In my statement on 17 December 2025, I emphasised the Government’s commitment to addressing all 58 recommendations made by the Grenfell inquiry following the phase 2 report and noted that we have taken several significant steps already to build a more robust and trusted regulatory system and deliver safe, quality homes for everyone.
In February last year, the Government committed to put Approved Document B—the statutory fire safety guidance accompanying the building regulations—under continuous review. Today, the building safety regulator has launched a consultation on further proposed updates to Approved Document B. The consultation will seek views on: a provision for evacuation lifts in residential buildings above 18 metres in height; consideration of whether alarm coverage or sprinklers are provided in specialised housing; disapplication of Approved Document B for structures taller than 11 metres made from combustible material in structural elements; revision of guidance on fire spread across external walls and balconies; updated roof provisions including photovoltaic panel placement to support safe implementation of the future homes standard; fire resistance in car parks; and small technical clarifications and consideration of the Grenfell inquiry recommendation on BS9414 “Fire performance of external cladding systems”.
These proposals represent an important step in supporting inclusive design, safe evacuation strategies and robust fire safety standards across the built environment. The consultation has been published on the Citizen Space website, which is available at:
This Government are undertaking the biggest reform of local government in a generation, ending the two-tier system and replacing it with new single-tier unitary councils. This agenda is key to this Government’s vision of local councils that deliver good services for residents and are equipped to drive economic growth, but can empower their communities.
As a Government, our No. 1 ambition is growing the economy and putting more money in the pockets of working people. Driving economic growth means acknowledging that cities, towns and villages do not all perform the same roles in the national economy—they specialise in what they are best at. Public service demand also is not the same across the country. Some areas have high levels of homelessness and temporary accommodation, others have a high need for adult social care due to an older population. Local leaders, both in councils and mayoralties, need to be able to focus on the specific needs of their area.
Reorganisation presents a once-in-a-generation chance to make sure our councils match the modern realities of our places, making sure outdated boundaries are not constraining growth, particularly in our towns and cities. In too many places, council boundaries are misaligned with the needs of their local communities and how those communities live their lives. In Ipswich, for example, the boundaries have remained largely unchanged since the middle of the 19th century, even as the population has grown. These outdated and misaligned structures slow down decisions, stifle housing growth, and fragment public service delivery.
This is particularly important for key Government priorities on house building, like our target of building 1.5 million homes in England this Parliament. The housing needs of local communities are best met by councils who are closely connected to their communities and understand a place’s local identity. This connection is crucial in ensuring that local government can boost economic growth and design public services that respond to local residents.
Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics
This Government are committed to strengthening our democracy and upholding the integrity of elections, as set out in our 2024 manifesto. We have already made progress on this, with our strategy for modern and secure elections published in July 2025, setting out the actions that we will take to simplify, protect and promote our valued democracy.
The Representation of the People Bill, currently being considered by Parliament, will bring in protections against foreign interference, improve political funding transparency, add tougher checks for political donations and close loopholes—increasing public confidence in the integrity of our democratic institutions.
However, we cannot ignore the fact that vulnerabilities in the UK’s political and electoral systems, particularly with politicians being targeted by foreign states, were exposed in the sentencing for bribery in November 2025 of former MEP Nathan Gill, alongside other recent cases. It is therefore right that we urgently consider whether our firewall is enough.
In December 2025 I commissioned former permanent secretary Philip Rycroft to lead an independent review into foreign financial influence and interference in UK politics. Mr Rycroft has now provided the outcomes of the review to myself and the Security Minister, and today we have laid before the House, using the unopposed return procedure, and published on gov.uk the independent review into countering foreign financial influence and interference in UK politics.
The Government welcome Philip Rycroft’s comprehensive, thoughtful and well-reasoned report on foreign financial interference in our democracy. We are taking immediate steps to implement his recommendations for a cap on donations made by overseas electors and for a moratorium on donations made via cryptocurrency, which we will implement through the Representation of the People Bill.
Reorganisation must also respect local identity, and the distinctive nature of the rural, urban and coastal communities across our country. We want to see councils that are connected to their local residents and communities; councils that mean something to the people they serve.
Decisions
I am pleased to announce today the next step in our vital reforms to reorganise local government. On 5 February 2025, councils in the 21 areas of England that still have two-tier local government and neighbouring small unitary authorities were invited to submit proposals for unitarisation.
We invited six areas to put forward proposals by 26 September 2025—East Sussex and Brighton and Hove; Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock; Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton; Norfolk; Suffolk; and West Sussex.
My Department received 17 proposals in total across the areas. I would like to thank councillors and officers in these areas for their hard work. As the House was informed on 19 November, all the proposals received were taken to consultation, which closed on 11 January 2026. We have now considered each proposal carefully against the criteria set out in the invitation letter of 5 February 2025, alongside the responses to the consultation, all representations and all other relevant information to assess the proposals. In summary, these criteria are:
whether each proposal achieves for the whole of the area concerned the establishment of a single tier of local government;
whether the councils are the right size to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks;
whether the unitary structures prioritise the delivery of high quality and sustainable public services to citizens;
whether councils in the area have sought to work together to come to a view that meets local needs and is informed by local views;
whether new unitary structures support devolution arrangements;
whether new unitary structures enable stronger community engagement and deliver genuine opportunity for neighbourhood empowerment.
