partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·John Slinger

   Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

   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?

   Hansard source
2. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·John Slinger

   Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

   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.

   Hansard source
3. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·John Slinger

   Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

   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.

   Hansard source
4. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·John Slinger

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   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.

   Hansard source
5. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jo Stevens

   Passenger Rail Services

   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?

   Hansard source
6. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

   Local Government Reorganisation

   The Government are committed to shifting power from Westminster and Whitehall to the places where people live and work. Yesterday’s Budget shows that we are committed to giving local leaders, local councils and local communities the tools to shape their future. But our ambition to rewire the state and ensure that the country is ready for devolution depends on strong, sustainable local government, and it is only through reorganisation that we will create those strong foundations. We know that reorganisation is difficult, but we also believe that it is worth it. The decisions we take now will be the building blocks for how the country is governed for generations to come. Our vision is clear: mayoral and strategic authorities, underpinned by strong unitary councils with real powers to take decisions in the interests of their communities. On 7 September, the Secretary of State announced a review of the programme to ensure that it was robust and aligned with the Government’s priorities. Since then, we have listened to local leaders, sector partners, mayors, and Members of Parliament. I place on the record our thanks to them for their work and for engaging constructively. Consensus will not always be possible, but I know that all of us are putting forward arguments for what we believe is best for the different areas of England. I am committed to hearing all those views before coming to final decisions. I also want to take a moment to recognise the impact on councils, councillors and their staff. I appreciate their desire for clarity. Today, I can provide some clarity on what comes next. I can announce to the House that the first phase of the review is now complete. I have tested the programme framework, including whether the criteria set out in February last year continue to support the Government’s priorities. I have concluded, on the basis of the programme, that it is robust and that the existing criteria are correct on their own terms and continue to support the Government’s policy agenda. We are content that we can take forward local government reorganisation in line with the existing criteria. In concluding the review, I have also considered the best way to bring clarity quickly while making sure that each area receives the deep and thorough consideration that it deserves. We will inform councils of outcomes at the earliest possible opportunity—with some areas getting those outcomes more quickly than others. Today, I am able to give further clarity on some of the 14 areas who had decisions in July. The Secretary of State and I have carefully considered all the proposals and the evidence for those 14 areas. Following that initial consideration, we are minded, subject to representations and parliamentary approval, to implement the following proposals in five areas: in East Sussex and Brighton and Hove, the two-unitary proposal, including the boundary changes requested by Brighton and Hove city council except for the parish of Falmer; the one-unitary proposal in Gloucestershire; the three-unitary proposal in Oxfordshire, including boundary changes; the two-unitary proposal in Warwickshire; and the two-unitary proposal in Worcestershire. Those decisions are for the same council structures that were previously announced in July, or they are new decisions following full and thorough consideration. Before final decisions are taken, there will be a minimum three-week period during which those who are interested may make further representations to me. The start and end date for that period will be confirmed shortly, as well as further details on how councils and other interested parties can make representations. Any final implementation decisions will be subject to the normal parliamentary approval. We are going to take more time on the remaining nine areas announced in July, and we will use the coming months to consider further the proposals submitted before coming to a view. To give councils clarity on the legal status of existing decisions we are withdrawing the decisions announced in July for the following areas: Derbyshire and Derby; Devon, Plymouth and Torbay; Hertfordshire; Kent and Medway; Lancashire, Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool; Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland; Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire; Nottinghamshire and Nottingham; and Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent. I want to be clear that this is no reflection on the work underpinning those proposals. I can now set out the plan for the final phases of the review. The review will now focus on the 15 areas that are due to have a “minded to” decision. Those are, in no particular order, the nine areas I have just mentioned, the four areas where decisions were withdrawn in September, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and West Sussex. All options and proposals for those areas will remain under consideration, and I will approach them all with an open mind. As such, it should not be assumed that the same proposal will automatically be selected. It is important to allow the process to run its course and to allow full and proper consideration. We will move faster where we can, and some remaining areas may receive an outcome decision before others. I commit to coming back to the House with updates for another set of areas by Christmas, and every area will have an outcome by early next year. As we set out in September, the local elections scheduled for May 2027 will now go ahead to existing councils. That means that elections to new councils will be made in 2028, followed by a vesting day in April 2029. That is for all areas apart from Surrey. I have also heard concerns about cost uncertainty, and we appreciate that areas have incurred costs in good faith. All areas will receive half the transition funding that they were previously due, which equates to £450,000 per new unitary previously announced. Those guaranteed payments will be made in the coming weeks regardless of the outcome of the review. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and West Sussex, will also receive £500,000 per area. After final decisions, we will pay any remaining balance, depending on how many councils are chosen. I have heard from Members across the House about the pride, history and identity sitting behind our cities and counties. City status and ceremonial matters play a valuable role for local pride, so we will work with areas to ensure that city status is preserved following reorganisation. Subject to final decisions, we will continue to work with places to protect their city status by working through all the options, including bringing forward legislation where necessary—[Interruption.] Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been struggling with a cold for about a week. Usually when a Minister comes up in the morning with a croaky throat it is the result of a long night of karaoke, but I am afraid this is the result of back-to-back LGR conversations all morning, which does not carry quite the same sense of fun or rhythm. I want to use this moment to build consensus and deliver a programme where central Government and local government work together. This programme must be a joint effort. It is the foundation of rewiring how our country works, and getting foundations in place to devolve new powers and functions in every area. This Government will be an active and reliable partner, and we stand ready to work with councils to support them to deliver these significant changes. I promise to keep the House updated, and I commend this statement to the House.

