PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Local Government Reorganisation - 13 July 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 local government reorganisation.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. Nearly 21 million people in our country are served by complex two-tier structures that divide responsibilities, slow down decisions, duplicate costs and blur accountability. The Government’s aims for local government reorganisation are clearer structures, stronger councils, quicker decisions, more homes and better services. We have set out the timetable and we are on track, which includes making announcements on the remaining areas this week. My officials have written to councils to confirm that the announcement will take place this week, and I am pleased at the progress made so far, with unitary councils announced for five areas and elections held in Surrey. Structural changes orders are being brought forward as planned, and we are on track for new councils to go live in April 2028.

Some £63 million of funding is available to support transition costs, which we are paying directly to councils, and each new council will receive at least £900,000. This is the first time that funding has been made available by central Government for that purpose, because we need to get the reforms right. Local government reorganisation offers an opportunity for our communities to give local leaders the funding, powers and capacity to grow their economies, build the homes their communities need, and create better public services, improving the lives of the people we serve. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to set that out.

We have all watched this film before. The Secretary of State, who once again scurries away to avoid scrutiny, tried to cancel local elections. He was caught putting his thumb on the scales and forced into an embarrassing climbdown that cost time and money, and undermined confidence in politics and local government. He is setting about the biggest reorganisation of local government in more than half a century, and doing so with no mandate for a change of this scale. Ministers now appear to be desperate to avoid scrutiny, by announcing these decisions on the final sitting day before the House rises for the summer recess—a pattern we have seen before.

The Minister insists that elections for the new shadow authorities will take place next year. We also heard that elections for county mayors would take place in May this year, but—spoiler alert—they did not happen. In many areas there are still no agreed authority boundaries, no ward boundaries and no legislative timetable. How are councils, candidates and electors supposed to prepare for elections without those key details? Why are Labour councillors allowed to redraw the boundaries of the very authorities that they hope to represent, before any independent review by the Local Government Boundary Commission? If the process is not about narrow party political advantage, why were Labour MPs and councillors briefed before this House? If the elections are to happen next year, the Government must bring forward the necessary legislation before the House rises. I ask the Government to break with tradition, to be open and transparent, and to avoid diktat from the centre—or is it really the legacy of the Secretary of State to leave things in such a shambles?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. He said I was desperate to avoid scrutiny—

I said “the Secretary of State”.

I am a Minister, too, and I can answer. I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree with me that I have answered a number of Westminster Hall debates on this subject, and we have also had debates upstairs on statutory instruments, as is absolutely right. Members of this House will have an opportunity to question the Government and put their views forward, as they already have done in Westminster Hall debates and on other occasions.

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman missed what I said, which was that we will make announcements on the remaining areas this week. [Interruption.] The day will be decided by the usual channels; I will not presume to say what the usual channels and Mr Speaker will decide. If the right hon. Gentleman has a little patience, he can give me another go at this when I make the announcement very soon.

Order. There is no point in taking everybody. This urgent question is going to be brief, because we are going to do this again on Thursday, when we will have all the facts before us. If I had been told this earlier, this would not have happened. I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) for securing this urgent question. Local government reform is complex, involving more than 200 councils that deliver services to millions of residents right across the country. My hon. Friend the Minister is very capable, but local government is raising real concerns. Is she aware of the comments of the new chair of the Local Government Association, Councillor Eamonn O’Brien, who said that the LGA had

“not previously taken a position on LGR”,

but that it is

“hearing from…councils…about real delivery concerns”?

We have looked at this issue on the Select Committee, and have raised concerns about standards in the housing sector, ability to deliver measures, such as those rightly in the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, and enforcement. The LGA raised six concerns. It said that the reforms were trying to do too much, too quickly, with too little. That poses a real challenge when it comes to the vital council services that residents need. Will the Minister ensure that the LGA’s concerns are heard across Government, and that reorganisation will never take resources away from the critical frontline services, including adult social care and children’s social care, that so many of our residents rely on?

