Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) (Revocation) Order 2026

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Lords Chamber

Motion to Regret

17:57

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

That this House regrets the decision-making process that led to the need for the Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) (Revocation) Order 2026 (SI 2026/142) and the indecision and lack of transparency surrounding the proposed postponement of local elections; and affirms the importance of those elections now proceeding as scheduled.

Relevant document: 53rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, some time has passed since I tabled this regret Motion, and this House has debated this issue in considering the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I am glad that the Government have responded to our concerns to make sure that we do not find ourselves in this situation again. I want to be clear from the outset that we are pleased that our local elections are now proceeding as scheduled, but we still regret the decision-making process that led to this U-turn being necessary.

This is a simple but important issue. The Government’s handling of these elections has created needless uncertainty, unnecessary costs and completely avoidable confusion for local authorities and their residents. They did this through a decision-making process that was unclear, inconsistent and lacking in the transparency that councils and voters rightly deserve and expect.

On 22 January, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government announced that the Government would proceed with postponing local elections in 30 councils until May 2027. Legislation to give effect to that announcement was laid on 5 February, and councils were told to plan on that basis. Less than two weeks later, the Government changed their mind. On 16 February 2026, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government asked the Housing Minister to reverse the decision that he had just announced. This revocation order was then laid the next day.

18:00

The reason we were given for this U-turn was legal advice relating to an ongoing High Court judgment. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee expressed its concerns that this was not set out in the accompanying Explanatory Memorandum when the revocation order was laid. The committee said it did not “understand the omission”, and neither do I. If legal advice was the decisive factor, the Government should have been open about that from the very beginning. Instead, there has been a lack of candour about the process and the decisions made throughout this ordeal.

More broadly, the SLSC also raised the concern:

“The sudden cancellation of a key government policy less than two weeks after legislation was laid … has made a challenging situation worse”.

Most notably, with regard to the practical consequences for councils now required to run elections they had been told would not take place, many, if not all, of these councils will have paused their preparations when told of the cancellations, some may have reallocated staff, and all will be facing additional costs that they had not factored in. I am grateful to the SLSC for its scrutiny and for bringing these points to the attention of the House.

Local elections are the cornerstone of local democracy. They require certainty, clarity and proper planning to execute properly. Councils need time to prepare, candidates need time to arrange their lives, and voters need to know when they will cast their ballots. Ministers must be transparent when making any changes to electoral timetables, and changes should happen only when absolutely necessary. This was not the case with these changes—there has been indecision, opaque decision-making and a failure to provide a full account of why the Government pressed ahead with an undemocratic delay to local elections, only to reverse their position a couple of weeks later.

As I set out at the beginning, the purpose of this Motion is to affirm the importance of our elections going ahead and to call on the Government to ensure that they do so without further delay, disruption or difficulty. Confusion erodes trust in our democratic processes, and this is a problem of the Government’s own making. I ask the Minister to acknowledge this and to ensure that it does not happen again. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, very briefly, and perhaps with a little surprise, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, on the Conservative Front Bench: we have to regret what happened about these elections. We can also celebrate that eventually democracy won out. I am looking forward to the affected elections on 7 May, not just because the polls suggest that they, across these islands, are going to work out rather well for the Green Party.

Regret is the right term, but we might also say that what has happened—the mess of the Government’s creation in terms of these on again, off again, on again elections—has helped to highlight the weakness of our constitutional arrangements, which really cannot be described as a democracy. We have a situation in which Westminster is dictating far too much what happens on these islands, not just in terms of elections but in so many other ways. We have local councils that have enough money and power to carry out only their statutory responsibilities; that is, those dictated from Westminster.

We really need to think about so many other issues on these islands, not just because of the outcome of the Brexit referendum in 2016, but because of the slogan that people very clearly expressed then. They wanted to take back control. People do want to take back control in their local communities and to have the power and resources there; and, crucially, they should know when the elections are going to be. That should be a regular schedule that cannot be interfered with for political convenience. I commend the noble Baroness for persisting with this, because it is an issue we need to keep highlighting. We need to keep stressing that this is just one example of the way in which our current uncodified constitution, accreted over centuries of historical accident, is not meeting our needs in the 21st century.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I want to intervene briefly by referring to the example of Suffolk. I entirely agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench about these issues. I draw attention to the fact that I chair the Cambridgeshire Development Forum and support the Norfolk and Suffolk Development Forum, although I do not chair that. But for these purposes I am speaking simply as a Suffolk resident.

