PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Local Elections: Cancellation - 19 January 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on the cancellation of scheduled local government elections in May 2026.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. We are undertaking a once-in-a-generation reorganisation of local government. We have now received proposals from all areas, and from councils across the political spectrum. For decades, the two-tier council system, where it still exists, has made local government more complicated and more bureaucratic than it needs to be. This Government are bold enough to change that.

We will put in place single-tier councils everywhere by the end of this Parliament. That will mean faster local decisions to build homes and grow our towns and cities. It will bring services such as housing and social care under one roof, making them more effective and responsive to what communities need, and it will end the duplication that sees two sets of chief executives and two sets of councillors, which creates confusion and waste for local taxpayers. This is a proven model, and when we change to unitaries, we never hear calls for a return to two-tier local government.

On 18 December I updated the House on our plans to seek councils’ views on their elections in May. There is clear precedent for postponing elections due to local government reorganisation—the previous Government postponed many elections between 2019 and 2022 in order to smooth the transition to new councils. I therefore wrote to 63 councils undergoing reorganisations with elections in May to ask them if postponing their elections could release essential capacity to deliver reorganisation and to allow it to progress effectively. It is only right that we listen to councils when they express concerns about their capacity. Local leaders know their areas best and are best placed to judge their own capacity. As we have said, should a council say that it has no reason to delay, we will listen; if a council voices genuine concerns, we will take those seriously.

We are running a legally robust and fair process, and all representations are now being considered before decisions are made. The Secretary of State has written to four councils to ask for more clarity on their position by 10 am tomorrow. These councils are Essex county council, Norfolk county council, Oxford city council and Southampton city council. As I have said, no decisions have been made, but we want to make them as quickly as possible in order to give councils certainty, and we will update Parliament on those decisions in the usual way.

This Government have moved seamlessly from arrogance to incompetence, and now to cowardice. Some 3.7 million people are being denied the right to vote. It was the Government who rushed through a huge programme of local government reorganisation, imposing new structures and timetables, and it is the Government who are failing to deliver them. Rather than take responsibility for their own failure, the Secretary of State has chosen to dump the consequences of their incompetence on to the laps of local councils.

The Government’s own local election strategy said:

“The right to participate in our democracy…should not be taken for granted.”

Cancelling elections was not part of that strategy. The Electoral Commission has been clear that the scheduled elections should go ahead as planned and that capacity constraints are not a legitimate reason for delay. Why was the Electoral Commission not consulted on these cancellations? Why is this being done at the last possible moment? Do the Government accept the Gould principle that at least six months’ notice should be given for any changes to election administration?

Ministers say that they are following the wishes of local councils, and the Minister said at the Dispatch Box that the Secretary of State has written to, among others, Essex county council. The leader of Essex county council has been clear that these elections should go ahead, yet the Secretary of State still cites Essex, among others, to justify the cancellations. It is all well and good for the Secretary of State to write to councils basically to ask them the same question, but they have already given an answer. When does the Secretary of State intend to lay the statutory instruments for these areas, and does he think it is appropriate to use secondary legislation under the Local Government Act 2000? Did Parliament really allow Ministers to run scared and cancel elections at will?

I have always said that these elections should go ahead, but the Secretary of State was the one who called these elections “pointless”, so why does he not have the courage of his own convictions, take responsibility for his own ineptitude and stop laying the blame on local councils?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making those points, which I will certainly relay to the Secretary of State so that he can take them under advisement. We wrote to notify the Electoral Commission, and we are grateful for its ongoing engagement. We will certainly have regard to all views and representations made, including those of the Electoral Commission, but this is fundamentally about local councils and their capacity, and that is why we have asked for representations from them.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Gould principle. That principle is underpinned by the need for certainty, so if there are technical changes, those responsible for the delivery of elections have time to adapt, but this is not about technical changes. We are listening to councils’ views about their capacity in the context of local government reorganisation.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked when the Secretary of State will make decisions. We have moved quickly to get these representations from councils, and the Secretary of State will make a decision as soon as he possibly can.

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

I thank the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), for raising this important issue. I accept that the Minister highlighted that there are concerns from councils, but again, we find ourselves in quite a disappointing area. Just before Christmas, the Minister highlighted that councils were asked to delay elections, after the Secretary of State had repeatedly told our Committee that they would be going ahead. As a former election organiser, I know how key dates will be etched in a lot of our minds. It is 108 days until polling day. The deadline for people who have to re-apply for postal votes is 31 January, while the deadline to register to vote is in April. We want people to vote, so I am concerned that we are seeing a postponement yet again. Can the Minister outline when the Government will make the final decisions? Do they plan to reject any of the requests for delays?

