so far as to describe the elections as “pointless”. Yet what was so confidentially asserted has now been undone.
Two issues now arise. The first is constitutional. Does the Minister accept that there should be strict limits upon the power to delay or disapply elections outside the most exceptional circumstances, such as war or public emergency? If she does, then, in the context of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, will she urge her colleagues to reflect upon the sentiment of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and those in my name, which would limit the power of the Secretary of State to cancel elections by secondary legislation and constrain the power to alter the timings of local polls? It is notable that members of the governing party voted down those safeguards in the Commons.
The second issue is practical and goes to the heart of delivery. Local government is already navigating a demanding programme of reorganisation. Councils are restructuring governance, staffing, finance and service delivery. To remove and then abruptly restore elections in the midst of that process has inevitably diverted senior officers and members from their primary duty, which is the delivery of services to their residents. In other words, reorganisation requires focus, discipline and clarity. Instead, councils have been drawn into administrative uncertainty, legal contingency planning and accelerated preparations at short notice. That is not without consequences. It absorbs scarce managerial capacity and risks delay to the very reforms that the Government profess to champion. If community empowerment is truly the objective, one might expect the Government to strengthen local capacity rather than burden it with unavoidable disruption.
It is precisely because there are constitutional and practical consequences that your Lordships’ House is entitled to transparency on the costs of all this. Can the Minister therefore inform the House of the full costs of this regrettable sequence of events? What have been the expended legal fees on wasted preparation and the emergency arrangements that are now required to conduct elections at short notice? What support is being provided to local authorities required to shoulder these additional burdens? There is talk of £63 million, but is this on top of the already agreed election costs? Has an assessment been made of the impact upon council capacity and service delivery, and if so, will it be published?
The same need for clarity applies to the Government’s approach to election pilots. What is their present status? How many councils that initially indicated they possessed the capacity to participate later informed the department that they did not any longer have that capacity?
Taken together, these questions point to a wider uncertainty. Where does this leave the Government’s much-heralded program of reorganisation? Confidence in reform depends upon steadiness of hand and clarity of purpose. If Ministers will not answer fully and restore transparency, then we feel that serious reflection is required at the highest level. I would suggest that that is not at Secretary of State level, as he has been the person responsible for this unnecessary mess.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, here we are again with a topic we have discussed and debated in different forms several times. I will do my best not to simply repeat the points made previously, particularly as it seems like each time we return to this topic, it is messier and more expensive. Although the outcome in the end is welcome—that all elections will be going ahead in May, as should originally have been the case—I think we can all agree that the route by which we have got here is a highly undesirable one. Therefore, having read the Statement that we are considering this evening very carefully, and having read Hansard for the debate on Monday in the House of Commons about the Statement, I have three particular questions for the Minister.
First, in that debate on Monday, the Secretary of State was asked whether, in the light of the latest legal advice and the Government’s current understanding of the legal situation, the Government believed that the cancellation of elections last May was legal. The Secretary of State was asked that direct question and chose not to answer it. We can all speculate why, but I hope that the Minister will be able to clear that matter up by giving us a direct answer on that.
Secondly, having looked at the reasons the Secretary of State gave in the Statement for cancelling elections, I think that they do not sit easily with what he wrote in the article published in the Times newspaper ahead of the consultation closing on potential cancellations. The Statement that we are considering this evening says that the cancellation of elections,
“should only ever happen in exceptional circumstances”.
That is a sentiment with which I suspect we all agree. But in the article in the Times newspaper, the Secretary of State said:
“They want pointless elections, Labour wants to fix potholes”.
The existence of potholes in need of repair is absolutely not an exceptional circumstance. It is a frustrating daily reality. It is really hard to see how one can reconcile the Secretary of State’s comments about wanting to fix potholes with the claim that these are exceptional circumstances.
Moreover, the Statement we are considering goes on at some length about how the Government were listening and consulting. Again, however, looking back at the article in the Times newspaper, published before the closure of the consultation over elections for this May, we see that it kicks off right from the very first sentence with a very clear steer that the Secretary of State thought that cancelling elections was a good idea. It goes on to make that point repeatedly in the succeeding sentences and paragraphs. So, given that that article, published before the close of the consultation, could be seen both to have prejudged the outcome of the consultation and to have given different reasons for cancelling elections than those considered in the consultation—all of which potentially would result in some legal issues about the validity of the decision—I wonder whether the Minister could again clarify matters by letting us know if the Secretary of State’s comments, both in that Times newspaper article and elsewhere, were a factor in the change in legal advice being given to the Government about the legality of the cancellation of elections.
