Local elections in England: House of Lords debate on certain elections being postponed to 2026

Approximate read time: 15 minutes

1. Motions for debate in the House of Lords

On 24 March 2025, the House of Lords is due to debate three motions relating to the Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) Order 2025 (SI 2025/137). The order postpones elections in nine local authority areas in England from May 2025 to May 2026. The government says this is needed to help these areas “deliver reorganisation and devolution to the most ambitious timeframe”, in line with plans set out in the government’s English devolution white paper.^[1] The order came into force on 4 March 2025. Under the ‘negative’ statutory instruments procedure, it did not require prior approval from Parliament to become law. However, either House can pass a motion within the objection period to annul the order and stop it having legal effect. The objection period for this order is scheduled to end on 1 April 2025.

Two ‘fatal’ motions relating to the order have been tabled for debate in the House of Lords. A motion in the name of Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party) calls for the order to be annulled on the grounds it “damages the democratic accountability of local authorities to local residents, and has not been subject to full and proper consultation”. A motion tabled by Baroness Pinnock, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson in the House of Lords for housing, communities and local government, calls for the order to be annulled on the grounds it “denies timely democratic representation to a substantial portion of the electorate; undermines local democratic accountability; disrupts established electoral cycles; lacks sufficient consultation; and erodes the democratic mandate for major restructuring of local government”.

A third motion in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook, shadow minister for housing, communities and local government, expresses regret that the order “damages the democratic accountability of local authorities to local residents, and has not been subject to full and proper consultation”. This ‘regret’ motion is ‘non-fatal’: if the House agreed to it, it would not result in the order being annulled.

The Conservative Party has also tabled an early day motion in the House of Commons calling for the order to be annulled.^[2] The House of Commons resolved on 12 March 2025 to refer the order to a delegated legislation committee, but a date has not yet been published for the committee debate to take place.^[3]

2. Background to the order

2.1 English devolution white paper: Devolution and local government reorganisation

The government published its ‘English devolution white paper: Power and partnership—foundations for growth’ on 16 December 2024. On local government devolution, this set out the government’s goal for all of England to be covered by strategic authorities.^[4] The government plans to legislate to create the concept of a strategic authority in law and define their areas of competence.^[5] This would include, for instance, matters such as transport and local infrastructure, and housing and strategic planning, among other things. The government envisages there will be different levels of strategic authority, with mayoral strategic authorities having the “most far-reaching and flexible powers”.^[6] The Greater London Authority and existing mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities would automatically begin as mayoral strategic authorities.^[7] Those that met certain eligibility criteria could be designated as established mayoral strategic authorities, which would give them greater powers, including more control over how to spend their budget.^[8]

The government says its “strong preference” is for strategic authorities which are “partnerships that bring more than one local authority together over a large geography”. However, in exceptional cases, an individual local authority could be designated as a foundation strategic authority, with fewer powers than a mayoral strategic authority.^[9] The government’s ambition is for all parts of England to be covered by a mayoral strategic authority, and eventually by an established mayoral strategic authority with greater devolved powers.

On local government reorganisation, the white paper announced that all two-tier areas (where there is both a county council and a district, borough or city council) and existing unitary councils where there is “evidence of failure” or where “their size or boundaries may be hindering their ability to deliver sustainable and high quality services” would be invited to submit proposals for reorganisation.^[10] The government said it would “expect all two-tier areas and smaller or failing unitaries to develop proposals for reorganisation”.^[11] The government argued that unitary council can:

[…] lead to better outcomes for residents, save significant money which can be reinvested in public services, and improve accountability with fewer politicians who are more able to focus on delivering for residents.^[12]

The government said it would “take a phased approach […] taking into account where reorganisation can unlock devolution, where areas are keen to move quickly, or where it can help address wider failings”. It said that “reorganisation should not delay devolution and plans for both should be complementary”.

On the same day the English devolution white paper was published, Jim McMahon, minister of state for local government and English devolution, wrote to all councils in two-tier areas and neighbouring small unitary authorities to set out the government’s plans for a joint programme of devolution and local government reorganisation.^[13] Mr McMahon said he would formally invite unitary proposals in January 2025, with a deadline for interim plans to be submitted by March 2025. He said he expected to deliver new unitary authorities in April 2027 and 2028.

2.2 Decision to postpone elections in nine local authorities

Mr McMahon acknowledged in the letter that the timing of local elections could affect some local authorities’ planning for devolution, particularly alongside reorganisation. He said the government would therefore consider requests to postpone scheduled local council elections from May 2025 to May 2026 “where this will help the area to deliver both reorganisation and devolution to the most ambitious timeframe”.^[14] Elections to all 21 county councils, 10 unitary councils, one metropolitan district and the Isles of Scilly Council were scheduled to take place in May 2025.^[15] Mr McMahon explained he would be willing to postpone elections in two scenarios:^[16]

• areas who are minded to join the devolution priority programme, where they will be invited to submit reorganisation proposals to government by autumn 2025
• areas who need reorganisation to unlock devolution, where they will be invited to submit reorganisation proposals to government by May 2025

Mr McMahon said that in areas where elections were postponed, the government would work with local authorities to move to elections to new “shadow” unitary councils as soon as possible. For all other areas, elections would take place as scheduled in May 2025 and they would be invited to submit proposals for reorganisation by autumn 2025.

