← Back to House of Commons Debates
Local Government Reorganisation
16 July 2026
Lead MP
Steve Reed
Debate Type
Ministerial Statement
Tags
Social CareEconomyTaxationStandards & EthicsLocal Government
Other Contributors: 50
At a Glance
Steve Reed raised concerns about local government reorganisation in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Government Statement
The Minister announced a significant reform programme for local government in England, aiming to replace the inefficient two-tier system with new unitary councils. He highlighted that this will improve service delivery and economic growth by clarifying boundaries and reducing administrative overheads across seven of ten poorest regions in northern Europe. The reforms involve creating 38 unitary councils from the current 134, which is expected to result in more than 250 fewer senior posts, nearly 3,000 fewer councillors, and up to £20 million per year savings on councillor allowances alone. A total of around £1 billion could be saved by 2032-33. The Minister also provided details about the funding support for councils during transition, including a capacity fund of £900,000 per new unitary council and an additional up to £150,000 in supplementary funding for children’s services, adult social care, and public health leadership. Elections for these new councils are scheduled for May 2027.
James Cleverly
Con
Braintree
Question
The Member questions the impartiality of the reorganisation process, citing examples where Labour-controlled councils benefited from proposed boundary changes. He asks how the Secretary of State can claim this is a politically neutral decision.
Minister reply
The Minister acknowledges differing views on the proposals but emphasises that all decisions were made with the aim to improve local governance and public services for more than 15 million people. He reassures that further details on remaining areas will be provided in autumn, adhering to a timetable allowing for adequate preparations before elections in May 2027.
James Cleverly
Con
Braintree
Question
Criticises the minister for political bias in the boundary changes and questions the integrity of the process, citing examples of Labour councils' influence on new boundaries. He expresses concern over devolution being undermined by imposing a single model from Whitehall, weakening well-run Conservative councils to prop up debt-ridden Labour ones, and increasing the democratic deficit.
Minister reply
The minister defended his decisions as having cross-party support and emphasised the benefits of economic growth and financial savings. He challenged criticisms about debt, pointing out that previous Conservative-led Woking council faced significant financial difficulties necessitating government intervention.
Gareth Snell
Lab
Stoke-on-Trent Central
Question
Asks why the minister did not make small consequential changes to boundaries in areas like Stoke-on-Trent and questions whether there will be council tax harmonisation, possibly affecting local rates.
Minister reply
Acknowledged that specific splits were proposed to minimise service disruption and benefit financial sustainability. He stated that council tax levels would depend on councils’ decisions within permitted parameters.
Question
Expresses concern over the lack of notice for scrutinising the Department’s decisions and points out the chaotic nature of boundary changes, impacting rural communities in Oxfordshire. He questions the long-term financial viability of proposed unitary structures.
Minister reply
Emphasised that financial sustainability was a key criterion for decision-making. The minister noted that selected options were chosen to promote economic growth, addressing regional inequalities. For West Sussex, he stated additional information would be carefully considered before final decisions are made.
Michael Payne
Lab
Gedling
Question
The Secretary of State and I have known each other a long time—we served in local government together—and he knows that I am as passionate as he is about bringing power back closer to people, but I have to say to him, in all honesty, that the decision to split my home community of Gedling borough in half and force communities in Gedling into an expanded new Nottingham city council area against their will is bad for my constituents and bad policymaking. Will the Secretary of State tell me what on earth makes sense about creating two councils for Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, when official figures show that from day one, one of them will be £147 million better off than the other? Will he explain to my constituents why the Government have backed the option that did not adhere to the strict criteria set out by the Government at the start of this process?
Minister reply
The decision we have taken on Nottingham and Nottinghamshire was made because it offers the strongest economic geography, allowing economic growth to happen at pace. That will benefit everyone living in Nottinghamshire.
Edward Leigh
Con
Gainsborough
Question
One of the poorest wards in the entire country is Gainsborough south-west ward. Why is the Secretary of State splitting West Lindsey in half? Why is he taking Scampton away from Gainsborough? It makes no sense. Why is he loading debt on Lincoln city council—for example, for the Hykeham bypass?
