Local Government Reorganisation

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jim McMahon)]

The Government are committed to shifting power from Westminster and Whitehall to the places where people live and work. Yesterday’s Budget shows that we are committed to giving local leaders, local councils and local communities the tools to shape their future. But our ambition to rewire the state and ensure that the country is ready for devolution depends on strong, sustainable local government, and it is only through reorganisation that we will create those strong foundations.

We know that reorganisation is difficult, but we also believe that it is worth it. The decisions we take now will be the building blocks for how the country is governed for generations to come. Our vision is clear: mayoral and strategic authorities, underpinned by strong unitary councils with real powers to take decisions in the interests of their communities.

On 7 September, the Secretary of State announced a review of the programme to ensure that it was robust and aligned with the Government’s priorities. Since then, we have listened to local leaders, sector partners, mayors, and Members of Parliament. I place on the record our thanks to them for their work and for engaging constructively. Consensus will not always be possible, but I know that all of us are putting forward arguments for what we believe is best for the different areas of England. I am committed to hearing all those views before coming to final decisions. I also want to take a moment to recognise the impact on councils, councillors and their staff. I appreciate their desire for clarity.

Today, I can provide some clarity on what comes next. I can announce to the House that the first phase of the review is now complete. I have tested the programme framework, including whether the criteria set out in February last year continue to support the Government’s priorities. I have concluded, on the basis of the programme, that it is robust and that the existing criteria are correct on their own terms and continue to support the Government’s policy agenda. We are content that we can take forward local government reorganisation in line with the existing criteria.

In concluding the review, I have also considered the best way to bring clarity quickly while making sure that each area receives the deep and thorough consideration that it deserves. We will inform councils of outcomes at the earliest possible opportunity—with some areas getting those outcomes more quickly than others.

Today, I am able to give further clarity on some of the 14 areas who had decisions in July. The Secretary of State and I have carefully considered all the proposals and the evidence for those 14 areas. Following that initial consideration, we are minded, subject to representations and parliamentary approval, to implement the following proposals in five areas: in East Sussex and Brighton and Hove, the two-unitary proposal, including the boundary changes requested by Brighton and Hove city council except for the parish of Falmer; the one-unitary proposal in Gloucestershire; the three-unitary proposal in Oxfordshire, including boundary changes; the two-unitary proposal in Warwickshire; and the two-unitary proposal in Worcestershire. Those decisions are for the same council structures that were previously announced in July, or they are new decisions following full and thorough consideration.

Before final decisions are taken, there will be a minimum three-week period during which those who are interested may make further representations to me. The start and end date for that period will be confirmed shortly, as well as further details on how councils and other interested parties can make representations. Any final implementation decisions will be subject to the normal parliamentary approval. We are going to take more time on the remaining nine areas announced in July, and we will use the coming months to consider further the proposals submitted before coming to a view.

To give councils clarity on the legal status of existing decisions we are withdrawing the decisions announced in July for the following areas: Derbyshire and Derby; Devon, Plymouth and Torbay; Hertfordshire; Kent and Medway; Lancashire, Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool; Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland; Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire; Nottinghamshire and Nottingham; and Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent. I want to be clear that this is no reflection on the work underpinning those proposals.

I can now set out the plan for the final phases of the review. The review will now focus on the 15 areas that are due to have a “minded to” decision. Those are, in no particular order, the nine areas I have just mentioned, the four areas where decisions were withdrawn in September, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and West Sussex. All options and proposals for those areas will remain under consideration, and I will approach them all with an open mind. As such, it should not be assumed that the same proposal will automatically be selected. It is important to allow the process to run its course and to allow full and proper consideration. We will move faster where we can, and some remaining areas may receive an outcome decision before others. I commit to coming back to the House with updates for another set of areas by Christmas, and every area will have an outcome by early next year.

As we set out in September, the local elections scheduled for May 2027 will now go ahead to existing councils. That means that elections to new councils will be made in 2028, followed by a vesting day in April 2029. That is for all areas apart from Surrey. I have also heard concerns about cost uncertainty, and we appreciate that areas have incurred costs in good faith. All areas will receive half the transition funding that they were previously due, which equates to £450,000 per new unitary previously announced. Those guaranteed payments will be made in the coming weeks regardless of the outcome of the review. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and West Sussex, will also receive £500,000 per area. After final decisions, we will pay any remaining balance, depending on how many councils are chosen.

