PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Local Government Reorganisation - 16 July 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

This Government are driving the most ambitious programme of local government reform in a generation by replacing the inefficient two-tier system with new unitary councils so that all parts of our country are ready for devolution. We need to devolve power out of Whitehall so that we can rebalance wealth, power and opportunity right across the country. This is the second richest country in Europe, yet England has seven of the 10 poorest regions in northern Europe. That is the case for change.

Devolution requires strong local councils that deliver good public services and support economic growth, and which are closely connected to the communities they serve. Two-tier structures are confusing for residents, divide responsibilities, slow down decisions, duplicate costs and blur accountability. In many areas, existing boundaries no longer match patterns of local economies, public services or local identities. We cannot continue with an outdated and misaligned system that does not serve local people well. We can do better.

Today I am announcing further decisions on local government reorganisation in the remaining areas of the programme. Subject to parliamentary approval, I have decided to implement proposals for new councils in the following areas. In some of these areas, modification powers will be used to make the boundary changes requested alongside proposals.

The specifics are in the accompanying written statement, and for ease I will refer to the proposals in the following shortened form: in Derbyshire and Derby, the two-unitary option put forward by Chesterfield, Derby, Erewash and High Peak, including boundary changes; in Devon, Plymouth and Torbay, the four-unitary proposal put forward by Exeter and Plymouth, including boundary changes; 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 four-unitary proposal in Hertfordshire, including boundary changes, except for the ward of Arbury; in Kent and Medway, the four-unitary proposal put forward by Dover, Swale and Thanet; in Lancashire, Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen, the four-unitary proposal put forward by Chorley, Lancaster, Preston, Ribble Valley, South Ribble and West Lancashire; in Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland, a two-unitary option put forward by Leicester city council, including boundary changes; in Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire, the four-unitary proposal put forward by Lincoln city council, including boundary changes, but leaving North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire unchanged; in Nottinghamshire and Nottingham, a two-unitary option put forward by Nottingham city council, including boundary changes; the three-unitary proposal in Oxfordshire, including boundary changes; in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, the two-unitary proposal put forward by East Staffordshire, Stafford and Cannock Chase, but also by Stoke-on-Trent; the two-unitary proposal in Warwickshire; and the two unitary proposal in Worcestershire. On Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and West Sussex, I am not making announcements today, because further time is required to get the decisions right.

Everyone involved wants to see stronger local councils delivering better local services that will improve the lives of the people we serve. The decisions announced today will do that, and improve local government for more than 15 million people. We will see 38 councils operating across these areas in place of the current 134. That will result in more than 250 fewer senior posts, significant salary savings and nearly 3,000 fewer councillors, which could save up to £20 million per year on councillor allowances alone across these areas. Councils themselves projected that the decisions could lead to net savings of about £1 billion by the end of 2032-33 when the anticipated benefits are fully realised. Those savings will be reinvested in the frontline services that local people care about the most. Across England, once all decisions are taken, we will have cut the number of councils from 317 to a maximum of 173. That will simplify and strengthen local government serving over 20 million people.

Reorganisation will also support city growth. For example, Plymouth is a nationally significant defence growth location and a house building priority, driven by investment at Devonport. Leicester is a major urban economy facing cross-boundary housing, employment and infrastructure pressures, including unmet housing need. Our decisions today will help those two cities grow, along with others, including Preston, Derby, Nottingham, Exeter, Oxford, Brighton and Hove, and Lincoln. These bigger cities will be crucial in ensuring that our country can build the homes we need.

I am tremendously grateful for all the hard work that councils put in to their proposals, but I appreciate that some Members of this House and some councils will disagree with my decisions. I am sure we can all agree that the hard work of transition to new councils must continue to be a shared endeavour across local and central Government. To protect the services that some of the most vulnerable people in our communities rely on, we all need to get that right.

A broad support offer is in place for councils, including support to councils through our sector advisers and through funding to the Local Government Association. We have already announced £63 million in capacity funding to support the reorganisation process. I am pleased to provide further detail today on how this funding will be allocated. Each area will receive an unprecedented £900,000 per new unitary council in capacity funding. On top of that, we are committing up to £150,000 in supplementary funding, as part of a wider package of support for children’s services, adult social care and public health leadership. Taken together, for every reorganisation area, there will be over £1 million in capacity funding for each new unitary council. This is the first time that reorganisation has been supported in this way, and it shows this Government’s commitment to supporting councils to ensure that we get these reforms right.