Minister reply
The decision for Lincolnshire gives Lincoln the space to grow; it allows economic and housing growth, which will benefit people right across the council.
Adam Jogee
Lab
Newcastle-under-Lyme
Question
The announcement today and the proposals in it are completely unacceptable. There is nothing in the proposals that reflects the views that I have consistently put to Ministers, or any acknowledgment of the concerns I have heard from thousands of people in Newcastle-under-Lyme. How does the Secretary of State think we can protect the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme from the debt held by Staffordshire county council?
Minister reply
We need to get it completed in this Parliament and get areas ready for the mayoral devolution that will follow.
Arundel and South Downs
Question
I welcome the moratorium on, and potential saving of, West Sussex, in response to my opposition and that of thousands of residents who did not want our historic county cleaved in two. Now that he has acknowledged that the proposal from the Government was less sustainable than the status quo, will the Secretary of State remove the jeopardy and confirm that he will not be proceeding with the proposal?
Minister reply
West Sussex will benefit from eventual local government reorganisation because of the savings from two-tier duplication, which we can plough straight into frontline services.
Sarah Smith
Lab
East Lancashire
Question
The Secretary of State mentioned in his statement that part of the driver of the proposals is that he wants to do something about areas of high deprivation. However, the plans presented today would make East Lancashire one of the most deprived unitary authorities in the country. What will the Government do to support areas like East Lancashire, if these plans are pursued?
Minister reply
The option we selected for Lancashire was chosen because it aligns with economic areas, commuting patterns and transport links, which will support inward investment, skills development and jobs.
Max Wilkinson
Con
Tewkesbury
Question
The proposals are not the result that I wanted for my constituency or Gloucestershire. However, I am a reasonable man, and I am willing to take the Secretary of State at his word. Will he reassure me that the new Gloucestershire unitary will not end up coming to the Government with a begging bowl on day one?
Minister reply
The option we selected for Gloucestershire was chosen in part because it was the strongest financial case, for precisely the reasons that he has just outlined.
Lauren Sullivan
Con
Gravesham
Question
I welcome the decision to pursue 4B as it is clear that the Government have listened to the calls for smaller communities that are local to councillors, and that keep local identity while having room for growth and jobs. One concern remains about the debt for Kent and Medway councils.
Minister reply
The option we selected for Kent is intended to support economic growth, which will benefit my hon. Friend’s residents.
Mark Garnier
Con
Wyre Forest
Question
I can see the sense in what the Secretary of State is trying to achieve with this reorganisation, and the target of 500,000 people per unitary authority makes a lot of sense—it brings a lot of people together. But why, after Wyre Forest district council voted for the single unitary, did the Secretary of State deliver a two-unitary solution for Worcestershire?
Minister reply
It is because we will be able to secure savings and invest them back in frontline services that I believe reorganisation will benefit his constituents.
Question
Unitary authorities have big benefits, but I am angry about the proposals. According to our own statistics, the new East Lancs authority—with Blackburn, and without the Ribble Valley—will create the most deprived unitary authority in the country, with an awful lot of debt already on its books. We are going to need a lot of cash to make it work, and I cannot support it.
Minister reply
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and always championing the interests of his residents. I would remind him that through fair funding, we have realigned Government funding for local authorities with deprivation and need, which will ensure that funding is distributed fairly in a way that it was not during the 14 years of the previous Government.
Neil O'Brien
Con
Harborough
Question
Eleven thousand people in Oadby, Wigston and Great Glen recently voted in a referendum against joining the city of Leicester. Ministers know that people do not want this locally, and yet they are forcing it on them anyway.
Minister reply
I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the vast majority of these proposals have cross-party support. We have taken the decisions about Leicestershire, as in other cases, because they are the best way to secure the economic growth that the area needs and deserves.
Question
Reorganisation makes sense. The situation that we have now, with services split across a borough or district council and a county council, causes many issues. If a drain is blocked by leaves that are on top of the drain, it is one council; if the leaves are below the drain, it is another.
