What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 11,997 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I am happy to do that; I think it would probably be on my way home one weekend. We have invested a record amount of money in our networks, and there is only a finite amount, but I am happy to discuss the issue further with the right hon. Member.
First, can I extend my sympathies to Shayan’s family? I am happy to meet them. I commend my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), on the excellent work she did on the road safety strategy, on which I am privileged to be able to build. Part of that will be engaging with bereaved families.
We recognise the impact of coastal erosion on Cowbar Lane, and we aware of the plans set out by Redcar and Cleveland council to move the road further inland. The Government have already provided more than £300 million of city region sustainable transport settlement funding to the Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen to deliver on that, but we are clearly not seeing anything happening on the ground. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to see what more we can do to encourage the mayor to deliver on this issue.
I am sorry to hear that the hon. Lady’s constituents are having to endure these issues. There have been a number of trials, which have found that it is not that straightforward to isolate the noise. Police forces have powers to tackle this issue, and I am happy to write to her with further information about what they can do.
The Department recognises the importance of that particular road, and we are ready to crack on with this. I join my hon. Friend in encouraging the Reform-led county council to release the funding necessary and get on with the job.
I am grateful to Aura Mobility for engaging with the Department’s consultation, which we will respond to very shortly.
Residents in my constituency have reported to me dangerous racing, speeding and other forms of antisocial behaviour on the A52 near Bardills roundabout. I have raised this issue continually with the Highways Agency, Nottingham city council, Nottinghamshire county council and Nottinghamshire police, but to no avail. Will the Leader of the House assist me in bringing together relevant Ministers, so we can get those agencies together and secure safety on that stretch of the road?
Order. With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call Chris Webb.
Order. I am struggling to hear the hon. Gentleman. Please let us hear the words being said.
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the Members who are heckling from the Back Benches while also trying to catch my eye that they may want to be mindful.
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I did not hear any comments in the Chamber and it is not a matter for the Chair—I did not hear it.
I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. That is clearly not a matter for the Chair, but a matter of debate. I ask Members yet again to treat each other with the courtesy and respect that we expect in this Chamber.<span id="527" class="column-number" data-column-number="527"></span>
Order. I call Adam Jogee, after which I will reduce the time limit to three minutes.
On a three-minute time limit, I call Dr Luke Evans.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who represents a beautiful part of Ulster, on securing the debate. I thank him for doing so and for his keen interest in debates that I have secured in the past. I have one in Westminster Hall next Tuesday on train services; I hope to see him there. When somebody is seriously injured, every minute matters. For people living in or visiting the most rural parts of my Cannock Chase constituency, getting to the right hospital can already mean a long journey. Air ambulances do an incredible job: they bring expert care to the people who need it most, often in the most frightening circumstances imaginable. My husband’s family have personal experience of this because, 20 years ago, when my niece was just a year old, she came down with a nasty pneumonia infection. It got to the point where she was in a critical condition and doctors said she needed to get to A&E as quickly as possible. I think there was some trouble on the roads that night, so she was taken by air ambulance from Evesham in Worcestershire all the way to the Royal Stoke university hospital. She had to be in hospital for a few weeks after that, such was the severity of that infection, but the air ambulance undoubtedly saved her life that day, and she lives to tell the tale as a brilliant 21-year-old. In January, I went to the Cosford airbase, headquarters of the Midlands Air Ambulance Charity. I met its CEO, Hanna Sebright, and one of my constituency predecessors who is working with them. I heard about the challenges that the sector faces. Air Ambulances UK’s review has identified significant gaps in hospital helipad provision across the country. Royal Stoke, which serves many of my constituents, has been given an amber rating, meaning that further action is needed. New Cross hospital in Wolverhampton has been given a red rating, meaning that priority action is required. That is genuinely concerning for patients.