Every child and young person should have the opportunity to fulfil their potential, whatever their needs or circumstances. This Government inherited a SEND crisis, and we are determined to fix it. The Government programme of SEND reform is intended to deliver a more inclusive system that delivers for children and families—one that identifies needs early and provides the right support at the right time. Local leadership and strong partnership working will be central to achieving that ambition. It was against this backdrop that, in March 2026, this Government commissioned all local area partnerships to develop and submit a local SEND reform plan jointly with education, health and care partners.

I want to express my thanks to all local partners for the engagement and dedication that they have demonstrated through this process.

The Department for Education, working with Department of Health and Social Care, and NHS England, has reviewed all submitted plans against a consistent quality assessment framework shared with local area partnerships at the point of commission.

Today I am confirming the outcome of that process.

The plans of 139 local area partnerships have been approved upon first submission. This includes both areas with a strong track record of SEND delivery and those where improvement is still needed to secure better outcomes for children and young people. Approval of a plan is not an endorsement of current performance; it reflects the Government’s assessment that the plan has met the required threshold for approval and provides a credible foundation for accelerated delivery. Over 90% of local area partnerships—covering almost every part of the country—have now set out how they will improve support for children and young people with SEND in their local area.

Approval of a local SEND reform plan is a condition of payment of a local authority’s high needs stability grant allocation. The grant will meet 90% of each local authority’s high-needs-related dedicated schools grant deficit and forms a central part of the Government support for local authorities as we move to a reformed SEND system.

Local area partnerships with approved plans must now move swiftly from planning to delivery, implementing their commitments with pace and securing tangible improvements for children and young people with SEND and their families. Approval is a starting point for delivery, not an indication that that further improvement is not still required. Where performance remains inadequate, we will take decisive action. I will shortly publish improvement notices for a number of local areas, setting out the improvements required to strengthen delivery and secure better outcomes for children and young people with SEND.

Twelve local area partnerships’ plans were originally deferred pending revision and resubmission. We have made enhanced, hands-on support available to these areas, focused on helping the partnership to respond to the identified areas for improvement within their plans. We expect these local areas to resubmit their plans by 30 November 2026. Two local areas have already done so, and their revised plans have subsequently been carefully assessed and approved.

Government officials, together with SEND and financial advisers, will continue to engage closely with local partnerships throughout this process. Local areas whose plans have been approved, but where concerns about their delivery capacity and existing performance remain, will receive closer oversight and support focused on helping the partnership translate their plan into sustained improvement and better outcomes for the children and young people with SEND in their care.

As local areas move into accelerated delivery, officials from the Department for Education, Department of Health and Social Care and relevant NHS England teams, working alongside expert advisers, will continue to support and challenge local authorities and integrated care boards. Local delivery will be kept under regular review through the Department’s local area SEND performance and delivery framework. The framework brings together evidence on outcomes for children and young people with SEND, local partnership readiness and capacity, and progress in delivering each local SEND reform plan. We will publish this framework later in the year, setting out transparently how local performance and improvement will be assessed.

Each area’s overall assessment will determine the level of monitoring, engagement and support it receives and, where necessary, the intervention required. All local areas will attend a quarterly review with officials to consider progress against their commitments, the steps that they are taking to strengthen partnership maturity and early evidence of improved experiences and outcomes for children, young people and families. My Department will also use quarterly data on local area progress and dedicated resources to closely monitor performance across the country. We will not hesitate to intervene where local delivery is failing to secure the outcomes children and families should expect.

Delivering this ambitious reform will require sustained collective effort across local government, the NHS, education providers, central Government and the wider sector. We will work alongside local area partnerships—providing the support, investment, challenge and national leadership needed to turn local plans into lasting change—and continue to put the experiences of children, young people and their families at the heart of delivery. Together, we can build a more inclusive, responsive and sustainable SEND system that earns the confidence of children and young people with SEND and their families, and enables every child to achieve and thrive.

