Local Government Reorganisation

Jim McMahon 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.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to say that from start to finish, this Government’s approach to local government reorganisation has been nothing short of a farce. The Government first promised to publish their English devolution White Paper in November 2024. It was delayed until December 2024, with affected councils given three weeks over Christmas to decide whether or not to delay local elections. Last year, after the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) was forced to resign from the Cabinet, her successor—and, as it turns out, her predecessor—assured us that reorganisation was not taking, and would not take, any longer than planned, and that elections scheduled for May 2026 would go ahead. The Government confirmed that twice in November 2025, yet the very next month announced that elections in some parts of the country would be pushed back as far as 2028.

Two weeks later, again in the run-up to Christmas, the then local government Minister invited another wave of postponements. In January this year, despite having promised not to delay elections in November, the then Secretary of State announced legislation to postpone 29 elections. The next month, days before the Department was due to answer for its behaviour in court, those postponements were withdrawn. Naturally, the taxpayer was left to pick up the tab for all those delays—a bill that runs into the tens of millions of pounds. That U-turn was announced during recess, so that Members of Parliament had to wait to question Ministers.

In March, there was another set of announcements and another set of legal challenges. In June, it was revealed in a pre-action letter issued by the Department that Ministers had ignored official advice over reorganisation plans. In July, just days before the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) became Prime Minister, the previous Secretary of State announced a whole new set of reorganisation plans, with many Members given essentially no time to scrutinise the sweeping changes that were set to be imposed on their areas. We still have not seen the advice that informed those decisions, so will the Minister confirm today, in the interests of transparency, that that advice will be published?

In September, following updated and privileged legal advice, the current Secretary of State withdrew decisions for Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, and paused plans in most of the rest of the country. What a complete joke! Today the Minister talks of giving councils clarity, yet goes on immediately to say that all options and proposals remain under consideration, and that he approaches all decisions with an open mind. He cannot be serious. We are two and a half years into this process, and the Government had years in opposition to plan it. Why have these decisions not yet been made? How can we still be at the stage of keeping an open mind, and what clarity exactly have we gained from the statement?

The vast majority of councils are none the wiser after what we have heard today. The Minister talks of allowing the process to “run its course” and of giving “full and proper consideration” to each decision, but can he set out what will be taken into consideration? What role have party political objectives played in determining new local government boundaries? Have the Government received, at any point during the process, legal advice that indicates that political considerations were given undue weight in deciding new council boundaries? When can councils that have been left in the dark by today’s announcement expect some kind of verdict from the Government? Which areas will hear by Christmas, and what does “early next year” actually mean?

Given the Government’s record on meeting their own deadlines, I am sure that the Minister will forgive me for my scepticism. The real-world results of this endless delay are plain to see. People across the country are left without any sense of which council will be providing services in the year and years to come, while councillors and council officials have spent millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money planning and preparing for new authorities that might never materialise.

Notwithstanding the announcement that the Minister has made on funding, will he provide an estimate today of the total cost of this Government’s shambolic local government reorganisation? How much of that cost is being eaten by legal fees? The money spent on this farcical reorganisation process should have been spent instead on resurfacing roads, collecting bins and maintaining parks—core local government functions that people care about. For all the Prime Minister’s talk about local government, this whole approach to devolution has shown nothing but contempt for local democracy. Local voices have been ignored in the drawing of new council boundaries, and have been overridden by party political considerations. Again and again, the Labour Government’s approach to local government has been about imposing more government, pushing up tax, and stacking the deck in a cynical effort to gain political advantage. They should be ashamed.

[Jim McMahon]

First, let me say that we do not take for granted concerns about the implications of the delay on the councils, councillors and officials who have been working on these schemes. We know that the pause was disruptive, and that people put a lot of work into their proposals and the transitional work in preparation for the new unitary councils. Equally, it would have been wrong had the Government not taken into account the legal status of those that were in court and not used that as an opportunity to review the programme overall, which was the decision that we announced in September. That was the right thing to do to give clarity to the programme and move forward with confidence; to ensure we were reviewing the criteria, the process, the decision making and the evidence base; and to allow us to come to fresh decisions, where needed.