The Minister outlined that the Government want councils to be up to date and not have to stress with reorganisation. Reorganisation will take a lot of time and resources, but we are effectively asking councils to choose between running day-to-day services and running an election. It should not be either/or. Councils should be in a state to deliver those services. Can the Minister outline that she is confident that the reorganisation will not distract hard-working frontline staff, impacting residents across the country who rely on the council’s day-to-day services?

My hon. Friend mentions how important it is for elections to take place. As she knows, large numbers of people will be voting in May. We are talking about a relatively discrete number of local authorities undergoing reorganisation. She asked when the Secretary of State will make the decision. He will do that as soon as he possibly can, and we have set out the further information that we have asked for.

My hon. Friend also asked about resources. This is really important, because the whole point of reorganisation is to ensure that we use our resources in the best way possible. It bears repeating, as I have done on many occasions in this House, that local authorities bore the brunt of austerity. We have reconnected council funding with deprivation, and I am anxious to make sure that all local authorities move towards financial sustainability. I look forward to discussing that with my hon. Friend’s Committee further.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I find it really interesting that this urgent question comes from the Conservative party, which sought to cancel local elections this year and last year in Surrey. [Interruption.] Given the professed concern for democracy of the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), I hope that he will commit to supporting Lord Pack’s amendment in the House of Lords, removing the Secretary of State’s power to change the timing of local elections—[Interruption.]

Order. I want to hear what the Liberal Democrat spokesperson has to say, as do all our constituents.

That said, the Labour party is the main offender in cancelling elections, and it appears to be running scared from the ballot box rather than trusting voters. Does the Minister accept that cancelling elections risks setting a dangerous precedent that elections become optional when they are inconvenient to those in power? What message does it send to residents about the value of local government if their right to vote can be so easily set aside? Democracy is a right, not a matter of convenience.

I thank the hon. Lady for powering through, despite commentary from the Opposition Front Bench. She asks about the importance of democracy. It is, of course, very important. The vast majority of elections are going ahead next year. A huge number of people will be voting. It is important that that principle is stuck to. We will take the decisions based on the evidence and the precedent I set out in response to other Members.

As a former leader of a major council and a Labour MP, I find this completely embarrassing. A Labour Government should not be taking the vote away from 3.7 million people. It is completely unprecedented for a Labour Government to do that. There is clearly a vested interest for some councillors who may feel, looking at the opinion polls, that they will lose their seat. Some of those councillors will vote for delay. How will the Minister distinguish between that motivation and whether or not there really is a lack of capacity to carry out the elections? I do not believe that any of those councils are unable to hold those elections.

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the views he expresses, which I will be certain to pass on to the Secretary of State as he takes his decision. In the statement before Christmas, I set out the kind of evidence we are looking for. That is the kind of thing we will take into consideration.

A year ago, Ministers told council leaders in Essex that it was necessary to postpone elections in order to facilitate reorganisation to “the most ambitious timetable”. A year later, there has been absolutely no progress and we do not even know how many authorities are proposed. Was it not wrong to cancel elections last year and wrong to cancel them again this year?

We have made progress on the reorganisation and I anticipate us making strong progress this year. I hear the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes about his own views. Those will be taken account of, alongside other views expressed.

Local elections will be going forward in full in Milton Keynes this year, and I look forward to continuing to work with my brilliant hard-working Labour councillors. The ongoing process of reorganisation is delaying elections, but it is also delaying the creation of new combined authorities across many parts of the country. Given that, will the Department look again at the fast-track process, and whether places that have already gone through reorganisation and are fully unitarised, such as Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes, should be added to that programme, and that the creation of new combined authorities should be sped up in those places, given that it has taken some time in others?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Coming from an area with a unitary council and a combined authority that is taking steps to improve public transport and other things, I appreciate fully the points he makes and I will pass them on to the Minister for Devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh).

Only dictators cancel elections, as well as Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat councils, which are terrified of facing the wrath of the voters. We will be carrying out a judicial review of this appalling decision to cancel elections. Will the Minister confirm that if the noble judges rule in our favour that this is the wrong thing to do, the Government will abide by their ruling?

The hon. Gentleman mentions a legal process that I am not at liberty to comment on in detail. We want elections to go ahead, unless there is a strong justification. That is what we have said and that is what we will stick to.