The programme will now move forward in line with the timetable already set out, with elections to the new unitary councils scheduled for May 2027, ahead of new councils taking up their powers in April 2028. Today marks a significant milestone for the future of local government, with decisions now taken on 19 out of 21 two-tier areas across England. Reorganising local government is not a debate about where to draw lines on a map or about structures and systems; it is about making real improvements to people’s lives and to the communities they are a part of. This reform programme is ambitious, but it is the right thing to do. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

This is blatant—blatant. These changes, like so many of the Secretary of State’s decisions, have been driven by party politics. He tried to cancel local elections, and he was caught trying to tip the balance in Labour’s favour, but nothing in today’s statement has done anything to dispel the belief that this is purely partisan. Many communities have been left in limbo, while Labour councils have been allowed to redraw the map on which the future elections in which they will be engaged will be fought. Can he honestly say that that will inspire confidence in the integrity of the process?

If the Secretary of State wanted accusations of gerrymandering to be put aside, why on earth did he create such a clearly gerrymandered set of boundaries? The maps speak for themselves. In Devon, he has accepted the proposals put forward by Labour-run Exeter and Plymouth. In Leicester, he has accepted the submissions by a Labour-controlled council. In Nottingham, he has accepted the proposal put forward by the Labour-run city council. I could go on and on, but time does not permit. How on earth can the Secretary of State expect anyone to believe that the process has been politically impartial?

Devolution should be about transferring powers away from Whitehall. It is about giving freedom to succeed to local areas, and for them to keep the reward of that success, creating the conditions for more investment, more jobs and more opportunity, but none of that is dependent on imposing a single organisational model from Whitehall. Unitaries should never be the admission price for a devolution deal, nor should local areas be compelled into so-called strategic authorities simply because the Secretary of State and Whitehall prefer organisational uniformity. Devolution should mean trusting local people to make local decisions.

The Secretary of State says that he is holding councils to the standards of best value, transparency, consultation, good governance and sound decision making, yet by the very same standards he fails his own test, with minimal consultation, partisan judgments and arbitrary decision making. He speaks about stronger councils, yet some of these new authorities will be burdened with crippling debt from the day they are created. In Nottinghamshire, Conservative-run Rushcliffe council is a well-run, financially secure council, yet under his plans it will be carved up with most of its assets transferred to debt-ridden Labour Nottingham city council. How on earth can weakening well-managed councils to prop up bankrupt ones create a stronger foundation for local government?

What of local democracy? The Secretary of State talks with great pride about how many local representatives will be culled in these proposals, but that means decisions taken further away from the communities they affect and planning powers becoming increasingly removed from the very people who have to live with the implications of those decisions.

The Secretary of State complains about two-tier local government, but his own mayoral proposals create two tiers of local government. So please can he inform the House: is two-tier local government good or is two-tier local government bad? He does not seem to know.

What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the democratic deficit? Given the pace at which he is driving the changes, and the fact that a number of the proposals have still not been outlined and will not be until the autumn, what on earth gives him the confidence that they will be implemented in time for shadow elections in May next year? What assessment has he made of the likelihood of judicial reviews further delaying the timetable before 2029?

The statement raises more questions than it answers. If this proves to be the Secretary of State’s final appearance at the Dispatch Box in this role—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Although we do not agree, I have enjoyed working with him across the Dispatch Box; but I hope he recognises the mess that he is leaving behind. He cannot believe that he has squandered this opportunity for genuine devolution. Instead, his legacy will be one of taking power away from local communities, imposing an unfair funding review on councils and gerrymandering local government boundaries. I find it difficult to believe that that is a record he will genuinely be proud of.

I have also enjoyed working with the right hon. Gentleman, who is, unfortunately, a very effective shadow Secretary of State. I hope that our relationship can continue in this manner for a long time into the future. Unfortunately, the facts do not support the claims he is making. The majority of proposals I have outlined as decisions have cross-party support. I accept that reasonable people may agree or disagree with the decisions, but the important thing for residents is that we move ahead to realise the savings and to secure economic growth, because those things will benefit local people.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about debt. Of course, when the Conservative party was running Woking council, it racked up billions of pounds. The Government have had to intervene and write that off because of the severity of that debt. In fact, councils across the country will realise savings of up to £1 billion—that is the councils’ own estimate—that they can then invest in frontline services. That is to the benefit of local people.