Full details of high needs stability grant allocations have been published on the Department for Education section on the gov.uk website here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/high-needs-stability-grant-2026-to-2027

Areas with approved local SEND reform plans

Barking and Dagenham and NHS North East London ICB; Barnet and NHS West and North London ICB; Barnsley and NHS South Yorkshire ICB; Bath and North East Somerset and NHS Bath and North East Somerset, Swindon and Wiltshire ICB; Bedford and NHS Central East ICB; Bexley and NHS South East London ICB; Birmingham and NHS Birmingham and Solihull ICB; Blackburn with Darwen and NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria ICB; Blackpool and NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria ICB; Bolton and NHS Greater Manchester ICB; Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole and NHS Dorset ICB; Bracknell Forest and NHS Thames Valley ICB; Brent and NHS West and North London ICB; Brighton and Hove and NHS Surrey and Sussex ICB; Bristol and NHS Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire ICB; Bromley and NHS South East London ICB; Buckinghamshire and NHS Thames Valley ICB; Bury and NHS Greater Manchester ICB.

Calderdale and NHS West Yorkshire ICB; Camden and NHS West and North London ICB; Central Bedfordshire and NHS Central East ICB; Cheshire East and NHS Cheshire and Merseyside ICB; Cheshire West and Chester and NHS Cheshire and Merseyside ICB; Cornwall and NHS Cornwall and The Isles of Scilly ICB; County Durham and NHS North East and North Cumbria ICB; Coventry and NHS Coventry and Warwickshire ICB; Croydon and NHS South West London ICB.

Darlington and NHS North East and North Cumbria ICB; Derby and NHS Derby and Derbyshire ICB; Derbyshire and NHS Derby and Derbyshire ICB; Devon and NHS Devon ICB; Doncaster and NHS South Yorkshire ICB; Dorset and NHS Dorset ICB; Dudley and NHS Black Country ICB.

Ealing and NHS West and North London ICB; East Riding of Yorkshire and NHS Humber and North Yorkshire ICB; East Sussex and NHS Surrey and Sussex ICB; Enfield and NHS West and North London ICB; Essex and NHS Essex ICB.

Gateshead and NHS North East and North Cumbria ICB; Gloucestershire and NHS Gloucestershire ICB; Greenwich and NHS South East London ICB.

Hackney and NHS North East London ICB; Halton and NHS Cheshire and Merseyside ICB; Hammersmith and Fulham and NHS West and North London ICB; Hampshire and NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB; Haringey and NHS West and North London ICB; Harrow and NHS West and North London ICB; Hartlepool and NHS North East and North Cumbria ICB; Havering and NHS North East London ICB; Herefordshire, County of and NHS Herefordshire and Worcestershire ICB; Hertfordshire and NHS Central East ICB; Hillingdon and NHS West and North London ICB; Hounslow and NHS West and North London ICB.

Isle of Wight and NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB; Islington and NHS West and North London ICB.

Kensington and Chelsea and NHS West and North London ICB; Kent and NHS Kent and Medway ICB; Kingston upon Hull, City of and NHS Humber and North Yorkshire ICB; Kingston upon Thames and NHS South West London ICB; Kirklees and NHS West Yorkshire ICB; Knowsley and NHS Cheshire and Merseyside ICB.

Lambeth and NHS South East London ICB; Lancashire and NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria ICB; Leeds and NHS West Yorkshire ICB; Leicester and NHS Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland ICB; Leicestershire and NHS Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland ICB; Lincolnshire and NHS Lincolnshire ICB; Luton and NHS Central East ICB.

Manchester and NHS Greater Manchester ICB; Medway and NHS Kent and Medway ICB; Merton and NHS South West London ICB; Middlesbrough and NHS North East and North Cumbria ICB.

Newcastle upon Tyne and NHS North East and North Cumbria ICB; Norfolk and NHS Norfolk and Suffolk ICB; North East Lincolnshire and NHS Humber and North Yorkshire ICB; North Lincolnshire and NHS Humber and North Yorkshire ICB; North Northamptonshire and NHS Northamptonshire ICB; North Somerset and NHS Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire ICB; North Tyneside and NHS North East and North Cumbria ICB; North Yorkshire and NHS Humber and North Yorkshire ICB; Northumberland and NHS North East and North Cumbria ICB; Nottingham and NHS Nottingham and Nottinghamshire ICB; Nottinghamshire and NHS Nottingham and Nottinghamshire ICB.

