Local Government Reorganisation

Steve Reed Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

This Government were elected on a promise to repair the broken foundations of local government. In 2024, councils were on the brink financially, while a third of the country was left paying for wasteful duplication as a result of having two tiers of councils in their area. That cannot be acceptable. Years of underfunding has led to a crisis in social care, the decline of our town centres and rubbish piling up in our streets. That visible failure contributes to a decline in trust, and it was caused by Tory austerity and 14 years of economic mismanagement.

This Government will not stand by and let that decline continue. We cannot just snap our fingers and reverse the last 14 years overnight, but we can act now to secure a better future. To get there, we have already announced fairer funding that realigns resources with need, but we also need to eliminate the financial waste of two-tier councils, so that we can plough the savings back into the frontline services that local people care about the most. Today’s announcement is part of that.

We must move at pace to remove the confusion and waste of doubled-up bureaucracy. Local residents do not know which of their two councils is responsible for which services. No one would ever design a system in which one council collects rubbish and another gets rid of it. In many parts of the country, residents’ hard-earned council tax pays for two sets of councillors, two sets of chief executives, and two sets of financial directors. That is wasting tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money.

The previous Government sat back and ignored this problem, but this Government will not. We are committed to the most ambitious local government reorganisation in a generation. My priority is cutting out this waste, so that we can invest more in the frontline services that residents care about. That means moving as quickly as possible to the new, streamlined, single-tier councils that can make that happen. I have asked councils to tell me where holding elections this year to positions that will rapidly be abolished would slow down making these vital reforms, which will benefit local people, and I have listened to what councils told me.

In December, the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness wrote to 63 councils that were due to hold elections in May 2026, asking to hear their views. I have carefully assessed more than 350 representations from those councils that have elections scheduled for May, and from others interested in the outcome. I have carefully considered arguments made about capacity, reorganisation and democracy, and I am grateful to everyone who took the time to express their views.

I can now confirm my decisions to the House. I have decided to bring forward legislation to postpone 29 elections; I have deposited a list of those in the House of Commons Library. I received one further representation this morning, which I will consider; I will then report back to the House on my decision. In all other areas, council elections will go ahead as planned; many councils offered no evidence that elections would delay reorganisation in their area. That means that of the 136 local elections across England that were scheduled for May, the vast majority will go ahead as planned.

In areas where elections are postponed, councillors will have their terms extended for a short period. Once the new unitary councils are agreed, we will hold elections to them in 2027. I have written to councils confirming these decisions, and I will shortly lay the necessary legislation before both Houses.

I am not the first Secretary of State to seek to delay elections to speed up essential reorganisation. The shadow Secretary of State suggested on Tuesday that the previous Government had not done the same thing, but he has perhaps forgotten the postponements in Weymouth and Portland in 2018; in Aylesbury, Chiltern, South Buckinghamshire and Wycombe in 2019; or in Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset in 2021.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)]

For two years!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), but I do not expect him to walk in and start mouthing off the moment he sits down. I am sure that he would like to catch my eye, and that is not the best way to do so.

[Steve Reed]

Indeed. It was the right hon. Member, the self-styled new sheriff in town—now, of course, a member of Reform UK Ltd—who made many of these decisions.

To those who say we have cancelled all the elections: we have not. To those who say it is all Labour councils: it is not. I have asked, I have listened and I have acted —no messing about, no playing politics, just getting on with the job of making local government work better for local people.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

“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.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 57.]

That is what I said on Monday, when I dragged the Secretary of State’s Minister—the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern)—to the Dispatch Box. I say it again today, directly to him.

In his statement, the Secretary of State plays heavily on what he claims is a wasteful system. He has said publicly that he thinks these elections are “pointless”, so it is clear what he thinks and it is clear what he wants. He wants to cancel all these elections, so why does he not simply say so? Why does he not have the courage of his own convictions? Why did he write to councils asking them to ask him to cancel the elections? Why, when they did not give him the answer that he wanted, did he write to them again asking basically the same question? Why was his Department putting pressure on councils to ask for cancellations as late as last night?

