Andy Burnham

With the dropping of the thank you payment from £350 to £100 on 1 January, many hosts find that their costs are no longer being covered and are considering evicting their guests. Hosts and guests are being encouraged to move to a lodger scheme using the “rent a room” scheme. I am told that the going rate for a room in my constituency is around £600, and universal credit would pay a lot more than the £350 saved from the thank you payment. In addition, Ukrainian guests would lose the help available from the local authority to move on to a first private rental. All in all, this reduction in the thank you payment looks likely to cost the state more than it might save and to reduce the help on offer to our Ukrainian guests. Will the Minister meet me and local Ukrainian hosts, or would she prefer to think again about the reduction?

The increase in starts is welcome, but the Government’s package of reforms was designed to increase consents. The most recent quarterly figures show that although consent applications are down, the rate of granted consents remains high at 88%—that figure is over 90% when councillors are involved in making the planning decisions. Does that not show that taking away powers to make decisions on major applications—those of over 150 homes—from councillors through the NPPF has made no difference whatsoever to the number of consents? Will the Government give those powers back to councillors, who support over 90% of applications when they come to committee?

The Minister wants to talk about the OBR, so let us do that. Last week, the OBR was damning in its assessment of the viability of house building in England. It highlighted how regulatory and fiscal burdens are crushing viability. The Chancellor promised no new building regulations, but that is not enough. The Minister knows that viability—or, rather, the lack of it—is killing the house building sector. The existing environmental and net zero regulations and taxes are causing the viability crisis, so will the Minister join me in supporting the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), with her plan to cut £50,000 of regulation and taxes from the cost of building new homes to make sites viable again?

Statistics are like bathing costumes: what they reveal is interesting, and what they conceal is absolutely vital. The statistics we heard in that answer conceal the fact that this Government are on line to build fewer houses than the last Conservative Government did in a parliamentary term blighted by covid, when many building sites were completely shut down. When it comes to housing, this Government are drowning, not waving, aren’t they?

2. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the rate of house building.

Following the complex rescue of a lady at Aysgarth Falls earlier this year, I want to pay tribute to Swaledale mountain rescue and the North Yorkshire fire and rescue service. In particular, Swaledale mountain rescue relies on dedicated volunteers to respond to emergencies right across the Yorkshire dales. Will the Secretary of State join me in praising its contribution to our rural community and continuing to support close co-ordination between its volunteer efforts and local statutory emergency services?

1. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the co-ordination of fire and search and rescue services.

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

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

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

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

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?

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

Peterborough is ambitious for growth and to improve life for our residents, so anything that extends this process risks knocking back some of that ambitious growth. I ask the Minister, can we do this as quickly as possible? I think Peterborough is also unique in this process, in that we are already a unitary council and are being brought into a bigger process. We are consistently told that a decision has not been taken, but in July a review had already started. Can the Minister confirm whether any review has actually happened since the last one was started in July? Will it take a “minded to” decision for MPs, councillors and communities in Cambridgeshire to have a say on the options being considered?

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

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

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

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

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

I welcome the announcement in this statement that the Minister has scrapped the disgraceful and discourteous announcement made in July 2026. He is right to throw it out, but my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme want and deserve certainty and clarity, and I did not hear much of that in the statement, so may I ask the Minister three very quick questions? Will he confirm how Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent MPs will feed into the review? How much money will our local authorities get to redress what they have spent so far? And may I urge him to focus on the new mayoral authority announced yesterday, because that has the support needed to achieve a change of this scale?

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

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

Under these proposals, big planning decisions that are currently taken locally will be taken miles away, in a big population centre with no understanding of the local ground. Is that not against the devolution powers that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, and you yourself have championed as being good for the country?

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

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

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

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

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

When I am out listening to residents in Kidsgrove and its surrounds, they tell me that they want good public services delivered efficiently and to a high quality, but a two-tier system causes constant confusion. If a resident wants to raise issues about their local park, they can go and speak to the borough council. If they have a question about their local library, they can go and speak to the county council. If they need a pothole fixed, they can go and speak to their county council, not their borough council. The list goes on. At the same time, we are paying for managers and directors at two councils, rather than one, which is a waste of taxpayers’ money. Does the Minister agree that what matters most to the residents of Kidsgrove and its surrounds is having good, high-quality services that work for them? That also offers greater accountability; at the moment, my residents are passed from pillar to post. Equally, residents in Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove want clarity from the Government, so can I please press them to offer that clarity?