From my perspective, I am playing this with an absolutely straight bat—I want to do this with integrity. It is important to say that there are no Government proposals on the table because the only proposals that a Minister can consider are those that councils themselves have submitted during the process. Our job is to ensure that we take into account local opinion and test the evidence base, the assumptions, the alignment with public service boundaries and the financial modelling. Through that work, we then make a balanced determination. By the way, there is no perfect solution for quite large parts of England that I have seen, but that does not mean we cannot reach a solution that is the best that it can be.

Our job is to make a decision in an objective way and with an open mind, which is why I cannot understand the shadow Minister criticising what is objectively the right thing to do. It would be entirely wrong, in a legal process, to predetermine the outcome we most desire and railroad that through. All the vulnerabilities with LGR that she speaks about were features of previous rounds of LGR, which the Conservative Government undertook on a fairly regular basis.

No Government decision is not open to legal challenge if somebody wants to make that challenge. On LGR, the Government found themselves in court defending previous decisions. Cumbria is a good example: the Government were taken to court, the case was heard by a judge and the Government had to explain why they came to their view. We should not pretend that a legal challenge somehow represents a fault in the system, but it does bring a pause for thought, and we have used that pause to ensure that the reorganisation is right going forward.

On the question of how we will proceed, the approach I am setting out does not have the tranching up of areas that we had previously, so quite deliberately, we do not have tranches 1, 2 and 3. However, we are going to work through authorities as quickly as possible. The commitment that we have made is that, rather than waiting for an artificial date—a particular point in time—if we can come forward with a few earlier, we will do that, so we do not have to wait for the whole programme to be confirmed later in the process.

Finally, on the point about costs and how much has been incurred, there are different ways of looking at that. There are the costs of producing the proposals, but they are not abortive because those proposals are real today and they will be considered as part of the new process. Those are not wasted costs at all; they are the normal costs that are incurred in reorganisation. Then there are the costs of transfers and, once the decision is made, preparing the ground to move to the new shadow unitary authorities, but those costs are required whatever decision is made in whatever county, so that is not abortive work either.

However, we accept that the decision to pause and to ask staff in particular areas to stop working on the proposals has led to a cost being incurred by those authorities that would not have been incurred had we not decided to pause the programme. On that basis, we have decided to release the money that I have set out today, and I think that is the right thing to do. We believe strongly in central and local government working in partnership together and being respectful to each other. If councils say that they have incurred costs that they would not otherwise have incurred, it is right for the Government to say that we are willing to meet them halfway.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, but there remains some confusion in Lancashire, so I hope he is able to clarify a few things. Moving away from the different tranches suggests that there is now no timetable for what might happen in Lancashire. Councillors are asking me for clarity on a timetable for Lancashire. I also seek reassurance that the decision means that Lancaster will not lose its city status in any part of the reorganisation, and that the building blocks with which we are making the reorganisation do not have to be strictly borough councils. For example, Wyre borough council, which was already an amalgamation of other councils, might want to look in different directions.

[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?

[Jim McMahon]

My hon. Friend makes the case for reorganisation well. It is less important how we perceive the structures of government in this place; in my view, it is more important that local people know who to hold to account for decisions made in their name and with their taxes. The truth is that in two-tier areas, there is confusion about which council to hold to account for the delivery of services, and there is a duplication of services. The fact that we have multiple chief executives, multiple finance directors, multiples HR directors and so on means that—in a period with there are all the pressures on adult social care, children’s services and temporary accommodation, and when we desire to start rebuilding neighbourhood services so that people can see improvement in their area—we have to do absolutely everything that we can to direct money to the frontline and to the local services that people can see.

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

I do not think that the Minister mentioned Essex in his statement, but he made a point about funding which I think is much appreciated—that areas have incurred costs in good faith. Does that apply to Essex? On the basis of £450,000 per new unitary previously announced, we would be due £2.25 million for the inconvenience and disruption to local government in Essex.

[Jim McMahon]

All the local authorities that were engaged in LGR, whether they were part of the four subject to the court challenges or the one that we are withdrawing today, will receive a payment for the work that they have done. The reorganisation programme is going ahead, so we are going to return to Hampshire, Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk to complete that work.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

Councils have spent considerable time and resources building the case for local government reorganisation, including by producing robust financial analysis, housing data, work on the social care impact and work on the impact on travel-to-work areas. Today’s announcement raises serious questions for any future timetable. Will the Minister confirm if councils are expected to go back to the drawing board and negotiate with surrounding councils on new boundaries? If so, how can they be expected to do that by January while meaningfully consulting their residents?