Thirdly, turning to perhaps a more positive aspect, I absolutely welcome the comment in the Statement that the Government are willing to think again—particularly in the context of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I am sorry: the phrase is that the Government are “reflecting carefully”, which I hope means “thinking again” as well, about the amendments that have been tabled, such as by myself and by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about the powers and the circumstances in which elections might be cancelled in the future. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to tell us whether those reflections will be carried out involving a degree of cross-party discussion. Will they be carried out in time so that, if the outcome of those reflections by the Government is to decide that changes to the law are appropriate, we can do that on Report of that Bill?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their questions and comments on the Statement. Your Lordships have now heard in full the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in the other place, and the House has raised a number of thoughtful and serious points about process, legality and democratic principle, which I appreciate.
I wish now to draw together the key arguments and restate clearly why the Government acted as we did, in answer to the questions that I have been asked, and why we have now changed course. First, as noble Lords will know, this sits in a much wider programme of reform. The Government are determined to fix local government through a fairer funding settlement based on need, through devolving power out of Whitehall and into the hands of local leaders and through reorganisation designed to deliver stronger, more sustainable unitary authorities and better services for residents.
It was in that context that the original decision was taken, and the Government were guided by two clear principles. First, the postponement of elections should occur only in exceptional circumstances. I repeated a number of times in this House that it would be only in exceptional circumstances and only where there is compelling evidence-based justification. Secondly, as a Government committed to devolution, we should be guided by local leaders themselves. Following extensive engagement with councils in the areas concerned, a number from across the political spectrum expressed serious anxiety about their capacity to run elections while simultaneously undertaking structural change. They warned of duplication, uncertainty, additional cost and the risk of impeding the reorganisation process at a critical phase.
On the basis of those representations and on the legal advice then available, the Secretary of State concluded that statutory tests were met in 30 cases. An order was therefore brought forward using powers provided by Parliament that had been exercised by previous Governments in comparable reorganisation contexts. However, as is entirely proper, the legal position was kept under review and further legal advice was subsequently received. At that point, the responsible course was clear and the proposal was withdrawn.
After reconsideration, the conclusion was that elections in the affected areas should proceed as scheduled in May 2026. A further instrument has been laid to give effect to that decision. I recognise, as the noble Lords have said, and as our friends in the other place said, that this has been a significant change for councils, and it will of course mean some additional pressures for them in making sure they are ready for elections. That is precisely why the Government acted swiftly once the new advice was received so that clarity could be provided as early as possible. We are working very closely with returning officers, suppliers, the Electoral Commission and sector bodies to ensure that elections are delivered safely and effectively.
Local authorities have a strong track record of administering polls within compressed timeframes—as I know only too well from my experience—including snap general elections and by-elections, and we are confident in their ability to do so again. At the same time, our focus remains firmly on supporting reorganisation itself. Last week the Secretary of State announced up to £63 million in additional capacity funding—to answer the comment from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott—building on the £7.6 million previously provided to develop proposals. That is substantial support, and no previous Government have provided dedicated capacity funding for reorganisation on this scale. This funding is there to help councils manage both the transition and service delivery sustainably. We will continue working hand in hand with councils across the 21 reorganisation areas to progress toward unitarisation. As has been made clear, subject to Parliament, for Surrey there will be elections to the new unitary councils as planned this year.
Noble Lords also raised the question of ministerial powers over the timing of local elections, and both the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Pack, asked me a specific question about the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. As the Secretary of State set out in his Statement, our Bill provides an opportunity to look again at the statutory framework, and the Government are reflecting seriously on the amendments tabled and the concerns expressed by noble Lords. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Pack, we will do that as quickly as possible. Reforming local government is not optional. Councils are the front line of the state; they shape whether communities feel they are thriving or falling behind. The public are entitled to expect better local services, and rightly so.