Minister reply
I have visited my hon. Friend’s constituency with her on many occasions, so I know at first hand that she is one of the strongest advocates for her constituents of any Member in the House. She makes an important point there, because we do not want to lose the voice of individual towns such as Hastings and Rye within unitarisation.
Question
What would the Secretary of State say to my constituents in Broxbourne, who never asked for this reorganisation and are concerned that it is just a waste of time and money that will leave them with higher council tax bills and less say over local planning decisions?
Minister reply
I would say to the constituents of the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have conversations quite often—not least on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, of which he is a distinguished member—that the selections for the county were made because they best reflect the distinct economic areas that operate across the county.
Question
I refer the House to my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have grave concerns about the Nottingham and Nottinghamshire proposal, under which there will be an extreme deficit of a predicted nearly £150 million.
Minister reply
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for sharing her views with me in advance of this statement. Of course, I would be more than happy to ensure that the meeting she has requested goes ahead.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
Question
What a poisoned chalice this Secretary of State is leaving for the incoming Prime Minister.
Minister reply
I would just remind the right hon. Gentleman, as I have said several times already today, that the vast majority of the proposals that we have accepted have cross-party support.
Question
I thank the Minister for his statement and for delivering the option supported by five out of seven councils in Worcestershire.
Minister reply
My hon. Friend is quite right to point out that the proposal we have accepted was put forward with cross-party support—the opposite of the claims of Opposition Members, who are trying to politicise a situation.
Question
The dictionary definition of gerrymandering is the manipulation of boundaries to suit a particular party.
Minister reply
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the vast majority of the proposals I have accepted have cross-party support.
Question
So much has been said across north Staffordshire about local government reorganisation, but it is important that we deal with facts.
Minister reply
I recognise what a powerful champion my hon. Friend is for his constituents. The decision we took on Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent was taken because it is the best for economic growth and housing.
Rebecca Smith
Lab
Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport
Question
The south-west is one of the poorest regions in the country. Instead of urban Labour stitch-ups, should local government reorganisation not align with economic geographies and transport planning to bring investment into rural areas?
Minister reply
Devon's reorganisation aligns boundaries with economic geographies and transport planning to attract investment, jobs, and higher living standards for all.
Andrew Lewin
Con
Richmond Park
Question
The new model of four unitary authorities for Hertfordshire will keep Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City together. Will this simplify local governance and improve service delivery?
Minister reply
Local government reorganisation in Hertfordshire will bring savings that can be ploughed back into frontline services, benefiting residents through improved investment and job opportunities.
The Cotswolds
Question
Is there a risk of small councils with financial problems merging into one large council that could become financially unstable?
Minister reply
Selected options were supported by the Conservative party in Gloucestershire and present the strongest financial case for stability, with savings being ploughed back into frontline services.
Steve Race
Con
Devon South Central
Question
Will Exeter's transition to a unitary authority help drive sustainable economic growth and improve decision-making for the city?
Minister reply
Exeter will achieve its true potential through this proposal, attracting inward investment, jobs, and greater opportunities.
Steve Darling
SNP
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross
Question
What is the financial viability of the rural rump in Devon resulting from the proposed reorganisation?
Minister reply
Financial viability was a key criterion. The proposals are financially viable and will attract investment for economic growth.
John Slinger
Con
Erewash
Question
Will disparities around tax income in Warwickshire be addressed, ensuring towns and parish councils have proper roles and the role of MPs is protected?
Minister reply
The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 allows for area committees or town committees to champion needs and hold public services accountable.
Steve Barclay
Con
North East Cambridgeshire
Question
Why is there a delay in determining the optimal option for Cambridgeshire’s local government reorganisation, given the criticism from MPs?
Minister reply
We will take time to get it right and ensure elections proceed as scheduled with new unitaries coming into force in April 2028.
Kevin McKenna
Lab
St Helens North
Question
How can we accelerate devolution powers for Kent, particularly for my constituency, which has unique challenges and potential for economic growth?