The right hon. Gentleman will know that I cannot comment on judicial reviews, but I reassure him and the House that this programme will go ahead, on schedule.

I am broadly sympathetic and supportive of the proposals for Staffordshire, as the only MP in Staffordshire already in a single unitary authority, but may I ask the Secretary of State why he did not use the opportunity to make some of the very small consequential changes to the southern boundary of places such as Stoke-on-Trent, where development has spilled into the neighbouring boroughs but has absolutely no connection with the borough and the council it will now be? Did anyone from his Department physically visit those places to see where he is now creating borders? On council tax harmonisation, my constituents pay the lowest council tax in the county. Is it expected that everybody else will be harmonised to their level—a council tax reduction—or will my constituents see a council tax increase in order to give a council tax cut to some of the wealthiest in the county?

I have visited my hon. Friend’s constituency with him on several occasions and I recognise the work he does to champion his local communities, including through the process we are currently engaged in. Council tax will be a matter for the council to set for itself, within the parameters permitted, and it will take those decisions in due course. The particular split in the case of Staffordshire was proposed and selected to minimise service disruption by aligning with delivery, commuting, patient flows and partnership. The proposal we have adopted will be very strong on financial sustainability and resilience. That will benefit the stability of services, but it should also benefit council tax levels further down the line.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I recognise that a lot of work has gone into the proposals by a lot of people, but many of the details add to an existing impression of chaos. We are finally getting sight of the detail just 9.5 months before many affected areas have elections. Councils have been forced into putting time and resources into coming up with proposals, many of which have been ignored. Councillors and officers have been uncertain about their future for the nearly two years it has taken to get to this point. Many communities will feel done to, not done with.

The lack of notice and opportunity to scrutinise the Department’s decisions is also a huge concern. The Secretary of State’s suggestion that local identities are being considered will come as a huge surprise to my constituents in Culham and Clifton Hampden, which, although many miles from Oxford city centre and surrounded by countryside, will be incorporated into Greater Oxford. Many communities and council wards in Oxfordshire will also now be arbitrarily divided between the new unitary councils. Colleagues in Devon worry that rural communities have been ignored at the expense of new unitaries designed to benefit the needs of cities.

There were endless changes of mind about Sussex elections and boundaries, and now, the fact that a decision has not been made about West Sussex has been met with disbelief. The Government promised to work in partnership with local authorities and rebuild the trust that was shattered over the past decade. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the long- term financial viability of the proposed unitary structures, given that several of the councils being merged risk being financially unviable?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. Long-term financial viability is one of the main reasons why the process is taking place. It was one of the key criteria on which the final decisions have been taken. He will find the details in the written ministerial statement.

Of course it is necessary to consult, and of course that means that areas will put forward proposals. Today, the Government are responding to those proposals. In the cases of Oxford and Devon, and in the other cases he has referred to, the selected option was chosen because it is the best for economic growth. Right at the start of my statement, I pointed out that despite us having the second-richest economy in Europe, we have seven of the 10 poorest regions in northern Europe. We cannot allow that to continue. We need economic growth. That is how we put more money in people’s pockets, and that is what this Government are focused on.

In the case of West Sussex, where we had a re-consultation, we have received an awful lot of additional information, and I think it is only right to consider that information carefully before coming to a final decision. We owe that respect to the parties, councils and residents’ groups that took the trouble to provide responses.

Before I come to Back Benchers, let me say that, as Members will be aware, a lot of you wish to get in. It would be very helpful if questions were succinct.

The Secretary of State and I have known each other a long time—we served in local government together—and he knows that I am as passionate as he is about bringing power back closer to people, but I have to say to him, in all honesty, that the decision to split my home community of Gedling borough in half and force communities in Gedling into an expanded new Nottingham city council area against their will is bad for my constituents and bad policymaking. I have to tell the Secretary of State that this is a decision that I cannot and will not support.

Will the Secretary of State tell me what on earth makes sense about creating two councils for Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, when official figures show that from day one, one of them will be £147 million better off than the other? Will he explain to my constituents why the Government have backed the option that did not adhere to the strict criteria set out by the Government at the start of this process? Finally—thank you for your forbearance, Madam Deputy Speaker—given his announcement that he will hold off on making a decision on Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, will he re-think on Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, and hold off on making a decision until an agreement can be made in my part of the world?

