Local Government Reorganisation and Local Election Postponements

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

This Government are undertaking one of the biggest reforms to local government in a generation; not only have we overhauled how we fund local government, but we are ending the current two-tier system and replacing it with new single-tier unitary councils.

These reforms are not about funding formulas or lines on a map; they are about better outcomes for the people we serve.

We want to see our country grow economically and socially, but we inherited a local government system that did not put funding where it was needed and that left residents dealing with the disjointed two-tier council system and paying a two-tier premium.

That is why we have put deprivation at the heart of how we fund local government. The top 10% of the most deprived councils will see an average 24% increase in what they have to spend per person—those places, whether in the north or south, east or west, will finally see their areas turn a corner.

Today I can announce the next step in our vital reforms to reorganise local government. We will finally put an end to a two-tier system that slows down local decisions, sees local economies fragmented with different councils responsible for different priorities, and means that outdated boundaries stop our towns and cities from growing.

Instead, we will see one council in charge for each area, fully responsible for taking the quicker decisions to build homes and grow our towns and cities, as well as creating the right conditions for businesses to invest, grow, and create jobs. Reorganisation is a vital element in our vision for reform—stronger local councils equipped to drive economic growth, improve local public services and empower their communities.

Consultation

On 28 November, my Department received final proposals from councils in the final 14 invitation areas for reorganisation. I thank all councils in those areas for their work in bringing these 52 proposals forward. As set out in the invitation, these proposals include the areas of existing neighbouring small unitary councils. Some proposals were accompanied by requests for boundary change, where existing districts would be split. These will require careful consideration.

Today I am launching consultations on all the below proposals, available on gov.uk, and I will deposit a copy of each in the Library of the House.

Four proposals from councils in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough:

Cambridgeshire county council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Cambridge city council, East Cambridgeshire district council and South Cambridgeshire district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Fenland district council and Peterborough city council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.

Huntingdonshire district council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.

Five proposals from councils in Derby and Derbyshire:

Derbyshire county council submitted a proposal for a single unitary council.

Amber Valley borough council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

South Derbyshire district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Bolsover district council and North East Derbyshire district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Chesterfield borough council, Derby city council, Erewash borough council and High Peak borough council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Derbyshire Dales district council did not submit a proposal.

Five proposals from councils in Devon, Plymouth and Torbay:

Devon county council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.

South Hams district council, Teignbridge borough council and West Devon borough council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.

Mid Devon district council, East Devon district council, North Devon council and Torridge district council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.

Plymouth city council and Exeter city council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.

Torbay council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.

Three proposals from councils in Gloucestershire:

Cotswold district council, Gloucestershire county council, Stroud district council and Tewkesbury borough council submitted a proposal for a single unitary council.

Cheltenham borough council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Gloucester city council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Forest of Dean district council did not submit a proposal.

Three proposals from councils in Hertfordshire:

Hertfordshire county council and St Albans City and district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Watford borough council, East Herts district council and Three Rivers district council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.

Stevenage borough council, Broxbourne borough council, Dacorum borough council, Hertsmere borough council, North Hertfordshire district council and Welwyn Hatfield borough council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.

Five proposals from councils in Kent and Medway:

Kent county council submitted a proposal for one unitary council.

Folkestone and Hythe district council, Maidstone borough council, Sevenoaks district council, Tonbridge and Malling borough council and Tunbridge Wells borough council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.

Dartford borough council and Gravesham borough council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.

Medway council, Ashford borough council and Canterbury city council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.

Dover district council, Swale borough council and Thanet district council submitted a proposal for five unitary councils.

Five proposals from councils in Lancashire, Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool:

Lancashire county council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Blackburn with Darwen council, Fylde borough council, Hyndburn borough council, Rossendale borough council and Wyre borough council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.

Chorley borough council, Lancaster city council, Preston city council, Ribble Valley borough council, South Ribble borough council and West Lancashire borough council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.

Blackpool council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.

Burnley borough council and Pendle borough council submitted a proposal for five unitary councils.

Three proposals from councils in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland:

Leicestershire county council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Leicester city council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Blaby district council, Charnwood borough council, Harborough district council, Hinckley and Bosworth borough council, Melton borough council, North West Leicestershire district council, Oadby and Wigston borough council and Rutland county council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.

Four proposals from Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire:

Boston borough council, East Lindsey district council and South Holland district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Lincoln city council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.

Lincolnshire county council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils (supported by North East Lincolnshire council and North Lincolnshire council).

North Kesteven council and South Kesteven council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.

West Lindsey district council did not submit a proposal.

Three proposals from councils in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire:

Nottinghamshire county council and Rushcliffe borough council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Bassetlaw district council, Gedling borough council, Mansfield district council and Newark and Sherwood district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Nottingham city council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Ashfield district council and Broxtowe borough council did not submit a proposal.

Three proposals from councils in Oxfordshire:

Oxfordshire county council submitted a proposal for a single unitary council.

Cherwell district council, South Oxfordshire district council, Vale of White Horse district council, West Oxfordshire district council and West Berkshire council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Oxford city council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.

Five proposals from councils in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent:

Staffordshire county council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Stoke-on-Trent city council, East Staffordshire borough council, Stafford borough council and Cannock Chase district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Staffordshire Moorlands district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Lichfield district council, Tamworth borough council and South Staffordshire council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.

Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.

Two proposals from councils in Warwickshire:

Warwickshire county council and Rugby borough council submitted a proposal for a single unitary council.

North Warwickshire borough council, Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council, Stratford-on-Avon district council and Warwick district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Two proposals from councils in Worcestershire:

Worcestershire county council and Wyre Forest district council submitted a proposal for a single unitary council.

Bromsgrove district council, Malvern Hills district council, Redditch borough council, Worcester city council and Wychavon district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

The consultations will run for seven weeks until 26 March 2026. The consultation documents are available on the Department’s online platform “Citizen Space”, and those responding to the consultations can use that online platform, email or post to submit their views.

I welcome views from all councils in these areas as well as neighbouring councils, and specified public service providers, including health providers and the police, and other business, voluntary and community sector and educational bodies. As before, where boundary changes are requested, we consider it appropriate to consult the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.

I would also welcome responses from any other persons or organisations interested in these proposals, including residents, town and parish councils, businesses and the voluntary and community sector.

Once the consultations have concluded, the Government will assess the proposals against the criteria in the invitation and decide, subject to parliamentary approval, which, if any, proposals are to be implemented, with or without modification. In taking these decisions, we will have regard to all the representations received, including those from the consultation, and all other relevant information available.

I will continue to update the House as further milestones are reached in the delivery of this landmark reform.