[Jim McMahon]

As it stands, we are satisfied that there is not a requirement for areas to develop new proposals. We will consider the proposals already submitted and the evidence base, as well as the consultation that went alongside. However, there have to be fresh ministerial decisions that are objective and that we approach with an open mind.

There is no further requirement on councils to do that front work. However, we are going to introduce a “minded to” process. When decisions are made, they will be “minded to” decisions. The idea is that we need to rebuild good faith in local government. If areas have concerns about a proposal that we believe is a “minded to” decision—if that proposal is not quite right for an area, or there are concerns about its potential implementation or what it means for local communities—there has to be something in the process that ensures that the Government are open to listen. We believe that is best done through the “minded to” process.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

May I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement and his announcement that Gloucestershire will be one unitary authority? That will produce better administration and better value for money. However, will he explain to my constituents why we are having an election next May on the existing councils, which will gradually lose power as we move toward the following election the next year? Why can we not simply have an election next May on the shadow unitary authority?

[Jim McMahon]

It is important that we have a programme that is consistent across the country. We cannot say, “Well, because there seems to be a bit more local consensus in one place than another, and maybe the legal risk is a bit less, we can suddenly kind of shortcut the process.” That means that Gloucestershire, like everywhere else, will go through the “minded to” process. The letters going to councils today will give interested parties around three weeks to make representations. We then need to consider our response and do any more development coming from that. That will mean that the 2027 election for the shadow unitary just will not be possible.

Another thing to have in mind is that, even though we are doing our best to tie this work down and make it robust, any decision of Government can be challenged in court, including the one in Gloucestershire. The worst outcome is that we pretend that May ’27 is an option. We are going to get to the end of the “minded to” decision in January, and it will take a couple of months to look at it; there will be no time at all for returning officers and political parties to find candidates for the new shadow unitary. There is a chance that a decision could be judicially reviewed in that process, and that would probably be the worst outcome. It is a fact that this work will take a bit longer, but that gives more certainty to councils so that they can prepare.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

The Minister knows about my frustration with LGR and the original outcome. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) and the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) agree that the outcome that came for Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre to merge as one authority was the worst outcome possible, given the challenges that we face in an authority like Blackpool. Will the Minister look at the “minded to” decisions to ensure that if local areas object, they are able to feed in other proposals that were originally on the table and may work better—not just for our area but across Lancashire? On top of that, if local areas want to go back to authorities of 500,000 people, will he look at that?

[Jim McMahon]

We have confirmed multiple times that the 500,000 population size was a guiding figure, and we were very mindful during the course of reorganisation that some councils went above that, with Gloucestershire being one example—I think the population was in the mid-600,000s. Other councils did not believe that was the way forward for their local population, for different reasons; sometimes it was because of a spread of different identities between a coastal community, an urban city or a rural shire surrounding it. In those councils, the view was, that the council should better represent the identity of the area, rather than being a single unit. That figure was always a guide.

There is not a window in this process for new proposals, but there will be a “minded to” process. When we confirm our preferred option, if there are proposals for tweaks that would make it better, we will be open to receiving them during that process.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

On 7 September, the Secretary of State made a commitment that Devon MPs would be able to hold a meeting with the appropriate Minister to discuss local government reorganisation in Devon. Sadly, that meeting has not occurred to date. What timescale can the Minister give for such a meeting occurring?

[Jim McMahon]

We said that the meeting would take place after the review, as we wanted the review to take its course. It has obviously now concluded, and I have made a statement today. We have a list of about 40 to 50 MPs who have requested meetings in debates and in writing, so we will have a Monday evening surgery every two weeks from 7 pm to 9 pm. We will make sure that MPs are given a slot at the earliest possible opportunity.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

The prize on offer for Gloucester residents from local government reorganisation is the promise of devolution so that we can share in the powers and investment that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have announced over the last few months. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can ensure that local government reorganisation and the model proposed for Gloucestershire will unlock devolution opportunities, rather than block them? The only credible option for Gloucestershire is a foundation strategic authority in the short term and joining the West of England combined authority in the long term. That is backed by six of our seven local councils and all four constituent councils of the WECA.