Oldham and NHS Greater Manchester ICB; Oxfordshire and NHS Thames Valley ICB.

Peterborough and NHS Central East ICB; Plymouth and NHS Devon ICB; Portsmouth and NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB.

Reading and NHS Thames Valley ICB; Redcar and Cleveland and NHS North East and North Cumbria ICB; Richmond upon Thames and NHS South West London ICB; Rochdale and NHS Greater Manchester ICB; Rotherham and NHS South Yorkshire ICB; Rutland and NHS Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland ICB.

Salford and NHS Greater Manchester ICB; Sandwell and NHS Black Country ICB; Sefton and NHS Cheshire and Merseyside ICB; Sheffield and NHS South Yorkshire ICB; Shropshire and NHS Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin ICB; Solihull and NHS Birmingham and Solihull ICB; Somerset and NHS Somerset ICB; South Gloucestershire and NHS Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire ICB; South Tyneside and NHS North East and North Cumbria ICB; Southampton and NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB; Southwark and NHS South East London ICB; St Helens and NHS Cheshire and Merseyside ICB; Staffordshire and NHS Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent ICB; Stockport and NHS Greater Manchester ICB; Stockton- on-Tees and NHS North East and North Cumbria ICB; Stoke-on-Trent and NHS Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent ICB; Suffolk and NHS Norfolk and Suffolk ICB; Sunderland and NHS North East and North Cumbria ICB; Surrey and NHS Surrey and Sussex ICB; Sutton and NHS South West London ICB; Swindon and NHS Bath and North East Somerset, Swindon and Wiltshire ICB.

Tameside and NHS Greater Manchester ICB; Telford and Wrekin and NHS Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin ICB; Torbay and NHS Devon ICB; Tower Hamlets and NHS North East London ICB; Trafford and NHS Greater Manchester ICB.

Wakefield and NHS West Yorkshire ICB; Walsall and NHS Black Country ICB; Waltham Forest and NHS North East London ICB; Wandsworth and NHS South West London ICB; Warrington and NHS Cheshire and Merseyside ICB; Warwickshire and NHS Coventry and Warwickshire ICB; West Northamptonshire and NHS Northamptonshire ICB; West Sussex and NHS Surrey and Sussex ICB; Westminster and NHS West and North London ICB; Westmorland and Furness and NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria ICB; Wigan and NHS Greater Manchester ICB; Wiltshire and NHS Bath and North East Somerset, Swindon and Wiltshire ICB; Windsor and Maidenhead and NHS Thames Valley ICB; Wirral and NHS Cheshire and Merseyside ICB; Wokingham and NHS Thames Valley ICB; Wolverhampton and NHS Black Country ICB; Worcestershire and NHS Herefordshire and Worcestershire ICB.

York and NHS Humber and North Yorkshire ICB.

Areas with approved local SEND reform plan following revision and resubmission

Cumberland and NHS North East and North Cumbria ICB and NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria ICB; Liverpool and NHS Cheshire and Merseyside ICB.

Areas with deferred local SEND reform plans pending revision and resubmission

Bradford and NHS West Yorkshire ICB; Cambridgeshire and NHS Central East ICB; Lewisham and NHSE South East London ICB; Milton Keynes and NHS Central East ICB; Newham and North East London ICB; Redbridge and NHS North East London ICB; Slough and NHS Thames Valley ICB; Southend-on-Sea and NHS Essex ICB; Thurrock and NHS Essex ICB; West Berkshire and NHS Thames Valley ICB.

[HCWS431]

Today, for the first time, the Environment Agency, Ofwat, Natural Resources Wales and the Drinking Water Inspectorate are publishing a joint water company performance insights report. This reflects the Government’s drive for more integrated regulation of the sector, leaving companies with nowhere to hide poor performance. Alongside the environmental performance assessment for 2025 and operational performance report for 2025-26, it gives the public an overarching picture of how their water companies are performing and makes clear where companies are failing to deliver for the environment. Joined up scrutiny means companies can no longer point to progress in one area to distract from failures in another.