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her very important contribution. I meet regularly with the leadership of the LGA for all the reasons that she mentions. These reforms matter so much because councils do very important things. Both the child poverty strategy and the Milburn review made clear the cost of fragmented services to some of the most vulnerable children and young people in this country, so getting this right really matters. As I have said, we have already allocated £63 million to supporting councils, and I will have more to say on that very shortly.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

We Liberal Democrats support genuine devolution, because decisions are better made closer to the communities they affect, yet this Labour Government’s approach has been top-down Whitehall diktat from the very start. Councils have been undermined, residents have been barely consulted, and communities have been left in the dark about the future of local services, all while councils continue to face significant financial pressure.

With the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) expected to saunter into No. 10 within days, I am deeply concerned that Members of this House, councils and residents have no clarity about the approach to local government reorganisation that he will take, whether the parameters will change, and whether future local elections will be cancelled yet again. What discussions has the Minister had with the right hon. Member for Makerfield about his plans for reorganisation, and will she commit to no further local elections being cancelled?

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson asks me what conversations I have had with my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield; I am afraid that they have been mainly about Everton and Liverpool football club. [Hon. Members: “Resign!”] Indeed.

The work of this Government to secure devolution and reshape local government, so that we can grow our economy, build homes and serve our constituents properly, has been thought through carefully and is proceeding in line with the timetable. I am sure that all of us in this House, whatever our views, want that to succeed.

I call Perran Moon. Oh, he is not standing now; he has changed his mind. Are you standing up?

No. Make your mind up!

I thank the Minister for her answers. She will know that local government reorganisation is one side of the coin, and devolution is the other. In places like Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, access to bus franchising, the adult skills agenda and spatial planning is the real victory that we look for. When the announcement comes this week on the new local authority boundaries, will she be able to give any insight on when decisions about strategic authorities will be made? When might there be the first elections for those, so that we can access the devolved powers that we desperately want?

I thank my hon. Friend for his important question, especially given the state of public transport in many parts of this country. I will take his question as a request that I include certain things in the statement later this week.

May I draw the Minister’s attention to a poll conducted and published by YouGov? It shows that local government reform in Essex is really unpopular. What is more, the more people are questioned about it, the more unpopular it becomes. Why do we not have a referendum in Essex to find out whether we really want local government reform, instead of it just being imposed by politicians who think that they know better?

Obviously, like all politicians, I pay close attention to opinion polls.

I thank the Minister for her listening ear throughout this process. I know that she will make a bigger statement on Thursday, but while she is giving these matters consideration, may I make a last-ditch attempt to convince her to keep Burnley and Blackburn very separate? Will she prioritise devolution in Lancashire, so that we can have a mayor and enjoy the things that cities enjoy, such as cheaper buses and business investment?

I thank my hon. Friend for his representations. I cannot respond directly to them, but as ever, I keep the views of Members of this House under close watch.

In four days’ time, we will mark exactly two years since I first explained to Ministers how much the people of Staffordshire Moorlands do not want to be part of a greater Stoke local authority, do not want devolution forced on them, and want their say on who makes decisions about what happens there. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), may I implore the Minister for a referendum? We do not want this imposed on us in north Staffordshire; we want to have our say.

I am sorry to disappoint experienced and knowledgeable hon. and right hon. Members, but having referenda is not part of the local government reorganisation process. It is very important that we hit the milestones in the timetable that we have set out.

In Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, several options are being put forward for local government reform, which could benefit Peterborough greatly. Will the Minister reassure us that we will get the announcement, whatever it is, sooner rather than later, so that we can prepare? Did she hear Opposition Members say that Labour MPs have been briefed the details of what is to come? That allegation has been made against me, but I put on record that I have not been briefed, and no information has been leaked to me. That is a scurrilous rumour. Will the Minister put on the record that no MPs anywhere know the outcome or result yet?

Be careful that they do not accuse you of protesting too much.

It is fair to say that I am champing at the bit to make this statement, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your support in helping us to do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) has made his point clear.

To be clear for the record, there have been a lot of accusations that people have been briefed. I can assure the House that I know of no briefing—not even to me, although I had hoped to have one.

The Liberal Democrat administration on Hertfordshire county council has made huge strides forward in improving special educational needs and disabilities provision. We were delighted when the Government lifted the improvement notice, which had been imposed when the Conservatives were running the council. Just as families are starting to feel the benefit, we are really worried that local government reorganisation could disrupt the delivery of SEND and social care provision. What support will be given to ensure that those essential services for the most vulnerable people will not be disrupted by local government reorganisation?