There we were in Suffolk, keen, certainly from my point of view, to progress the devolution priority programme for Norfolk and Suffolk. We were then told that the mayoral election for the Norfolk and Suffolk strategic authority was to be delayed. That decision has not been revoked. The decision to delay or to postpone the county council election in Suffolk has now been revoked, which means we will have county councillors, who I think were originally elected in 2001, serving all the way through to 2027—

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

You mean 2021. You said 2001.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Did I? Sorry—2021, serving all the way through to 2027, maybe even to 2028 in practice, and overlapping with unitary councils that are to be established with elections taking place in May 2027.

As I think I have demonstrated through my difficulty in trying to follow all this, these are unnecessarily extremely complicated processes for trying to move devolution forward and get us to the point where we are in a strategic authority with unitary councils. The lack of pace in a Government who are always telling us everything is happening at pace seems to have led to an unnecessarily complex situation, not least for the voters and residents of Suffolk. With local government reorganisation taking place at the same time, we are going to end up paying more for the processes of managing this overburdensome democratic situation. I hope that in the context of this debate, the Government will say that they will look very hard at ensuring that they compensate local authorities and support them in managing the delays that they have occasioned.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I want to remind the House of a contribution I made during the passage of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I listened with interest to the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, but with a large degree of scepticism, because I personally experienced exactly the issue that is being complained about, at the hands of the Conservative Government. I was re-elected in 1981 to the Greater London Council, with my term due to end in 1985, and the Conservative Government—the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, is the guilty party here—extended my term of office to 1986. So, it is quite clear that there is no point of principle here. I am glad that it has ended up the way it has, but to try to make out that one party does it and the other does not is totally wrong.

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

Briefly, I make a plea to the Minister that she takes personal oversight of all those councils where the delays may have an impact on staff’s ability to step up and do the right things for the election. Clearly, they will all bust themselves to try to make sure everything is perfect, but it will be worth the Government making sure that they take a closer interest in all of those councils and finding down the back of the magic sofa in Marsham Street some of that spare change that they have that they can bring out occasionally if it is necessary. I do not think the teams running the elections will be waving a shroud, but if they genuinely need extra resource to be able to pay extra money to recruit people that they need at short notice, or shorter notice, the Government should be prepared to provide it. Like my colleagues on the Front Bench, I have some regrets about this, but not for the same reasons that they do.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, may I pick up on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, made just now on precedent? I do not think I have heard reference to precedent elsewhere, but there is no question but that there have been occasions when elections have been delayed. However, what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, was referring to here was the most amazing set of circumstances, whereby one week we were asked to consider an order for delays in elections on 30 local authorities, and those delays were at a point only weeks before one was heading towards notices for the election, nomination day and the like. Then, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, indicated, two weeks later, because of an apparent legal reconsideration of circumstances, the policy was completely reversed. As far as I am aware, there is no such precedent and, tragically, we have yet to receive an apology from the Government for the confusion—and that is all it is. It is total confusion, within a period of a few weeks going from one unclear policy to another, with the net result of substantial cost.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, identified, democracy is a frail flower, and playing around with it in the way that the Government have in the last few weeks is unacceptable. It is unacceptable not just to the public at large; we have to bear in mind the burden faced by the returning officers and their staff in the local authorities. They do a truly fantastic job in difficult circumstances. It is regularly the case that, where there are not elections in one local authority, it loans its staff to a neighbouring authority which has elections. It is not easy to find polling clerks, and what is happening is that one local authority provides the facilities for another. Here we have a position whereby people who might have been loaned to another authority are suddenly called back. There are all the other associated difficulties with calling an election, cancelling an election and then restarting an election. I will not go into them in detail, but I think most of the people in this House are only too well aware of the problems that are thrown up in the face of the EROs throughout the country by the policies that have been followed over the last few weeks.

I would have hoped that, at some stage, the Government could have apologised to the local councils, and particularly to the EROs and their staff, for the problems that they have caused, but, unfortunately, they have failed to do so. However, it is appropriate that one should identify that democracy and the way it operates need to operate on a degree of certainty, which in the last few weeks or months we have not had from this Government.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for laying the regret Motion. It is a privilege to stand in for my noble friend Lord Pack, who I know is deeply disappointed that he is not able to be in his seat today. I will approach this with the same conviction my noble friend has voiced throughout this saga: that local democracy is not a plaything for departmental convenience. Although we welcome the Government’s U-turn, the how and why of this retreat remains shrouded in a fog of administrative incompetence.