I know why. He knows why. We all know why. It is because he wants to shift the blame. He wants to say, “I didn’t make them do it.” He wants a political gotcha. He is putting councils in an impossible position, squeezing them financially, imposing the costs and disruption of large-scale reorganisation on them, making promises about structures, timescales and funding, and then reneging on those promises. Then, to add insult to injury, he is trying to dump the consequences of his arrogance and incompetence on to the laps of the local councils.

It has always been the Conservative position that these elections should go ahead. The Secretary of State tried to claim in his statement that there were precedents, as his Minister did on Monday, but the scale and scope of these cancellations is totally unprecedented. I ask him directly: what was it about the Labour party’s collapse in the opinion polls that first attracted him to the cancellation of local elections? Is he as unsurprised as I am that the vast bulk of councils asking for their elections to be scrapped are Labour-run councils?

I give the Secretary of State notice that Conservative Members will vote against these proposals. Elections are the foundation stone of democracy, and when his Department puts intolerable pressure on councils, shifting the goalposts or pulling the rug from under them—whichever metaphor one chooses to use—he should have the courage to come to this House and say that it is his decision to cancel elections, rather than passing the buck to local government leaders.

[Steve Reed]

I have to say that the right hon. Gentleman’s case would be much stronger and would sound less self-righteous if he had not done exactly the same thing, for exactly the same reasons, when he was in government—only, unlike him when his party was in government, I have imposed nothing. This was a locally led approach. [Interruption.] He was a member of the Cabinet, and he is trying to claim that Cabinets do not take decisions collectively. He was in the Cabinet that took these decisions and he backed them to the hilt. Now, in opposition, he believes the opposite. He seems to think he has become a Lib Dem. He is supposed to have consistency in what he believes.

This is a locally led approach. I was guided by local councils, which came to me with their views. I respectfully suggest that his argument is with those Conservative councils and leaders who have requested postponement so that they can get on and deliver a reorganisation that will benefit their residents, but which he is now trying to block for party political reasons.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House with his statement. Although he has outlined that there is a clear precedent, from 2019 and 2021, for postponing local elections, he reassured my Select Committee back in November that these elections would go ahead. Residents in those areas will be disappointed that their elections are being postponed.

I want to challenge the Secretary of State on what he has outlined and on his talk about eliminating waste. I agree that we need to respond to local leaders, especially where they have valid concerns about the process of reorganisation. We all knew that this would be a resource-intensive process, and we are aware that all our councils are dealing with many demands—adult social care, children’s social care, temporary accommodation—but our councils should not have to face choosing between frontline services and elections. Democracy is not an inefficiency that should be cut out. Every council should have the resources to run local elections. Can he assure the House that councils that have applied for their elections to go ahead will still have the resources to manage frontline services?

I also want clarity from the Secretary of State on any potential legal challenge. I understand that the court has given a date on which it will consider a legal challenge. Is there any possibility that the elections will go ahead if the Government lose? That would leave little time for councils, councillors, political parties and the Electoral Commission to go ahead. Can he outline any contingency planning that has been done, should that happen?

[Steve Reed]

I thank the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for her questions. I reassure her that I have imposed nothing. I took representations and listened to local councils, and today I am merely responding to the representations that I heard. Most councils will go ahead. It is the councils themselves that have reassured me that they have the resources to go ahead with elections and deliver the reorganisation that is so important to improving frontline services for local people. I am acting on the information that they have given me; I am imposing nothing. She will, I hope, appreciate that it is not appropriate or possible for me to comment on legal proceedings.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

I remind the hon. Lady that these postponements, which are at the request of councils, affect only those councils that will shortly be abolished anyway. They are happening so that we can more quickly have elections to the new councils that will replace them. I respectfully suggest to her, as I did to the shadow Secretary of State, that her argument is actually with those Liberal Democrat councils and Liberal Democrat council leaders who have requested postponement so that the reorganisation can go ahead on schedule. I have imposed nothing; I am merely responding to them. I suggest that she go away and perhaps have a cup of tea with some of them, so that they can explain to her how what they have requested does not damage democracy.

