🤔 Delegated Legislation Committee

• The Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) Order 2025 was discussed in a parliamentary session, focusing on changes to local election schedules to facilitate local government reorganization.

• The government proposed to postpone local elections in certain areas to allow time for reorganization, rather than cancel them, which has caused concerns among the opposition. They fear that residents won’t have the opportunity to vote in these postponed elections because the councils will be abolished during reorganization.

• The Minister, Jim McMahon, defended the decision, stating that the postponement would help manage transitions smoothly and support mayoral devolution. He emphasized that the reorganized councils would be more sustainable and efficient.

• Concerns were raised about the lack of local input and consultation in the decision-making process, with some MPs feeling that the reorganization was being imposed top-down by the government.

• Questions were posed regarding what would happen if the reorganization process took longer than expected, and how by-elections would be handled during this period. The Minister clarified that by-elections would proceed as usual and that there would be multiple stages of final proposal submissions, with varying deadlines for different areas.

• The opposition expressed worries about the government’s suggested population size for new unitary councils, fearing it was arbitrary and not well justified. They also questioned whether reorganization would save money for councils, given examples where reorganized councils continued to face financial difficulties.

• The Minister responded by stating that the population size of 500,000 was a starting point for discussions, not a strict rule, and that the government was providing additional funds to help with the reorganization process.

• The committee ultimately voted in favor of the order, with 11 votes for and 6 against, approving the postponement of local elections in the specified areas.

The session displayed a moderate level of disagreement, primarily centered around the decision to postpone local elections in the context of local government reorganization. Here are the key points of contention and examples that contributed to the rating of 3 out of 5:

1. Nature of the Postponement vs. Cancellation: There is confusion and disagreement over whether the local elections are being postponed or effectively cancelled. David Simmonds (Con) expresses concern that the statutory instrument implies a mere postponement, whereas the actual intention is to cancel these elections for councils that are about to be abolished. This confusion was evident in his statement: “However, the instrument says to all those local authorities that their local elections are expected to go ahead on the due date in 2026—that the election is merely postponed in Essex and the other local authorities listed.”

2. Local Consultation and Decision-Making Process: Vikki Slade (LD) argues that the process lacks local consultation and that the decision to cancel elections is being imposed from Whitehall, unlike previous reorganizations that involved local discussions and consultations. She states: “In this case, the voices of local people have not been heard at all.” This indicates a significant disagreement with the government’s approach.

3. Capacity and Timelines for Reorganization: Lewis Cocking (Con) and Martin Wrigley (LD) raise concerns about the capacity within the civil service to manage the reorganization of nine councils within a year. This is illustrated by Cocking’s comments: “If we are to believe what is in the news about a 15% reduction in the civil service, how will the MHCLG cope and get those nine councils done within a year?” The concern over timelines reflects a disagreement on the feasibility and practicality of the government’s plan.

4. Size and Structure of New Authorities: There is disagreement over the proposed size of the new local authorities, specifically the population size set by the government. Anneliese Dodds (Lab/Co-op) and others question the flexibility of these sizes, with Dodds mentioning the Minister’s earlier statement about the 500,000 figure being potentially an “average”.

5. Financial Implications and Local Government Stability: Lewis Cocking (Con) challenges the government’s claim that reorganization will solve financial difficulties for local authorities, citing the example of Somerset council: “Somerset council has gone through reorganisation to a unitary structure; it has asked the Government to increase council tax bills by 7.5%, which was accepted, yet it is still in financial difficulty.” This indicates a disagreement on the efficacy of the reorganization as a solution to financial issues.

While the disagreements were substantial, they were approached constructively with members offering critiques and seeking clarification from the Minister. The Minister responded to concerns, attempting to clarify and justify the government’s position, which suggests an effort to address disagreements. However, the underlying tensions and varied views on the implementation, impact, and process of the reorganization reflect a moderate level of disagreement, justifying the rating of 3.