[Jim McMahon]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. One of the criteria for reorganisation is that it has to be compatible with devolution going forward. I hope that Members saw the announcement yesterday for 10 new devolution agreements across England—that is significant investment coming our way. When we look at the map of England, there is that belt around the midlands where economies and communities say that they look in different directions. We need to work through what a good settlement for those areas looks like in practice, but I absolutely take on board my hon. Friend’s points. I thank him for all the work that he does on this issue, and I am very happy to meet him.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

The Government are very good at imposing on people things that they do not want. In Staffordshire Moorlands, the Government want to impose the end of Staffordshire Moorlands district and the end of Staffordshire police—reorganisations that will have different timeframes and will lead to great confusion. Will the Minister consider my proposal for local government reorganisation—this has been my proposal all along—which is to leave our councils and local authorities in the state they are in? The Government can give us a mayor, if that is what they want, but we really do not need any more distractions for our local government officials, who need to get on and deliver services.

[Jim McMahon]

I just do not agree with the analysis that we can stay as we are. I do not think we can stay as we are from a public service delivery perspective, a devolution perspective, or a financial sustainability perspective. The world has changed, and the demands for people-led services—in adults’ and children’s social care and in temporary accommodation—are overwhelming councils. We have to make sure that we free up the money from the system that is currently used for executive pay and back-office support and direct it straight to neighbourhoods and people-led services. That is not at all to decry the good work that district councils do. I respect those councils, but we have to take this in the context of the 50-year period of reorganisation.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

As the Minister knows, I support local government reorganisation, and I welcomed the original pause of the decision to split Amber Valley in two. I know that the Minister is taking the time to carefully review the situation, and I thank him for the thorough and thoughtful manner in which he is doing so. However, delays bring uncertainty about council officers’ futures, planning services, and delivery of projects for the people of Amber Valley. Given that splitting Amber Valley is the only point of contention between the boroughs and districts of Derbyshire, can I urge the Minister to commit to a swift and firm timetable for Derbyshire? This can be sorted out quickly.

[Jim McMahon]

I thank my hon. Friend for all her representations on this issue over a long period of time. I can definitely commit to moving as quickly as possible. All the points she has raised—about identity, good public services and so on—are in our mind when we consider the proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. As he knows, I have been calling for a devolution settlement for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, which I was pleased was confirmed in yesterday’s Budget. However, we know that local government reorganisation is going to be key to long-term strategic growth in our communities, so it is disappointing to hear about this withdrawal now. I have more concerns, though, about how this uncertainty will impact our communities and our hard-working colleagues across local councils. In the light of this change, how will local authorities in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland be supported to make sure it does not disrupt their long-term aim of providing excellent services to my residents?

[Jim McMahon]

My hon. Friend makes a very fair point about the impact of the delay. That has impacted a lot of council staff who have been working on this; it has definitely impacted chief officers, legal officers and councillors, which is why we committed to return as soon as possible. I think we have honoured that through the work we have done so far, but we will move at pace to make sure we can act as quickly as possible. Obviously, securing devolution and investment for the counties of Leicestershire and Rutland could be transformational for their communities and their economy.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

After more than two years, the Minister has come to the Chamber today to say that all options are still on the table. He cannot say what the timeline is for Cambridgeshire, yet he also said from the Dispatch Box that his priority is getting resources to the frontline. I am not surprised that the Secretary of State, who is in her place, has decided to duck making this statement and has passed it to the Minister, but will he answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam)? What has been the total cost to local authorities and the Government of this process so far, given that we have arrived at a situation today where all options are on the table?

[Jim McMahon]

The cost of transitioning from the two-tier system to new unitaries is covered by councils in their proposals. They tell us how they will finance the transitional arrangements that they are asking the Government to consider. For the first time—Government have not done this before—we have introduced a multimillion-pound budget, £900,000 per new unitary, to support the transitional arrangements on top of that, so I do not believe that the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has framed his question reflects the reality. The Government are meeting the councils halfway.

[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.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

The two local authorities that serve my constituency are due to be abolished next year as part of the first phase of local government reorganisation, and now we hear that Surrey is likely to have a mayor. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will let Surrey choose whether or not to have a mayor via a public consultation and a vote of councillors?