I have heard from Members across the House about the pride, history and identity sitting behind our cities and counties. City status and ceremonial matters play a valuable role for local pride, so we will work with areas to ensure that city status is preserved following reorganisation. Subject to final decisions, we will continue to work with places to protect their city status by working through all the options, including bringing forward legislation where necessary—[Interruption.] Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been struggling with a cold for about a week. Usually when a Minister comes up in the morning with a croaky throat it is the result of a long night of karaoke, but I am afraid this is the result of back-to-back LGR conversations all morning, which does not carry quite the same sense of fun or rhythm.

I want to use this moment to build consensus and deliver a programme where central Government and local government work together. This programme must be a joint effort. It is the foundation of rewiring how our country works, and getting foundations in place to devolve new powers and functions in every area. This Government will be an active and reliable partner, and we stand ready to work with councils to support them to deliver these significant changes. I promise to keep the House updated, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Regardless of the croaky voice, I was paying attention because the statement concerns my constituency in East Sussex. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

I thank my hon. Friend for the representations on Lancashire’s reorganisation and on devolution that she has made over a long period of time. I accept that we have not set out a list-by-list, county-by-county timetable showing exactly when reorganisation will come, but we have said that we will conclude the considerations in the new year. Wherever the counties find themselves in the programme, when it is eventually developed, they will know one way or the other in that February to March period, and we will work through them as and when. My point was that if we are in a position to announce them earlier, we should do that rather than keeping areas waiting unnecessarily—that is the idea of the approach that we are taking.

My hon. Friend correctly makes a point about Lancaster’s city status, and that applies to cities across the counties that are in scope. It would be absolutely wrong if a city risked losing its status just because its city status is aligned to a local authority that is being abolished rather than to a geographical area. I can give an absolute assurance that even if we have to introduce new legislation to preserve that status, we will do whatever we have to do to ensure that no city loses its city status through reorganisation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

Liberal Democrats support genuine devolution and shifting power out of Westminster, but we have been shocked by the Government’s botched handling of this process. Ministers promised that MPs and local leaders would be properly involved in decisions affecting their areas, yet many have been left in the dark until announcements were effectively made for them. Will the Minister explain why MPs representing affected areas were not briefed before today’s announcement?

Even now, after months of confusion over local government reorganisation, delayed elections and significant abortive costs, councils and communities are still waiting for certainty. Local authorities, many in dire financial positions following years of under-investment, have spent time and money in good faith preparing these proposals according to the Government’s criteria and timetable, only for that timetable to shift repeatedly.

In my constituency of South Cambridgeshire, one of the fastest growing areas in the country, businesses need certainty to invest and plan. Councils need certainty to set budgets and deliver services, and council staff deserve clarity about their future. Yet today’s statement leaves Cambridgeshire and Peterborough yet again awaiting a decision, while other areas move ahead. When will the Minister finally provide a clear and stable timetable for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and for other areas that are still awaiting decisions?

Finally, following the chaos of decisions being withdrawn, reorganisation being paused and the programme being reviewed following updated legal advice, can the Secretary of State even guarantee that what is being announced today is legally sound? Will she now publish the legal advice to demonstrate that?

[Jim McMahon]

Working backwards, the reason we carried out the review was to ensure that we, as the Ministers who were making the decisions, were satisfied that the decisions were being made in a rational way, with the evidence base secured, and that where there were outstanding questions, we tested them in the process. Obviously, we were not the Ministers who made the decisions in July, so on coming back in, we needed to be absolutely sure that what we were putting our names to was correct. That is what we are doing.

That may mean that the same conclusion is reached in many areas, but importantly that conclusion will be reached as a fresh decision. We are going to go through that process, which is why it is taking time, but if we had come here and said, “Do you know what? We have completed the whole programme review and the financial review, and we have done every single outstanding county in England in a few weeks,” hon. Members would have cast doubt on just how much time we had given to each of the counties and their proposals. We are determined to make this decision robust, for it to be right and to put in the time needed to ensure that we fully go through the proposals, the consultation and the financial assessment.