Sixteen county councils and two unitary authorities submitted requests by the 10 January 2025 deadline to postpone their elections.^[17] The government announced on 5 February 2025 that it had agreed to postpone elections for the following nine local authorities:^[18]

• East Sussex County Council
• Essex County Council
• Hampshire County Council
• Isle of Wight Council
• Norfolk County Council
• Suffolk County Council
• Surrey County Council
• Thurrock Council
• West Sussex County Council

In all cases except Surrey County Council, the government said this was because “postponement is essential for the delivery of the devolution priority programme and complementary reorganisation”. The government announced as part of the same package that all of these authorities belong to areas that are participating in the government’s devolution priority programme, as follows:^[19]

• Greater Essex: Essex County Council and Thurrock Council (with Southend-on-Sea City Council, which was not due to have an election in May 2025)
• Hampshire and Solent: Hampshire County Council and Isle of Wight Council (with Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council, which were not due to have an election in May 2025)
• Norfolk and Suffolk: Norfolk County Council and Suffolk County Council
• Sussex and Brighton: East Sussex County Council and West Sussex County Council (with Brighton and Hove City Council, which was not due to have an election in May 2025)

The government said that in these areas, “plans for new combined county authorities, inaugural mayoral elections, and local government reorganisation will all be concurrent and working to a very ambitious timetable”.^[20]

For Surrey County Council, the government said that “reorganisation is essential to unlocking devolution options” and a delay to the election “would help deliver both reorganisation and devolution to the most ambitious timeframe”.^[21] It said that “given the specific financial challenges” facing Surrey County Council, its “path to devolution is significantly dependent on local government reorganisation”.

The government did not agree to requests from nine other county councils (Derbyshire, Devon, Gloucestershire, Kent, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Oxfordshire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire) to delay their elections.^[22] It said this was either because the area was not considered currently to meet the criteria for the devolution priority programme, or it was already part of a mayoral combined authority, or further discussions were needed to reach agreement on devolution plans.^[23]

Angela Rayner, secretary of state for housing, communities and local government, said the government’s starting point had been that elections should go ahead unless there was a “strong justification” for delay.^[24] She said the bar for postponement was “high, and rightly so”. She had agreed to postpone elections “only in places where this is central to our manifesto promise to deliver devolution”. She declared it would be “an expensive and irresponsible waste of taxpayers’ money” to hold elections “to bodies that will not exist, and where we do not know what will replace them”.

Section 87 of the Local Government Act 2000 gives the secretary of state the power to make an order to change the year in which the ordinary election to a local authority takes place. Using this power, the government made the Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) Order 2025 (SI 2025/137) on 10 February 2025. The government stated in the accompanying explanatory memorandum that governments have “routinely postponed local elections in areas contemplating and undergoing local government reorganisation”.^[25] It cited the examples of Buckinghamshire, Cumbria, North Yorkshire, Northamptonshire, Somerset and Weymouth and Portland.

The government also stated in the explanatory memorandum that postponing the elections “in no way pre-judges the outcome of a local government reorganisation process or the devolution priority programme”. It said that the delay was intended “to ensure that both processes may proceed to the most ambitious timeframe”.^[26] It said that where the devolution priority programme leads to the establishment of new combined county authorities, it intends that mayoral elections would take place in May 2026.

3. Arrangements made by the order

Article 2 of the order postpones elections for the nine local authorities from 2025 to 2026. It specifies the elections will take place on the “ordinary day of election of councillors” in 2026. This means that instead of taking place on Thursday 1 May 2025, they are now due to take place on Thursday 7 May 2026.

Article 3 extends the term of office for the existing councillors in these local authorities. Their term of office will end four days after the election in 2026, instead of four days after the election in 2025, unless the councillor resigns, or the office otherwise becomes vacant before then.

Article 3 also specifies that for all the affected local authorities apart from Thurrock Council, the councillors who are elected on 7 May 2026 will serve a three-year term until 2029, unless the councillor resigns or the office otherwise becomes vacant before then. The normal electoral cycle is for county councillors to be elected every four years.^[27] The Isle of Wight is a unitary authority that also normally holds elections for all councillors every four years.^[28] For Thurrock Council, the councillors elected on 7 May 2026 will serve a four-year term and the subsequent election would then take place in May 2030.^[29]

Article 4 allows returning officers to hold a by-election by 1 May 2025 to fill a casual vacancy in one of the specified local authorities. This would apply if the vacancy arose before the order came into force on 4 March 2025 and would ordinarily have been filled at an election on 1 May 2025. A councillor elected in such a by-election would serve until the local election in 2026.