[Jim McMahon]

As with LGR, devolution is locally led, so it is for local areas to come to Government to say, “We have a broad agreement that we want to be in talks about devolution.” We then bring that into a programme and speak to the Treasury about financing that programme, which is where we got to yesterday, so this is great news for the 10 areas that are in scope. The next stage is a consultation, probably around December, and then local authorities will be taking local decisions to form the strategic authority, probably in February and March. Once they have done that, we will move the statutory instruments—the legislation—here in the House.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

Councils across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough have worked collaboratively throughout the whole local government reorganisation process, even when they have disagreed. I have long advocated for our region to have three unitary councils, not just two, and I hope the Government will agree, but there are of course questions about where boundaries should lie. What avenues will be available, or are available, for councils to submit modifications to proposals if consensus can be built on improvements?

[Jim McMahon]

At the moment, we will be going on the proposals that we already have. If those proposals generally contain the type of outcome that my hon. Friend wants and we are minded to go with them, there is an opportunity during the “minded to” window to make representations: “Actually, those proposals could be improved if this modification were made.” If we accept that as an argument and want to make a modification order, we will then need to go through a separate consultation process. That will probably take a bit longer, but if it is the right thing to do, we should be open-minded about doing it.

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

The Minister cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and say that the Government are not imposing local government reorganisation, and then say that the status quo is not an option. Is he fully aware of the chaos, cost and uncertainty that this indecision is causing in Worcestershire? If I understand correctly, we have local district council elections next year, a unitary election the year after, and maybe—for what mayoralty we do not know—a mayoral election. Does that make sense to him?

[Jim McMahon]

The pace of change is quick—we know that—but the economic and social requirements for that pace are vital. If we do not move quickly, we will have no chance of ensuring growth can reach every postcode in the country, which is our promise, and no ability to ensure the funding required for those who need social care, care in their local communities and vital neighbourhood services. It is, therefore, the right thing to do.

On the hon. Member’s point about whether we are imposing this, to be clear, the English devolution White Paper that was published in December 2024 invited councils to be part of the voluntary programme, and every one of the 21 outstanding counties applied.

[Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)]

The Minister will know, because of the many times I have raised it with him and the Secretary of State, that there is still real concern in Peacehaven, Telscombe and East Saltdean, in my constituency, about the proposed merger into Brighton and Hove. Given today’s announcement and the “minded to” decision, can he explain a little more clearly how my constituents can feed in, during the three or four-week period, and how I can ensure their views continue to be heard?

[Jim McMahon]

At the moment, the proposal regarding the “minded to” decision is to expand the boundary of Brighton and Hove city council to include the communities of Saltdean and Peacehaven further down the coast. However, that is a “minded to” decision, so there is an opportunity for communities to make representations, alongside MPs. I give my hon. Friend credit for the representations he has already made on this over quite a long period.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I commend the Government on granting Cornwall, by exception, a single-authority FSA—foundation strategic authority—devolution deal. I have been proud to work with all of Cornwall’s MPs and the council leader on this, and Cornwall is very much relieved that it will not be merged with any other region. Will the Minister now meet all of Cornwall’s MPs to discuss how we can move to that mayoral suite of powers and funding, without a mayor, as new legislation comes before this House?

[Jim McMahon]

I understand that all MPs were invited to the meeting at No. 10 North about devolution, which is good news. That shows just how importantly we are taking this; it is a Government-wide priority and we are working across our different teams to ensure that it lands.

I hope the hon. Gentleman also recognises that, for Cornwall, we are working as hard as we can to recognise that different places are in different positions on devolution, but, ultimately, we want to complete the map, either through a foundation authority or through an MSA.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

I welcome yesterday’s announcement of a mayoral strategic authority for the geography of Devon. However, as the Minister is aware, cities that currently have district councils are the drivers of economic growth, jobs growth, house building and much else in their areas, but are currently locked out of sitting as full constituent members of mayoral strategic authorities. As we are looking at potential legislation regarding cities, can the Minister give some commitment to looking at whether cities, in advance of local government reorganisation, could sit as full constituent members of MSAs?

[Jim McMahon]

First, I thank my hon. Friend for the representations he has made on behalf of Exeter over a long period of time on this, both regarding reorganisation and devolution. He raises a very fair point, which is that we were trying to align reorganisation to be in place before devolution, but the fact is that those are now going to run to slightly different timetables. It raises a question: if this is about an economic project—which it is—the city economic drivers and the travel-to-work areas ought to have a voice in that. I cannot make commitments today, other than to say that I acknowledge the point my hon. Friend makes and will take it away.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Were he to consult a map, the Minister would understand that the Creator’s purpose in placing the estuary of the Test was to prevent, for government purposes, the eastern part of the New Forest from being treated as a suburb of Southampton.