First of all, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way he always champions and represents the views and interests of his constituents. We have indeed known each other for a very long time, and I always appreciate his views, even when we disagree. I will, of course, be happy to ensure that he has a meeting with me or a relevant Minister to discuss his concerns, but the decision we have taken on Nottingham and Nottinghamshire was made because it offers the strongest economic geography, and allows economic growth to happen at pace. That will benefit everyone living in Nottinghamshire. We really must take decisions that will tackle the wide economic divides that are pulling this country apart. Everyone everywhere in this country deserves the chance to get on, and that means bringing investment and good jobs to every single part of this country. This is what this proposal is intended to achieve.

I call the Father of the House.

One of the poorest wards in the entire country is Gainsborough south-west ward. Why is the Secretary of State splitting West Lindsey in half? Why is he taking Scampton away from Gainsborough? It makes no sense. Why is he cutting away the nuclear fusion site from Lincoln? Why is he loading debt on Lincoln city council—for example, for the Hykeham bypass? There is no logic in this, other than it being a stitch-up by Lincoln Labour party. This is the only Labour-controlled council in Lincolnshire. Everybody else has been treated with complete contempt.

The right hon. Gentleman is a doughty champion of his constituents, as we just saw. The Government have published criteria against which the proposals have been judged, and the decisions are being taken. The decision for Lincolnshire give Lincoln the space to grow; it allows economic and housing growth, which will benefit people right across the council, and will strike the best balance on service delivery, reflecting both urban and rural needs across the county. That is why we have taken the decision.

The announcement today and the proposals in it are completely unacceptable. I reject them in the strongest terms—[Interruption.] Don’t heckle me. I have been saying this all along, so let me finish; I speak for my constituents. There is nothing in the proposals that reflects the views that I have consistently put to Ministers, or any acknowledgment of the concerns I have heard from thousands of people in Newcastle-under-Lyme.

How does the Secretary of State think we can protect the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme from the debt held by Staffordshire county council, Staffordshire Moorlands district council and Stoke-on-Trent city council? Why should any of my constituents have faith in the proposals, which they do not want? It is utterly unacceptable and a disgrace that the statement has been put to the House on the final day of term, four days before a new Prime Minister takes office. It is not too late to stop and think again. The Secretary of State said a minute ago that he was going to pause to get other proposals right, and I urge him to do the same on this one.

It is important that we get the process moving, because we will not realise the benefits of economic growth, job opportunities and money in people’s pockets if we keep delaying it. We need to get it completed in this Parliament and get areas ready for the mayoral devolution that will follow. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend, and support him in ensuring that his constituents will benefit from the changes. I know from earlier conversations that he is keen to ensure that we maintain the unique heritage and identity of those communities, and I will support him in doing that.

I welcome the moratorium on, and potential saving of, West Sussex, in response to my opposition and that of thousands of residents who did not want our historic county cleaved in two. Now that he has acknowledged that the proposal from the Government was less sustainable than the status quo, will the Secretary of State remove the jeopardy and confirm that he will not be proceeding with the proposal, and will instead save West Sussex?

West Sussex will benefit from eventual local government reorganisation, just as other areas will, because of the savings from two-tier duplication, which we can plough straight into the frontline services that matter to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and residents across the county. As I said to the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), there was a re-consultation, and we have had a vast amount of information coming in. I did not want to push ahead with a decision before we had considered all the views that were shared. We will look to proceed and announce as soon as we can after the summer recess. The intention is that the timetable for elections will remain the same.

The Secretary of State mentioned in his statement that part of the driver of the proposals is that he wants to do something about areas of high deprivation. However, the plans presented today would make East Lancashire one of the most deprived unitary authorities in the country. What will the Government do to support areas like East Lancashire, if these plans are pursued, to ensure that we do not become a place of incredibly high deprivation, and that we are an area that benefits from economic growth?

I have long recognised that my hon. Friend is a strong champion of the communities that she represents, and I am grateful to her for raising those points. We had a number of proposals for Lancashire, which were assessed against the criteria. The option we selected was chosen because it aligns with economic areas, commuting patterns and transport links, which will support inward investment, skills development and jobs, and therefore put money in the pockets of residents across her splendid county.