Minister reply
We will discuss creative solutions like emergency development corporations to bridge gaps in economic opportunities.
Pippa Heylings
Con
South Cambridgeshire
Question
How does the Secretary of State ensure local successes and robustly evidenced proposals are built upon, rather than irrational gerrymandering?
Minister reply
We will take time to get it right, with a final decision brought forward after the summer recess for certainty.
Andrew Pakes
Lab
Peterborough
Question
My role as an MP is to speak up on behalf of my constituents in Peterborough. The mess of local government is not the reason for the announcement today; it is the decade of austerity, cuts and underfunding of places such as Peterborough that has left us in the sorry mess that local government finds itself in.
Minister reply
I have had the great pleasure of visiting Peterborough with my hon. Friend on many occasions. He is always very powerful in putting forward the case for the city and the people who live there, and that includes, as he has just shown, his determination to ensure that Peterborough continues to grow in a way that will bring in jobs and investment and put more money in the pockets of his constituents.
Edward Argar
Con
Charnwood
Question
I live in my patch and I know that there will be genuine local fury at the contempt this Government have shown for my constituents in approving a Leicester city land grab, which has cross-party opposition locally.
Minister reply
As the right hon. Gentleman will have heard during the statement, there are reasonable people who support and oppose various decisions that we are taking today, but it is important that we move forward.
Amanda Hack
Lab
North West Leicestershire
Question
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement confirming the outcome for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. With three very different options on the table, it is inevitable, as we have heard, that there will be opposing views on the outcome.
Minister reply
I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which she champions her constituents, whom she so ably represents.
Charlotte Cane
Con
East Cambridgeshire
Question
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am an East Cambridgeshire district councillor. There will clearly be a great deal of uncertainty across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.
Minister reply
I will ensure that the decision is taken in good time for the appropriate electoral arrangements to be put in place.
Amber Valley
Question
Local Amber Valley leaders and I support devolution, but we are incredibly concerned about the decision to split Amber Valley between two unitary authorities, particularly because the option selected was not subject to public consultation.
Minister reply
I can attest to the fact that my hon. Friend is a powerful and frequent advocate for her constituents in Amber Valley.
Harriett Baldwin
Con
West Worcestershire
Question
With a stroke of his Whitehall pen, the Secretary of State has just abolished Malvern Hills district council, Worcester city council, wonderful Wychavon district council and Worcestershire county council.
Minister reply
It is regrettable that the hon. Lady appears to be defending a system with so much duplication that money is being wasted on multiple tiers of senior officers when it could be saved and ploughed back into the frontline services.
Josh Newbury
Con
Cannock Chase
Question
Like many in Cannock Chase, I am glad that this reorganisation, which no one asked for and no one voted for, is finally nearing its conclusion.
Minister reply
As always, my hon. Friend is powerfully advocating for his constituents.
John Milne
Lab
Brighton Pavilion
Question
It is astonishing that the decision for West Sussex has been postponed yet again. I understand that local council leaders received the information only this morning, in a six-minute phone call during which they were not allowed to ask questions.
Minister reply
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there was a re-consultation on the situation in West Sussex, and an awful lot of stakeholders across the county submitted evidence.
Juliet Campbell
Lab
Nottingham North
Question
I thank the Minister for his statement. The option taken for Nottingham and Nottinghamshire sees Broxtowe borough council split in two; Eastwood and Brinsley will sit in the county and the rest of the borough will form part of the Greater Nottingham authority.
Minister reply
I remind my hon. Friend of the additional funding that is available for transitional arrangements.
Ben Obese-Jecty
Lab
Cambridge
Question
The Secretary of State announced a delay to the decision in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. What specific issues are causing this delay, and when will the structural changes order be made for Cambridgeshire to ensure elections can proceed as scheduled in 2027?
Minister reply
We need more time to gather sufficient information before making a final decision. The election timeline remains unchanged, with reorganisation plans announced in due course.