18:15

Your Lordships’ House has debated this topic several times recently, and rightly so. While we on these Benches acknowledge that the Minister and the department have finally listened, we must address the collateral damage caused by the initial indecision. My noble friend Lord Pack was clear when this issue first arose, stating:

“Cancelling elections should be a matter of last resort, triggered by global war or a domestic catastrophe”.—[Official Report, 26/1/26; col. 712.]

It strikes me as being an unwisely short-term perspective to cultivate a culture in which elections are so often cancelled, and in which a term of office meant to be four years gets extended to seven.

When the Government treat election dates like some flexible appointments, it creates a financial domino effect, and I wish to highlight the cost to parish, town and community councils. Usually, these elections are piggybacked on to principal authority contests to share costs. When the Government arbitrarily cancel or postpone the main event, these smaller councils are left holding a bill they cannot afford. This creates a perverse incentive to avoid contested elections entirely to save money, an outcome that directly undermines democratic legitimacy.

My second point concerns the integrity of the process. My noble friend, who was a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, was struck by the sheer inadequacy of the Explanatory Memorandum for this SI, which other Members have also highlighted. The Committee’s report was polite, but its underlying message was damning. It regretted that the Government’s own Explanatory Memorandum did not state that the decision to cancel the postponement of the election was made in response to new legal advice. “Regret” is the dignified parliamentary term; in plain English the Explanatory Memorandum was farcical. It omitted the single most crucial fact—that the Government realised that their previous position was legally untenable. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, noted in February,

“the Government have sown confusion and imposed unnecessary costs upon the taxpayer by cancelling local elections, only to reinstate them weeks later … What was presented as a firm and settled judgment has unravelled in short order, leaving uncertainty in its wake”.—[Official Report, 25/2/26; col. 672.]

As the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and others, have pointed out, this applies not just to administrative people in elections but to the electorate, who expect some certainty around the elections they are participating in.

By failing to mention the legal advice in the Explanatory Memorandum, the Government have not just been opaque; they have been negligent in their duty to this Parliament. How can we trust the quality of future explanatory memorandums when a document that omits the most basic and crucial fact of this SI’s existence is then signed off by a Minister? From these Benches, the Liberal Democrats have always maintained that elections should proceed unless there is a catastrophic reason otherwise. This SI was a confusion of error, which the regret Motion points out.

I ask the Minister: what specific steps have been taken to ensure that future explanatory memoranda actually explain in full the Government’s legal U-turns? Will the Government commit to a statutory protocol for consulting parish and town councils when their election cycles are disrupted by principal authority changes? We on these Benches affirm the importance of these elections proceeding, but we must ensure that the indecision and lack of transparency cited in this regret Motion never becomes a standard operating procedure for the department. The Minister’s responses to some of the issues raised will give us either confidence or no confidence that the department has got a grip and will not allow this ever to happen again.

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

My Lords, I am pleased to respond to this regret Motion for the Government. Before turning to the order itself, I think it is worth setting out the wider context for the local government reorganisation programme. We are on track and making good progress, including elections scheduled this May for east and west Surrey ahead of an April 2027 go live date, giving new councils stability and a clear mandate. We have also announced decisions in four further invitation areas: Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock; Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton; Norfolk; and Suffolk.

These are decisions that will improve how local government works for over 6 million people, with the next tranche on track to deliver decisions for summer 2026. This demonstrates that our ambitious reorganisation programme is on track to deliver the real benefits that we intend from it, and to deliver on the biggest devolution of power, finance and control, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, described it, to local people in a generation.

Turning to the order itself, I add my thanks to those already expressed around the Chamber to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. My noble friend who chairs that committee has been very helpful to me in debating some of the issues that have arisen during these debates.

Changes to election timing are not taken lightly. They have been used only where there is strong justification, closely linked to supporting effective local government reorganisation. In recent years, that has included areas such as Cumbria and North Yorkshire, where adjusted timetables helped provide stability during transition to new unitary councils. That same practical rationale underpins its more recent use, including in Surrey, where reorganisation is critical to ensuring the financial viability of that area’s councils.

Of course, I recognise that concerns have been raised about local democracy. Democratic legitimacy matters profoundly; people must have confidence that their vote counts and their voice is heard. But they must also have confidence that the structures into which representatives are elected are capable, sustainable and fit to deliver the services on which communities rely. Our responsibility is to safeguard both, and that applies to all parties in this House which are responsible in government. That balance has guided the Government’s approach throughout the reorganisation programme, including in listening carefully to concerns raised by councils themselves and considering the appropriate approach to election timing within the wider context of effective transition.