The findings show why change cannot wait. Poor performance is unacceptable. Pollution remains far too high, with too many serious pollution incidents. Only one company achieved the top four-star environmental rating, and four received the lowest one-star rating—the chief executive officers for these companies will not be eligible for bonuses under the new rules we have introduced. Too many customers still face avoidable service failures. Improvements in some areas do not excuse persistent failings elsewhere. While drinking water quality remains high, and though there has been progress on some customer and environmental measures, performance in other areas continues to fall short.

I am demanding answers from underperforming companies. Ministers will visit companies with the most serious pollutions to see what actions they are taking to prevent them happening again. We will call in chief executives to challenge failures and scrutinise delivery of vital infrastructure improvements. My message to the sector is clear: cut pollution, tackle leaks, improve customer service and deliver the infrastructure needed to secure future water supplies. The record investment approved for 2025 to ’30 must translate into visible improvements for customers, communities and the environment—not more excuses.

We have strengthened regulators’ enforcement powers through the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. Companies that fail must face consequences, including fines and prosecutions where performance falls short. But accountability today must go hand in hand with lasting reform. Our forthcoming 10-year plan for Britain will set out stronger public control over water, underpinned by a strengthened Water Bill. The Secretary of State has already set out her expectations for the next price review to deliver better value for money for struggling households. More joined-up regulation now is part of building a water system that protects the environment, secures supplies and earns back the trust of the people who pay for it.

[HCWS433]

In November 2025, the Government published the restoring order and control statement, which committed to tackle the vile smuggling gangs who seek to exploit our borders with no regard for human life and to reform the asylum and immigration system. Alongside bringing order and control to the immigration system, we must do this fairly by providing sanctuary to those in genuine need and reducing the pull factors for illegal and dangerous journeys.

The UK has a long-standing history of providing sanctuary to those fleeing war and persecution from around the world. The UK is a compassionate country, that lives up to its international obligations and saves the lives of those fleeing war and persecution.

The Government are continuing this tradition by creating new safe and legal sponsorship routes. New named community sponsorship, refugee work and refugee study routes will create safe and legal pathways for refugees to come to the UK, enabling communities, universities and employers to identify refugees they wish to sponsor. By connecting refugees with communities, universities and employers that are ready to support them, the routes are being designed to promote successful integration from arrival.

These routes will be capped and controlled, with the number of arrivals based on community capacity to sponsor refugees. The Government expect arrivals of UNHCR-approved refugees across the new routes and the existing UK resettlement scheme to number in the hundreds at first, but this will grow into the low thousands as levels of illegal migration fall.

Applications will open today for organisations to be accredited as lead sponsors for the named community sponsorship and refugee study routes. Applications for the refugee work route will open in spring 2027. Lead sponsors will play a key role in the new routes, acting as intermediaries between the Home Office and sponsor groups and providing assurance that sponsor groups are delivering positive outcomes for refugees, communities and our country. Lead sponsors will be responsible for engaging and onboarding sponsors, assessing the suitability of proposed sponsorship arrangements, submitting applications to the Home Office and providing ongoing support to sponsor groups. The Home Office will continue to conduct appropriate security checks on individual refugees and make all immigration decisions.

To be accredited as a lead sponsor, organisations will be required to demonstrate that they are a registered UK charity or community interest company based and operating in the UK and have appropriate policies and procedures in place to undertake the lead sponsor role. They will also be required to demonstrate they have the capability, resources and networks to deliver the lead sponsor role.

The routes will initially operate from Bangladesh, Egypt, India, Kenya, Malaysia, Pakistan and Uganda. To be eligible, refugees will need to be outside their country of nationality, and to have been present and registered with relevant authorities or UNHCR in one of these seven countries before 1 October 2026. The Government are introducing the new routes in phases, starting in a limited number of countries to establish effective delivery arrangements.