The proposals are not the result that I wanted for my constituency or Gloucestershire. However, I am a reasonable man, and I am willing to take the Secretary of State at his word. Will he reassure me that the new Gloucestershire unitary will not end up coming to the Government with a begging bowl on day one, because the Government are not giving it enough money, including to fill the potholes that I am told about every day by my constituents? To prevent that, will he designate the Golden Valley in west Cheltenham an area for retained council tax? That would help Gloucestershire to become more financially sustainable by allowing us, as the incoming Prime Minister would say, to keep the proceeds of growth that we are creating in our area.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support in principle for the changes that we are making. The option we selected for Gloucestershire was chosen in part because it was the strongest financial case, for precisely the reasons that he has just outlined. There will be savings from eliminating duplication, which will be ploughed back into the frontline services that he cares about, and that are the most important consideration for his constituents.

I thank the Minister for his statement. In Gravesham, we mostly advocated for option 5A and against options 1A and 4D. I welcome the decision to pursue 4B, as it is clear that the Government have listened to the calls for smaller communities that are local to councillors, and that keep local identity while having room for growth and jobs. One concern remains about the debt for Kent and Medway councils. Thanks to a Labour council, Gravesham is financially sound; how can the Government ensure that the new authority will continue to be like Gravesham?

My hon. Friend is right that her council has achieved something remarkable in stabilising its finances, and therefore the foundation of its public services, so well. The option we selected for Kent is intended to support economic growth, which will benefit my hon. Friend’s residents and the financial stability that she is keen to see continue. That is how we can ensure good-value and secure public services for her constituents and others across the county of Kent.

I can see the sense in what the Secretary of State is trying to achieve with this reorganisation, and the target of 500,000 people per unitary authority makes a lot of sense—it brings a lot of people together. But why, after Wyre Forest district council voted for the single unitary, did the Secretary of State deliver a two-unitary solution for Worcestershire? North Worcestershire, where Wyre Forest is, will consist of 293,000 people. We are now splitting up adult social care, children’s services, highways, education and refuse disposal. It does not make financial sense. Will the Secretary of State reconsider what is being proposed for Worcestershire, and go with a single unitary authority?

It is of course important that the critical services that the hon. Gentleman referred to are protected and become stronger through reorganisation. It is because we will be able to secure savings, and invest them back in frontline services, that I believe reorganisation will benefit his constituents. The area size was a target, not a threshold. There were other factors in the published criteria that weighed on my mind as we took those decisions, including economic growth, potential for housing—given that we face a housing crisis in this country —and people’s local identity.

Unitary authorities have big benefits, but I am angry about the proposals. According to our own statistics, the new East Lancs authority—with Blackburn, and without the Ribble Valley—will create the most deprived unitary authority in the country, with an awful lot of debt already on its books. We are going to need a lot of cash to make it work, and I cannot support it. Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield will not stand for being part of Greater Blackburn. The headquarters of the new authority must not be in Blackburn, and the accountable officer must not be a Blackburner. Our people, bondholders, culture, businesses and communities cannot be steamrolled and forgotten in this way, much though I like the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Hussain). Does the Secretary of State agree?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and always championing the interests of his residents. I would remind him that through fair funding, we have realigned Government funding for local authorities with deprivation and need, which will ensure that funding is distributed fairly in a way that it was not during the 14 years of the previous Government. The decisions for Lancashire were taken in part because of the strong alignment with economic areas, commuting patterns and transport links, because that is the way we can attract inward investment to bring the jobs that will put money in the pockets of his constituents and other people across the county of Lancashire.

Eleven thousand people in Oadby, Wigston and Great Glen recently voted in a referendum against joining the city of Leicester. Ministers know that people do not want this locally, and yet they are forcing it on them anyway. People in the rest of Harborough are losing their local council, to be replaced by a giant, remote, doughnut-shaped council for the whole county. Ministers are doing this on their last day in office. They think they know best, and have the arrogance to inflict this on a community they know nothing about. I want to know whether the Minister will publish all the advice and correspondence he had before making this decision so that we can see that the only person he has listened to is the Labour Mayor of Leicester, and the rest of us can just get stuffed.

I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the vast majority of these proposals have cross-party support. We have taken the decisions about Leicestershire, as in other cases, because they are the best way to secure the economic growth that the area needs and deserves, so that we can put money in people’s pockets, eliminate duplication and invest the savings in frontline services. We are interested in protecting the services his residents rely on, even if he is not.

Reorganisation makes sense. The situation that we have now, with services split across a borough or district council and a county council, causes many issues. If a drain is blocked by leaves that are on top of the drain, it is one council; if the leaves are below the drain, it is another. We had a big fire last week, and the responsibilities were again split between two councils. As the Secretary of State knows from our conversations, it is vital that the voices of the coastal community that I represent are not overridden in this process. Can he assure me that we in Hastings and Rye will retain powers to summon certain people who deliver services, be that the academy trusts, the cabinet members for social care or for potholes, or the integrated care board? We need those powers, because right now we do not have them. Can he give me an assurance that Hastings and Rye will be at the front of the queue for those new powers?