Local Elections

I can also inform the House that I have today introduced an order to postpone 30 local elections in councils undertaking local government reorganisation. This includes the 29 previously announced by the Secretary of State, and one additional council—Pendle—following further representations from Pendle borough council’s leadership. These representations, received after the initial decision of 22 January, set out more clearly how capacity and resources would be redirected from election planning and delivery in Pendle towards supporting local government reorganisation, safeguarding the programme’s delivery.

The Secretary of State considered these representations carefully and concluded that postponement is in the best interests of ensuring effective and orderly reorganisation. A copy of his letter to the leader of Pendle borough council notifying them of this decision has been deposited in the House of Commons Library.

I will keep the House informed of any further developments.

[HCWS1309]

Local Government Best Value

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

This Government are committed to taking the action necessary to fix the foundations of local government. Today, I am updating the House on the steps we are taking to support Nottingham city council recover and reform.

Nottingham city council has been under intervention since January 2021. New directions were placed on the council in February 2024 and commissioners were appointed until February 2026.

I am today publishing the commissioners’ fourth report, received on 5 December 2025, which provides their comprehensive assessment of the council’s improvement journey to date. The commissioners have also set out their proposals for the approach that could be taken after February 2026 to ensure the council can continue its improvement. The council has also written outlining its requests.

Having carefully considered all the information, including the commissioners’ report and the council’s letter, the Secretary of State believes that there has been significant improvement in many areas of the council’s operation.

The council’s member and officer leadership is strong. They should be commended for their constructive and collaborative work with the commissioner team, and for their willingness to seek further support. Since the appointment of commissioners, and under the leadership of councillor Neghat Khan and chief executive Sajeeda Rose, we have seen the pace of improvement accelerate considerably.

The Secretary of State is satisfied that the council has made progress and is meeting its best value duty in most themes as described in the statutory guidance published in May 2024. The council has shown significant progress in its leadership, strengthened strategic direction and accountability. It has improved its financial management, governance and scrutiny, and member-officer relationships. However, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the council is not yet meeting its best value duty in the themes of continuous improvement and service delivery.

After nearly five years of intervention, it is critical that the council builds on its recent progress and addresses remaining challenges. Continued effort is needed to make sure the improvements are put in place across the whole council, its services and the outcomes experienced by residents, particularly in the context of potential local government reorganisation.

Some service redesign is in the early stages and implementation remains a key priority. This is especially the case for children’s and adults’ services, where the council is seeking external support. The Secretary of State considers that the council needs ongoing, but less intensive, support to ensure that momentum is maintained and that continuous improvement thinking is put in place across the organisation.

In recognition of the progress made, and the council’s strong leadership, the Secretary of State is minded to extend the intervention but reduce its scope.

The Secretary of State is minded to exercise powers of direction under the Local Government Act 1999 to issue new statutory directions to the council, overseen by two ministerial envoys, to be appointed by him. The envoys would work collaboratively with the council in an advisory and mentoring capacity. They would not hold powers to exercise any council functions. All decision making would return to the council. The council would be directed by the Secretary of State to establish a bi-partisan continuous improvement committee. This would be chaired by the leader and include the envoys and other sector experts, including the experts on adults’ and children’s services whom the council have requested. The committee would oversee delivery of a continuous improvement plan, which would be agreed with the envoys. The envoys would report on progress to the Secretary of State at six-monthly intervals.

I am now inviting representations from the council on the Secretary of State’s proposals, by 11 February. We want to provide the opportunity for members and officers of the council, and any other interested parties, especially the residents of Nottingham, to make their views known. Should the Secretary of State decide to act along the lines described here, he will make the necessary statutory directions under the 1999 Act.

I am committed to working with Nottingham city council to ensure their compliance with the best value duty and the high standards of governance that local residents expect. This Government are working to deliver a consistently fit, legal and decent local government sector that provides good-quality essential statutory services for all residents.

I will deposit in the House Library copies of the documents referred to, which are being published on gov.uk today. I will update the House in due course.

[HCWS1303]

Woking Borough Council and Thurrock Council: Best Value Duty

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

This Government are committed to taking the action necessary to fix the foundations of local government. Today, I am updating the House on the steps we are taking to support two councils to recover and reform: Woking borough council and Thurrock council.

Woking borough council

Woking borough council has been under statutory intervention since May 2023 and, in December 2025, I published the commissioners’ fifth report, together with my response. I welcomed their assessment of continued progress in governance, housing, and commercial restructuring, and shared their concerns about the significant challenges ahead. To maintain stability and the council’s improvement progress, the Secretary of State reappointed Richard Carr as managing director commissioner, and Barry Scarr as finance commissioner. Sir Tony Redmond also remains as lead commissioner. Their appointments are in place until 24 May 2028 as a backstop, when the directions are set to expire. In practice, these appointments will lapse when Woking borough council is planned to be dissolved in 2027, as part of local government reorganisation in Surrey.

As the commissioners also note, local government reorganisation in Surrey adds urgency and complexity. In their next report, I would welcome their reflections on this process, including how Government can best support new councils in meeting their best value duty from day one and any urgent issues beyond the commissioners’ remit.

This report is published at an important stage for the council, following the Government’s announcement to provide in-principle £500 million of debt repayment support for the council in 2026-27. This is a difficult position for Government representing a significant and unprecedented commitment, made necessary in the context of Woking’s acute financial failure. The announcement of debt support reflects that Woking borough council holds exceptional unsupported debt linked to historic capital practices, and that there is a value for money case for acting to protect local and national taxpayers. Any support is subject to continued assurance of the council’s financial position; the council’s commitment to reduce debt locally as far as possible within its local capacity; and value for money for the local and national taxpayer.

Thurrock council

I am today publishing the commissioners’ most recent report which I received in November 2025. I am pleased to see the continued progress made by the council and that there has been a smooth transition to the new leadership. The report notes that financial management has improved, with more transparency in reporting and that the council is embracing external reviews and public engagement, indicating a cultural shift toward greater transparency. I am pleased the council continues to take the necessary steps locally to reduce its level of debt and to support financial improvement. Government are committed to providing debt repayment support to Thurrock and Woking councils, given their significant and exceptional unsupported debt linked to historic capital practices, and the value for money case for acting to protect local and national taxpayers. Any support for Thurrock council is subject to continued assurance of the council’s financial position; the council’s commitment to reduce debt locally as far as possible within its local capacity; and value for money for the local and national taxpayer.

The commissioners’ latest report also highlights some of the risks to improvement. It is important that that the council maintains its focus on improvement and transformation alongside the broader transformation programmes of local government reorganisation and devolution.

I also note that the commissioners support the council’s desire to be given the opportunity to appoint its own chief executive rather than the role being filled by a managing director commissioner. I am writing today to the leader of the council to confirm that I am content for the council to initiate a recruitment process for a chief executive. This is on the understanding that a suitable, experienced candidate can be recruited and that the commissioners will continue to support and guide the council throughout this process; and with the expectation that the progress made so far is embedded throughout the council and that the pace of improvement continues.