[Jim McMahon]

I will certainly make a note of that.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)]

Peterborough is ambitious for growth and to improve life for our residents, so anything that extends this process risks knocking back some of that ambitious growth. I ask the Minister, can we do this as quickly as possible?

I think Peterborough is also unique in this process, in that we are already a unitary council and are being brought into a bigger process. We are consistently told that a decision has not been taken, but in July a review had already started. Can the Minister confirm whether any review has actually happened since the last one was started in July? Will it take a “minded to” decision for MPs, councillors and communities in Cambridgeshire to have a say on the options being considered?

[Jim McMahon]

With Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and also with West Sussex, we are still earlier in the process, so we will confirm in writing what that will be. However, all decisions will be “minded to”. My hon. Friend makes a very strong case about the economic benefits of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and that being built on strong foundations. Also, I congratulate him on his appointment as the Government’s co-operatives champion; he has always been my co-operatives champion, but it is nice that he has been recognised.

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

The reason this local government reorganisation has been so appalling shambolic is that the Government made political decisions, as opposed to the right decisions. Reform in Lincolnshire welcomes the decision to pause there, but does the Minister understand that Reform in Warwickshire is concerned that the two-unitary proposal he is minded to accept will lead to the bankruptcy of both unitaries within a matter of years?

[Jim McMahon]

The “minded to” process will allow anyone in the area to make those points in representations. If there is new information that we have not considered, I would be happy to receive it.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. I urge him to make a “minded to” decision as quickly as possible for Hampshire, and for that to include the creation of a north Hampshire unitary authority. It is right economically and for the delivery of public services, and has a coalition of charities and businesses behind it. I also join my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) in urging representation for districts—not just cities, but large towns such as Basingstoke—on the Hampshire and the Solent combined county authority.

[Jim McMahon]

Hampshire was one of the areas where decisions were withdrawn earlier in September, so we will be reviewing that process. As I think I said before, it should not be assumed that, just because areas were in previous batches, that will be the order in which we will take them. We will confirm how we will batch those up, or not, in the coming weeks.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I did not think that the Minister could make things for people in Worcestershire even more confusing than they were. They just want their bins taken out, their roads maintained, enough school places, adult social care provision and a say in planning. But now I understand that we will have to get councillors elected to district councils again next May, that we will have to get councillors elected to a new shadow authority the following May, and that this new entity in the south of Worcestershire will now not be created until 2029. I just cannot see how that is going to benefit my residents.

[Jim McMahon]

The hon. Member makes the case as to why the district elections are important. We cannot have a situation in which there is a democratic deficit, where one part of the partnership in the reorganisation—the transfer of assets, workforce and liabilities, and the rest of it—does not have a say. As she says, the vesting day on this timetable will be April 2029. I am afraid that the idea that there should not be a democratic-mandate reset to negotiate that transfer just does not hold.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

I will start by thanking the Minister for the part he played in getting the announcement of a strategic mayoral authority for Staffordshire over the line in time for yesterday’s Budget. However, despite the potential efficiency and simplicity gains of local government reorganisation, the shifting goalposts and the stop-start process have caused deep frustration in our county. Can the Minister confirm what the coming months will bring in terms of consultation with MPs, councillors and, most importantly, our constituents, so that they are clear on how they can again have their say over the future of our councils?

[Jim McMahon]

Now that the review has concluded, the individual meetings requested by a list of MPs will take place, and we will contact MPs in the usual way for those Monday sessions. Notwithstanding that, the “minded to” process will allow formal representations even beyond that.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Still West Sussex waits, and we badly need certainty on the geography of the new authorities for my county. I cannot overstate how cash-strapped and fragile our public services are. The £500,000 to offset the cost of further delay is welcome, but it is only the tip of the iceberg of the amount of money that the Department has spent in the past two years on LGR. May I press the Minister again: how much has that cost?