As the House will know, the Secretary of State’s original decisions followed representations from local authorities. In 30 areas, councils set out evidence on the challenges of delivering structural change alongside full ordinary elections, and the view that postponement would release essential capacity to deliver reorganisation. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, gave us some of the timetable, but I want to go back to before the timetable that she outlined.

On 18 December 2025, the Minister wrote to 63 councils scheduled for May 2026 elections inviting representations on whether postponement would release essential capacity, with a deadline of response by 15 January. We received 500 representations from councils, MPs, the Electoral Commission, parish councils and members of the public. Clarification letters were sent on 19 January to four councils where the position was unclear. The Secretary of State assessed each council individually, considering evidence of capacity constraints—that is, political, senior officer and electoral returning officer impact—as well as financial implications, democratic considerations and wider representations.

On 22 January, we announced the intention to postpone elections for 29 councils and allow 34 to proceed. We then received further representations from Essex County Council and Pendle Borough Council for decisions to be reconsidered. On 29 January, we confirmed the final position of 30 council elections postponed and 33 to proceed. That preceded the timetable that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, set out; I just wanted to clarify how we had got to that situation on 5 February.

Decisions were therefore taken on a case-by-case basis, informed by all those representations, and were in line with the existing precedent for aligning electoral cycles with periods of structural transition. Following the receipt of further legal advice, the Government revoked that decision. That revocation was given effect through the order now being debated in the House. The decision was taken to provide certainty for councils, candidates and voters, with the result being that all elections originally proposed for postponement will proceed in May 2026, and preparations for those elections are continuing on the restored timetable.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

The Minister has not told us at all, and nor indeed does the Explanatory Memorandum tell us, the nature of the legal vulnerability that was implicit in the decision to reconsider. The fact that the decision had to be taken by an independent Minister in her own department, not by the Secretary of State, suggests that there was a significant flaw in the original decision that was made.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I was coming to the legal advice and I will do so. I hope the noble Lord will be patient for a moment while I get to that part.

Looking beyond the delivery of the current local elections, the Secretary of State said on 23 February that the Government would reflect carefully on the concerns raised by your Lordships about the use of these powers during the passage of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, particularly the concerns expressed about postponing elections for more than one year where a council is undergoing local government reorganisation and the risk that repeated delays to elections can weaken the democratic mandate of councillors.

Against that backdrop, the Government tabled an amendment on Report to prevent double postponement for reasons connected with reorganisation. That is a concern that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, expressed. Again, I thank opposition Peers, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for supporting that amendment, which your Lordships agreed on 13 April. This demonstrates that the Government remain focused on ensuring that reorganisation is delivered in a way that is orderly, provides clarity and certainty over electoral arrangements and is capable of supporting strong local services from day one.

To support that transition, the Government are providing targeted capacity support to councils undergoing reorganisation, including up to £63 million in funding to help manage the process while continuing to deliver for residents. I hope that picks up the points about funding raised by the noble Lord, Lord Porter. I wish I could find that magic sofa in Marsham Street. If he has any advice from previous Ministers who worked there, I ask him please to tell me where it is because I would like to find it. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, also raised points about financing.

Taken together, these steps reflect a balanced approach, safeguarding local democracy, providing certainty on election timing and giving councils the tools they need to move through reorganisation successfully. For these reasons, the Government consider that the approach now in place provides clarity, accountability and a sound basis for effective transition. I am grateful to your Lordships for the care with which these issues have been considered, and I will respond to some of the points made during this short debate.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

The logic of the Government’s original position clearly was not logic at all, because if the elections can now take place, as well as the reorganisation, this postponement was not required at all, was it?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The postponement was done at the request of the councils concerned, which had concerns about capacity. I think some of them may still have those concerns, but we are supporting them through that process. As my noble friend Lord Davies has said, decisions have been taken in the past to postpone elections, and there is still the power to do so when necessary, but we wanted to avoid the double postponement that some of these would have caused.

On capacity, I first pay tribute to all our local elections officers and returning officers and the staff who work in their teams. They do an amazing job and, as we all know, they have a proven ability to deliver elections—sometimes a snap general election, or by-elections when they occur—and mayoral polls at very short notice. Returning officers and suppliers have been fully supported to bring plans up to date at pace, and the decision provides the certainty that councils now need to manage logistics effectively. Spending on local elections themselves is of course a matter for local councils.