The first arrivals through these routes are expected in autumn 2027. The new routes will enable refugees to come to the UK and provide them with an opportunity for a better life. However, it is imperative that these routes are only used to support refugees with a genuine need for protection to resettle in the UK. This is why we will work in partnership with the UNHCR who will assess refugees through established processes. All refugees who are identified will be required to meet identity, security and eligibility requirements and have suitable sponsorship arrangements in place to be granted status.

Further details of the new routes, including refugee and sponsor eligibility requirements, will be published on gov.uk.

[HCWS434]

This Government are committed to a fundamental rewiring of a system that for too long has seen power held in Westminster and Whitehall, rather than with people and the places where they live, work and invest. Strong and sustainable local government is the foundation of our rewiring the state agenda.

Reorganising 21 two-tier areas across England will impact nearly a third of the population of England and last for generations to come, so it is important that we consider our approach and decisions fully, and plan for the long term. On 7 September, the Secretary of State therefore announced that we were undertaking a review of the local government reorganisation programme to make sure that the process was robust, and that it meets the priorities of a new Administration and the new Prime Minister.

Since we made that announcement, I have listened closely to a wide range of voices from the local government sector and those that care about it—from local leaders and sector partners, to mayors and Members of Parliament. I recognise the strength of feeling about the decisions announced so far, both from those who raised concerns about them and from those who support them. While there remain different views about the right outcome for each area, I am grateful for the constructive way in which places have continued to engage with me and my officials.

I know the announcement has had a significant impact on local councils, councillors and staff across the country, and I am grateful for the patience they have shown throughout this process. I recognise that the review period has not been easy, and I do not take for granted their continued commitment to the long-term work needed to fix the foundations and put local government in the best possible position.

Above all, I have heard a clear message from colleagues: you want clarity about what happens next and what it means for your area. Today, I want to provide that clarity and set out the way forward for each area.

Review: phase 1

I am pleased to report that the first phase of the review is now complete.

Working with the Secretary of State and officials, I have interrogated the key pillars and framework underpinning the local government reorganisation programme, including whether the existing unweighted criteria set in February 2025 and its objectives continue to support the policy priorities of the new Government.

I have concluded that the basis of the programme is robust and that the existing criteria against which proposals have been submitted were both correct on their own terms and continue to support the Government’s policy agenda.

Single-tier local councils are a key enabler of the rewiring the state agenda. Stronger, more sustainable unitary councils will support more effective partnership working between local, regional and central Government and better outcomes for economic growth, building the houses local people need, helping reform public services, and empowering local communities. They will be strengthened further by new measures brought forward in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, for instance on neighbourhood governance and community ownership.

Following this initial phase of the review, I can therefore confirm that the Government remain committed to delivering local government reorganisation and that we will continue to move forward with the programme based on the existing criteria, which I hope gives confidence as we move ahead.

Throughout this phase of the review, Ministers and officials have heard from leaders and officers from all corners of the local government reorganisation programme, as well as key local government stakeholders. I know that consensus on the outcome in every area is not possible, but I have heard that more can, and must, be done to recognise the demands being placed on council leaders and senior leadership teams; to make sure councils feel supported to deliver such important changes including in relation to disaggregation; and to build consensus on how we deliver this programme and the timetable in each area.

I am clear that central and local government work best when we work in partnership and I am committed to doing all I can to ensure that this Government are an active partner that local government feels able to rely on.

Review: “minded to” decisions

I am now able to set out a timeline for concluding the final phase of the review across the 20 areas in the review other than Surrey and confirming the outcome for each.

I hope this will give local councils the certainty they need to plan ahead, while giving us the time necessary to complete our consideration of each individual area.

I have considered carefully whether outcomes should be announced together or as decisions are reached. I have concluded that councils should not be asked to wait unnecessarily once the consideration of their area is complete. We will therefore inform councils at the earliest practical opportunity, meaning that some areas will receive an outcome before others.

First, I am now able to give further clarity in respect of five of the 14 areas with decisions taken in July. In these areas, the proposals received, their merits, and all relevant evidence and views have been carefully considered against the existing criteria.

Following this consideration, we are minded to implement, subject to a representations process and parliamentary approval, the following proposals:

East Sussex and Brighton and Hove: Two unitary proposal submitted by East Sussex county council, Eastbourne borough council, Hastings borough council, Lewes district council and Rother district council—with the boundary change requested by Brighton and Hove city council, with the exception of Falmer parish.