[Jim McMahon]

As I say, all the localised costs of reorganisation are included in the financial profiles that councils send to the Government; councils themselves determine what type or form of arrangement they want to put forward for their area. Alongside the boundary proposal, they have to do a financial assessment of the transitional arrangements and the cash implications, and that is all set out in the proposals.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome today’s statement, the new transitional funding and the Minister’s work on this issue so far. My understanding is that Lancashire’s case for reorganisation is stronger and more robust than it was just a few months ago, if a little delayed. Can the Minister confirm today that this new window of engagement is an opportunity for Lancashire to remake its case for our future—we have had the very welcome announcement of a new mayor—and an opportunity for me to keep lobbying him for a smaller east Lancs unitary, and perhaps new electoral boundaries, rather than the existing county divisions?

[Jim McMahon]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his representations. It is probably fair to say that I cannot get through the voting Lobby without him making those representations, but he does so for the right reasons. He cares about the place that he represents, and he wants devolution in Lancashire to be a success. In that, we are entirely as one.

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

Like others in this House, I think it is fair to say that this whole process has been a shambles. Like many in the House, I come from a local government background, and I feel sorry for my councillors, my council and my residents for what they are having to go through. Having said that, the previous decision for Hertfordshire was wrong, so I appreciate that the Minister has taken the opportunity to reassess what Hertfordshire will do. Given that my community is a collection of small towns and villages, and we do not have a mayoralty, how will he ensure that my community is properly represented, whatever the outcome for Hertfordshire?

[Jim McMahon]

I will review not only the proposals that came forward, but the consultation that was carried out at the time, and I will test the assumptions. On one side, there is the idea that big is beautiful, and that having a single unitary will save money and all the rest of it; on the other side, there is the idea that local is better. In today’s debate, we have heard that there are very different views on that, and I tend to find that the truth is somewhere in the middle. I am trying to get a compromise that people accept, but clearly we cannot pre-empt the findings; we are coming at this with an open mind.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

It is right that all options proposed by Nottinghamshire authorities be looked at fairly and properly, so I welcome the Minister’s confirmation, but today’s update makes it clear that LGR is extremely complicated, should never have been a term-one priority, and has destabilised the very organisations on which we rely to deliver so many services. Having led a local authority, I cannot emphasise enough how big an impact this is having on our councillors and council officers, so I hope the Minister can clarify the situation. Are there scenarios in which “minded to” may mean that LGR does not go ahead? Are councils able to make representations to that effect, and who is being held accountable for the announcements on 16 July, which should never have happened?

[Jim McMahon]

To be clear, the invitation for areas to make submissions to the LGR process was entirely voluntary; there was no mandation. When councils submit a proposal, that initiates LGR. This is a Government-wide programme, but it is taking place because we have received proposals from local councils that we are now required to review. However, I take on board my hon. Friend’s point about being mindful of the impact of the process on council officials and councillors.

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

The Minister is a genial sort of fellow, and I want to believe him when he says that he wants to proceed by consensus. Will he accept that there is no consensus at all on splitting the New Forest and putting the Waterside under the control of Labour-dominated Southampton? Well over 30,000 people signed the petition to keep the forest together, and it was handed in at Downing Street on the very day that the Government rightly withdrew the plan for Hampshire.

[Jim McMahon]

Hampshire is an area that we will look at afresh, just as we will look afresh at other decisions. I have not predetermined what might happen, but the right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. This is an imperfect process, but ensuring that the decision reflects community identity is definitely at the back of my mind.

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

As the Minister said, LGR and devolution are intrinsically linked, so it came as a bit of a surprise to read on page 66 of the Red Book that Surrey is apparently in advanced talks with the Government over a new strategic mayoralty, because those talks have not involved any of the local MPs and have apparently entailed only a 10-minute phone call with the new unitary authorities for Surrey on Monday evening. In the spirit of consensus and correspondence, can we make sure that before this goes any further, those unitary authorities and the local MPs are fully consulted?

[Jim McMahon]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about consultation. The Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson), and I have done a lot to engage with local government, and many of our drop-in sessions have been about devolution, so I push back on the idea that we have not done that, but we could always do more. Further talks might be required, but let us not detract from the benefit of this multibillion-pound investment to our communities. As local MPs, surely the reason we come here is to make sure that our areas get their fair share.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), I agree that merging six district councils and one county council into one unitary authority for 650,000 people is a good idea—it has a lot of efficiency. In Worcestershire, we have 630,000 people, six district councils and one county council. How on earth did the Minister come to the conclusion that it was a good idea to split the county council in two and have a north-south divide in a county smaller than Gloucestershire?