Where local areas have put forward an argument in support of their proposal, we are testing that line by line. For example, if a local authority is requesting a boundary change or to grow its boundaries, and that is predicated on matters like housing numbers, economic growth or travel-to-work areas, I want to see those things. I want to see the travel-to-work map, the form that the urban development takes and so on, so we are testing those proposals to ensure that we are satisfied. To return to my previous point, I have not seen a single proposal that I consider to be the perfect proposal, but our job is to ensure that we get the best possible proposal using the information that we have received, and we are undertaking that work.

On the hon. Lady’s point about Cambridgeshire and Peterborough—obviously, the point applies to West Sussex as well, as they essentially go into the same pool—I would not necessarily assume that because those authorities were at the end of the decision-making process in the previous round, they will be at the end of the process in the current round. We will make a decision on which ones we are going to bring forward shortly.

On the hon. Lady’s point about legal advice, which was also mentioned by the shadow Minister, it is long-standing Government policy that we do not publish that legal advice.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I need Members to ask much shorter questions, and I need the Minister’s answers to be on point as well.

[David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

When I am out listening to residents in Kidsgrove and its surrounds, they tell me that they want good public services delivered efficiently and to a high quality, but a two-tier system causes constant confusion. If a resident wants to raise issues about their local park, they can go and speak to the borough council. If they have a question about their local library, they can go and speak to the county council. If they need a pothole fixed, they can go and speak to their county council, not their borough council. The list goes on. At the same time, we are paying for managers and directors at two councils, rather than one, which is a waste of taxpayers’ money. Does the Minister agree that what matters most to the residents of Kidsgrove and its surrounds is having good, high-quality services that work for them? That also offers greater accountability; at the moment, my residents are passed from pillar to post. Equally, residents in Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove want clarity from the Government, so can I please press them to offer that clarity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)]

I am pleased that my party’s legal challenge has bought us a stay in Essex and elsewhere, but to re-emphasise: district councils matter to remote, rural and coastal communities. In Clacton, planning decisions—big decisions that matter—are taken in Clacton town hall. Under your proposals, those decisions will be made in a large population centre.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Mr Farage, no “you” and “your”, because it is not me who is responding.

[Nigel Farage]

Under these proposals, big planning decisions that are currently taken locally will be taken miles away, in a big population centre with no understanding of the local ground. Is that not against the devolution powers that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, and you yourself have championed as being good for the country?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Before the Minister responds, let me say that I am not at the Dispatch Box. It is “the Minister”, not “you” and “your”. Back-Bench MPs should be speaking through the Chair.

[Jim McMahon]

I am delighted that the hon. Member has managed to find his seat today—he looks quite comfortable there, and there is not a prayer card in sight, as far as I can see. Actually, he makes the important point that local politics matters. What we do not want to do through reorganisation is take away the local, so the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 requires us to bring forward neighbourhood governance arrangements before Christmas. We want to try to have a unit of government within a council—to hardwire it and mainstream it, so that local councillors are given the respect that comes with being frontline councillors with the powers and resources to get things done in their area. We can do that at a bigger level and in a different way.

To be clear—although I know the hon. Member did not mean it—the Reform party is not taking the Government to court; local authorities have decided to issue claims. We need to make sure that we are not using local authorities for party political reasons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I welcome the announcement in this statement that the Minister has scrapped the disgraceful and discourteous announcement made in July 2026. He is right to throw it out, but my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme want and deserve certainty and clarity, and I did not hear much of that in the statement, so may I ask the Minister three very quick questions? Will he confirm how Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent MPs will feed into the review? How much money will our local authorities get to redress what they have spent so far? And may I urge him to focus on the new mayoral authority announced yesterday, because that has the support needed to achieve a change of this scale?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I appreciate how local this is for everybody, but I ask Members to please ask only one question each, because we need to get through this statement quickly.

[Jim McMahon]

Obviously, we were delighted to announce the devolution agreement yesterday. That will definitely bring new resources and powers to my hon. Friend’s area, but it has to be built on a strong foundation of local government that can be sustained. As for how MPs can engage, the “minded to” process for when decisions are issued gives us a window in which MPs and other interested parties can make representations.