Gloucestershire: One unitary proposal submitted by Cotswold district council, Gloucestershire county council, Stroud district council, and Tewkesbury borough council.

Oxfordshire: Three unitary proposal submitted by Oxford city council, including the adjoining area of West Berkshire council—with the boundary change Oxford city council requested alongside the proposal.

Warwickshire: Two unitary proposal submitted by North Warwickshire borough council, Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council, Stratford-on-Avon district council and Warwick district council.

Worcestershire: Two unitary proposal submitted by Bromsgrove district council, Malvern Hills district council, Redditch borough council, Worcester city council and Wychavon district council.

It should be noted that the Secretary of State has recused herself from local government reorganisation decisions in the East Sussex and Brighton and Hove invitation area, so I will take decisions there.

These five areas are receiving letters setting out the rationale for why we are minded to proceed with these proposals. Before we take our final decision, there will be a minimum period of three weeks, during which those interested may make further representations to me. I will shortly confirm the start and end date for this representations period and I will also set out how councils and interested parties can make representations. Any final implementation decision would also be subject to parliamentary approval. To be clear, the previous decisions in these five areas made in July 2026 are today withdrawn.

For the remaining nine areas where decisions were also announced in July 2026, we will consider these areas further in the next phase of the review, with more detail set out below. To give councils clarity on the status of the existing decisions while we do that, the Secretary of State and I today are also withdrawing the decisions announced in July 2026 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

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent

For the avoidance of doubt, all options and proposals in these areas will remain under consideration as part of the review.

Review: next phases

I now turn to the next phases of the review and those 15 remaining areas due to have a “minded to” decision:

The nine areas listed above where decisions have now been withdrawn;

The four areas—Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock; Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton; Norfolk; and Suffolk—where decisions were withdrawn in September; and

The two areas—West Sussex and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough—where decisions have not yet been taken.

I believe it is right to take a structured approach to the review and give each area the serious and deep consideration it deserves given the significance of these decisions.

As I have set out above, we will seek to inform councils at the earliest practical opportunity, meaning that some of these 15 remaining areas will receive an outcome before others.

We commit to coming back to this House with updates on outcomes in another set of areas by Christmas—and I commit that we will work to ensure that every area will have an outcome by early next year.

Elections

In September, we set out that the review meant that elections scheduled to take place in May 2027 would go ahead to existing councils. This remains the position for all 20 areas covered above. In those areas, the timetable is for elections to new councils to happen in May 2028 followed by vesting day on 1 April 2029.

Capacity and transition funding

I recognise the impact and costs of ongoing uncertainty and delay, which I have also considered in the initial phase of the review.

I understand that areas will have incurred costs associated with local government reorganisation in good faith.

For areas where new unitaries were previously announced, we will pay 50% of the £900,000 of transition support per new unitary, based on the number of new unitaries in the initial announcement. This funding is guaranteed and will be paid in the coming weeks. It is not contingent on the outcome of the review. For Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and West Sussex, where no decisions have been previously announced, we will instead pay £500,000 to each area.

When final decisions are made, we will pay the balance of the £900,000 of transition support per each new unitary, taking account of funding already paid to its area, as well as £150,000 of supplementary funding per new unitary for leadership capacity and continuity in children’s services, adult social care and public health.

Committee system

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 sets out that all councils operating the committee system must transition to a leader and cabinet executive by 29 June 2027, except where they are “protected” or secondary legislation has been made under which they would be dissolved.

The Secretary of State has discretion to extend the deadline for transition by up to one year. She may do this if she considers it likely that secondary legislation to deliver local government reorganisation will be made in relation to a council during the one-year period between 29 June 2027 and 29 June 2028.

This would include where a “minded to” decision on local government reorganisation is made envisaging legislation to implement local government reorganisation in an area within the extension period.

The purpose of allowing extensions in legislation is to ensure that councils undergoing local government reorganisation would not have to move from the committee system to a leader and cabinet executive shortly before being dissolved. This remains the Government position.