I have visited my hon. Friend’s constituency with her on many occasions, so I know at first hand that she is one of the strongest advocates for her constituents of any Member in the House. She makes an important point there, because we do not want to lose the voice of individual towns such as Hastings and Rye within unitarisation. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 allows for what are referred to in the legislation as “area committees” but which could sit as town committees, operating as a scrutiny function, to call in the providers of public services and hold them to account within the locality that makes sense to local people.

I would say to the constituents of the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have conversations quite often—not least on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, of which he is a distinguished member—that the selections for the county were made because they best reflect the distinct economic areas that operate across the county, because they will keep services closer to residents by organising around where people live, work and travel, and because they will make the best set of proposals for attracting further inward investment into the county, which will, I am sure, benefit his constituents, as well as others across the county.

I refer the House to my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have grave concerns about the Nottingham and Nottinghamshire proposal, under which there will be an extreme deficit of a predicted nearly £150 million. Most of our areas, because of the demographics in our post-coalfield communities, are band A with high social care needs. I cannot see how this proposal will cover those costs. The Secretary of State has talked about a rebalance; I perceive it as an imbalance. A city solution will sacrifice my communities, who are an hour away from Nottingham, and will not solve the problems that left-behind communities have experienced for far too long. I ask the Minister to meet as soon as possible the six Labour MPs who have expressed severe concerns about this proposal.

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for sharing her views with me in advance of this statement. Of course, I would be more than happy to ensure that the meeting she has requested goes ahead, and that she and other colleagues in the county are able to express their views directly to a Minister. I would just like to put on the record that the proposal that we accepted for Nottingham and Nottinghamshire was the most financially stable option and the best for economic growth and jobs in the area, and the option that best supports mayoral authority growth ambitions within the county. All of that will, I hope, benefit her residents and others living across the county.

What a poisoned chalice this Secretary of State is leaving for the incoming Prime Minister. I have a very specific question to put to him. A report published in The Times —online on 18 June, and in the paper the following day—stated categorically that this Secretary of State had overruled senior civil servants and lawyers from three different Departments in order to make decisions that were favoured politically by Labour council leaders. Was that report correct or was it false?

I would just remind the right hon. Gentleman, as I have said several times already today, that the vast majority of the proposals that we have accepted have cross-party support. As much as the Opposition might like to pretend that this is being done in the interests of only one party—I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman listens to some of the criticisms from the Labour Benches, too, if he thinks that is true—it is not the case. Many of the proposals were not only supported by Conservatives, but put forward by Conservatives.

I thank the Minister for his statement and for delivering the option supported by five out of seven councils in Worcestershire, including the Conservative leaders of Wychavon, Bromsgrove and my council, Redditch borough council. I am hopeful that the decision to create North and South Worcestershire unitaries will mean those two distinct communities will now be able to deliver more tailored local services and, in Redditch’s case, actually deliver a fit-for-purpose economic development plan, which we have not had for 20 years. This will not be an easy time for staff in those seven affected councils. Can the Minister assure me that the Government will provide the money and support needed to make this transition a success?

My hon. Friend is quite right to point out that the proposal we have accepted was put forward with cross-party support—the opposite of the claims of Opposition Members, who are trying to politicise a situation, when that played absolutely no part whatsoever in the decisions. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that these proposals for Worcestershire will benefit his constituents in Redditch because they will attract more inward investment, which means more jobs for the future and more money in the pockets of people living in Redditch, as well as across the rest of the beautiful county of Worcestershire. I have announced additional funding for every area going through reorganisation to ensure that services—particularly those used by the most vulnerable—can safely transition to the new organisations that will be responsible for them from April 2028.

The dictionary definition of gerrymandering is the manipulation of boundaries to suit a particular party, and decision after decision after decision in Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and many, many more have, surprisingly, been the local Labour party’s proposal. Is the Secretary of State aware that the decisions made around the local government reorganisation have directly contradicted the very criteria set by the Government and, as such, will result in multiple judicial reviews?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the vast majority of the proposals I have accepted have cross-party support. If he has been listening to these exchanges so far, but he will have noticed that not every single Labour Member supports every single decision that I am making, which rather contradicts the case that he is trying to make.