18:30

I want to be very clear that legal advice prompted the Government to reconsider and withdraw their earlier postponement decision. I have quotes from James Cleverly, who has been a shadow Minister in the other place and continues to have a role there, talking about postponement and not disclosing legal advice. It is a long-standing convention observed by successive Governments that the existence of and substance of advice from law officers of the Crown is not disclosed outside government. The purpose of this convention is to enable the Government to obtain frank and full legal advice in confidence. The legal powers to postpone elections remain valid and there has been no finding against the Government in this instance. The focus is now on delivering legally robust and certain electoral timelines for councils. We have always said that decisions will be made on the basis of the evidence available to us and this is what has happened—

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I support very strongly the position that law officers’ advice to government should remain confidential, but is it absolutely clear that the advice on which the decision to revoke the postponement of the elections was taken was markedly different from the legal advice provided previously? To be blunt, there is a suspicion in many people’s minds, probably quite reasonably, that it was the imminence of a judicial review four days after the announcement that resulted in the change of government position, rather than a change in legal advice.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I feel that the noble Lord is pushing me to do what I have just said I cannot do, which is to disclose the legal advice—I am going to stick to that line. The decision was, as he rightly says, taken by another Minister in the department because the Secretary of State had already been involved in the decision. I think we put the guardrails in place to make sure that was done in accordance with what we would all expect to happen. We will stick to the convention of not disclosing the legal advice put before that Minister.

I wanted to talk about my noble friend’s comment about previous elections that were cancelled. There were 17 elections delayed between 2019 and 2022 by the last Government to prepare for local government reorganisation, including in Weymouth and Portland in 2018, Aylesbury, Chiltern, South Bucks and Wycombe in 2019 and Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset in 2021, so there was precedent for that. We took that into consideration when local authorities made representations to us.

I will just go into a little more detail on the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. The decision was updated following legal advice and the Government acted promptly and responsibly in light of that advice. Where decisions are revisited following legal advice, as I have said, it is entirely appropriate for a new Minister to look at that advice and now all 30 elections will proceed as scheduled in May 2026, and a revocation order was laid in Parliament in February to give effect to that decision. We engaged rapidly with councils and issued written confirmation without delay and are supporting them with their updated plans. This was done at pace. We have always said that a decision would be made on the basis of evidence available to us at the time and that is what has happened. The Government’s ambition remains to simplify local government by ending the two-tier system and establishing new single-tier unitary councils.

The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, raised the issue of town and parish consultation. I understand his point, but there was never an intention to cancel town and parish elections. I understand his point about finances and will give that further consideration. On his point about statutory inclusion of things in Explanatory Memorandums, again, I will take that away. I understand the point he is making, and we need to think further about how that might work.

In conclusion, I hope I have set out the Government’s explanation of the timeline and exactly what happened in this case. I hope I have responded to the concern of the House, both in what I have said today and in the action taken to put an amendment forward to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. While recognising the concern that has been expressed around the House, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her Motion.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, can I ask about the £63 million? Has this already gone out to local authorities? If it has not, when will it go out?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I cannot answer the specific question of whether it has already gone out, but we have notified local authorities of what will be coming to them. When we spoke to them about the decisions taken as a result of the reorganisation, we spoke to them about funding as well. I will write to the noble Baroness with information on whether that money has gone out the door yet.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate and to the Minister for her response. However, I reject the premise of the blame game that the Government are seeking to play. The power, responsibility and ability to cancel local elections lie with the Government and the Government alone. They made the decision to cancel these elections and then they made the decision to reinstate them.

I welcome the steps now being taken, in the English devolution and so-called community empowerment Bill, to put this matter on a clearer footing for the future and to ensure that this can never happen again. Although the Government did not go quite as far as we wanted them to, I am pleased that the House’s scrutiny has brought us to this point. This is just one of many examples of your Lordships’ House demonstrating the vital and constructive role it plays as a revising Chamber.

I will not be pressing the Motion to a vote today, but I hope the Government take a clear message from it: councils must be properly supported and transparency must be the rule and not the exception for proper, functioning democracy. Before I sit down, I would like to place on record our thanks to all the local authority election staff and their returning officers, given the extra work this has caused. We know that they will deliver a safe, secure and efficient election on 7 May.

Motion withdrawn.