<span id="229WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="229WH"></span> New Cross does not currently have a hospital helipad, which means a patient who needs urgent specialist care might face a long journey by road, or air ambulance crews might need to fly them further to another hospital, as was the case for my niece. Every extra minute matters, so the longer a crew spend getting from one hospital to another, the longer they may be unavailable to help the next person who needs them. We have seen a similar problem at Birmingham children’s hospital, which provides specialist major trauma care for children right across the west midlands, including Staffordshire. There is no helipad at the hospital, meaning that children brought in by air ambulance need a further road transfer, just like that described by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire), typically adding 10 to 15 minutes to the journey. That is despite the fact that the hospital sits right next to Queen Elizabeth hospital Birmingham, which has a helipad. For families facing what might be the most frightening day of their lives, those are precious minutes. In some cases, crews from Staffordshire might need to consider flying a child to Alder Hey children’s hospital in Liverpool, because that often offers a quicker route to getting the care they need. I am very concerned about that. These are hospitals that people across my region and in the wider west midlands rely on at the worst moments of their lives. Where a helicopter cannot land directly, patients might need to be transferred. As we have heard, that can have disastrous consequences. For someone with, for example, a serious head injury, major trauma or another life-threatening condition, this is the time we should be doing everything we can to save their life. I think about my constituents in our rural villages who are already likely to be further away from emergency services. They deserve the same confidence as anyone that, if the worst happens, everything possible is being done to get them the right treatment quickly. I know how strongly people in Cannock Chase feel about access to healthcare. We have lost our minor injuries unit, so local people know what it means when a service they once relied on is no longer there. That is one reason why I am really pleased to see this Government’s focus on improving access to healthcare, including through neighbourhood health centres, because bringing services closer to people’s homes really matters. I welcome that ambition. However, we also need to think about what happens when someone needs emergency treatment that cannot be provided locally. Our neighbourhood services must be backed up by hospitals that can receive patients quickly day or night. A helipad that cannot be used around the clock can leave a gap in that journey, and when an emergency happens at 2 am, a patient cannot wait until the hospital’s facilities are fully up and running. I appreciate that not every hospital has the same needs. We have heard very different cases from across the country, but we should have a clear understanding of which hospitals need helipads, which need improvements to their helipads, and which have facilities that cannot be used at all hours. We also need to make sure that recommendations are followed through. If an assessment <span id="230WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="230WH"></span>identifies a problem, there should be a plan to address it, rather than the same concerns appearing in report after report, which we have seen for many years. I too have a few questions for the Minister, which echo some of what she has already heard this debate. Will the Government look at a clearer national approach to hospital helipads, so that hospitals and the NHS trusts that look after them know what is expected of them when it comes to access around the clock? Will the Minister work with relevant trusts to look at the concerns raised around Royal Stoke and New Cross, and make sure that any necessary improvements are properly considered? Will the Government look at how essential helipad improvements might be funded where charities cannot meet the full cost? Nobody wants to think about the moment in which a family member is seriously injured and an air ambulance has to be called, but those moments do happen. When they do, people need to know the system is ready for them. For my constituents in Cannock Chase, particularly those living in rural communities—or those in trouble in the forest itself—this is about knowing that that distance will not count against them when they need urgent care. We are right to focus on bringing more healthcare closer to home, but we must also make sure that, when people need specialist and emergency treatment, there is a clear and reliable route to get them there. Thanks to air ambulances, that is often the case—they often step in and do incredible things for our constituents. If they can save someone’s life, we should be doing everything we reasonably can to make sure that a hospital is ready for them when they arrive.
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?
<Question HRSContentId="{D34671DE-ECEC-4AF9-8DE9-EBBA5D8FAF17}">7. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{9773D9F0-455E-48D3-8C38-DDFF1D00625E}">What steps she is taking to help improve disability access to train stations.</QuestionText> </Question>
Disabled residents and anyone who relies on the lift at Bishop’s Stortford train station have found it consistently out of service in recent months. That is making it harder for them to get to work, school and other activities. I understand that discussions regarding a long-term fix are ongoing, but our community still lacks clarity on what those works will involve and when they might take place. The Rail Minister kindly supported my campaign to get the platform 1 lift at Hertford North train station over the line. I would be grateful if Ministers could lend their support again by asking Network Rail and Greater Anglia to bring forward a clear plan for restoring reliable step-free access at Bishop’s Stortford.