So much has been said across north Staffordshire about local government reorganisation, but it is important that we deal with facts. Can the Secretary of State please outline, in simple terms, how reorganising our local councils will benefit residents across Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove, whether they are in Mow Cop or Milton, Butt Lane or Baddeley Green, Talke or Tunstall, or anywhere in between?

I recognise what a powerful champion my hon. Friend is for his constituents. The decision we took on Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent was taken because it is the best for economic growth and housing. Those are two of the great challenges facing the county and his constituents, and we need to tackle them. We want to support his constituency, so that we see more investment coming in, which will bring in the jobs that local people want. That will give them a better future and put money in their pockets. We want to expand prosperity to every single part of this country, including to his constituents, for whom he is such a powerful champion.

The Secretary of State claims that decisions reflect local identities. Well, I can advise him that the majority of my constituents and those living in rural Devon would highly disagree. Instead, we have an urban Labour stitch-up that ignores the plethora of rural voices who oppose Plymouth and Exeter’s land-grab plans and creates a rural council that would be two and a half hours from north to south and two hours wide. Is he also aware that he is creating a two-tier system? Parish precepts are likely to remain on the bills of South Hams residents, who will be paying higher council tax than the city dwellers. Does the Secretary of State agree that this bakes in inequality from day one?

I am afraid to say to the hon. Lady that the south-west is sadly one of the poorest regions in the country, and her party left it that way. We are reorganising local government, and in the case of Devon we are doing so in a way that best aligns boundaries with economic geographies and transport planning so that we can get investment into Devon, which will bring the jobs that her constituents need and put money in their pockets. She may be against that, but Labour Members want to see her constituents prosper.

I welcome the model proposed for Hertfordshire, with four unitary authorities. Very importantly for me and my constituency, it keeps Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City together, and I am looking forward to working even more closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia). It makes sense because of the A1(M) corridor and our shared history of new towns and garden cities. Would my right hon. Friend agree that the single biggest benefit for residents is no longer having to navigate the complexity and confusion of a two-tier council system? We will have one council and one point of accountability for the delivery of services.

I have had the pleasure of visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency with him. Indeed, I know the county very well because it is where I was brought up. He is absolutely right. The savings that we will realise through local government reorganisation will be ploughed straight back into the frontline services that he and his constituents care about the most. They will see a benefit from that, and greater inward investment. That will bring further jobs and opportunities that people in Hertfordshire deserve.

If we had to have change, I thank the Secretary of State for listening to the vast majority of people Gloucestershire and coming up with the best proposal that was on the table. However, my real worry about all this—we have done a lot of work on the Public Accounts Committee on it—is what happens if small councils that have financial problems are merged into one big council. A number of small financial problems makes one very big financial problem. He really has to consider that when thinking about how we go forward with local government in the future.

I believe that the option we have selected was the one supported by the Conservative party in Gloucestershire. We selected it because it was the strongest and most stable option, and presented the strongest financial case. There will be savings coming through this process, and they can be ploughed back into improving the frontline services that residents in Gloucestershire want to see running far better. It is good to know that they have the hon. Gentleman’s support in seeking to achieve that.

Order. Can I make another exhortation for short questions, please?

I welcome the four-unitary model for Devon, as I think it best serves the interests of everyone across Devon. This has been a long time in the making for Exeter. It has been increasingly unsustainable to retain Exeter—an economic driver of the region—as a district council. Does the Minister agree that this proposal will allow Exeter to better drive sustainable economic growth, jobs and opportunity, and will mean that decision making is better represented by the people in my city?

I have visited Exeter and know what a great champion my hon. Friend is for his constituents, who live in what is surely one of the most beautiful cities in the country. It has such growth potential, and this proposal will benefit the people living there. The proposal that we have accepted for Devon will allow Exeter to achieve its true potential, as part of a Devon that can also achieve its wider potential. We cannot allow the south-west to continue to be one of the poorest regions of the country. People living there deserve the same opportunities as people who live in wealthier parts of the country.

This could be worse for Torbay unitary authority. However, it is a catastrophic carve-up for Devon, led by Exeter and Plymouth—both Labour councils—and driven forward by a Labour Minister, which will result in a rural rump in Devon. Can the Minister please advise us on his belief as to the financial viability of this rural rump of Devon?