If a suitable candidate is appointed, I would expect a period of overlap with the existing managing director commissioner to enable a smooth transition and handover to take place. It is evident that ongoing commissioner support will be critical to ensure the council’s improvement trajectory is maintained. Following the conclusion of the recruitment process, I intend to review what further changes would be needed to ensure the commissioner team has capacity to provide sufficient support to the council, and assurance to Ministers.

Conclusion

I am committed to working with these councils to ensure their compliance with the best value duty and the high standards of governance that local residents expect. This Government are working to deliver a consistently fit, legal and decent local government sector that provides good quality essential statutory services for all residents.

I will deposit in the House Library copies of the documents referred to, which are being published on gov.uk today. I will update the House in due course.

[HCWS1277]

Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate, and I thank all Members for their contributions. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue.

I share the concerns and frustrations that have surfaced in the debate. The industrial action has gone on far too long. The ongoing disruption is not in anybody’s interests: it is holding back the great city of Birmingham, a city that I am incredibly fond of, and the people of Birmingham, who deserve better. It is the people of Birmingham who matter: it is their voices that must be heard, and they should be at the centre of the resolution of the dispute.

I have heard the points made by all Members, and I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) says. Birmingham is a city that its people are deeply proud of, and they deserve to be. She was right to mention the funding settlement that we have just awarded to Birmingham city.

I want to address directly a point that has just been raised. The reason why Birmingham is seeing a core spending power increase of 45% under this Government is not that it is some kind of reward for what has happened there. That is ridiculous. The reason is that we are reconnecting council funding with deprivation—with poverty. We are reversing what we saw under the Tories, which was town halls dealing with the worst of austerity, and the places that had the least being hit the worst. That is going to change, because we need to sort out poverty in this country. We cannot do that without a town hall that has the resources that it needs to help people. That is why we are changing it. I do not take kindly to the idea that we should not help councils to tackle poverty in this country.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Labour Members fully agree with the Minister on that point, certainly. I refer to my registered interest as a member of Unite.

As time is limited, will the Minister address the key question that several Members have put to her? The Government have a specific, special role in this matter. It is not like other disputes between the council and a workforce: because of the role of commissioners appointed by the Government, there is a responsibility that falls on the Government’s shoulders.

There will be a major picket on 30 January that trade unionists will be coming to from across the country, to support their comrades—their brothers and sisters—in the dispute in Birmingham. I will be going as well. There is a limited time in which that picket could be made redundant if the Government convened a meeting of all the parties concerned. It behoves the Government to do so, because it seems as though it is the commissioners who are blocking the settlement. I urge the Minister to convene that meeting and get people round the table, because I think a negotiated deal could be forthcoming as a result.

[Alison McGovern]

My right hon. Friend spells out the situation: clearly the Government are not the employer but, given that we have commissioners, we will want to hear regularly about what is happening in Birmingham. I will come to that point later.

The Government are not a party to the ongoing dispute. It is an issue for the parties involved to work towards a sustainable solution, notwithstanding the question I have just been asked and my response—given the arrangements with commissioners, I will want to hear from them directly. The Government have that responsibility because of the decision that was taken.

I call on all involved to end the disruption. Last spring, the Government took action to avert a public health crisis, as a number of Members have mentioned, and supported the council in clearing the streets. As a result, the council was able to remove thousands of tonnes of waste from the street and restart regular kerbside collections. As a result, thankfully, we have not seen a return to the crisis that the city faced last spring, and the waste has not piled up to dangerous levels. The council and my Department will continue to monitor the situation closely and ensure that waste does not build up again. It is important to note that although residual waste is now being collected regularly, recycling remains suspended, as Members have said. That situation must change.

[Wendy Morton]

To be absolutely clear, if the Minister thinks that waste is not piling up, does she think that the situation in Birmingham is acceptable?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

No, not at all. I have set out my opinion that this needs to be brought to an end. Members have set out the consequences for the residents of Birmingham, for staff and for others, including the right hon. Member’s constituents. Of course the strike needs to be brought to an end; the point I was making is that the Government took steps to bring a public health crisis to a close.

Government commissioners have been in place at the council since 2023 to oversee its improvement journey. In their most recent report, the commissioners highlighted the positive progress that the council has made in key areas—we needed to see progress on other issues as well, not just the dispute—but they noted that the dispute has consumed council time, diverted attention and slowed overall progress. That is a real concern for me. The council still has work to do towards financial sustainability. Given the points made by the commissioners, we all want to see things brought to an end. As I say, I will want to hear regularly from the commissioners about the progress.

In recent weeks, the city has faced additional strike action by agency workers in waste. As I understand it, and as Members have mentioned, a small number of agency workers began a separate strike on 1 December due to alleged bullying and harassment. I am sure that everyone here will agree that bullying and harassment are totally unacceptable, so the council and the agency, who are the employers, must address the issue.

Since the new year, some disruption has been caused by recent snowfall across the midlands, and there have been issues at council depots, but I am told that the council has plans in place to resolve any backlogs created. Disruption at pickets has also been a big factor affecting waste collection, since contingency arrangements were put in place. I understand that Unite the union has acknowledged and apologised for that behaviour, which no one wants to see repeated.

In recent months, Unite has urged the council to come to the table to find a way forward to end the strike. I am obviously extremely sympathetic to that goal, as I have mentioned on a couple of occasions. The council has duties and responsibilities beyond the industrial action. I support the leader of the city council, John Cotton, in his position that any solution to end the strike must be both lawful and financially viable. We all want a resolution to be found.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

I will, briefly.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

The intervention needs to be short.

[John McDonnell]

It is almost heartbreaking to witness this happening. It is pure sophistry to say that the Government do not have a role or that they have no locus. The Government appointed the commissioners, who report to them. I appeal to the Minister: simply get people in the same room, because a deal is available.

[Alison McGovern]

All the parties will have heard what my right hon. Friend has said, what I have said, and the priority that we put on getting a decent service for the residents of Birmingham and getting staff in a position where they can do their jobs. We all support that, and everyone will have heard what my right hon. Friend has said.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the Minister give way briefly on that point?

[Alison McGovern]

Very briefly, although I am conscious of your strictures, Ms McVey.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the Minister answer this question for me? Since she or even her predecessor took office, what specific advice has she sought from officials to see whether she has the cover—as a Minister of the Crown, through legislation—to get those people in a room? Does she or do the Government have that power?

[Alison McGovern]

I have received advice from the commissioners and others on the situation in Birmingham. I will happily set that out for the shadow Minister. He will know that the commissioners have the responsibility to produce reports and so on. The relationship between commissioners and the Government is well understood, but I will happily write to him with the detail.