When we received the legal advice, the Government acted swiftly. I do not pretend that this has been easy for the councils concerned—I spoke to many of them—and nor do I dismiss the disappointment that has been expressed, but responsible government requires that when the legal position changes, we respond accordingly. Elections will go ahead in May 2026. Reorganisation will continue, and we will proceed in a way that upholds both democratic accountability and the long-term sustainability of local government. I hope I have picked up the noble Lord’s questions as I have gone through.
On the election pilots, as far as I know, only one council has pulled out of the pilot, but for a reason that has nothing to do with reorganisation and is a specific local issue. If that is not correct, I will respond to the noble Baroness in writing.
On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Pack, about last May’s election, there are legal powers to cancel elections. Each situation is taken on its merit. I do not have any detail, and I could not give legal detail because this year’s is privileged information, so I do not know what the difference is.
On prejudging the outcome in a Times article, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pack, that the Secretary of State, other Ministers and I received many representations from councils about the possibility of cancelling elections, so it may be that the Secretary of State was reflecting on that rather than prejudging the extensive consultation that we carried out.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we now move on to a maximum of 20 minutes of Back-Bench contributions. The key is Back-Bench and we want questions, not speeches. This is set out at point 6.7 in chapter 6 of the Companion.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, the Minister referred to the powers. They come out of Section 87 of the Local Government Act 2000. In its present form, those powers have existed for more than 25 years. Custom and practice and advice have been consistent throughout, so what was this new legal advice to suggest that this blanket postponement, and particularly the double postponement, would have been possible? Why did the Secretary of State not pay some attention to the Electoral Commission and question this advice? It has taken a junior Minister only a little bit of time to look at the advice and come to the conclusion that most people in that office would have come to, which is that this was not right. Am I being unfair to the Government in agreeing with Jonathan Carr-West, the chief executive of the Local Government Information Unit, when he said that the Government are
“reckless … to play fast and loose with the foundations of democracy”?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have the greatest respect for Jonathan Carr-West and have worked with him on many occasions, but he has not seen the legal advice. It is a long-standing principle, as the right honourable Gentleman James Cleverly said at the other end—I could quote him if I had the quote in front of me—that the Government do not comment on or publish legal advice.
Lord John of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, one of the concerns expressed to me by colleagues in local government has been about the cost of preparing submissions and scoping work for local government reorganisation. My noble friend talked about the £63 million of additional funding that will go to local government to support it going forward. Can she give reassurance to those in local government that the £63 million will meet the costs that they are going to incur? As I say, some of the concerns expressed to me have been that previous government tranches of money have not met all the costs incurred.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I can reassure my noble friend that an unprecedented amount of funding has been provided to support the capacity that local councils will need to help them as they go through this transition process. It is important that we have also been working closely with those councils. I have done much of the engagement myself, and Minister McGovern has done an awful lot of engagement with councils as well. Our officials in the department have been hugely supportive to local government as they have gone through this process, so it is right that we provide some funding to support that as well. The £63 million is to undertake that reorganisation to support the implementation, and it will include those councils that have been impacted by the changes that were made on Monday.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I do not want to add to the embarrassment that the Government must be feeling about the U-turn on the election cancellations, but I am grateful that the Secretary of State is going to look at some of the amendments, including those in my name, that would extend the cancellation to PCCs and mayors. Now is the time to look at what the cost of LGR may be, not only to the individual but in terms of council tax. Those who said LGR would save money now say it will not. We know that there will be about a billion pounds-worth of pension strain costs from those retiring on efficiency grounds. We know, from arithmetic, that nobody will pay less council tax as a result of this, but 50% will pay more, and there will be more layers of local governance, each able to raise council tax without limit. What assessment have the Government made of the cumulative impact of all this? When will the Minister honestly explain to the electorate that LGR is going to cost them more? They have been kept in the dark, but at least they will have an opportunity to express their views at the ballot box in May.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is a shame that the noble Lord has not had a chance to look at the proposals as I have. They set out very clearly the anticipated savings. More importantly, they provide a much more cohesive form of local government for those who will be on the receiving end of these services. Taking out layers of chief executive and finance director salaries all helps to push money back to the front line, where it is needed to deal with much-needed services such as filling in potholes, looking after vulnerable adults and children, and making sure that our environment is taken care of. All the things that local councils do so well will be done more effectively and the public will understand where to go to, instead of having two councils responsible for their area.
Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a non-executive director of MHCLG. Can my noble friend the Minister remind the House of the original purpose of local government reorganisation? It is surely not just for the sake of it but for a wider purpose. Does she think it is a coincidence that, with the exception of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, all other areas of England that have pioneered regional devolution arrangements have been in areas with only one tier of local government? Does she agree that two-tier areas can struggle to align strategic combined authority-wide ambitions with fragmented delivery arrangements, and often lack the bandwidth and staffing capabilities to deliver ambitious combined authority-wide programmes at pace and at scale? Furthermore, does she share my concern that a failure to address the inefficiencies of the two-tier system in this context creates unnecessary complexity and delays in delivering this Government’s ambitious devolution agenda?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend—of course I do—that driving forward the strategic ambitions of our country and our Government, to ensure not only that we see the economy grow in the way we all want and get the housebuilding that we need to deal with the housing crisis but that the key public services that are so needed by vulnerable adults and children are taken forward efficiently and effectively, required us not just to tinker at the edges but to do the most radical reorganisation of local government for at least half a century, which is what we are doing. This has been kicked into the long grass nearly all the time that I have been in local government. I think there have been some four attempts to do this and they always stopped short of doing what is needed, which is to create local government that will drive the economy of our local areas and support the public services that people deserve.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, Conservative county councillors in Norfolk have no fear of democracy, and in fact are very much looking forward to these elections in 74 days’ time. It is worth pointing out that the elections will be conducted by the district and borough councils. Certainly, the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk is incredibly professional and competent at handling those elections; it will take this in its stride and deliver a professional service.
The Minister did not reply to the point put forward by my noble friend a moment ago. This legal case cost a lot of money. She said herself that front-line services are under a lot of pressure. It was egregious that this case ever took place. Can she tell the House what those legal costs were?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for recognising the way in which local government responds to things such as this—and I know that colleagues in electoral services and on the political side of local government will do what they need to do and be ready for these elections. As I said, they are more than used to responding to very short-notice elections, including snap general elections; they work very well in those circumstances. In my experience, councils’ electoral services departments are extraordinarily efficient and effective, so I welcome his comments in that regard.
The costs are now being assessed, although I cannot give the noble Lord a figure at the moment. I am afraid that that will have to wait.
Baroness Shah (Lab)
I declare an interest as the head of the Labour office at the Local Government Association. As my noble friend will know, councils of all colours have worked together with communities to put forward proposals, knowing the opportunities and benefits that local government reorganisation will bring. Whatever the outcome of the elections in May, can my noble friend the Minister provide reassurance to those councils and communities on the timeline of the local government reorganisation?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
There is no dimming of the Government’s ambition around devolution and local government reorganisation. We are pushing on with the agenda. I thank my noble friend for recognising how well councils have worked together. I have been in meetings with many groups of councils, and they have said to me that this has got people talking together. They may have had a falling out 20 years ago and they could not even remember what it was about, but having to sit around the table and work on these proposals has been a really positive experience right across local government. I welcome that and think that it bodes well for the future. Certainly, the Government’s intention is to carry on with both the local government reorganisation and the devolution process.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, the Minister said that she recognised the value of the electoral returning officers. I absolutely agree with that, but the fact is that they are always looking at the next set of elections, so the fact that they stood down some elections would have caused a difficulty. The Minister said that the Government got legal advice before they proceeded to cancel the elections. If they did, what changed in that legal advice to make the change to reinstate them?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is usual practice continually to review legal advice. The legal advice came forward and, as I have said before, there is a long-standing convention not to reveal the content of or publish legal advice, so I cannot enlighten the noble Baroness any further on that. When the legal advice was received, the Government took a very prompt decision to withdraw the cancellation of the elections, because we knew how important it was for local authorities to deal with this promptly.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Would my noble friend agree that, although the proposal to cancel the elections has been dropped, the Opposition have no basis to complain about such proposals because they have done this themselves? I bear personal witness to this, as I was a member of the Greater London Council—I am always grateful for the opportunity to remind people of that. I was due to stand for re-election, and the elections were cancelled by the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking. So both parties do this, and on both occasions it was probably a reasonable thing to do, but to make the criticism is really a bit thick.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend is quite right. There is precedent for cancelling elections. We have seen it done because of reorganisation and for other reasons. However, we have the opportunity, during the process of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, to look at that, which we will continue to do.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, local government reform is essential and should have happened years ago. That is why I am delighted to hear the Minister say tonight that it is the Government’s intention to carry on with it. I hope that it is at the same speed that they have shown so far.
