PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Local Government Reorganisation - 26 March 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 tabling the urgent question and you, Mr Speaker, for the—[Interruption.] I am always happy to be at the Dispatch Box; I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. I would like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to set out the latest steps in local government reorganisation.

For too long, many areas have been served by complex two-tier structures that divide responsibilities, slow down decisions, duplicate costs and blur accountability. The Government’s aim on local government reorganisation is simple: clearer structures, stronger councils, quicker decisions, more homes and better services for local people. We are getting on with delivering that aim.

Yesterday the Secretary of State announced the next steps on local government reorganisation in six areas of England. He has decided, subject to parliamentary approval, to implement proposals for 15 new councils in Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock; Hampshire, Southampton and Portsmouth; Norfolk; and Suffolk. In addition to the Isle of Wight, that will see 16 councils operating across these areas in place of the current 44. The proposals are supported by two thirds of councils within these areas and many local communities. They will help to expand key towns and cities, deliver housing and growth, and simplify public services for residents. We will bring forward the secondary legislation to implement the proposals for the new local councils in due course.

On East Sussex and Brighton and Hove, and West Sussex, we have carefully considered the four proposals submitted alongside the views expressed during the consultation, but no final decision has been taken at this stage, reflecting the need to address a number of important matters. Proposed modifications will form the basis of a further technical consultation to be carried out after the May local elections, which will allow councils and partners to provide focused views before any final decisions are taken. Taking the time to get this right now provides the strongest foundations for delivery, supporting improvements to people’s lives in the places where they live and enabling councils to operate effectively from day one.

We have set out the timetable, with elections to new unitary councils taking place in 2027 ahead of them going live in April 2028. Reorganisation for the benefit of all residents is a shared endeavour, and we will continue to work with councils to see that these reforms are implemented with the interests of residents at heart.

People will ask whether this is an act of gross gerrymandering and political opportunism or an act of gross incompetence and stupidity, but I can inform the House that it is both. There is no mandate for this; there was nothing in Labour’s manifesto. It is an imposition from Whitehall. If the Government were so proud of this work, why did they try to sneak it out in a written ministerial statement and have to be dragged to the Dispatch Box to justify their decisions?

Unlike the hon. Lady, I have spoken to local government leaders in the areas affected. They were presented with a plan and told to comply—the outcome was predetermined. This is a stitch-up. Labour is redrawing boundaries from the centre and overriding local identity and local consent to maximise party political advantage.

The Government have announced £63 million for this transformation, yet it turns out that that is the same £63 million that they have already committed to deal with the consequence of their botched attempt to cancel local elections. How can they now claim that that money will fund wholesale reorganisation?

The Government are telling well-run councils to subsidise poorly run councils. Money that should be filling potholes will actually be filling black holes; resources that should be for collecting waste and supporting vulnerable residents will instead be diverted into restructuring and bureaucracy. Estimates point to a borrowing requirement because of these changes running into the hundreds of millions of pounds, potentially approaching £1 billion, all to fund their vanity project, and the cost will fall on local people.

I have some questions for the Minister. How can she claim that this reorganisation is locally led when it is being imposed on communities? Why are Ministers determining the boundaries rather than the independent boundary commission? What estimates will be made of the total borrowing requirement? How much money has been set aside for the inevitable judicial reviews that will flood out after this announcement?

This is not reform, but vandalism; it is not empowerment, but imposition. It is local people who will pay the price for this Government’s incompetence and arrogance.

Nobody could accuse the right hon. Gentleman of not saying what he really thinks about the proposals; I am glad that he had the opportunity to do that. He asked about proposals being locally led. Of course, all the proposals have been put forward by the areas they affect. Residents and others had their chance to feed into the consultation, and we weighed those consultation responses alongside other factors that he will be aware of. He mentioned some of them, including finances.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Boundary Commission. Officials have engaged with it extensively. I have met it to talk through the process, and I am confident that it can do the work needed to make the process a success. Finally, on finances, I have spent the past six months or so listening, day after day, to councils that have deficits caused by a failure in the special educational needs and disabilities system, a failure in children’s care and a failure in adult social care, presided over by a Government of which he was an active part, so if I was him, I would be cautious about lecturing other people about council borrowing.