Decisions on each area have been made on a case-by-case basis, on their own merits, respecting the differences of local circumstances and local people’s views. In two areas, I have not yet made a decision, and will make a decision as soon as practicable, so reorganisation can be completed on the planned timeline.
Today, I have written to the leaders of councils setting out decisions and/or next steps for all six areas. I have decided to implement the following proposals, subject to parliamentary approval, in these areas:
Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock: five unitary proposal, creating the councils referred to in the proposals as:
West Essex Council (current local government areas of Epping Forest, Harlow and Uttlesford)
North East Essex Council (current local government areas of Braintree, Colchester and Tendring)
Mid Essex Council (current local government areas of Brentwood, Chelmsford and Maldon)
South West Essex Council (current local government areas of Basildon and Thurrock)
South East Essex Council (current local government areas of Castle Point, Rochford and Southend-on-Sea).
Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton: five unitary proposal (option 1A) submitted by Eastleigh, Fareham, Hart, Havant, Portsmouth, Rushmoor and Southampton councils, creating the councils referred to in the proposals as:
North Hampshire Council (current local government areas of Basingstoke and Deane, Hart and Rushmoor)
Mid Hampshire Council (current local government areas of East Hampshire, New Forest, Test Valley and Winchester, less 11 parishes from all four areas)
South East Hampshire Council (current local government areas from East Hampshire, Fareham, Gosport, Havant, Portsmouth, three parishes from East Hampshire and one parish from Winchester)
South West Hampshire Council (current local government areas of Eastleigh, four parishes from New Forest, Southampton and three parishes from Test Valley)
Isle of Wight Council will remain as a separate unitary authority.
Norfolk: three unitary proposal, creating the councils referred to in the proposals as:
West Norfolk Council (current local government areas of Breckland, King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, and nine parishes from South Norfolk).
Greater Norwich Council (current local government areas of Norwich, 19 parishes from Broadland, and 16 parishes from South Norfolk).
East Norfolk Council (current local government areas of Broadland (less 19 parishes), Great Yarmouth, North Norfolk, and South Norfolk (less 25 parishes)).
Suffolk: three unitary proposal, creating the councils referred to in the proposals as:
Central and Eastern Suffolk Council (current local government areas of West Suffolk, 21 parishes from Mid Suffolk, and Babergh (less 31 parishes)).
Western Suffolk Council (current local government areas of Mid Suffolk (less 29 parishes), and East Suffolk (less 25 parishes).
Ipswich and South Suffolk Council (current local government areas of Ipswich, 31 parishes from Babergh, eight parishes from Mid Suffolk, and 25 parishes from East Suffolk).
In implementing the above proposals for reorganisation in Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight; Norfolk; and Suffolk, I will exercise my power to modify the base proposals received from councils, in order to make the boundary changes that the councils requested.
Further information on the decisions taken in these areas can be found in the letters to council leaders in the areas, which will be published on gov.uk later today. A summary of the responses to the consultations for proposals in these areas will also be published today.
In East Sussex and Brighton and Hove, and West Sussex, after carefully considering the four proposals received across the areas, I have not yet made a decision, due to concerns regarding all four of the proposals I received. But I would like to reassure the House that I am still fully committed to delivering reorganisation in these areas with elections in May 2027 and changes coming into effect from April 2028.
I am considering modifications that could address my concerns, including an option for potential modification of the proposals for further consultation. I have set out further details in a letter to council leaders this morning.
I would also like to confirm our commitment to repay in-principle £200 million of Thurrock council’s debt in 2026-27. This is a significant and unprecedented commitment which reflects an assessment of value for money for national and local taxpayers, given the significant unsupported debt at the council linked to historic capital practices. This follows the recent announcement in October 2025 as part of reorganisation in Surrey to repay in-principle £500 million of Woking borough council’s debt in 2026-27.
We have not taken these decisions lightly and they have not been made simply because debt is high at these councils. The decision for Thurrock council reflects an assessment of value for money and acknowledgement that, even after significant local action to reduce debt, the council still holds significant unsupported debt that cannot be managed locally in its entirety. I would like to thank the council’s current leadership for its grip of the financial situation and to recognise the progress that has been made to reduce debt.
Further detail on this can be found in the letter to Essex council leaders, which will be published on gov.uk.
To prevent failures like those seen in Thurrock and Woking from happening again, we will now bring into operation the statutory powers enacted in 2023—but never used by the previous government—which allow direct intervention where authorities take excessive risks in their borrowing and investment practices. These powers will ensure that essential capital investment in services, housing and growth can continue, but within a much stronger framework of safeguards to protect taxpayers from costly and avoidable failure. We will soon launch a consultation to engage with the sector and stakeholders in developing and implementing these powers.