Kevin Bonavia
Con
Stevenage
Question
Hertfordshire will have a new central authority along the A1(M) corridor to benefit local economy and reduce duplication. What review of benefits and challenges will be conducted following reorganisation?
Minister reply
Buckinghamshire estimates savings of £30,000 annually from reducing duplications. The Department will use an outcomes framework and neighbourhood guarantee to measure the success of frontline public services.
Mark Francois
Con
Rayleigh and Wickford
Question
Essex has strong opposition against Labour's plans with more than two-thirds against, yet Essex was not mentioned in today’s statement. When will we know what is happening there? Is it possible to drop the plan given public opposition?
Minister reply
The announcement about Essex was made previously, and opposition against these proposals misses out on potential savings which can be reinvested into frontline services.
Jodie Gosling
Con
North Warwickshire
Question
Warwickshire's decision brings an end to decades of indecision. Will financial assessments be done before considering options?
Minister reply
Financial viability was a key criterion considered in the proposals. The savings from eliminating duplications will be invested into frontline services.
Mims Davies
Con
Eastleigh
Question
Sussex's decision is unclear with uncertainty around elections, mayoralty, and social care funding. Why have the Department’s proposals changed so much from their initial ones?
Minister reply
The reconsultation in West Sussex has resulted in significant responses. The delays are to respect people who shared their views by considering them carefully before final decisions.
Allison Gardner
Con
Stoke-on-Trent North
Question
North Staffordshire unitary will include Stone rural villages; how can they ensure these voices are heard equally in the larger Southern Staffordshire unitary?
Minister reply
The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 allows for area committees or town committees to advocate for their areas, ensuring voices are heard.
Adnan Hussain
Lab
Bradford South
Question
Why is Ribble Valley excluded from proposals despite high deprivation levels? Will the plan work for deprived communities?
Minister reply
Fair funding reforms now align funding with deprivation, benefiting 9 out of 10 areas. The decision in Lancashire including Blackburn with Darwen will promote economic growth and investment.
Rachel Taylor
Con
Solihull
Question
Warwickshire will have two unitary councils, what support will the Department provide during reorganisation?
Minister reply
Up to £1 million is available for each area undergoing reorganisation to ensure smooth transition and secure services in new organisations.
Andy MacNae
Lab
Lancashire, Wyre and Preston North
Question
I have long been a proponent of the principles of local government reorganisation, which Lancashire and my constituents have needed for a long time. However, today I criticise the decision made by the Secretary of State regarding the boundaries, as it will leave us with the most deprived local authority area in the country. I ask the Secretary of State to work with me and colleagues to bring in capacity and capability funding that we need to reverse this deprivation and catch up with neighbouring areas like Manchester. Will he meet me and east Lancashire colleagues to drive this forward urgently?
Minister reply
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and advocacy for his constituents. The changes aim to lay the framework for mayoral devolution, providing significant new powers when it comes. I am happy to ensure that he gets a meeting to discuss this.
Amanda Martin
Lab
Portsmouth South
Question
I represent Portsmouth whose local people want their pride reflected in the name of the reorganised local council. Both Portsmouth MPs and, I believe, councils representing over 75% of residents support including Portsmouth in the name. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time for the Liberal Democrat council to stop playing political games, stop scaremongering and be honest with residents about this process? Will he help me ensure that Portsmouth is indeed included in the new unitary council's name because it is so important?
Minister reply
I have visited Portsmouth with my hon. Friend on several occasions and seen her as a powerful champion for her constituents. She has raised concerns previously, and I am more than happy to arrange a meeting with me or another appropriate Minister to discuss these legitimate issues.
Shadow Comment
James Cleverly
Shadow Comment
The Shadow Secretary of State criticised the Minister's decision as politically motivated, citing examples where Labour-controlled council areas were favoured in the reorganisation. He questioned the impartiality and transparency of the process, highlighting concerns about debt burdens for new authorities and the impact on local democracy. The Shadow further criticised the inconsistency regarding two-tier governance under different proposals. Concerns were raised over judicial reviews potentially delaying implementation by 2029.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.