[Richard Burgon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

I will not give way any more, because I feel that would test your patience, Ms McVey. I have set out a range of responses to Members’ points.

Members have also raised the equal pay challenges that Birmingham has faced over the past 15 years, which have cost the council and the residents of Birmingham more than £1 billion. Commissioners are now in place to deal with the situation. In October last year, the council signed an agreement with unions to settle historical pay claims, which was a significant step forward. Members will appreciate that the council cannot reopen this by incurring any new equal pay liabilities or perpetuate any further discrimination.

Birmingham’s overall waste service has not been good enough for a long time, despite the very hard-working staff. Collections have been inconsistent and recycling rates have been low since long before the dispute began. Members have talked through these issues. I understand that the council is trying to move forward and make sure that it delivers for Birmingham, as it must do and as it wants to do. I am sure that we all share that goal, despite the different perspectives that have been aired. As I say, I will meet commissioners and local leaders as necessary to progress towards that goal.

I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills for securing the debate, and all Members who have taken part. Birmingham deserves a waste service that works, it deserves a council that can support all its needs, and it deserves an end to the uncertainty that has overshadowed the city for too long. I am pleased that the new funding settlement will invest in Birmingham, because Birmingham people deserve much better. Working together, I am sure that we can see Birmingham move past this, be the proud city it deserves to be, and make sure that the people there come first.

Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. On behalf of everyone, I thank you for the excellent way in which you dealt with the suspensions. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing this important debate on local government reorganisation. He made the case on behalf of his constituents very well, and I was listening to what he said.

I also listened to the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott), the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and the hon. Members for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) and for Orpington (Gareth Bacon). Many Members spoke up for the identity of their constituents and the culture and history of their constituencies. It is important that we are able to do that in this House, and I congratulate all Members on doing so. I will try as best I can to respond to the points they raised.

I will set out why we are reorganising local government and why it matters. Nearly a third of the population—about 20 million people—live in areas with two-tier local government, which splits functions and services across county and district councils, slows down decisions as different councils try to agree and leads to fragmented public services. It is confusing for citizens in terms of who does what and who is responsible.

My constituency is in the Wirral, which was reorganised six years before I was born. As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire said, over time, the Wirral has come to have its own identity, but people still have identities from long before. The county of Cheshire, which is near my constituency, still has a strong identity—as you will know, Ms McVey. It was reorganised in 2009, but, while the unitary authorities have grown in different ways, that Cheshire identity is still there.

This is a continuing journey, as Members have said. In the area of the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire, Leicestershire county council reported that 140,000 people called the wrong council when trying to get help and support. We can all do better than that, and I want to work with local government to make that happen. We want to simplify local government and have single-tier, unitary councils everywhere, making stronger local councils that are equipped to create the conditions for growth, improve public services and empower communities. This is not a bureaucratic exercise; it is the biggest reform to local government in 50 years. We want to make the most of that opportunity. Councils need to play a much clearer and stronger role in building our economy and making sure that everyone everywhere is part of our national growth story. Reorganisation can help to do that: with one council in charge in each area, we will see quicker decisions, grow our towns and cities and connect people to opportunity.

The right hon. Member for East Hampshire, who made an important contribution, asked what the net effect would be. It is different for each area, which makes it hard to forecast, but I want to point out another issue. We are currently seeing spiking costs in particular areas, including SEND, as he will know well, children’s care, temporary accommodation and homelessness. I would be wary of drawing hard and fast conclusions because of the cost environment that we are in. We will have a number of opportunities to discuss the finances of local councils on the Floor of the House in the months to come, but I would be happy to discuss those issues with him. Local government finance is complicated but very important, and I noted his strong contribution.

Particularly in these areas, we want public services to be designed for people’s lives rather than in council silos. Bringing housing, public health and social care together under one roof means that one council can see the full picture and spot problems early. That is very important in the case of children’s care, where we want to take a preventive approach and improve parenting support.

Strong local government is the only way that we can really tackle deprivation and poverty in the round. People living in neighbourhoods with high levels of deprivation especially deserve public services that will help them to reach their full potential. Rather than multiple councils with confusing and inefficient structures, one council will take responsibility for making sure that its area turns a corner.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

As the Minister knows, in Surrey, which is going through a process of reorganisation, two unitary authorities have been selected, and each will cover more than 600,000 people. There is a great concern that that is too big or will feel too remote. An added complication is that, with potentially £4.5 billion of debt in the new West Surrey, which my constituency is in, many of my residents will end up paying a very high cost for debt that they had no part in accumulating. That may directly affect the very public services that the Minister has just mentioned. Will she speak directly to my residents and tell them why they should be paying for debt they did not accrue, and offer them reassurance that they will get the public services they deserve?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the time he has spent engaging with me on these issues. He will know that the Government took an unprecedented decision in relation to debt in Surrey, and we continue to be concerned about ensuring that we can reach financial sustainability, for all the reasons that he describes. I would say to his residents that their MPs are engaging with the Government and others on the subject. It is very serious, and we will continue to work together on it.

In early February, we expect to launch a consultation on proposals for the remaining 14 areas, including the area of the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire. I know that he is actively engaged in the discussion on reorganisation in Leicestershire and has been encouraging his constituents to have their say, as he described—I applaud and welcome that. I reassure him and other Members that we take people’s views very seriously; as I said before, I was listening very carefully to the contributions that colleagues have made. Community engagement and neighbourhood empowerment form part of our judgment in looking at proposals for new councils, and I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon for her contribution on that subject.

Like existing councils, new councils must listen to their communities and deliver genuine opportunities for neighbourhoods to shape the places where they live. That is part of another area of policy in the Department; whether it is pride in place or the measures in the Bill that is going through the House at the moment, community engagement is important.

The hon. Member for South West Devon asked about precepts. Deciding on that process will be a part of the reorganisation. If she would like further details, I would be happy to correspond with her, but it is part of the overall set of arrangements that we need to decide.

Residents can make their views known through the upcoming consultation on local government reorganisation. The responses to the consultation will all be taken into account, and I hope that Members will consider this process as part of the discussion that we are having.

I thank Members for engaging. If there are issues that I have not picked up for reasons of time, I will respond to them individually in writing. All Members are most welcome to take part in the discussions and consultations on the reorganisation. In the end, this is about outcomes; we want to see our country grow economically and socially. I thank Members for taking part in making the process work.

Temporary Accommodation: Out of Area Placements

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship in this debate, Sir John, on such an important issue. I was unaware of your views on green suits, so I shall try not to err in future. I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for securing this debate. He and I have discussed this issue a couple of times, and he has written to the Department. I congratulate him on working hard to make sure this issue gets the attention it deserves. It is complex, but we set out our national homelessness strategy before Christmas, as the hon. Member mentioned, and we can make a difference. I will run through some of those areas and come to the points that he has raised.