   Hansard source
7. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

   Local Government Reorganisation

   First, let me say that we do not take for granted concerns about the implications of the delay on the councils, councillors and officials who have been working on these schemes. We know that the pause was disruptive, and that people put a lot of work into their proposals and the transitional work in preparation for the new unitary councils. Equally, it would have been wrong had the Government not taken into account the legal status of those that were in court and not used that as an opportunity to review the programme overall, which was the decision that we announced in September. That was the right thing to do to give clarity to the programme and move forward with confidence; to ensure we were reviewing the criteria, the process, the decision making and the evidence base; and to allow us to come to fresh decisions, where needed. From my perspective, I am playing this with an absolutely straight bat—I want to do this with integrity. It is important to say that there are no Government proposals on the table because the only proposals that a Minister can consider are those that councils themselves have submitted during the process. Our job is to ensure that we take into account local opinion and test the evidence base, the assumptions, the alignment with public service boundaries and the financial modelling. Through that work, we then make a balanced determination. By the way, there is no perfect solution for quite large parts of England that I have seen, but that does not mean we cannot reach a solution that is the best that it can be. Our job is to make a decision in an objective way and with an open mind, which is why I cannot understand the shadow Minister criticising what is objectively the right thing to do. It would be entirely wrong, in a legal process, to predetermine the outcome we most desire and railroad that through. All the vulnerabilities with LGR that she speaks about were features of previous rounds of LGR, which the Conservative Government undertook on a fairly regular basis. No Government decision is not open to legal challenge if somebody wants to make that challenge. On LGR, the Government found themselves in court defending previous decisions. Cumbria is a good example: the Government were taken to court, the case was heard by a judge and the Government had to explain why they came to their view. We should not pretend that a legal challenge somehow represents a fault in the system, but it does bring a pause for thought, and we have used that pause to ensure that the reorganisation is right going forward. On the question of how we will proceed, the approach I am setting out does not have the tranching up of areas that we had previously, so quite deliberately, we do not have tranches 1, 2 and 3. However, we are going to work through authorities as quickly as possible. The commitment that we have made is that, rather than waiting for an artificial date—a particular point in time—if we can come forward with a few earlier, we will do that, so we do not have to wait for the whole programme to be confirmed later in the process. Finally, on the point about costs and how much has been incurred, there are different ways of looking at that. There are the costs of producing the proposals, but they are not abortive because those proposals are real today and they will be considered as part of the new process. Those are not wasted costs at all; they are the normal costs that are incurred in reorganisation. Then there are the costs of transfers and, once the decision is made, preparing the ground to move to the new shadow unitary authorities, but those costs are required whatever decision is made in whatever county, so that is not abortive work either. However, we accept that the decision to pause and to ask staff in particular areas to stop working on the proposals has led to a cost being incurred by those authorities that would not have been incurred had we not decided to pause the programme. On that basis, we have decided to release the money that I have set out today, and I think that is the right thing to do. We believe strongly in central and local government working in partnership together and being respectful to each other. If councils say that they have incurred costs that they would not otherwise have incurred, it is right for the Government to say that we are willing to meet them halfway.