Just to let people know, normally Front Benchers would not speak during an urgent question, but for those whose constituency is affected by this issue, and who have direct involvement, there is a dispensation today.

I welcome the Government’s move to reorganisation, which will benefit cities such as Exeter. Yesterday, the Minister may have seen official communications from Devon county council that said that reorganisation will

“put the lives of vulnerable people at risk”.

Notwithstanding the fact that, according to Ofsted, children’s services and SEND services in Devon have been failing for many years, does the Minister agree that such comments are irresponsible and not true? Should reorganisation happen in Devon—I hope that it will—will it not be up to authorities to ensure that services are safely and effectively moved to new structures?

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. I have been working closely with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), and other Ministers in the Department for Education to improve our children’s services. We will ensure that we do that through this reorganisation process. Nothing matters more than the fortunes of our kids, and it is up to us in central Government and local government to work together to deliver good childhoods for all of them.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

It is deeply disappointing that this matter is being addressed today through an urgent question, and was not addressed yesterday through a proper statement from the Government. As I have said, the Liberal Democrats support devolution and reorganisation where that strengthens communities, but changes must be locally led, properly consulted on, adequately funded and never top-down.

In recent months, I have spoken to local government leaders across the country, and their really clear and consistent message is, “First, trust us. Secondly, work with us to fix the broken local government funding system,” which is leaving councils struggling to meet rising costs and needs. While the decisions announced for Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk provide clarity—even if areas remain concerned about viability and sustainability—they fail to address those fundamental issues. In the case of Sussex, the Government have essentially dismissed the local proposals, and have instead chosen to consult on their own plans, leaving the county in another period of uncertainty. Does the Minister recognise that that approach undermines trust between national and local government? Has her Department fully assessed the financial consequences of the proposals for reorganisation in those areas and across the country? Will she commit to a cross-party piece of work, carried out with local leaders, on creating a fair, adequate and long-term funding settlement for councils?

I thank the hon. Lady for those points. On the announcement process, we followed the precedent set by the previous round of reorganisation in 2021, under the previous Government. In relation to Sussex, it is really important that we get this right. We had concerns about the proposals not sufficiently addressing the criteria, particularly on economic growth, service disaggregation, community identity and financial sustainability. We will work quickly with Sussex, so that we can enter into that period of intense discussion and consultation after the local elections. That will not affect the overall timings of the programme, with new unitaries going live in 2028.

The hon. Lady also mentioned working with local government on its overall finances. Having just dealt with the fair funding review, I can honestly say that in the months since I was appointed, I have spent most of my life talking in detail, along with Members from across the House, about financial sustainability for councils. I have no doubt that she and I will engage on the subject many times in the future.

I genuinely welcome the fact that my hon. Friend stresses the need for locally led decision making. She will know that there is widespread support across the Thames valley for a foundation strategic authority for Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Swindon, and that a bid along those lines is with her ministerial colleagues at the moment. She will also know that there is genuine concern about a different proposal, wholly unacceptable to local leaders, that is being mooted. Will she reassure me and colleagues across the House that when it comes to FSAs, MSAs, SDSs or any initialism that she chooses, there will always be priority given to locally led decision making?

I thank my hon. Friend for making his way through the alphabet soup of devolution. I will make sure that the Minister for devolution hears his points. She will have read his letter and I am sure will respond to it. The next stage of our plan is to make sure that all places in this country have a plan for growth, and we will listen to what he says as we move forward.

I call the Father of the House.

Lincolnshire is such a huge county geographically that there is no enthusiasm for abolishing districts. Be that as it may, the Government are determined to override local residents. There is a rumour coming out of the Labour-controlled City of Lincoln council that the Government will go with a Greater Lincoln. That would be a disaster for West Lindsey, and would leave Gainsborough out on a limb and carve us out of the county. Before the Minister makes any final decision, will she please meet me, so that I can put to her the concerns of West Lindsey district council? We could live with the central Lincolnshire idea—the whole of Lincolnshire—but not Greater Lincoln.