I am pleased to be able to confirm how the £63 million in transition funding announced in February will be allocated—making this the first Government to provide funding for the reorganisation process. We will provide at least £900,000 for each new unitary authority to help establish effective services and governance arrangements, ensuring funding is provided fairly, consistently, and as quickly as possible. This will mean the Essex invitation area receives £4.5 million for five new unitary councils; the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton invitation area receives £3.6 million for four new unitary councils; the Norfolk invitation area receives £2.7 million for three new unitary councils; and the Suffolk invitation area receives £2.7 million for three new unitary councils. We will also provide the Surrey invitation area with £1.8 million for two new unitary councils. This approach reflects the differing levels of complexity involved across areas and allows for a small central reserve to be used later for targeted support if needed. Funding will be issued through established, flexible grant mechanisms and my officials will be in touch with councils to confirm next steps.
Next steps
Delivering reorganisation for the benefit of all residents is a shared endeavour, and ongoing collaboration will be vital to ensure that these reforms are implemented with the interests of residents at their heart.
We remain committed to the timetable we have set out previously, with elections to the new unitary councils taking place in May 2027, ahead of them going live and delivering services in April 2028.
For the other 14 areas going through local government reorganisation, I would like to emphasise that the decisions taken here, and previously in Surrey, do not set any precedent. Decisions will be taken individually, based on the published criteria referred to above, the merits of each proposal we receive, and the local context.
I will deposit in the Library of the House copies of the letter and documents I have referred to, which are also being published on gov.uk today.
[HCWS1455]
Specifically, we will introduce amendments to the Bill to:
Cap the total value of donations or regulated transactions that an overseas elector can make to, or enter into with any, one or more regulated recipients at £100,000 per calendar year. This cap is a “per elector” cap, meaning that the value of any donations to, or regulated transactions involving, any regulated recipients during the calendar year involving an overseas elector will count towards the cap as it applies to that elector.
Establish a complete moratorium on the making of cryptoasset donations to any regulated recipient, until such point that Parliament and the Electoral Commission are satisfied that there is sufficient regulation in place to ensure confidence and transparency in donations being made in this way. The moratorium will apply to any donation of any value, including donations of a value that would ordinarily fall below the threshold for the controls on donations.
We intend for these measures to apply to all regulated recipients of political donations, and to apply to all elections in the UK. This means that it is intended that the measures will apply to:
Any donation to a registered political party regulated under part 4 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA);
Any controlled donation to a member of a registered political party, a members association or the holder of a relevant elective office—i.e. an MP; a Member of the Scottish Parliament, Senedd or Northern Ireland Assembly; a police and crime commissioner; a member of a local authority or the Greater London Assembly; the Mayor of London or an elected mayor—regulated under schedule 7 to PPERA;
Any regulated transaction involving a registered political party, a member of a registered political party, a members association or the holder of a relevant elective office regulated under part 4A of or schedule 7A to PPERA;
Any relevant donation to a recognised third party regulated under schedule 11 to PPERA;
Any relevant donation to a candidate at any election in the UK—i.e. a candidate at a UK parliamentary election, a Scottish parliamentary election, a Senedd election, a Northern Ireland Assembly election, a local government election in England, Wales and Scotland, a local election in Northern Ireland, a Greater London Assembly election or an election of the Mayor of London, or an election of a police and crime commissioner in England and Wales—regulated under schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983, schedule 3A to the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962 or equivalent provision under secondary legislation;
Any relevant donation to a permitted participant to a referendum to which part 7 of PPERA or the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 applies;
Any relevant donation to an accredited campaigner at a recall petition under the Recall of MPs Act 2015.
In Scotland and Wales, donations to candidates—rather than parties—are devolved matters, but my intention is to seek a legislative consent motion for our amendments, to ensure that there are no gaps in our safeguards. I will also speak to my counterparts in the Scottish and Welsh Governments to emphasise my commitment to work together to protect our electoral system across the UK.
Critically, the amendments to the Representation of the People Bill will make it clear that, when the legislation comes into force, both of these changes will be applied retrospectively from today. The measures will therefore apply in respect of donations received from today and regulated transactions entered into from today—and for the purpose of the cap on donations from regulated transactions involving overseas electors only such donations or regulated transactions are to be taken into account when determining whether the cap has been reached in respect of any overseas elector.
Political parties and other regulated recipients will need to consider carefully any donations or regulated transactions to which these measures will apply from today until the provisions in the Bill that relate to these measures come into force. A regulated recipient should refuse any donation—or choose not to enter into a regulated transaction—where the donation or regulated transaction would be considered impermissible as a result of these two measures once enacted.
Once the provisions of the Bill for these two measures come into force, a regulated recipient will then have 30 days to return any unlawful donations that they may have received and inadvertently accepted in the interim, or to pay back any money owed under transactions inadvertently entered into or rendered void, after which enforcement action can be taken.
The Government support the wider conclusions drawn by Philip Rycroft on the risks in our system and will reflect swiftly on how best to take these forward, given their more technical nature. We will respond, formally and in full, in advance of Commons Report stage of the Representation of the People Bill.