Many of my constituents do not understand why we have an inefficient, duplicative, confusing system of two-tier councils at the moment. They are looking forward to this process going ahead and to having one council. As we await the process, it is really important that the councils we have remain responsive to our constituents’ needs. To give one example, I am organising a meeting next month about local bus services. I have invited East Sussex county council, run by the Conservatives, as the responsible transport authority, but it is currently refusing to send anyone to the meeting. Does the Minister agree that is unacceptable, particularly because it has been given a record amount of money by this Labour Government—over £10 million—to improve our bus services and my constituents want to tell it their experiences of buses?

Given the number of times buses have been raised with me when I have been door-knocking during elections, I am surprised that they do not lead the news more often. I congratulate my hon. Friend on her efforts to get decent bus services for her constituents, and would say to any local authority that if it wants to engage with residents on the things they care about, buses should be top of the list.

Is it just a coincidence that the only three councils in Essex that want to cancel the elections—Basildon, Harlow and Thurrock—are all run by the Labour party, while all the others—Braintree, Chelmsford, Colchester, Brentwood, Epping Forest, Rochford, Southend and Essex county council—want the elections to go ahead? Is the Minister going to listen to the majority?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the points he raises. I have set out the way in which we are consulting with local authorities, and the Secretary of State will take the decision accordingly.

As the Minister has already mentioned, the previous Government postponed elections in 2021, including in my constituency. Does she agree with the words of the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who was the Communities Secretary at the time—and whom I note is not in either of his recent places in the Chamber this afternoon—that holding elections “in such circumstances”, namely local government reorganisation, risks

“confusing voters and would be hard to justify where members could be elected to serve shortened terms”?—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 24WS.]

I do not know about agreeing with the right hon. Member for Newark, but I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, who gets to the point we are trying to make. We are acting in accordance with precedent. She makes that point very well.

In Eastbourne, Conservative-run East Sussex county council is one of the worst in the country for potholes, with the second highest number of compensation payouts in total. It has resurfaced zero roads in the past year, making it the worst. Yet the people of East Sussex do not currently have a say. When can they expect to hear from the Minister or the Secretary of State about when they can kick out the Conservative council that is squatting in County Hall?

Potholes are probably second only to buses in the list of important issues. We will not have any undue delays. The Secretary of State will have more to say quite soon.

The truth of the matter is that there is actually a lot of false information flying around—does the Minister agree? In Bolton, we are very much looking forward to having local elections in May. Can the Minister confirm that that has always been the case, as it has been in the other nine boroughs in Greater Manchester, and that words to the opposite effect are simply false information?

My hon. Friend is right, of course: elections are taking place up and down the country. I am sure there are lots of people who are looking forward to participating.

The good people of Exeter want their elections to go ahead as planned in May, yet the Labour super-majorities both on Exeter city council and here in Westminster leave no realistic prospect of fighting the decision. Does the Minister agree that Exeter city council is quickly losing its democratic mandate and is moving to some form of local tinpot autocracy?

Let me thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I do not agree with him on the substantive point he makes, but I have heard his views and will pass them on to the Secretary of State.

“No taxation without representation.” Councillor Kevin Bentley, the dynamic Conservative leader of Essex county council, has been adamant that elections should go ahead. On 14 January, he wrote to the Minister:

“You may be aware that at our Full Council on 9th December I stated that Essex County Council would not be calling for the postponement of elections in May 2026. This continues to be our position.”

What was ambiguous about that? Is Labour simply running scared?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for relaying the words of Councillor Kevin Bentley, whom it has been a pleasure to meet on a number of occasions. Getting a clear position is obviously important. We will do that quickly, and the Secretary of State will —[Interruption.] I don’t know; there may have been more context than that one quote, but the Secretary of State—

Shall I read it again?

No, you’re fine. The Secretary of State will take into account those representations and others, and make a decision without any undue delay.

For the second year running, Conservative-run West Sussex county council has applied to cancel local elections, in which the Conservatives face wipeout. Their excuse is that it would be too hard to organise, but it is the seven district and borough councils that run the elections, not the county council, so will the Minister speak to the councils that have an actual democratic mandate, rather than the county administration, which is trying to cling to power long past its sell-by date?

We are in regular contact with local authorities. The Department and the Secretary of State will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said, and we will make sure that those views are fed in.

As the House may be aware, I was a local councillor at three different levels: parish, district and county. Several right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the proposals as being either single tier or two tier. I gently remind them that parishes and towns will remain, so two tiers is the minimum. I repeat the question that was asked earlier: when will all these councils know for definite if and when their elections are going to be held later this year?

Again, we have moved quickly. We are getting the information that we need, and the Secretary of State will move as quickly as he can to take the decision. It is good to know that we have Members with extensive experience in the House. I thank the hon. Gentleman for all that he has done down the years.

