Agenda item

To receive the report of the Chief Executive.

 

The Leader moved the recommendations of the report, seconded by Councillor Wright, and invited the Chief Executive to present the report.  

 

The Chief Executive highlighted the following points in presenting the report: 

  

The Minister of State for Local Government and Homelessness had invited Council Leaders in areas undergoing Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) to set out their views on whether postponing the May 2026 local elections would better support the delivery of LGR. The deadline for the Leader to respond was midnight on Thursday, 15 January. The letter from the Minister of State could be found in Appendix A.  

 

The purpose of the report was to enable an informed discussion on whether postponing the elections would release capacity to deliver LGR effectively.  

The report recommended firstly, that Council notes the letter from the Minister of State and considers its implications and secondly, having heard Members’ views, the Leader was asked to respond by 15 January, on whether or not to request the postponement of the May 2026 elections. 

 

The Chief Executive clarified that there was no decision being made locally on elections as that was not within the powers of this Council. Only government could make that decision, should they be minded to do so under Section 87 of the Local Government Act 2000, which gave the Secretary of State the authority to change the electoral cycle through secondary legislation. There was precedent on postponing elections during LGR which had taken place previously. 

 

There were three reasons identified in the report for considering postponing the elections scheduled for 7 May:  

1. councillors elected would serve only two years before their roles were abolished under the new unitary structure as opposed to the usual term of four years;  

2. the Government’s statutory consultation on LGR at the start of February may coincide with the pre-election period, limiting meaningful engagement with residents. If the start of the consultation was delayed, which had happened with other timescales on LGR, the Government’s seven-week consultation period could coincide with the pre-election period.  

3. Postponement would release approximately £265,000 of resources, both financial and staffing, to focus on critical transition work including governance, service design budgets, workforce changes, and technology. There may also need to be work done, dependent on the Government’s decision on the structure of local government in Devon, to prepare for Shadow Elections in 2027. This needed to be balanced against the risks of postponing elections:  

·        Residents may feel disenfranchised if elections were postponed. 

·        Some councillors may choose to resign rather than extend their term. This would require by-elections to be held which would lead to some costs and workload.  

 

Members were assured that work had already started on preparing for local elections and this would continue until the Government confirmed their position.  

Venues had been booked and recruitment to the 450 roles required to deliver the election would start in the next few weeks. The cost to deliver local elections was around £265,000 excluding any payments already made.  

 

In terms of work required to deliver LGR, officers had started work as the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) had set out work that needed to commence ahead of the Government’s decision. It was highly likely that additional resources would be required to deliver this work and a further report would be brought to Members seeking resources for this. 

 

As described in the report, the work that needed to be started now included: 

• Human Resources: 

o   review HR data to ensure it accurately reflects the current workforce; 

o   ensure that every member of staff had an up-to-date job description accurately describing their daily work and contract of employment; 

o   consideration of the process for allocating staff to the new authorities; and 

o   identification of business-critical roles and prioritisation of retention strategies. 

• Digital and Data: 

o   audit of key IT systems including infrastructure, websites, applications, data systems and licences; 

o   audit of data and information stored on key IT systems; 

o   audit and forward plan of IT contracts; and 

o   management of historical records to make sure they are up to date for the new authority. 

• Procurement and Contracts: 

o   review of all current contracts with third parties to determine what could easily be novated, assigned or varied; and 

o   update of the contracts register for all systems. 

• Assets: 

o   audit of the Asset Register to ensure completeness and clarify the terms under which an asset was owned; and 

o   review of ‘in flight’ capital projects. 

• Communication and Engagement: 

o   communication and engagement with local stakeholders; and 

o   working with other councils to identify how services could be disaggregated, to what timeframe, and the resources required. 

• Programme and Project Management: 

o   establishment of a Programme Management Office and development of local protocols for decision making. To include key risks and opportunities; and 

o   this work had to be done before a decision was made by Government.

  

Once the Government decision had been made, there would be a significant volume of complex work to plan and implement with all councils in Devon, irrespective of which submission was agreed. This council’s submission gave an outline of what this would be. 