I thank the hon. Lady for her important and serious point. I have been working very closely with my colleagues in the Department for Education on this issue. A big change process is under way, and I would be happy to speak to the hon. Lady further about it.

I welcome the Minister’s reassurance that an announcement will be made this week. Two proposals have been put forward for reorganisation in Warwickshire; like my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan), I put on record my support for the two-Warwickshire proposal, because it most accurately reflects how people consider services. Would she say that that the only people who seem to support the one-Warwickshire solution are the Reform administration in Warwickshire, which has failed to improve the situation regarding potholes, buses, SEND or children’s services, and that people in my constituency would therefore really welcome elections taking place in accordance with the schedule?

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. She will understand that until we have made the announcement, there is little I can say in response to her point, but I will just say that councils deliver very important public services. We are introducing the local outcomes framework so that we can see transparently what councils deliver and what they do not.

The Minister and I have had many exchanges on this topic, and she knows that I am focused on securing the best outcome for my constituents. We know that reorganisation in Hertfordshire is coming, but the uncertainty is not helping my residents or local councillors, so can the Minister confirm whether an option for Hertfordshire will be included in her announcement on Thursday? Can she also confirm whether MPs will be informed before any public announcement is made?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the many exchanges we have had. I know that he just wants the best for his constituents, as we all do. It might help the House if I explain the process we go through. We provide Members of Parliament in affected areas with a short briefing before the announcement is made. That is done for all Members of Parliament; it is what has happened to date, and what I anticipate will happen as and when I am able to make the statement. We will be able to talk more openly once that decision is in the public domain.

Does the Minister believe, as I do, that if local government reorganisation is done correctly, it has the potential not just to reshape local government so that it is fit for the 21st century, but to help us secure much-needed economic growth?

I thank my hon. Friend for that really important point. This is not just about constitutional niceties or the importance of councils to government in this country, crucial though they are; it is about having the right-sized authority to grow our towns and cities, and to give young people and everybody else in this country the opportunities they deserve.

In a week’s time, we will have a new, unelected Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Makerfield. Can the Minister confirm whether the right hon. Member supports this local government reorganisation, or is he going to reorganise the reorganisation?

Last time I checked, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield had, in fact, been elected.

The Minister will know the strength of feeling in Newcastle-under-Lyme in support of a Newcastle-only unitary. Will she confirm that Members of this House have not been told about any proposed boundaries or confirmed plans? The idea that some members of the LGA have been notified of some confirmed proposals before this House beggars belief. Also, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that local identity, civic heritage and a sense of community will be protected? In my view, we should support local communities like mine in establishing town councils to do just that.

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I have set out the process by which this House will be updated on the decisions, but if my hon. Friend has evidence of anything else that he is concerned about, he may well want to write to me to share that information directly.

In recent weeks in West Worcestershire, I have met local police and the police and crime commissioner; the police and crime commissioner is being abolished, and the police are being reorganised. I have met the local health commissioners; they are being reorganised, and Healthwatch is being abolished. I have met district councillors; they are being abolished, and their ability to make determinations on planning applications has been taken away. Can the Minister explain how any of this throwing everything up in the air is actually going to help my constituents, particularly the most vulnerable?

The approach we are taking is to put power in the hands of people and communities so that they can take decisions for themselves, because all the evidence is that if people with skin in the game take the decisions, we get better decisions, growth and better public services.

I suggest to my hon. Friend that once I have actually made the announcement, perhaps we can have a chat about those things. As somebody who has had mayoral devolution in my area for more than a decade now, and who represents the great town of Birkenhead—recently shortlisted for town of culture—I have a lot of thoughts about this issue, which I will happily share with him.

Torbay council is the most deprived local authority in the south-west of England. I would welcome the Minister’s assurances that rearranging the deckchairs with this local reorganisation will not detract from regeneration, which is a core driver for that local authority. The new Prime Minister is set to move No. 10 a further two hours away from the west of England. How will he be supporting the south-west?

I am not sure that all the hon. Gentleman’s questions were central to the subject of this statement, but he makes an important point, which is: what is the objective here? The objective is to grow our economy, so that we can deal with deprivation, particularly in seaside and coastal places, and have better quality public services to support people. That is the objective, and that is what I think we will achieve.