I am always glad to meet the Father of the House. We will just make sure that it is done within the process for taking decisions.

How does the Minister expect local authorities in Essex to be ready for elections for unitaries in a year’s time, while at the same time undertaking local government reorganisation, creating a new Greater Essex integrated care board for the NHS, dealing with unprecedented demand for social care, and implementing the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill? As Essex county council has said, the breakneck speed of change across the board is simply unmanageable. Will the Minister even now rethink this proposal, and call off elections for the new unitaries next year?

We are committed to the timetable that I have just set out to the House. We are working very closely with colleagues right across government on reorganisation, including the Department of Health and Social Care, to address the issues that the right hon. Member has mentioned. I have already responded to the point about the importance of children’s services.

I think it is safe to say that people have a range of views on this topic. I am happy to listen to them all, but in the end, we need to move forward and improve services.

The children with SEND in my constituency are being let down and ignored by the too-large Lancashire county council. Those of my constituents who are also served by Blackpool, a much smaller unitary, are getting the SEND services that they deserve and need. Does the Minister agree that making things smaller and getting away from the two-tier system helps our constituents by making services better, and looking after our children and our elderly?

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing us back to the most important people in this—the people who are the future of this country, our children. I was very pleased to meet her and representatives of Blackpool only recently to hear about the work that they are doing.

I draw Members’ attention to my interest as a serving county councillor. May I thank the Minister for seeing through Norfolk Conservatives’ self-serving scheme for a mega-council for Norfolk? The three-unitary model will ensure that my residents get the efficiencies of joined-up services, and that decisions are still made as locally as possible. The Conservative county council will throw yet another strop, but the Conservatives will be gone in May, and the transition work needs to start now. Can the Minister confirm that adequate funds will be made available to cover the cost of authorities transitioning, and will she rule out expecting them to make cuts to services to fund the transition?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting on the record his point of view, which is different from others that we have heard this morning. I can confirm that we are supporting councils through the transition. If he has any specific concerns, he knows that he can come straight to me.

May I inform the Minister that the previous Conservative Government listened to the people of Essex, and the MPs and county and district councillors for Essex, and cancelled any plans for LGR? That is because county government in Essex predates the Norman conquest. It is more embedded in our history than almost anything else, except perhaps our churches and ancient buildings. Nobody in Tendring district or Colchester city wants to live in an amorphous area called “North East Essex”. What is more, people there know that this upheaval and reorganisation will cost public services, inflict damage on continuity and push up council taxes—and it is good for us, because we will simply blame this wretched gerrymandering Labour Government.

Nobody could accuse the right hon. Gentleman of not having an opinion on this subject. I hear what he is saying. Close to me is the county of Cheshire. It was reorganised some years ago, and nobody would say that Cheshire no longer exists. We will move forward with these proposals. In the end, there is nothing that we politicians like more than discussing the architecture of power, but our job is to never lose sight of the wellbeing of the residents we represent.

When the hon. Lady achieved her present promotion, I wrote to her to explain why the independents, Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and Greens on New Forest district council had co-signed, with me, a letter to her predecessor, explaining that out of the four options on offer, the one option that they should not choose was the only one to split up constituencies and interfere with boundaries. The only thing it had going for it was that Southampton city council, led by Labour, wanted to do a land-grab across constituency boundaries. I entered into this process in good faith, and I was prepared for the possibility that, out of the four options, the one selected might not be the one I preferred, but the one thing I thought that the Government would not have the sheer effrontery to do is choose the one option that was disastrous and went against their own criteria. I am ashamed of this, and I bitterly regret supporting Hampshire being part of the first tranche. I should have known better.

I do hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and I respect his views. The five-unitary proposal offered financial stability, balanced with care for rural and urban needs, and it creates the building blocks for successful devolution. I understand that we will respectfully disagree on some of these proposals, but I none the less thank him for sharing his opinion so clearly.

The Government’s approach to devolution and local government reform has been chaotic and costly; the delay of the mayoral election in Norfolk and Suffolk is costing our counties £50 million in investment funding. Can the Minister confirm that the Government believe that the three-unitary model for Norfolk can be delivered sustainably, and can she guarantee that funding will be there to ensure that is the case?