 

The Chief Executive responded to Members’ questions in the following terms:  

• arrangements for any by-elections would be set out by the Statutory Order that would be laid before Parliament should the Government decide that local elections would be cancelled; 

• Leaders in the areas going through LGR received the Minister of State’s letter, not just those due to hold elections;  

• Exeter City Council would be a statutory body for the consultation on LGR;  

• should the local elections proceed, officers would continue to work on LGR using remaining capacity, and seeking additional resources from Council as identified. As Elections were a statutory responsibility of councils, officers would use best endeavours to deliver them legally and efficiently;  

• the invitation from the Government was for the Leader to express his views about LGR work being done more efficiently were the elections postponed;  

• the intensity of the work required to deliver LGR and the continuing focus on business as usual was a key issue;  

• it was acknowledged that the elections to any new Shadow authority would take place in 2027 and there would need to be resourcing for this; 

• the Council already had an Employee Assistance programme in place for officers and work was being done to ensure that senior leadership and through them, all staff, would be supported through LGR;

• the Council had been given £35,000 for developing the LGR submission from Government, as part of an allocation to Devon councils. It was currently not known if there would be Government funding available for the next phase of LGR work, but a meeting would take place with the MHCLG at the end of January 2026, where that may be explored; and 

• it was not possible to give a view regarding officers and residents in neighbouring areas being at an advantage if the elections were not postponed.  

 

Councillor Hughes, as co-Leader of the Equity Independent Group, made the following points:  

• democracy was crucial and people had died for the right to vote;  

• the people of Exeter would not remember the reasons given but would remember how it made them feel, disenfranchised; and 

• urged the Leader to consider how the people of Exeter would feel if they did not have a voice.  

 

Councillor Michael Mitchell, as Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, made the following points:  

• on July 22 2025, the Leader stated that he had no intention of cancelling elections;  

• democracy delayed was democracy denied;  

• the Labour Government had already cancelled elections in other areas of the country;  

• money could and would always be found to carry out necessary work;  

• this Council did not know if their LGR bid would be successful;  

• Plymouth City Council would proceed with their elections; and  

• this was not a postponement but a cancellation.  

 

Councillor Holland, as Leader of the Conservative Group, made the following points:  

• he did not believe that the elections should lapse;  

• the elections in 2027 would be for the new shadow council;  

• it had been deemed undemocratic to postpone the election in 2018, so why not now;  

• it was not possible to know what the future would look like until the Secretary of State had made their decision;  

• residents were dismayed that Councillors were spending time considering this;  

• it was morally and ethically wrong to cancel residents’ democratic right; and  

• residents relied on their Councillors to look after their interests.  

 

Councillor Moore, as Leader of the Green Group, proposed an amendment to the recommendations, but this was not allowed by the Lord Mayor as it negated the original motion. Councillor Moore made the following points during debate:  

• she was interested to hear what had been said and it was helpful to hear from the Chief Executive;  

• this was not an issue of capacity but of confidence;  

• there was evidence that the Government could prepare for LGR;  

• she was confident in the proposal that was made, and had read the transition document and it did not highlight a funding gap, nor issues with capacity;  

• there was no lack of capacity identified within the risk register;  

• LGR should be funded by the Government; and  

• elections were not a privilege but a right. 

 

Councillor Haigh, as co-Leader of the Equity Independent group, made the following points:  

• LGR would be hard;  

• she would wholly support what the workforce was being asked to deliver;  

• it was reasonable to see any savings as worthwhile, but cancellation did not guarantee savings;  

• by-elections may still take place if a Councillor resigned, and if those were cancelled it could cause issues; 

• cancelling elections risked being seen as self-protective;  

• the May 2026 elections would provide a full and meaningful period of service; and  

• democracy mattered to Exeter, especially when decisions were difficult.  