As a Government we inherited a homelessness crisis, with both rough sleeping and the number of households in temporary accommodation more than doubling since 2010. Those pressures stem from years of underinvestment in affordable housing and overstretched local homelessness systems, and I am sure the hon. Member would recognise that. Insufficient truly affordable housing means that councils in England too often have to rely on poor- quality, high-cost options to house homeless households. That has a huge impact on families in temporary accommodation, which is at record levels. As of June last year, 132,000 households, including 172,000 children, were living in temporary accommodation. It is shocking to hear those numbers and that is why we are determined to put it right. Our national plan to end homelessness sets out how we will do that: committing to record investment in homelessness and rough sleeping services, and giving a huge boost to social housing because, in the end, the cause of all of this is not having enough homes that people can afford. Even though it will take time, our commitment to £39 billion of investment to build the social housing we need must be at the root of our response.

The scale of the crisis means we will need to make progress over time and there will be a transition period as the situation stabilises and services are able to move toward longer-term prevention, rather than moving to some of the crisis responses that the hon. Member set out. In our plan we set out that sustainable change to tackle the root causes of homelessness, including the delivery of 1.5 million new homes. In the medium term, while we are building the homes that we need, we are investing £3.5 billion in homelessness and rough sleeping services over the next three years, which will help councils intervene earlier, keep people in their homes and reduce the number of households entering temporary accommodation.

In the short term, we are taking immediate action to increase the supply of good-quality temporary accommodation through the £950 million local authority housing fund and, where it is needed, we are working to improve the experience of people living in temporary accommodation. I mention that because two important new goals in the national plan to end homelessness will help the situation that the hon. Member faces in Eastbourne. First, I want to see local authorities prevent homelessness and not end up in the position where they have to place people at all, never mind place them out of area. We will not be able to do that overnight, but if we can stop people becoming homeless in the first place, that problem will not arise.

Secondly, too many places that are using out of area placements to fulfil their homelessness duty have poor access to good-quality temporary accommodation in their own areas. Addressing that is a way to prevent the problems arising, before I get to the reasonable points that the hon. Member has made about what happens when authorities do need to place out of area.

On out of area placements, as of June 2025, 42,0000 households in temporary accommodation were placed outside their home district, with the majority placed in nearby regions. London boroughs accounted for the vast majority of those moves—placing 34,000 households out of area—and also received the highest number of inward placements from other boroughs. As a proud northerner, I sometimes hear from colleagues in the north of England about whether London is the cause of all of our problems. That is just not true; London is dealing with significant issues related to poverty itself. This is a huge amount of disruption for the individuals and families who are affected. We cannot accept it as inevitable, as I have said. We think our plan will help us get to the root cause of it, but we must act now to address poor practice in managing out of area placements to ensure that they are not used where closer, more suitable accommodation is available, and that, where they are used, there is collaboration between the placing and receiving authorities. That comes to the heart of the points that the hon. Member for Eastbourne has made.

The homelessness code of guidance makes clear that all temporary accommodation placements, including those out of area, must be suitable. That includes minimising disruption to schooling, healthcare, support networks and other essential services. The household’s circumstances, safeguarding and support needs must be considered, with links with schools, doctors and social workers retained wherever possible. The guidance does what I think the hon. Member for Eastbourne is arguing for; the question is why it is not working, if the guidance is already there. He mentioned a commitment to strengthen the guidance made by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali). That is restated by the homelessness strategy, and we will be engaging with councils. He has already written on behalf of Eastbourne, and I am in touch with councils week in, week out—including Brighton, which he also mentioned, on a number of occasions. I will be on the hunt for the areas where we need to strengthen the guidance in all my conversations with local authorities, which he will know are very regular at the moment because of the funding settlement.

[Josh Babarinde]

I thank the Minister for her response. I am heartened that a review of the out of area placements guidance is still on the cards, but I am disheartened not to hear a timetable for that. It feels as though not much has progressed since my letter and the response that I received in the summer. I wonder if she can share a timetable for when that review will take place and be concluded.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Member for his point, but I disagree that not much has progressed because we have published a national plan to end homelessness. As I set out before, the point of that plan is to increase prevention and, in the short and medium term, get better quality placements closer to home. We are working on that action plan now. I do not want to give him an arbitrary deadline for work on the guidance, but I am sure we will speak again on many occasions. It will be part of the action plan and the steps that we are taking, coming out of the strategy. I am happy to update him as we move along.

Let me make some progress in responding to some of the other points the hon. Member for Eastbourne raised. For example, we already require the authority to consider the suitability of the location for all members of the household. Housing authorities should, wherever possible, seek to place homeless households in their area, except where there are clear benefits for the person seeking assistance. I am pleased that the hon. Member mentioned those who are experiencing domestic abuse—we would all obviously see the benefit of an out of area placement, and I am sure he did not mean to imply anything other than that.

Where an out of area placement is suitable and necessary, good communication between authorities is vital, as we have heard. Section 208 of the Housing Act 1996 requires councils to notify the receiving authority when they place a household out of area. We know that, across the country, notifications are not always made and, where they are made, the information provided is limited. That is not good enough; I expect all local authorities to ensure that placements and notifications align with duties under the relevant legislation. The hon. Member for Eastbourne asked about sanctions and so on. There are clear ways in which local authorities can be held to account for the decisions they make, such as the ombudsman, Parliament and other means. We will not succeed in our goals in the national plan to end homelessness without local authorities, so my role is to support them. Through the funding settlement and other things, that is what I am trying to do. If there are areas where local authorities have fallen down, there are clear routes through which they can be held accountable.

All services have a role to play in providing the right support, and I am delighted that we recently introduced an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill requiring local housing authorities to,

“notify…educational institutions, GP practices and health visiting services…when a child is placed in temporary accommodation”.

Consent would have to be provided. That will ensure that schools and health services have the information they need to provide proactive, practical and pastoral support where needed.

The amendment a part of our strategy, as is our commitment to introducing a duty to collaborate, to ensure that notification and co-operation is happening as it should. To be honest with the hon. Member for Eastbourne, I can imagine a number of reasons why they may not operate as they should, not least a decade and a half of austerity where local councils were stripped of the resources that they needed to do the job. That is the reality they face, but our job collectively is to provide the systems and processes to help them do it, notwithstanding the point I just made about accountability.

[Amanda Hack]

Could the Minister clarify whether that duty to inform also includes the 16 to 18-year-olds, who may well be placed by social services, rather than by homelessness teams?