We think that this option reflects Norfolk’s communities and local identities, and the proposal also had wide support, which is important. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point on the need for investment in this country. I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has managed to secure investment for housing, public transport and across a whole range of other areas, which we need to help this country grow. Our record on investment is a strong one.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak from the Back Benches on this issue, which has profound consequences for my county and my constituency.

I am appalled by the Government’s proposal to break up the great county of Essex into five unitary authorities. That is simply not acceptable. My constituents do not want this at all and they were not part of any engagement. Will the Minister tell my constituents across Witham how much more they will pay in council tax—she has already said that she has been forensically looking at the finances—and outline the impact of council tax harmonisation? What level of Government grant funding will there be for each new council? How much of the countryside will be at risk? My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) has already mentioned the impact on social services and education. What about planning? This will lead to a major upheaval in Government planning policies. What does that mean for Essex and my constituents? How on earth can the Minister justify to constituents across Essex county why they should pay more in council tax for a policy they simply do not support?

I thank the right hon. Lady for setting out her views and concerns in the way that she has done. I will happily write to her with further detail on the finances, because there are issues with previous decisions in Essex that are of great concern to me. As I mentioned before in relation to Cheshire and other counties, the counties remain—they are part of our history and our culture; we are looking to have effective unitary authorities.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your dispensation to speak on behalf of my constituents.

Not once in six years in this House have my constituents written to me saying that we need to cleave West Sussex in two, with two educational catchment areas, two different highways authorities, two social care services and two expensive town halls and council offices. Will the Minister, at this late stage, listen to my constituents, reject the proposals put forward by Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens to cleave our ancient county in two, and join me in saving West Sussex?

Well, it’s always worth a try! As I mentioned in response to others, this is not about the identity of our historic counties; it is about effective councils. If I may say so, the hon. Member’s point on what his constituents write to him about gives the game away. The reason we are doing this is to improve services and deal with the things that people really care about, and to make sure that councils are able to give people a good quality of life, wherever they are in England.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) is absolutely right: Essex has existed since before the Norman conquest, and during those years, everything from the River Lea to the North sea was part of the great county of Essex. Yet today, the people of Havering and my constituents in Romford are not included in any discussion or any consultation; they have no meaningful way of participating in discussions about how we want to go forward. Does the Minister agree that it is time that the people of my borough were given the right to also become a unitary authority, free of the control of the Greater London Authority and City Hall? Will she at least allow Havering to become part of the ceremonial county of Essex so that our identity as part of the ancient county of Essex remains strong?

It is good to hear somebody on the Opposition Benches speaking in favour of reorganisation. The hon. Member raises an important point about ceremonial counties. If he would like to write to me about it, I will respond, as he would expect.

There was only one voice demanding the sacrifice of part of the rural New Forest district—it was Labour in Southampton, wasn’t it?

It was not.

Following on from the reference to Lincolnshire by the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), I warn the Government that this will come back to bite them. It is over 50 years since northern Lincolnshire was put into County Humberside, and it is still an issue that divides local opinion. We have two unitaries that were carved out of Humberside when it was put to death: north and north-east Lincolnshire. They both want to stay the same. As the Father of the House said, we do not want change in Lincolnshire. Will the Minister get on with making a decision so that we can have the certainty we need?

I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, given that I grew up in the Wirral where for many years people have been in a heated debate about whether it is Cheshire or Merseyside. I will take account of his views as we move forward.

Labour is causing chaos in local government in East Sussex. After firing the starting gun on tearing up our local government boundaries—something that no resident in East Sussex wanted and that was not in its manifesto—the Government now will not let us out the blocks. My residents are absolutely clear that they do not want to be lumped in with Labour-run Brighton and Hove city council, which will dominate any new unitary authority, sucking up all the money, resources and attention. Is it not true that the only reason the Government are not letting us get on with an East Sussex proposal is because they want to help out their Labour mates in mismanaged, disastrously-run Brighton and Hove city council?