 

During debate, Members speaking in support of the recommendations made the following comments:  

• elections had been cancelled previously in 2010 for LGR, which was deemed rare and exceptional;  

• disenfranchisement needed to be prevented;  

• this was the biggest local government reorganisation in 50 years, and it was very important to balance having elections with the LGR workload;  

• these were exceptional circumstances that required exceptional change; 

• the best team to deliver LGR was the current team that had dedicated their time to it;  

• holding an election would divert energy and capacity into something that would not exist in the future;  

• this was not about denying democracy but about ensuring residents were voting for a council that would exist;  

• there were many forms of democracy, and it was right to consider postponement in certain circumstances;  

• LGR would be hard on staff and cancelling the elections would support staff;  

• LGR was creating a one stop shop for better services and outcomes for residents;  

• the work post elections would be significant;  

• the elections should be postponed if it could ensure the successful release of resources;  

• moving rapidly towards unitary status would take up resources, and it could not be allowed to fail;  

• LGR was once in a generation;  

• postponement of elections was not a new concept;  

• the Secretary of State would make the decision to postpone the election;  

• this was a matter of capacity rather than money;  

• a large amount of case work was assisting residents with issues of a two-tier system and it was hoped that LGR would resolve these;  

• people would not know what powers the newly elected Members would hold if elections were held during LGR;  

• this was about the extra pressure on officers and senior Councillors;  

• this was a postponement and not a cancellation, and would give officers and Councillors the time needed to focus on LGR; and 

• the Leader should be encouraged to undertake a community governance review. 

 

During debate, Members speaking against the recommendations made the following comments:  

• everyone supported the democratic process, and residents should be involved;  

• elections were the only opportunity for residents to have their say;  

• residents should be able to decide who would represent them;  

• all decisions should be governed by the Nolan Principles;  

• elections were critical and gave legitimacy to a council;  

• the disruptions caused by elections were a good thing and they were a vital component of a healthy democracy;  

• elections were needed to test if those elected would deliver what had been promised;  

• this would set a precedent that it was reasonable to cancel elections if they were inconvenient;  

• if the elections were postponed, the Council should be reconstituted, and the Leader should resign;  

• there was no reason for this Council to decide that the people of Exeter should not have their say;  

• elections enabled diverse voices to be heard; 

• democracy was precious and must be protected;  

• if elections were postponed, residents may feel alienated and develop a sense of political apathy;  

• residents should have a say in their governance;  

• it was clear that there was a drive from the public to vote in new Councillors;  

• democracy must be delivered without excuses;  

• postponing elections would cause residents to lose trust in the Council;  

• large amounts of the election work was outsourced;  

• there were no concerns that the election could not be delivered or that the LGR work would not be able to go ahead, just that it would be more work;  

• the Secretary of State would make their decision based on the information provided to them;  

• residents would be disenfranchised;  

• there was nothing in the report that said there was a capacity problem in relation to elections;  

• it was confirmed that the elections work would still be able to be completed if necessary;  

• the information given sent a message that democracy was worth less than £265,000, about £2 per resident of Exeter;  

• the Leader should include in his letter that many Members wanted the elections to continue;  

• two years was a long time to extend the term of a councillor; and 

• LGR had always caused capacity pressures.  

 

In summing up the debate, the Leader, Councillor Bialyk made the following points:  

• this was a serious matter; 

• he had said in July that he would not ask for a postponement, but he had not asked the Minister to send the letter;  

• this was not the end of democracy;  

• the Council had to give a view about capacity issues;  

• his letter would be made available to all Councillors;  

• the Chief Executive had told him about capacity issues, and they had already spoken about how this would look going forward;  

• there was a lot of work that needed to be done before July;  

• he was convinced that there was capacity but that these were exceptional circumstances;  

• he would make sure Councillors’ remarks were made clear in the letter to the minister; and 

• there would be a governance review within this period.  

 

 

Councillor Hughes called for a roll call vote, and a named vote was recorded as follows:  

 

Voting For:  

Councillors Asvachin, Atkinson, Begley, Bialyk, Cookson, Darling, Harding, Knott, Miller-Boam, Parkhouse, Patrick, Pole, Rolstone, Snow, Vizard, Wardle, Williams M, Williams R, Wood, and Wright. (20 Members).  

 

Voting Against:  

Councillors Fullam, Mitchell K, Mitchell M, Moore, Palmer, Payne, Read, Sheridan, and Wetenhall. (9 Members).   

 

Abstentions:  

Councillors Banyard, Bennett, Haigh, Holland, Hughes, Ketchin, Rees, and the Lord Mayor. (8 Members).  

 

Absent:  

Councillor Foale. (1 Member).  

 

Following a vote the recommendations were CARRIED.