[Alison McGovern]

My very dedicated civil servants are just mouthing to me that they might be in care, and therefore there might be requirements from that point of view. If it is okay with her, I will write to my hon. Friend with a detailed and full response, because the legal situation surrounding 16-year-olds is particularly important.

To conclude, temporary accommodation challenges are different across the country. Therefore, as I said, we need to respond to the realities that councils are facing. As part of that, in boosting the capacity that local authorities have, our emergency accommodation reduction pilots, backed by £8 million of investment, have effectively reduced the number of families with children in bed and breakfasts for more than the six-week limit by working with areas experiencing the highest pressures. That is the approach that I want to take on this issue. Receiving authorities must of course be able to work collaboratively with placing authorities, as we have said.

In the end, the heart of this problem is the people who are affected. I was disheartened to hear the hon. Member for Eastbourne report that somebody had said to him they had been “dumped”—how awful. We want people to feel that councils are there to support them if the worst happens and make sure they get back on their feet. That is why our emergency accommodation reduction programme, with a £30 million funding increase through the homelessness strategy, will help tackle poor practice and get us on the right road.

In conclusion, I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne for raising these issues. As I have said a number of times, out of area placements should be a last resort. When they happen, they must be handled properly with full notification, safeguarding referrals and collaboration between councils. Overall, we are committed to tackling the drivers of homelessness, improving standards and ensuring that vulnerable households get the support they need.

This is a shared challenge, and I look forward to working with all local authorities, charities and Members across this House to deliver the long-term solutions we want to see. On behalf of all of us in this House, could the hon. Member for Eastbourne pass our sincere thanks to the charities, organisations and individuals he mentioned? It sounds like they are doing a very important job.

Question put and agreed to.

Local Elections: Cancellation

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

(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.

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

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.

[Sir James Cleverly]

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?

[Alison McGovern]

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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

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

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

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?

[Alison McGovern]

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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zöe Franklin]

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.

[Alison McGovern]

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.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

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.

[Alison McGovern]

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.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

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?

[Alison McGovern]

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.

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

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).

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

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?

[Alison McGovern]

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.

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

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?

[Alison McGovern]

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.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

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?

[Alison McGovern]

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.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

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.]

[Alison McGovern]

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.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

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?

[Alison McGovern]

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.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

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?

[Alison McGovern]

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.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

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?

[Alison McGovern]

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.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

“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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

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—

[Mr Francois]

Shall I read it again?

[Alison McGovern]

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

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

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?

[Alison McGovern]

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.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

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?

[Alison McGovern]

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.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

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?

[Alison McGovern]

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.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

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?

[Alison McGovern]

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.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

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?

[Alison McGovern]

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.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

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?

[Alison McGovern]

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.

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

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?

[Alison McGovern]

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.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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?

[Alison McGovern]

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.

[Sir James Cleverly]

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?

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)]

13. What recent discussions he has had with Basildon and Thurrock councils on proposals to postpone the local elections of May 2026.

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

We have invited views from Thurrock, Basildon and other councils undergoing local government reorganisation about their capacity to deliver local government reorganisation alongside elections. This is a locally-led approach. Councils are best placed to judge their capacity, and we will consider their representations carefully.

[James McMurdock]

I appreciate the Minister’s answer about this being locally led, but there are genuine concerns that the criteria that may be put forward as a justification to cancel elections locally do not meet the standard expected by my residents. What checks and balances does the Minister have in place to ensure that the reasons put forward match the expectations of my voters, who want the elections to go ahead?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for raising those points on behalf of his residents. We will consider the representations that have been made, alongside precedent and the legal requirements in this area, and we will take very seriously the points he raises on behalf of his constituents.

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

14. What steps his Department is taking to help tackle damp and mould in social housing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

15. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the provisional local government finance settlement 2026-27 on Greater Manchester.

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

The Government are making good on long-overdue promises to fundamentally update the way that we fund local authorities. We are re-aligning funding with need and deprivation through the first multi-year local government finance settlement in a decade. The provisional 2026-27 settlement will make available almost £78 billion in core spending power for local authorities in England. For Greater Manchester authorities, it makes available up to £3.92 billion in core spending power in 2026-27, an increase of 16.4% compared to 2024-25, which is a real-terms increase.

[Afzal Khan]

Fourteen years of Tory austerity saw harsh cuts to local government finances, which left our public services on their knees. This latest funding settlement by the Labour Government goes a long way to right the wrongs of the Tories, and to help local authorities deliver quality services for our constituents once again. I thank the Secretary of State for giving Manchester city council a £331 million cash injection, but does the Minister recognise that the council still faces huge pressure to meet needs, including those related to social services and education?

[Alison McGovern]

As I have said in this Chamber a number of times, we can provide substantial increases to councils, as we need to, and it is very important that we do in places like Manchester, but unless we have a more preventive approach—for example, unless we stop children being taken into care, or stop councils facing really big challenges—councils will still face spiking costs. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and colleagues across Greater Manchester on making that work.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

16. What steps his Department is taking to help support house building in Stoke-on-Trent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

T2. The Secretary of State will be aware that the so-called fair funding settlement will leave my council of Richmond upon Thames some £29 million worse off over the next three years. It will leave our most vulnerable residents, including children with complex needs and elderly people, facing cuts in critical services, even if the council raises council tax by 5%. Will he extend the transitional period?

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

I have heard what the hon. Member has said, and will take it as a contribution to the consultation that we are having. She mentions the needs of children; she will have heard me say to colleagues that we have to change the way that we work on this issue. I will happily work with her to ensure that we cut the costs and get better outcomes for our kids.

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

T5.   Every two hours, someone in the UK is paralysed as a result of a spinal cord injury. After treatment, there is a 20% chance of being sent to a care home due to a lack of suitable available housing. I cannot imagine how a young person feels when they are coping with one of the most traumatic moments of their life, and are literally left lying by themselves. That is unacceptable. Will the Minister meet me and the all-party parliamentary group on spinal cord injury to discuss the serious lack of suitable housing?

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

T6. In February’s Government consultation on local government reorganisation, will the Minister consult on all four—I think it is four—options put forward by Devon, and how will she weight the criteria, so that she can decide on a selected, amended or perhaps new proposal in June?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Member for his input. We have set out the process that we will undertake. We will judge the proposals from Devon against the published criteria.

[Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)]

T8. Families in Worcester are trapped in damp and mouldy homes. Disabled tenants are stuck without facilities and access, and repairs are going unaddressed—all because Platform Housing refuses to get its act together. What can we do about failing social landlords such as Platform?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

T7. The Government insist on forcing through local government reorganisation when there is no agreement in Leicestershire. There are three different plans ahead. One thing that Leicestershire does agree on is no expansion of Leicester city. Will the Minister put that to the test and have a referendum on it, so that the people of Leicestershire can show the Government just how much they do not want the city expansion?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his input on the reorganisation. As I mentioned moments ago, we have set out the process that we will undertake. We will consult fully and judge each proposal against the criteria that we have set out.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)]

T10. The recovery grant guarantee is a vital mechanism that protects the most deprived authorities. Will the Department commit to increasing the guarantee to match the national average core spending power increase, so that the areas that need funding most are fairly protected?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments on the fair funding review and the recovery grant, which was needed due to the significant damage done to council finances by 14 years of Tory misrule. I have already met scores of colleagues to discuss council funding, and I will meet scores more over the next couple of days. I look forward to talking with my hon. Friend about the proposal she mentions.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

Birmingham residents have just marked the first anniversary of the bin strikes. We have spent more than £15 million on agency staff. Will the Minister personally intervene to help broker a deal between the trade unions and Birmingham city council?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the needs of Birmingham residents. They should come first, and everybody deserves a good bin service. We want all parties to come to the table and deal with this as swiftly as humanly possible.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

In purporting to discharge their homelessness duties, some southern local authorities are bundling vulnerable people into taxis in the middle of the night and dumping them in Hartlepool because our housing is cheaper. They are acting in a vile way. I welcome the fact that the Minister has written to me and set out her belief that we need to ban this poor practice. Does she agree that we need to ban it outright?

[Alison McGovern]

I would like to give personal thanks to my hon. Friend for his comments on this issue. In the homelessness strategy, we noted that this problem is extraordinarily challenging and important, and I want to take action on it. I thank him for the work that he has done on behalf of Hartlepool residents. We will continue to work together to sort this problem out.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Rutland’s council could have submitted its own proposals for local government reform, but it has left our fate in the hands of others. The council submitted a proposal to join North Leicestershire, but this is in opposition to the wishes of residents. The council knows that, and purposely did not ask residents what we wanted. Stamford residents want to join Rutland; Rutlanders want to join Stamford. Will the Minister meet me to make sure that all residents are consulted on the Rutland and Stamford model, which the council has taken off the table?

[Alison McGovern]

I congratulate the hon. Lady for laying out to the House what sounds like a complicated situation for her constituents. We will take what she says under advisement, as part of the process. I am always happy to make myself available to meet Members of this House.

[Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)]

With many local authorities spending less than 1% of their household support fund on furniture, many domestic abuse survivors are being placed in social housing without access to essential furniture or white goods. What assurances can the Minister give this winter to residents in Heywood and Middleton North who, although grateful for the fresh start that social housing can offer, are living—often with children—in properties that feel bare, cold and not like home?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that really important issue. One of the reasons why I and the Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), worked closely together on both the homelessness strategy and the violence against women and girls strategy was to ensure that that area of policy joined up—16% of homelessness is caused by domestic abuse. That is why we will not stop until those families leaving refuge have a decent place to be—including the furniture they need—to make a house a home.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

The severe weather emergency protocol has ended in East Sussex. Today, five individuals who were provided with accommodation under it came into my constituency office, not knowing where to turn. We have amazing local charities doing great work, but will the Minister offer advice to those folks who have come into the office in desperate need of support to get out of the situation they are in?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Member so much for raising that case on the Floor of the House in the way he did. It shows all the different reasons why people can find themselves without a roof over their head. The local authority should be in the lead in supporting them, but if he wants to contact me with further details, I will ensure that the local authority has the support it needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

When the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness said that residents of Birmingham do matter when it comes to the bin strikes, I agree with her—but so do neighbouring constituencies, where we often get the blight of additional fly-tipping as well as having constituents who work at the council. Will she personally undertake not just to get people round the table, but to get this sorted out once and for all?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the right hon. Lady for raising that on behalf of her constituents. The impact of fly-tipping is clearly a worry to us all. She raises the seriousness of the issue, which I and the Secretary of State also recognise.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

In Stroud, we have 4,000 council houses; we need at least double that. Will the Minister look again at the constraints that councils are under and see whether the Government can enable them to build more council houses?

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The local government settlement strips £27 million from East Riding of Yorkshire council. I learned today that there will be an additional £21 million cost over the next three years from the minimum wage and the jobs tax. Does the Minister really think it is acceptable that local residents should have sky-high council tax rises and falling quality of services?

[Alison McGovern]

The hon. Gentleman and I were both in this House for the entire period of austerity, which landed at the door of town halls more than almost anywhere else, so if he wants to look for someone to blame for the parlous state of council finances, I would recommend a mirror.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

Several prominent buildings in Stafford have been left vacant for long periods, with landlords allowing sites to fall into disrepair with no intention of bringing them up to standard. Labour-led Stafford borough council is trying to act proactively to tackle these eyesores, but what advice and support can the Government offer to good councils that are seeking to address property hoarding and to unlock sites for regeneration?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The local housing allowance covers just over half of private rents for social tenants in York, as private rents are so extortionate, so will the Government review the broad rental market area, which does not work for our area? It has not been reviewed properly since 2008.

[Alison McGovern]

I am working closely with my Department for Work and Pensions colleagues, and we know that there are many problems with affordability in the private rented sector. Ministers have mentioned some of the actions we are taking today, but we will be working with the DWP to do more.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

Shropshire council had its funding cut in the local government finance settlement, despite needing exceptional financial support this year and a surge in demand for social care in the years to come that cannot be managed down by the council. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how to put Shropshire on a stable financial footing?

[Alison McGovern]

I have already met the hon. Lady and I would be very happy to meet her again.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Hundreds of new homes are being built at the Friar Gate goods yard, originally a 19th-century rail depot. This development is near the city centre, but other housing that was built further out under the Conservatives went up with inadequate transport infrastructure and little thought for public transport. What is being done to ensure that new homes have the transport infrastructure that they need?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Will the Minister consider enabling all local authorities in the most deprived areas to have an above-average increase in core spending power in each year of the local government multi-year settlement, including in Liverpool city region?

[Alison McGovern]

I am proud to say that this settlement reconnects council funding with deprivation, and I have already explained the detail of that to the House. We will ensure that all councils are heard during this consultation period, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend as one of my good friends and colleagues from our city region, which is of course the best one in the country, as you know, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Definitely, after Lancashire. I call Max Wilkinson to ask the final question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said, and we will take it under advisement as part of the reorganisation process. We want to get on with it so that councils can stabilise their organisation and their finances and get on with delivering for the public.

Bromsgrove: Local Government

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing this important debate on local government reorganisation in Bromsgrove and Worcestershire. I know that he has a keen interest in this issue, and we all heard the detailed argument that he made. I acknowledge the arguments, facts and point of view that he explained to us, which are on the record. He will understand that there is a limit to what I can say, given the process that we are undergoing, but I assure him that colleagues in the Department and elsewhere will read and understand what he has said. I thank him for putting forward his point of view.