I join you, Mr Speaker, and other Lancastrian MPs waiting in apprehension for the announcement on Thursday. Blackpool has put forward its proposal for four unitary councils in Lancashire, based on us achieving the best possible outcomes for people in Blackpool after losing £1.8 billion under the previous Government. I know the Minister will not be able to comment on the decisions until Thursday, but can she outline the situation with Lancashire and the mayoral pathway? We are falling so far behind Greater Manchester and Merseyside. We desperately need that investment today, so can we ensure that the train on that track keeps going?

As a fellow north-west MP and fan of Blackpool, I say to my hon. Friend that he is absolutely right. We need to stick to the timetable and get on with this, so that we can invest in Lancashire, in Blackpool and in everywhere else.

I would like to think that if this Minister were Secretary of State, we would not be in a situation where 23,000 people were signing an online petition protesting against the carve-up of the New Forest in this local government reorganisation. Can she tell me: is there any truth in the report in The Times on 18 June that the Secretary of State had overruled professional advice from civil servants in three separate Departments to impose a gerrymandered solution on Essex county council?

I am sorry to say that I have not seen that report in The Times, but I would be very happy to write the right hon. Gentleman with a response to his question.

Can the Minister confirm that Ministers will be considering representations from councillors and MPs on the interim warding arrangements? There is some concern in Basingstoke and across North Hampshire that urban areas could be disadvantaged by having a smaller number of councillors, as has been proposed.

Yes, we will consider representations from all stakeholders through this process.

Most areas that will have local elections next year know what their local authority boundaries will look like, but residents of West Sussex are still completely in the dark. Those in, specifically, Bersted and Pagham are worried about being put into a coastal authority that risks being bankrupt on day one. When the Minister comes to the House on Thursday, will she lay out how a deficit of, potentially, £45 million will be plugged, and will she also rule out using one authority to pay for the deficit of the other?

I take the hon. Lady’s question as a kind of pre-alert for what she would like to know on Thursday. That is helpful, and I thank her for it. Let me make the general point that local government finances are very challenging, and when a council cannot make its finances work, all of us in the country pay the price in the end.

As a former councillor on Chesterfield borough council—and given the excellent record that Labour has had there over the last 15 years—I think it will be a shame when the borough council ceases to exist and we move towards unitary authority status, but I have never met someone in a unitary authority who thought it would be better if we returned to a two-tier system, so I think that ultimately we are on the right route with this approach. Can my hon. Friend confirm that when she reaches her conclusions —of which none of us Labour Members representing Derbyshire are currently aware—she will be sticking strictly to the criteria that the Government originally laid out?

Yes, I can confirm that. Let me add, as somebody whose area was reorganised in 1974, that there is yet to be a campaign to undo the creation of the Wirral.

Is it true that a statement was made in private to Labour councillors and activists in Essex at the weekend? I know this for a fact, because I was told by one of the Labour members who were there, but will the Minister confirm that it is true? Is she also aware that a YouGov poll has shown that, by 56% to 24%, the people of Essex do not want Labour’s plans for local government reform? Let us have a referendum.

I am now aware of the opinion poll because the right hon. Member mentioned it to me a few moments ago, for which I am grateful. He has mentioned a meeting, which I certainly did not attend. I am sure that if he forwards the details, the Department will be able to look at them, but I certainly was not present at any such meeting.

Two-tier government may have worked in the past, but it is not working today, and it is certainly not working for cities like Exeter. We have a two-tier waste authority, and Devon county council is cutting homelessness funding while we are experiencing an acute homelessness issue in Exeter itself; I could mention many other areas as well. Will the Minister confirm that we will be moving ahead with unitary local government across the country, including Devon and Exeter—I realise that she will not be able to comment on the specifics of any proposal—in order to ensure that cities like Exeter can grow economically, and that local government does serve local people?

As I mentioned earlier, there is evidence from the Milburn review of child poverty that fragmented services are very bad for vulnerable people living in poverty. There are other examples as well, and I have heard from my hon. Friend about his worries for his city. Dealing with that is the real purpose behind these reforms.

Before the hon. Lady makes her statement on Thursday, will she, when reflecting on the arrangement in Wiltshire that would embrace Wessex—although we have been told that that is not the Government’s view—address the prevailing concern that the people of rural Wiltshire will be considerably worse off without having the opportunity to embrace that mayoral region, to the tune of £240 per head? In the context of the wider reduced funding for rural England, those people need reassurance from the Government that they understand the shortfall.