   Hansard source
8. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

   Local Government Reorganisation

   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.

   Hansard source
9. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

   Local Government 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 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.

   Hansard source
10. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    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.

    Hansard source
11. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    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.

    Hansard source
12. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    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.

    Hansard source
13. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    It is important that we have a programme that is consistent across the country. We cannot say, “Well, because there seems to be a bit more local consensus in one place than another, and maybe the legal risk is a bit less, we can suddenly kind of shortcut the process.” That means that Gloucestershire, like everywhere else, will go through the “minded to” process. The letters going to councils today will give interested parties around three weeks to make representations. We then need to consider our response and do any more development coming from that. That will mean that the 2027 election for the shadow unitary just will not be possible. Another thing to have in mind is that, even though we are doing our best to tie this work down and make it robust, any decision of Government can be challenged in court, including the one in Gloucestershire. The worst outcome is that we pretend that May ’27 is an option. We are going to get to the end of the “minded to” decision in January, and it will take a couple of months to look at it; there will be no time at all for returning officers and political parties to find candidates for the new shadow unitary. There is a chance that a decision could be judicially reviewed in that process, and that would probably be the worst outcome. It is a fact that this work will take a bit longer, but that gives more certainty to councils so that they can prepare.

    Hansard source
14. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    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.

    Hansard source
15. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    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.

    Hansard source
16. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    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.

    Hansard source
17. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    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.

    Hansard source
18. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government 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.

    Hansard source
19. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    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.

    Hansard source
20. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

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

    Hansard source
21. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

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

    Hansard source
22. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

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

    Hansard source
23. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

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

    Hansard source
24. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

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

    Hansard source
25. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    The pace of change is quick—we know that—but the economic and social requirements for that pace are vital. If we do not move quickly, we will have no chance of ensuring growth can reach every postcode in the country, which is our promise, and no ability to ensure the funding required for those who need social care, care in their local communities and vital neighbourhood services. It is, therefore, the right thing to do. On the hon. Member’s point about whether we are imposing this, to be clear, the English devolution White Paper that was published in December 2024 invited councils to be part of the voluntary programme, and every one of the 21 outstanding counties applied.

    Hansard source
26. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

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

    Hansard source
27. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    I understand that all MPs were invited to the meeting at No. 10 North about devolution, which is good news. That shows just how importantly we are taking this; it is a Government-wide priority and we are working across our different teams to ensure that it lands. I hope the hon. Gentleman also recognises that, for Cornwall, we are working as hard as we can to recognise that different places are in different positions on devolution, but, ultimately, we want to complete the map, either through a foundation authority or through an MSA.

    Hansard source
28. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

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

    Hansard source
29. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

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

    Hansard source
30. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

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

    Hansard source
31. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

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

    Hansard source
32. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

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

    Hansard source
33. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

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

    Hansard source
34. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

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

    Hansard source
35. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

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

    Hansard source
36. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

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

    Hansard source
37. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

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

    Hansard source
38. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

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

    Hansard source
39. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

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

    Hansard source
40. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

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

    Hansard source