City status and ceremonial matters

We recognise the pride, history and identity that sits behind our cities and counties which is why we will work with areas to make sure city status and any ceremonial rights are preserved following reorganisation. City status and ceremonial matters play a valuable role for pride of place in our local communities. These issues have been raised by local areas and Members of Parliament for some time, and we recognise that this is an important programme of work. Subject to any final decisions taken on reorganisation, we will work with places to protect their city status, by reviewing all available options and relevant precedents, including bringing new legislation to this House where it is necessary to do so, and likewise, for any ceremonial matters currently held by councils that would be abolished.

Next steps

I have committed to this being a full, considered review, and to giving colleagues in councils and local people clarity on their future as soon as possible. I recognise the tension between these two objectives but would like to reiterate my appreciation to colleagues across the House and within local government for their ongoing patience as we progress this review. I will keep the House updated on progress.

As before, this review and update does not impact Surrey, where the new West Surrey and East Surrey councils will go live in April 2027.

[HCWS432]

I have today laid before both Houses a copy of the annual report of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, the right hon. the Lord Leveson of Liverpool. This report covers the activities of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office and the Technology Advisory Panel for 2025.

The Investigatory Powers Commissioner provides independent oversight of the use of investigatory powers, as outlined in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. This oversight encompasses the inspection and authorisation by judicial commissioners of the use of these powers by over 600 public authorities. This includes the intelligence and security services and law enforcement agencies.

Overall, the report provides a positive assessment of the use of investigatory powers during the reporting period, finding that they continue to be exercised in accordance with the IPA 2016 and other relevant legislation. Lord Leveson notes the strong commitment to compliance demonstrated by those authorities within his remit, and their constructive engagement with IPCO’s oversight regime. While the report identifies a number of issues and areas for improvement, he is satisfied that our agencies and departments are working with IPCO to address them.

Maintaining public trust and confidence in the exercise of investigatory powers is vital for national security and public safety. This report demonstrates the high quality of oversight of our intelligence and security services and public authorities’ use of the most intrusive powers. I am satisfied that our oversight arrangements are among the strongest and most effective in the world.

Alongside its core authorisation and oversight functions, IPCO took on a significant additional responsibility in 2025: leading the independent investigation into the Agent X case following the High Court’s judgment. Lord Leveson and his team have delivered this important work while continuing to discharge their day-to-day responsibilities to the highest standard.

I would like to express my sincere thanks to Lord Leveson, the judicial commissioners and the IPCO team for their hard work throughout 2025. Their professionalism, dedication and unwavering commitment help to ensure that the UK remains a world leader in the oversight of investigatory powers.

In accordance with section 234(6)(b) of the IPA, I wish to notify both Houses that there is material considered too sensitive for the open report, on which I have been briefed separately. The contents of this open report are not prejudicial to national security or ongoing investigations.

I will be sending a copy of this report to Scottish Ministers, as required under section 234(8) of the IPA.

[HCWS430]

On 7 July 2026 the Government launched a call for evidence on the modernisation of carer’s allowance. We received more than 3,805 responses, and I want to thank everyone who responded and shared their experiences.

Today we are publishing the findings of those responses which can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/carers-allowance-call-for-evidence. Alongside research into the impact of the increase in the carer’s allowance earnings limit in April 2025 to match 16 hours at the national living wage which can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/carers-allowance-increased-earnings-limit-evaluation

The findings are varied, but there is broad consensus around the need to modernise the treatment of earnings and to reduce the risk of overpayments. These findings— alongside those of the Sayce review into overpayments of carer’s allowance linked to earnings—have informed the Chancellor’s announcement in the Budget of work to remove the cliff-edge earnings rule in carer’s allowance once the necessary infrastructure is in place. This will include changes to automate earnings data, and to provide greater predictability in how earnings are treated in the calculation of carer’s allowance.

We are providing regular updates to the Work and Pensions and Public Accounts Committees on progress in implementing the Government response to the Sayce review and will keep Parliament informed of progress with these longer-term reforms to adapt carer’s allowance to modern patterns of care and work.

[HCWS429]