Let me see if I have understood the right hon. Gentleman’s question. The fair funding review was put in place to reconnect funding with need. We think that we have done so in a way that meets the needs of nine tenths of councils now, which is much better than it was before. We take into account the additional costs of providing services for rural areas, but when it comes to poverty and deprivation, improvements in data now allow us to identify much more closely pockets of poverty that are surrounded by greater wealth. I hope that we will be able to do that much better for his constituents in the future.

The Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor is one of the Government’s flagship regional growth priorities, with a ministerial champion in Lord Vallance to ensure joined-up delivery, yet if reports that option D is being taken forward for Cambridgeshire are correct, the Government will be choosing a structure with no realistic path to viability, right at the start of that corridor. Will the Minister confirm what assessment has been made of option D’s viability within the corridor, and whether Lord Vallance was consulted before the decision?

There is obviously a limit to what I can say, given that the decision will be reported to Parliament later in the week. Perhaps we can come back to this issue then, but I am very happy to say that I have met with Lord Vallance and work very closely with him.

The Government’s proposed carve-up of Hampshire ignores their preset criteria, has no mandate and splits up East Hampshire. The benefits, if there are any, will come way off in the future, whereas the costs and the disruption happen now. Does the Minister think that the advent of a new Prime Minister is a good moment to stop in its tracks something that would otherwise make his fiscal task harder?

I do not, because councils have worked extremely hard to follow the timetable that we have set out, and I think it would be a mistake to interrupt that. Councils’ costs have spiked terribly in recent years because of central Government failure. We are putting that right.

As the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) mentioned, there is a very wild rumour in Wessex that a Labour MP has undermined the four councils against the will of the councils, which have been democratically elected, and without discussing it with any of the MPs. Apparently, the Wessex combined authority, which was ready to go, is not happening. Is the Minister able to deny this rumour today, so that I can reassure my councils?

I could spend all my time at this Dispatch Box confirming or denying rumours, but I think I would be here until Thursday if I did that. I am sure that we will have further interactions when I make the statement shortly.

In Devon, local government reorganisation is taking up a great deal of bandwidth and detracting from what councils should be doing. My constituents want to know whether the announcement on Thursday will hold beyond the week. The Minister has avoided this question from multiple Members today: does the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham)—the future Prime Minister—agree with the proposed timelines and delivery for local government reorganisation in Devon?

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I am not here to answer questions on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham). We have set out a clear timetable for local government reorganisation, and we should all stick to it, because that is the best way to help councils to get on with their jobs.

My residents in Bicester and Woodstock are deeply concerned by rumours that the Cherwell and West Oxfordshire district councils will be hollowed out in order to create a Greater Oxford combined authority at the behest of Labour councillors in that city. I know that the Minister will not respond directly to that point, so I ask her to respond to this: in Oxfordshire, is it true, as she just said to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), that the original criteria set out by the Government will be followed? Is it true, as she has said in response to the hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock), that growth will be a priority in the decisions made by the Government?

As the hon. Member has indicated, we have set out a process and are sticking to it.

Nobody asked for this, and the lack of a mandate has been compounded by councils like Rutland county council refusing to engage with any opposition councillors. I want to make it clear that the responses of the Lib Dem-run Rutland county council do not represent the views of Rutlanders or indeed the entire council; that in Leicestershire, we do not want the Leicester city land grab; and that rural Lincolnshire and Stamford do not want to be run by urban Lincoln. Will the Minister consider delaying the process to make sure that all councils have engaged with all councillors? They might be telling her that they are doing so, but they are certainly not.

The hon. Lady has made her points very clear and they are on the record. The one thing that I do not want to do is delay, because the longer this takes, the less our ability to get on with the problems that councils face in looking after our children and our older people and in growing our economy.

There are a number of options on the table for Kent, and no matter which one the Minister chooses, we will need to do some tidying up of ward and division boundaries, because there are vast disparities between the number of electors and some of the current county council boundaries. Will that be announced alongside the option chosen on Thursday, and if not, when will that information be given?

I will take away that point and endeavour to give the hon. Gentleman that information as soon as we can.