Conservative-run Broxbourne borough council wants its elections to go ahead, and the people of Broxbourne should be allowed their choice on 7 May. However, devolution plans could see us merge with Labour-run Stevenage borough council and the Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition-run Welwyn Hatfield borough council, which both want their elections to be cancelled. Conservative-run Broxbourne council wants its elections to go ahead. I, as the Conservative Member of Parliament for Broxbourne, want the elections to go ahead. The people of Broxbourne want their elections to go ahead. Can the Minister categorically confirm to my constituents that local elections in Broxbourne will go ahead on 7 May?

I have said on a number of occasions that we want the elections to go ahead unless there is a justified reason. The hon. Gentleman makes his point on behalf of his constituents, in the context of reorganisation. I will take that under advisement as we move forward.

If a future political researcher decides to write a thesis about the influence of adverse opinion polls on the cancellation of local elections in Britain, will the Minister, amiable as she always is, make herself available?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind question. I hope that at that point I might be doing something other than politics, and perhaps I might not quite have time.

People in Northern Ireland on a day-to-day basis know well how casually the democratic process can be set aside, not just by this Government but by the previous Government, who gave the EU permission to impose its laws on the people of Northern Ireland without any say at all. Now the people of England are beginning to experience that—3.7 million people, who would want to vote against the £280 million of additional taxes imposed on them by Labour councils, will now be denied the ability to have their say. Are the Government running scared of Reform, or do they simply not want to be held to account? Do they not realise that behaving like this turns the United Kingdom into some kind of third-world dictatorship?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, which I take in the serious terms in which it was meant. The vast majority of elections are going ahead. It is very important that people have their say. I hope that he will appreciate, as I have set out previously, the reason we have taken these steps and the manner in which we will take the decision, but he makes a very important point about the centrality of democracy, which I take seriously.

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving Isle of Wight councillor. Local government reorganisation in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight is a mess. Meanwhile, the Government propose to cut £13 million of funding from Isle of Wight council. We are due to have elections in just three and a half months’ time. Our council wants those elections to go ahead and wants to prepare for them. Will the Minister confirm that we can do that, and that those elections will go ahead on the Isle of Wight in May?

As I have said to other Members, where councils want to go ahead, and they have the capacity and there are no issues, that is fine. Elections go ahead unless there is a strong justification for them not to, which is what I—[Interruption.] Where councils want the elections to go ahead, that is fine. We will listen to what they have to say. The issue that the hon. Member raises about funding and capacity is an important one, not least in a place as unique as the Isle of Wight. We are currently in a process of considering the local government finance settlement, and he will know that we are working very hard to get that right.

Last year, a junior Housing Minister, the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), stood at the Dispatch Box and said that

“local council elections are happening in 2026. We are cracking on with it”.—[Official Report, 4 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 1164.]

For some communities, this is the second year in a row that elections have been cancelled. How does the Minister expect the British people to believe anything this Government say, or have any faith in their commitment to democracy?

Elections will be happening up and down this country in May. We are committed to democracy and it is very important that people have their say.

The hon. Lady is indeed a very honourable lady, in her response and in the way that she does things in the House, but the fact is that, whether it be down to reorganisation or a new strategy—whatever reasons the Government put forward—3.7 million people will be denied the right to cast their vote. They will see it as a denial of their franchise, which will reduce their confidence in the Government, the Minister and local government. What will she and the Government do to restore that confidence, in the light of the denial of people’s franchise and their right to express themselves democratically?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the attention and care that he gives to these issues. He gives me the opportunity to come back to the underlying reason for this whole process, which is reorganisation to get councils in a good position. In those areas that are undergoing reorganisation, once we have got the new institutions set up, which we are doing without delay, people will be able to elect representatives to those new institutions. That is what happened when we had reorganisation previously—as has been mentioned, this process has been gone through recently—and it will mean that people can elect their councillors, and have their say about the kind of public services they want in their area.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister referred earlier, and did so again in her final comments, to the cancellation or delay of the 2020 local government elections as being justified by the reorganisation of local government. That is a factual error; they were, quite unambiguously, delayed because we were in the middle of a global pandemic. How is it best to correct the record with regard to the reason those elections were delayed?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. That is a continuation of the debate, and I am not responsible for the Minister’s comments; however, he has put his point of view on the record.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Forgive me, but I must correct the record: Harlow council is a Conservative council, but it is the exception that proves the rule that they are otherwise all Labour councils.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He has now corrected the record.