For background, I will run through the reasons why we are reorganising local government and why we think that will benefit communities, although the hon. Member will know them already and he raised some of the issues. We want to streamline local government and replace the two-tier system with single unitary councils, precisely in order to create councils that can reform public services, drive economic growth and empower their communities. The hon. Member mentioned the criteria that we set out for doing that. As he said, this is not some bureaucratic exercise or tinkering with lines on a map; these are the biggest reforms to local government for a very long time—the biggest in 50 years, as he pointed out—and we need to make the most of this opportunity. We want people to have preventive public services, and we want to give economies the chance to thrive. With single councils in charge over sensible geographies, we will see quicker decisions to build homes, grow our towns and cities, and connect people to jobs.

Strong local government is central to tackling deprivation and poverty. People living in neighbourhoods that are high on the index of multiple deprivation deserve responsive and joined-up services that help them reach their full potential. Unfortunately, in too many areas across England, we have multiple levels of confusing and inefficient structures, whereas one council can take responsibility for the places it serves. The Government will deliver unitary local government in all areas of England within this Parliament, and I am really encouraged by the progress we have made so far. We have already announced two new unitary authorities for Surrey, and our consultations on the final proposals for a further six areas are due to close on 11 January.

As the hon. Member will know, we received proposals for unitary local government from councils in Worcestershire on 28 November. Let me place on record my thanks to local leaders and officers in the Worcestershire councils for their positive approach to collaboration and data sharing to enable the proposals we have received. That collaborative approach will stand the area in good stead in the unitary implementation phase, which is very important for all the reasons that the hon. Member set out. There is shared commitment in the area to get the best possible outcome for the residents, communities and businesses of Worcestershire.

I expect to launch a consultation in early February on the final proposals I received on 28 November, including those from Worcestershire, that seek to meet the terms of the 5 February statutory invitation. That consultation will run for seven weeks. Decisions on the most appropriate option for each area will be judgments made in the round, having regard to the criteria in the statutory guidance, the consultation responses and any other relevant information. We have heard much more relevant information today and, as I mentioned, that will be taken into account as we proceed.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this debate. I know that he has spoken in the House on previous occasions to share his views, and we have heard them. I cannot comment further, but we are grateful that he has put those matters on the record. I know that there will be many opinions locally, and he has done an excellent job of representing his constituents this morning. When the time comes to launch the consultation, I know that he will engage with it to make sure that the views of his constituents are fed in. I am grateful to him and keen to hear those opinions.

Question put and agreed to.

Local Government Reorganisation

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

This Government are determined to streamline local government by replacing the current two-tier system with new single-tier unitary councils, ending the wasteful two-tier premium. We are progressing this landmark reform at pace, which will be vital in delivering our vision: stronger local councils equipped to drive economic growth, improve local public services and empower their communities.

I am fully committed to ensuring that councils can deliver new, sustainable structures within this Parliament.

Milestones

We have already reached a number of key milestones, not least the Secretary of State’s decision to implement two new unitary councils in Surrey. We have now received proposals from all 20 remaining invitation areas.

A consultation is currently open on 17 of those proposals from six invitation areas, and I expect to launch a consultation in early February on proposals from the remaining 14 areas that seek to meet the terms of the 5 February statutory invitation. That consultation would be for seven weeks.

I remain committed to the indicative timetable, published in July, that sees elections to new councils in May 2027 and those councils going live in April 2028. This is a complex process, and we will take decisions based on the evidence provided.

Local views

We have listened to councils telling us about the constraints they are operating within, and the work that reorganisation introduces on top of existing challenges. Now that we have received all proposals, it is only right that the Secretary of State listens to councils that are expressing concerns about their capacity to deliver a smooth and safe transition to new councils, alongside running resource-intensive elections to councils that may be shortly abolished. We have also received representations from councils concerned about the cost to taxpayers of holding elections to councils that it is proposed will shortly be abolished.

Previous Governments have postponed local elections in areas contemplating and undergoing local government reorganisation, to allow councils to focus their time and energy on the process. We have now received requests from multiple councils to postpone their local elections in May 2026. The Secretary of State recognises that capacity will vary between councils.

And that is why the Secretary of State has reached the position that, in his view, councils are in the best position to judge the impact of potential postponements on their area and, in the spirit of devolution and trusting local leaders, this Government will listen to them.

We are therefore inviting councils today to set out their views on the postponement of local elections in their area and whether they consider that postponement would release essential capacity to deliver local government reorganisation. We have asked for representations by no later than midnight on 15 January. For those that have already made their views known, he will be taking these into account.

The Secretary of State has adopted a locally-led approach. He is clear that should a council say that it has no reason for postponement, then we will listen to it. But if a council voices genuine concerns about its capacity, then we will take those concerns seriously.

To that end, the Secretary of State is minded only to make an order to postpone elections for one year for those councils that raise capacity concerns.

Next steps

The Secretary of State will consider all the material received in relation to each council.

I appreciate that preparations for elections may have started in some places, and that councils will be keen to have certainty, which we will deliver as soon as possible.

I will continue to update the House on this and other milestones as we seek to deliver this vital programme. I will deposit the letter I have sent to council leaders in the House Library, and it is also being published on gov.uk today. A full list of councils in scope follows:

Adur district council; Basildon borough council; Basingstoke and Deane borough council; Blackburn with Darwen council; Brentwood borough council; Broxbourne borough council; Burnley borough council; Cambridge city council; Cannock Chase district council; Cheltenham borough council; Cherwell district council; Chorley borough council; City of Lincoln council; Colchester city council; Crawley borough council; East Sussex county council; Eastleigh borough council; Epping Forest district council; Essex county council; Exeter city council; Fareham borough council; Gosport borough council; Hampshire county council; Harlow district council; Hart district council; Hastings borough council; Havant borough council; Huntingdonshire district council; Hyndburn borough council; Ipswich borough council; Isle of Wight council; Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council; Norfolk county council; North East Lincolnshire council, Norwich city council; Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council; Oxford city council; Pendle borough council; Peterborough city council; Plymouth city council; Portsmouth city council; Preston city council; Redditch borough council; Rochford district council; Rugby borough council; Rushmoor borough council; South Cambridgeshire district council; Southampton city council; Southend-on-Sea city council; St Albans city and district council; Stevenage borough council; Suffolk county council; Tamworth borough council; Three Rivers district council; Thurrock council; Tunbridge Wells borough council; Watford borough council; Watford borough council mayor; Welwyn Hatfield borough council; West Lancashire borough council; West Oxfordshire district council; West Sussex county council; Winchester city council; and Worthing borough council.

[HCWS1215]