Article 5 makes consequential amendments to legislation made by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England implementing boundary reviews for local government electoral areas. The government said this would ensure the new boundaries come into effect when the postponed elections take place; any by-elections before May 2026 will be held on current boundaries.^[30]

4. Response to postponing elections

4.1 Political parties

Responding to government’s announcement of which areas had been selected for the devolution priority programme and which elections would be postponed, Kevin Hollinrake, the shadow secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities, said it was “a very worrying day for democracy in this country”.^[31] He said the Conservatives supported the principle of devolving power to local areas but were “totally against” the government’s plans to “abolish every county council and district council in England”. His party also opposed the “unprecedented mass postponement of local elections for at least one year”. He also expressed concerns that elections could end up being delayed for longer than this.^[32]

Vikki Slade, Liberal Democrat spokesperson for housing, communities and local government, argued that the right to vote was “a key pillar of our democracy”.^[33] While she welcomed the proposals for mayoral strategic authorities, she said the plan to end district councils was “completely undemocratic” and lacked a mandate in Labour’s manifesto.^[34] Like Mr Hollinrake, she expressed concerns that the time taken to establish new unitary authorities could lead to elections being delayed beyond May 2026.

Richard Tice, deputy leader of Reform UK, said that millions of voters in southern England were “being denied the right to pass judgment on the performance of their councillors over the past four years”.^[35] He also expressed concerns that the elections could be delayed for another year after May 2026.

Adrian Ramsey, co-leader of the Green Party, said that he was a “strong supporter of genuine devolution”, but he expressed concerns the government’s plans “could in practice mean centralising power from local communities to remote county halls”.^[36] He asked how the government could “justify cancelling local elections when the county councillors last elected in 2021 have no mandate to lead on negotiating changes that are expected to last half a century”.

4.2 Councils and public

The District Councils’ Network, a cross party-network of 169 district and unitary councils, has expressed concern about the pace of change proposed and the postponement of elections. It said it welcomed the government’s ambition to devolve power to local areas across England and accepted “there is a case for structural reform below the combined authority level”.^[37] However, it argued that a “rush to impose mega councils on local areas ignores the views of local communities and thwarts discussion about how to improve services and increase value for taxpayers”.^[38] Sam Chapman-Allen, chair of the network, said delaying the elections was a “cancellation of local democracy” which meant “voters cannot give their verdict on whether they want mega councils”. He said district councils “would be prepared to oversee [elections] in all of our areas this year to maintain local democracy”.

The County Councils Network, a cross-party network representing 37 county and unitary authorities, said most of its members “now recognise the need to embrace the benefits of mayoral devolution”.^[39] It also said it was “clear that local government reorganisation is necessary to unlock the barriers to more ambitious devolution settlements”. Tim Oliver, chair of the network, said there was an “appetite” from many more county and unitary authorities to move quickly to deliver devolution, and some would be “disappointed” not to have been selected for the devolution priority programme and fast-track reorganisation. Mr Oliver did not comment specifically on the issue of postponing elections.

The government has received what it described as “a significant amount of correspondence, largely opposed to postponement, from other councils in some of the areas, from political groups within councils and from members of the public”.^[40] The government also noted the existence of petitions opposing the postponement of elections in some of the affected areas. The government summarised the main arguments made to it against delaying the elections as follows:

Opposition was grounded in terms of the removal of democratic rights of voters and questions about the ongoing democratic mandate of incumbent councillors, particularly where significant decisions on the future of an area are to be taken; in some instances, arguments were expressed in party political terms. Some representations also pointed to the possibility that future council elections would also be postponed where local government reorganisation proceeds, leading to extended periods without elections and longer terms of office for incumbent councillors.^[41]

4.3 House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee drew the order to the special attention of the House on the ground that it is “politically or legally important and gives rise to matters of public policy likely to be of interest to the House”.^[42] The committee noted that in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the order, the government had said the “majority of views” it had received were opposed to postponing the elections. The committee pointed out that although the government had summarised these views in the memorandum, it had not “as it should have done, provide[d] a response to the issues raised”. It recommended the House may wish to question the government further on this, and explore further with the government how the views of local residents would be sought and taken into account in future stages of the local government reorganisation process.^[43]

5. Read more

• House of Commons Library, ‘Unitary local government’, 11 February 2025
• House of Commons Library, ‘English devolution: Mayoral strategic authorities’, 14 February 2025
• House of Commons Library, ‘Is my council going to be abolished?’, 10 February 2025
• Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, ‘Explainer: Devolution and local elections’, 6 February 2025

---

Cover image from Freepik.