I am from Leicestershire. The settlement that was reached 50 years ago was monstrously unfair to a number of cities—my own, Leicester, but other cities too—which were not given special status and their boundaries were kept the same. It is almost impossible for those cities to provide the services that they are duty bound to provide on the present boundaries. I hope that it is still very much in the Government’s mind that some of those cities need their boundaries redrawn so that they are fair and do justice to their citizens.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It would not be appropriate for me to comment specifically on any of the proposals that have come forward at this stage—I would get myself into very hot water indeed. However, we are looking closely at all the proposals. The priority programme has now completed its consultation, and Ministers are reviewing all the responses to it. The other proposals are out for consultation. No doubt we will receive some very robust feedback, as we have on the priority programme, but my noble friend is quite right. We have attempted partly to respond to the issues that he raises in the fair funding formula. We have completely changed the funding system for local government. Those areas that were least able to raise the revenue they needed to provide good services to their citizens were also penalised through the funding system. We have changed that, to be much more closely linked to the indices of multiple deprivation. I do not know whether he has had a chance to talk to Leicester City Council yet, but I hope that this has provided some additional revenue to enable all councils to deliver their services properly.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
The current Secretary of State was held in quite high regard across the whole of the sector before we started this. Let us not allow him to take the blame for this. It was not the department’s idea to cancel the elections but No. 10’s—and it was No. 10’s decision to reinstate the elections. Can I tempt the Minister to agree with me that perhaps the blame for this should lie with somebody sitting in No. 10 rather than with MHCLG?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I simply say in response that I hold the Secretary of State in the highest regard. I have known him for decades. We were deputy leaders together when the noble Lord was the chairman of the LGA and were deputy leaders of the Labour group at the same time. He is determined to carry on with this devolution programme and with local government reorganisation and has a passion for local government. I am delighted that he is now our Secretary of State in the department. I am sure that he will progress this with the passion that I know he feels for localising services and making sure that decisions are taken by people who have got skin in the game out there—like most of us I see around the Chamber who have been involved in local government. We want to make sure that the people who take the decisions are those closest to the communities they affect. I know that is the Secretary of State’s mission.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I am quite heartened that the questions from across your Lordships’ House have not descended into an attack on local authorities’ electoral registration officers and their ability to carry out these elections. Many of us in the House tonight have spent years working with those officials and have seen them turn around elections quickly, whether by-elections or snap general elections. The fact that that has not been called into question heartens me.
I want to take my noble friend the Minister back to the guiding principle that has got a bit lost but deserves to be pulled out, which is the devolution aspect of what His Majesty’s Government, through the Secretary of State and the ministerial teams, are looking to do. Can I tempt the Minister to talk a bit more about the principles of devolution and the move away from those centralised powers down to local levels and more local decisions affecting the daily lives of local communities?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
There are strong guiding principles here that have been part of the core mission of this Government. Our belief is that, to drive the economic growth we want, decisions have to be taken at local level, where people understand the economies, the base of the workforce and skills, and the way that they can shape the economy in their local area.
With regard to the delivery of public services, back in 2015, I did a report with another member of my ministerial team and other people, including the leader of Manchester City Council and the then mayor of Hackney, which talked about making sure that we start tackling public services from the prevention point of view, which is much better done at local level than at national level, and that we deliver services properly. These key services—adult care, children’s services and, to some extent, community safety services—are delivered much better at local level. The result of all that is that we get economies and local services that are tailored to local need far more effectively and efficiently. That is our mission. That is what we want to do. Britain has been one of the most centralised countries in Europe for as long as I can remember, and it is time that we turned that around. That is the mission of this Government, and it will be good for the country and for the communities that we all serve.