Power to Cancel Local Elections

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 747234 relating to the Secretary of State’s power to cancel local elections.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your Caledonian chairmanship, Mr Mundell. We are old friends from the past.

As Chair of the Petitions Committee, I believe I speak for all its members when I say that it is always encouraging to see such strong public engagement in our democratic system. The petition has attracted well over 150,000 signatures, right across the United Kingdom. That level of support speaks positively about how our citizens care deeply about the timing, integrity and accountability of local elections. I thank the petition’s creator Dr Chris Barnes, whom I had the pleasure of meeting prior to the debate, and all those who have taken the time to add their name to it.

The petition calls on the Government to remove the Secretary of State’s statutory power to postpone or cancel scheduled local elections. That power is conferred on the Government by section 87 of the Local Government Act 2000. Dr Barnes’s petition states that

“the right to vote is sacred and inalienable”,

and he argues that elections due to take place in May 2026 and beyond should proceed as planned. Many signatories have expressed concern that postponement risks undermining democratic accountability and public trust. Last month, the Government did a U-turn on the decision. Regardless, we are here to debate the principle at the heart of the initial decision to delay the elections.

In their official response, the Government make it clear that the relevant powers are set out in legislation passed by Parliament. They state that such powers are

“used only with strong justification”

and that any use is subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the statutory instrument process. The Government have also indicated that they have no current plans to amend the legislation in question. They add that similar powers have previously been used in limited and specific circumstances, including in the context of local government reorganisation. The debate therefore concerns not only the principle of regular elections, but the appropriate balance between statutory flexibility and democratic certainty.

Local elections are the cornerstone of representative democracy. Councillors make decisions on housing, social care, planning, transport and a range of other services that have a direct impact on daily life. I should know, having spent a good number of years as a councillor myself.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

The Chairman of the Petitions Committee is introducing the debate very well. I was a local councillor too, in Basildon in the early 1990s. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a good thing that the Government have done a reverse ferret, so we can now have local elections across the country, including in Labour-led Basildon, Labour-led Southend and Labour-led Thurrock? Those councils will now have to face the electorate on their appalling record.

[Jamie Stone]

I thank the right hon. Member for his customarily incisive intervention.

Local elections surely ensure that decisions are subject to scrutiny and renewal. The expectation that electors will have an opportunity to choose their representatives at predictable intervals is surely fundamental to public confidence. Independent bodies have emphasised that very point. The Electoral Commission has stated that scheduled elections should, as a rule, proceed as planned and should be postponed only in exceptional circumstances. It has cautioned that uncertainty around election timing can undermine public confidence and create difficulties for voters, campaigners and administrators alike.

Similarly, the Electoral Reform Society has expressed concern to me about the democratic implications of postponements that significantly extend councillors’ terms. In particular, it has warned that where delays coincide with electoral cycles, some councillors could serve for up to seven years without facing the electorate. O that I had ever had that opportunity in my own career as a councillor! Such extensions risk weakening accountability and should prompt careful review of the safeguards surrounding the Government’s postponement powers.

Those concerns are shared, to varying degrees, across the political spectrum. My own party has argued that local elections should not be treated as administrative conveniences. We have emphasised the importance of protecting fixed and predictable electoral timetables. We have raised questions about the concentration of discretion in the hands of a single Minister. We have called for stronger safeguards and greater transparency where postponement is proposed. Similarly, Conservative Members have underlined the importance of upholding democratic mandates. However, some have reasoned that, once conferred by Parliament, statutory powers must be capable of being exercised where the law so permits.

In response, the present Government have stressed that the powers in question are not new; they were established by Parliament to deal with defined circumstances such as the structural reorganisation of local government. The Government argue that a mechanism must remain to ensure orderly transitions where boundaries change or authorities are merged, and that such decisions are subject to legislative oversight and are not to be exercised arbitrarily. I am sure that we will examine those points more closely in the debate.

Those differing perspectives are united by the shared recognition that elections are not merely procedural events, but the very means by which authority is conferred and renewed. Any decision to postpone them must therefore meet a very high threshold of justification and transparency. It surely must never be motivated by self-interest. That would instil distrust in our democracy, which is very precious to us all.

The petition and the debate that it has prompted reflect broader public anxiety about democratic accountability. In recent years, as we all know, trust in political institutions has been tested. It is therefore understandable that proposals or decisions that affect when voters may next go to the polls attract scrutiny and very strong opinions. At the same time, Parliament has long recognised that exceptional circumstances may require flexibility. The legal framework governing elections is complex, and changes to local authority structures, emergencies or other significant disruptions may necessitate adjustments. The question for this House, however, is not whether elections matter—I trust that all Members of the House believe that—but how best to reconcile the principle of regular democratic renewal with the practical realities of governance.

The petition process exists precisely to enable such questions to be posed and examined. That is why we are here tonight. When substantial numbers of people across the country express concern in a democratic system, as they have done with this petition, Parliament must surely listen. It is right that Ministers have the opportunity to set out clearly the legal basis for the powers concerned, the circumstances in which they may be used and the safeguards that exist. It is equally right that Members on all sides test those explanations where appropriate.

I hope that today’s debate will contribute to clarity, transparency and accountability. I reassure all those who signed the petition that their concerns are being taken seriously in this debate, because that is precisely what the Petitions Committee is all about. I will listen with the greatest interest to what my colleagues have to say and to how the Minister who is kindly representing the Government responds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jamie Stone]

As you know, Mr Mundell, I am somewhat long in the tooth, as we say north of the border. I was just doing a wee sum here on a piece of paper—I have contested 11 elections, and I would say that my wife and children do not always greet the prospect of another election with huge enthusiasm, but I know what I am talking about. It seems slightly surreal to me that, once upon a time all those years ago, I was talking at great length in Dingwall about dog poo in some of the towns and villages of the highlands, and now I find myself here having introduced a debate on local government elections.

This evening’s contributions have been very helpful. The Minister in her reply displayed a certain knowledge of local government, which is a comfort, because not everyone understands the whys and wherefores. I want to make two comments. First, in my contribution, I referenced changes being referred to statutory instruments. I argue—but I think this is for another day—that the supervision and examination of statutory instruments is something we could do a little bit better in this place.

The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) talked about what constituencies should or should not be called. If I wanted to be pedantic I could insist that my constituency be called Caithness, Sutherland, Easter Ross, Wester Ross, the Black Isle and the northern parts of Inverness-shire—but we will not go that way.

I thank all the people who signed the petition. I have to be seen to be even-handed in this debate—as you well know, Mr Mundell—so I shall conclude with simply this: we hold democracy as being very precious in this country, and when we see what is happening in other parts of the world, I think we realise even more so how important that is. Trust in democracy is absolutely vital; if that goes, then we are in trouble.

Question put and agreed to. 

Resolved, 

That this House has considered e-petition 747234 relating to the Secretary of State’s power to cancel local elections.