I thank the hon. Member for putting his views on the record. As I have said on Sussex, it is important that we get it right. We want to ensure that we achieve our objectives on economic growth and ensuring that services can be delivered well. We will move forward quickly, but this next intensive period of consultation will not affect the overall timetable.

The criteria for choosing the Government’s preferred options for local government reorganisation seem to have been applied differently in Surrey than in Hampshire and Essex. Will the Government release their reasoning behind it? Let me be clear: when it comes to Hertfordshire, I do not want any reorganisation at all, but if this is forced upon us in Broxbourne, I favour the four unitaries option. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this so that I can put forward my case for my constituents, as it was wrong how many colleagues found out yesterday about their options from the media?

There were a couple of questions there. I have met the hon. Gentleman before and, in compliance with the process we are undergoing with reorganisation, I will happily meet him again. He has put his views clearly on the record and they will be taken into account.

The local government reorganisation consultation for Devon closes today. It has had many responses that have all been completed in good faith. Can the Minister reassure Devonians that responses to the consultation will be digested and taken fully into account, especially in the light of the strength of feeling against the plans put forward by the Labour-controlled cities in Devon to expand into Devon’s beautiful green belt, which is surely a land grab to deliver the Labour Government’s housing targets?

I thank the hon. Lady for putting her views about Devon on the record. I reassure her that the views of the consultation are taken fully into consideration and that our team at MHCLG have worked extremely hard to do that, and I want to use this opportunity to thank them for doing so.

As the Minister well knows, the consultation for local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire closes today, and I urge all my constituents to have their say and ensure that they fill that out by midnight tonight. The Minister knows my feelings clearly about option E and Huntingdonshire unitary authority because she sat through my half-hour debate on the topic, but can she reassure my residents that the feedback given will be taken on board? At the moment, there is a real fear locally that Huntingdonshire will be split in two, and that the identity and character of our historic county will be lost forever in favour of the northern half of Huntingdonshire being merged with Peterborough in option D. Option E is very much the option that the district council wants to go for. Can she reassure me that Huntingdonshire will not be split in two?

I thank the hon. Gentleman not only for his question but for giving me the opportunity to hear him speak about the wonders of Huntingdonshire on a couple of occasions. I cannot comment on those proposals specifically, but he has never shied away from putting his views on the record, and he has done so again today.

In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), the Minister referred to the importance of local identities. As she knows, in the local government reorganisation, my Spelthorne constituency will be subsumed into something called “West Surrey”. I am very much looking forward to meeting her on 22 April to make representations about why it should be called “West Surrey and South Middlesex”, to take account of Spelthorne’s special circumstances. If she is to commission her officials to do any research work in advance of that meeting, may I recommend a book called “The Real Counties of Britain”, written by Mr Russell Grant, which would set the context for our discussion perfectly?

By reading such a book, I hope that I might be able to see the future! [Laughter.] I thank the hon. Gentleman for meeting me, and for allowing us this pre-meeting so that we can make best use of the time.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) will appreciate this question. Labour-run Southampton city council has huge debts, and Liberal Democrat-run Eastleigh has £800 million-worth of debt. Given the proposal for them to be merged, will the Government do anything about that debt, or will they allow the new council to fall immediately?

As I have said to other Members, local authority debt is a serious concern for the Government. We will work through the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentions in the transition process, and I am happy to provide him with more technical detail on that. The overall picture of local authority debt is not a happy one. It arises from policy failure emanating from this place, and we have a collective responsibility to put it right.

Well, this will be a very interesting connection! I didn’t realise Strangford was up for reorganisation.

We slogged through 10 years of reorganisation and restructuring in Northern Ireland, and not a penny was saved. Indeed, if anything, prices and rates have gone up—this year, the rise in rates has been exceptional. I say gently to the Minister that perhaps it is time to consider and learn from what Northern Ireland has done and where it has gone wrong, so that we can do better here.

I am not sure whether you are being dragged into a devolved matter, Minister, but go ahead if you are happy to answer.

It would not be the same if I did not get to answer the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), Mr Speaker. I say to the hon. Gentleman that, before and throughout my time in Government, I have always considered what is happening in Northern Ireland to learn lessons from it. I thank him for making that point.