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

I should make it clear that local elections will be going forward in full in Milton Keynes and that I look forward to continuing to work with my brilliant, hard-working Labour councillors locally. One of the reasons for delaying the elections is the time it is taking to go through the local government reorganisation process. That affects elections, but it also affects the creation of the new combined authorities, which is happening in parallel. Given the delays, will the Department look at the fast-track programme for the combined authorities, and at whether it is worth adding areas that do not face the reorganisation challenges, such as Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes?

[Steve Reed]

This is the biggest reorganisation in a generation, and it is very important that it be delivered with as much speed as we can muster, because of the benefits to local residents, who will see more money available to spend on things like fixing potholes and caring for older people—rather than paying for two sets of councillors, two sets of chief execs and two sets of finance directors, which the Conservative party was happy to see continue for all the 14 years it was in power. Of course, I will listen to my hon. Friend and others if they have suggestions about how we can further speed up the process and renew local democracy across the country.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation that elections in Essex are going ahead; indeed, they should have taken place a year ago. However, he will be aware that elections have also been proposed for new unitary authorities next year, although we in Essex do not even know what the unitary authorities will be. Will he say whether it is still his intention that we should have elections for the new authorities next year?

[Steve Reed]

As I said in my statement, it is my intention that the elections to the new unitaries will go ahead next year.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

I have to say that I find the bleating from the Conservative party—which delayed elections in Northamptonshire, Buckinghamshire and Somerset, as well as in several other areas named by the Secretary of State—pretty astounding. As welcome as the reforms are, they are taking up considerable time and capacity for local authorities, including Oxfordshire county council. The council is prioritising, among other things, economic growth, which this Government have said is their No. 1 mission. I urge the Secretary of State and his team to look at picking up the pace of these reforms, as welcome as they are, so that local areas and the councils that emerge from them can get on with delivering for their local residents.

[Steve Reed]

I completely agree with the thrust of what my hon. Friend says. We want to go ahead with this reorganisation precisely so that we can improve public services and let councils get on with what they should be doing. Growing local economies and putting more money in the pockets of local people, including his constituents, is our priority.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

I was very interested to hear what the Secretary of State said. I represent a two-tier local authority area, and I live in a two-tier local authority area, yet I seem to pay considerably less council tax than people living in neighbouring local authority areas that are Labour-controlled and single-tier. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how?

[Steve Reed]

As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, his party fiddled funding to councils so that areas voting Labour were less likely to get funded. He does not have to take my word for it: the former Prime Minister was captured on video standing in a garden in Tunbridge Wells and boasting about how he was ripping money away from poorer communities to give it to wealthier communities. Perhaps it has something to do with that.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

As the Secretary of State knows, I am a very strong supporter of local government reform, especially for cities such as Exeter. It is not just about waste; it is about being held back within a two-tier system. It is also worth pointing out that all parties represented on Exeter city council are in favour of unitary status for Exeter. Can the Secretary of State confirm that we are moving full speed ahead with local government reform and that unitary status for places like Exeter will improve services, reduce waste and deliver the sustainable jobs and growth in living standards that we desperately want in our city?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are proceeding with this reorganisation in order to eliminate duplication and the cost of that waste, so that the money can be spent on frontline services instead. I have asked councils for their views on whether postponement would speed up their ability to carry out the reorganisation and get the new, streamlined councils off the ground, and I have responded to their representations.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

Somerset underwent local government reorganisation during the last Parliament, with an independent report citing that the Conservative administration’s business case was marked by poor decision making, while its reckless decision to freeze council tax for six years has seen over £330 million in lost revenue. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that new unitary councils, such as Somerset, are put on a fair financial footing? Will he reconsider the decision to remove the remoteness uplift, which will force councils to consider cuts to vital services?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

The fair funding review that we have announced is intended to ensure that, unlike under the previous Government, funding follows need. We took on board the new indicators on deprivation, and funding is now much more closely aligned with them. That is as it should be, because those are the areas that need extra funding. The hon. Lady will find that rurality is still taken into account in funding for social care, and given the distance that people may need to travel, it is important that such services remain available to them.

[Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s Department issued very clear guidance on 6 February last year, which said that

“we expect local leaders to engage their Members of Parliament, and to ensure there is wide engagement with local partners and stakeholders, residents, workforce and their representatives, and businesses on a proposal.”

My constituents are concerned that the proposal by Nottingham city council for reorganisation in Nottinghamshire fails to meet that test. Can the Secretary of State give me and my constituents in Gedling an assurance that his Department will firmly apply the guidance that he set on 6 February 2025?

[Steve Reed]

Yes, we will apply that guidance. Of course, we will listen to all representations about proposals for reorganisation, including my hon. Friend’s proposals for Nottinghamshire.

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

A year ago, the then Deputy Prime Minister assured us and promised us that none of the delays would be for more than a year, yet five of the current 29 that are going to be delayed are from last year, and 21 of the 29 are Labour-controlled councils. The Secretary of State is aware that we have a judicial review that is due to be heard in February. I obviously do not want him to comment on the case, but can he confirm that, as this Government believe in the rules-based order, they will adhere to and comply with the rulings of the judge?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I cannot comment on legal proceedings—it would be entirely inappropriate. I think the best response to his question is to quote the “new sheriff in town”, the right hon. Member for Newark, who is sitting directly in front of him and who took exactly the same decision in exactly the same circumstances. This is a direct quote from him:

“Elections in such circumstances risk confusing voters, and would be hard to justify when members could be elected to serve shortened terms.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 23WS-24WS.]

For once, he got it absolutely right.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

I take issue with the absolute brass neck of the shadow Secretary of State, who talked about the Government putting pressure on local government finances and then devolving the blame. Nothing could better describe the destructive austerity policies of the last Government, who devastated local councils across the country.

On the matter in hand, I welcome the decision to go ahead with elections in Hampshire and Basingstoke. That was the will of local councillors, though I accept that different areas have different circumstances. Are we still on track for the local government reorganisation process in Hampshire and Basingstoke? Can I impress upon the Secretary of State the importance of reaching a decision that endorses the proposal from Basingstoke, Hart and Rushmoor councils for a north Hampshire authority?

[Steve Reed]

I am seeking to ensure that we remain on track by responding to the comments I have had from councils, and ensuring they have the resources so that the process goes ahead as everyone intends it to.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I support unitarisation and the efficiency savings it brings, but may I caution the Secretary of State a little on his language? A lot of the waste he is talking about is people’s jobs. Many hard-working council workers, who have huge uncertainty about what will happen to them over the next couple of years, will be concerned to hear that sort of language used as we discuss this in the Chamber. What support is he giving local authorities to help those council workers find new jobs once the LGR process is complete?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Member makes a very important point, and he is right to be concerned about people working for councils. Of course, the overall increase in funding for local authorities means they have more resources to support their staff members, who may be concerned about their jobs in these circumstances, and I urge affected councils to focus on precisely the issues to which he has brought to our attention.

[Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. As a former leader of Worthing borough council, I pay tribute to my councillor colleagues, who did not come to the decision they have made lightly. They were informed by the officers, and they have had 15 years of underfunding on the south coast. Pockets of deprivation in coastal towns have long been ignored, and I very much welcome the fairer funding formula, which now recognises that. As we are on the fast track in Sussex, could the Secretary of State please reassure us that unitary authority decisions will be announced as soon as possible, and that the boundary commission will make sure we have the right sized wards for our new unitary authorities at the earliest possible opportunity?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend is of course a very pugnacious champion for her constituents and her constituency. She has had conversations with me about this very issue, and made her point very clear. We intend to make those announcements as soon as we can so that there is certainty, and we can move ahead to the new structures.