[Jim McMahon]

We do not align the decision on one county with the entirely separate legal decision on the county next door; all we can do is act on the basis of the proposals we receive. These are not always easy decisions, and they are always a matter of balancing competing interests. As I said, I have not yet seen a perfect proposal, but we are trying to get to the best possible solution in Gloucestershire, Worcestershire and all the other places that we have mentioned today. We are in the middle of the “minded to” process, and if the hon. Gentleman wants to make representations, I would be very happy to receive them.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

The Minister knows, because we have discussed this many times, that the boundaries of historical counties and cities are very different from local government boundaries, and I am pleased that he has said today that city status is preserved, as are ceremonial matters. Will he finally allow historical and ceremonial counties to be as one, in order to avoid confusion, and so that we in Romford can have our Essex identity, regardless of local government boundaries? Will he give a cast-iron guarantee that there is no plan to merge the London borough of Havering with other east London boroughs to create some sort of super east London council?

[Jim McMahon]

I think I have enough on my plate without taking that on.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

There seems to be some confusion on both sides of the House about the next steps for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough; perhaps the Minister can clarify. He said that the process was in its early stages, so Cambridgeshire will still receive written confirmation of what the options are. He also appeared to confirm that despite the fact that the four options tabled will be selected, they could later be modified by councils, if they saw fit, and taken forward. Could he clarify that that is the process, and clarify the criteria under which that decision will be taken?

[Jim McMahon]

We published the criteria at the start of the process, and those criteria stand. They are unweighted; the idea is that they give us the freedom to take into account that England is very diverse, and what is right for one county might not be right for another. In the end, decisions have to be as sustainable as possible. They have to balance efficiency and identity, and these are not easy decisions.

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the opportunity for a modification proposal, we are now receiving proposals, and there is no additional window to do that. Also, consultations have already been carried out. However, there will be a “minded to” process for all these decisions, so that he and others can make representations. In the case of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and also West Sussex, I am very happy to confirm the details by writing to Members shortly.

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

As many Members have said, this process has been a shambles, but I welcome the “minded to” approach, and the fact that people have time to give their views. Although I want this process sorted quickly, the timetable has to be long enough for a real consultation. Bear in mind that all local government has to give proper due notice of its meetings, and of what will be on the agenda, so that the public can come and have their say. I am not at all sure that three weeks is long enough. Will the Minister please look at having a timetable that makes it practical for local authorities and local people to properly make their representations?

[Jim McMahon]

The way we approach “minded to” decisions is not to assume that the council will be the conduit for every view in an area. In a single area, there may be very different views from different political groups, local charity organisations and other public service providers. The deliberate intention is for councils, local residents, the business community and whoever has an interest to make representations, and our view is that three weeks ought to be enough time to do so.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Six weeks ago, the Government announced that they were scrapping the local government reform proposals for Essex and going back to the drawing board. That announcement created yet more uncertainty and further paralysed decision making, yet the Minister has not even mentioned Essex, and he has provided no additional clarity whatsoever. How can he expect elections to go ahead in 2028, when we will not even know what authorities the candidates will be elected to until next year?

[Jim McMahon]

I definitely accept the right hon. Member’s point that having an itinerary of areas, with a clear date alongside them, would do what he has asked, but that is not where we are. We have decided that we ought to confirm the decision for an area as soon as possible, rather than waiting for this to be patched up, in the way that may have happened previously. On whether elections should go ahead, I have made the point that these district councils will be in place until the vesting days of the new local authorities. We cannot have elections being cancelled, creating a democratic deficit. Councils must have representatives around the table, with a mandate given to them by the public.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire, the two unitaries serving my constituency, are unanimous in wanting to maintain the status quo, as are the four MPs across the area. The Minister’s predecessor announced that that would be the case. Could he enlighten us as to why he is further delaying and continuing the uncertainty?

[Jim McMahon]

The hon. Member is almost suggesting that the further delay is for the sake of delay, but new decisions have to be taken. When I review previous decisions, I am not just saying, “Well, we’ll just allow them to go through.” We are withdrawing decisions entirely for areas, and we will make new decisions from the point of proposal, with a consultation and based on fresh evidence. He says that his is a compelling proposal, and asks why we would think otherwise, and what he proposes may well be the outcome, but it would be wrong to predetermine it.