Sandra Morphew is best known as the 82-year-old former landlady of the Rose and Crown in Bishop’s Stortford, and she is much loved by our community. She is currently on life support in Turkey following a serious accident. Due to a dispute over her medical insurance, Sandra’s family now face spiralling medical costs and a potential £80,000 bill to bring her home, which they are now raising money to pay. Will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging residents in Bishop’s Stortford to support this crowdfunder and sending best wishes to Sandra’s family? Will he kindly use his good offices to help me raise Sandra’s case with the relevant Minister?
Not a single rail service has run from Clitheroe on a Sunday for a very long time. I know that the Secretary of State and her team of Ministers have heard many representations from me on this issue, but can they reassure me that they are doing everything they can to get those Sunday services back up and running?
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was going to come on to this point, but what practical steps would he suggest for his Liberal Democrat local government colleagues? I think it is fair to say that they do not have the greatest reputation for approving housing developments in their areas. He has, admittedly, said that he is more in favour of social home building than private dwellings, but what practical steps would he take to encourage his local government colleagues on his target?
I very much like and respect the hon. Gentleman, but does he agree that education and health resources, for example, in towns—where brownfield sites invariably are—are often relatively busy or full up, and face real challenges and pressures? Other conurbations such as villages, which admittedly do not have all the transport links that make town brownfield sites the most prominent in the planning system—let us not forget that they are prioritised by this Government—also need additional housing and social housing. Quite often, when I talk to people in those villages, their pubs and schools are struggling because they do not have enough people who want to use them.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the need for social homes—and for affordable homes, although we are talking about social homes here—exists not only in our towns, but in our villages? If we are to deal with the long-standing problems with the high cost of homes on the private market, we will need social homes across the range of conurbations in our country.
On the new clause, I recall the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, mentioning the word “prioritise”, “prioritising” or “prioritisation”; perhaps he will intervene if he feels that I am not being accurate. New clause 32, however, is categorical. I have checked the Cambridge dictionary, which defines “prioritise” as: “to decide which of a group of things”— for the purposes of this debate, I will say “people”, rather than “things”— “are the most important so that you can deal with them first.” I emphasise “first”. Perhaps he will explain to me how his use of the word relates to the new clause, which is categorical in stating that someone cannot gain access to social housing unless they are a British citizen. I note that he is not intervening. Other groups of people who live in this country would be affected by the new clause, although I will not rehearse points so ably made by my hon. Friends. Such groups include people under the EU settlement scheme, which was brought in under the previous Conservative Government. The scheme allows people who are not British citizens to live here, and without doubt they contribute hugely to our economy, through taxation and in other ways. Finally, many Gurkhas have proudly served our armed forces. I am sure all hon. Members have met some of them, and we have the utmost respect for them. Often, they struggle to gain indefinite leave to remain, and are not British citizens, so they would also be excluded from social housing under the new clause.
<Question HRSContentId="{5C711B84-AA16-4E87-9790-C06147A0757E}">10. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{B35118A9-F8D5-490E-9B77-81B69EEA1C6A}">What steps she is taking to improve passenger rail services. </QuestionText></Question>
I thank my right hon. Friend, because my Cardiff East constituents were absolutely delighted with the announcement yesterday of £30 million for Cardiff Parkway station. Mine is the only constituency in the capital city without a train station, so this will be transformational for growth, jobs and travel. Before the Senedd election, the Welsh Labour Government agreed to a funding contribution, alongside private investors, to ensure that this project is delivered. Can she please confirm whether, in the five months since that election, the minority Plaid Government have said they will honour that intergovernmental agreement?
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 <span id="463" class="column-number" data-column-number="463"></span>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 <span id="464" class="column-number" data-column-number="464"></span>to work with places to protect their city status by working through all the options, including bringing forward legislation where necessary—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> 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.
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 <span id="466" class="column-number" data-column-number="466"></span>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.<span id="467" class="column-number" data-column-number="467"></span> 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.
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.
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 <span id="469" class="column-number" data-column-number="469"></span>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.
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.
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.
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.
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, <span id="471" class="column-number" data-column-number="471"></span>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.