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

Having served as both a district and a unitary councillor, I actually support the Government’s move towards unitary authorities. My Brigg and Immingham constituency is served by two unitary authorities—North Lincolnshire council and North East Lincolnshire council—both of which want to continue as they are, and that position is supported by the hon. Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin). When the Secretary of State reviews the two-tier Lincolnshire county council area, can he give an assurance that he will leave the two existing unitaries exactly as they are?

[Steve Reed]

Unfortunately, I cannot prejudge the outcome of a consultation process, but I can perhaps say that I have been very impressed by the work done by North East Lincolnshire council, with no prejudice to the decision that will follow.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)]

First, would the Secretary of State stop saying this is a locally led process. The power rests solely with him, and each of these delays is his decision and his decision alone.

Secondly, the real question here is: why are elections to be delayed for a second year? When I was the Secretary of State, the legal advice I received—including from Sir James Eadie, the Government’s chief legal adviser —was that it was not legally sustainable to delay for a second year, hence we did not. Even during covid, we kept the elections going and did not delay for two years. What the Secretary of State is doing is almost certainly illegal. If he is so confident of his position, will he publish his legal advice and publish the legal advice that I and the then Prime Minister received when we decided not to delay for a second year? Then we might be able to have faith in what he is saying.

[Steve Reed]

As I say, the right hon. Member was of course the Secretary of State who failed to act on eliminating the waste that came from duplication and allowed this two-tier system to continue, with millions and millions of pounds of council tax payers’ money wasted on duplicate councillors, duplicate chief executives and duplicate finance directors, instead of ploughing that money into frontline services. On those few occasions when he was brave enough to take a decision, he imposed; by contrast, I have asked and I have responded. However, the reasons he gave were the right ones. In his words:

“Elections in such circumstances risk 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. 23-24WS.]

He got it right for once. He should be proud of himself.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

I do have concerns about the undermining of democracy, not least in that some Members of the House who have always insisted on by-elections after defections now appear to be running away from the electorate. Will the Secretary of State absolutely dissociate himself from the comments made by a Member of the governing party who could not confirm, when asked three times, that the general election would never be delayed?

[Steve Reed]

There is no question in ordinary circumstances of a general election being delayed. That has only ever happened in cases of national emergency, and that remains the case.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

I agree with the right hon. Member for Chorley (Sir Lindsay Hoyle), who has said that these elections should go ahead. Indeed, democracy delayed is democracy denied. In the past, when there has been a delay to local elections, I cannot remember it ever being for longer than one year. When Margaret Thatcher rightly abolished the Greater London Council, the term of the GLC was extended by one year only. Any delay has never been longer than one year, and one of two or three years is a complete denial of democracy. It is quite clearly a way of Labour avoiding humiliating defeats on 7 May. As they are going to be delayed, would the Secretary State please consider allowing the people of Havering to have a choice about our becoming part of Greater Essex instead of Greater London?

[Steve Reed]

I remind the hon. Member that his party did the same thing in the same circumstances—I should say his “former party”, because he walked out on it last week. Proposals about what happens in Essex are currently subject to consultation, and he is more than entitled to make his views known.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. He has outlined that the purpose is to save moneys, cut down on waste and improve efficiency. In Northern Ireland, we undertook the reorganisation of councils, reducing their number from 26 down to 11. Councils need only one chief executive, one head of each department and one council headquarters. Two or three councils together have greater buying power than one, so ultimately there are greater savings. However, seven years later, local people still feel disenfranchised from their local council. I am trying to be helpful in asking this question, but can he look at the Northern Ireland experience, and does he acknowledge that restructuring is a very delicate balance and must have public buy-in?

[Steve Reed]

I do agree with the hon. Member. I think it is very important that we get this right, which is why I was careful to listen to representations from councils due to undergo reorganisation to ensure that we do get it right. I want to see those savings made and to see council tax payers’ hard-earned money spent on frontline services, not wasteful duplication.