Financial viability was one of the key criteria against which we assessed all the proposals, and we selected the most viable options in all cases where that was before us. We would certainly not have accepted proposals that were not financially viable. I believe that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will benefit from the proposals because of the inward investment that will be brought into Devon, the jobs it will attract and the money that will be put into local people’s pockets. I know that he and I share a determination to correct the economic imbalances that hold back people who are living in Devon. They deserve more access to opportunity. Thanks to these proposals, that is what they will get.

I thank the Secretary of State and his officials for all their hard work. I lobbied hard for a single unitary in Warwickshire, and I know that is not the decision that he has been made. There is pretty much near unanimity among politicians and officials at Rugby borough council and Warwickshire county council. Will the Secretary of State ensure that he looks at the disparities around tax income in the north of the county versus the amount of expenditure on services? Will he also ensure that towns and parish councils get a proper role, and that the role of MPs is protected, because it sometimes feels as though our role is diminished in this new ecosystem of government?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I recognise what a strong champion he is for his constituents. I am sorry that he did not get his preferred option in this case. We had to select the option that we believe will be best, against the criteria that we have published. He is quite right to be concerned about the voice of people living in distinct areas in the county. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 allows for area committees or town committees that can operate with the councillors who are elected on to the unitary operating within that particular locality. They can act as a scrutiny committee and call in those responsible for public services or other decisions affecting the town or rural area. That way, they can really champion their needs and hold to account those who are taking the decisions.

When a Minister comes to the House on the last day before summer recess to announce proposals that his own MPs describe as “utterly unacceptable”, “sacrificing their communities” and “a disgrace”, and other proposals such as those for Cambridgeshire are put on hold, it is a clear sign of a flawed process. He has given no detail as to how long the delay is for Cambridgeshire or what the additional information he is now seeking is. Will he publish that today, or will residents in Cambridgeshire be left in the lurch over the summer, not knowing for how long this farce will go on, or what further information is being sought?

In the case of Peterborough and Cambridgeshire, it is right that we take the time to get the decision absolutely right. I offer reassurance to the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents that our full intention is that the election schedule for 2027 will go ahead as timetabled and that the new unitaries will come into force in April 2028.

I am a strong proponent of unitaries, given that the root-cause of many of the problems in my constituency is the fact that we have districts and the county council. There is no perfect solution for anywhere, and everywhere is special, but Kent has a lot of elements that are particularly special. We have three coasts, links to the continent and the rest of the country and, in my constituency, two industrial towns that are completely outwith the rest of the county’s economy. There are challenges around the decision that was made, particularly where transport links and NHS boundaries do not line up. Also, because the constituency has been separated from the rest of the Thames estuary, we are missing out on huge economic potential. Will the Secretary of State outline what we will do to accelerate devolution powers to Kent and my constituency—particularly to ensure that we are creative so that we do not just follow the medieval boundaries but maybe bring in some emergency development corporations so that we can bridge the gap?

Order. That really is enough.

I thank my hon. Friend for the creativity in his proposals, which would further benefit his constituents and Kent. I am happy to ensure that he has a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss those. The option that we have accepted for Kent gives us the best alignment with functional urban areas and allows us to attract inward investment that will benefit people in his constituency and right across the county. However, I am happy to discuss some of the other ideas that he has just put forward.

Residents, local leaders and businesses in South Cambridgeshire have been left in limbo by the last-minute announcement that the Government cannot yet determine the optimal option for Cambridgeshire’s local government reorganisation. Does the Secretary of State understand the chaos that risks causing in one of the fastest-growing places in the country? Will he reassure me and local leaders that he will build on local successes, partnerships and the robustly evidenced proposals put forward, rather than on a proposal that smacks of irrational gerrymandering?

I hope the hon. Lady will agree that we should take the time to get it right, rather than rush into a decision that I do not think would be right at the moment. The intention is that the elections will go ahead in 2027 as scheduled. The final decision will be brought forward as early as possible after the summer recess, so people in her constituency and elsewhere in the county can know with certainty how they are moving forward.

My role as an MP is to speak up on behalf of my constituents in Peterborough. The mess of local government is not the reason for the announcement today; it is the decade of austerity, cuts and underfunding of places such as Peterborough that has left us in the sorry mess that local government finds itself in. Peterborough is the fastest-growing city in Cambridgeshire, yet we have already heard two Members who are part of our reorganisation not even talk about my city and instead just talk about Cambridgeshire as a whole. One of our troubles is that successive Government policies have sought to erase Peterborough from the map by talking just about development in Cambridgeshire and Cambridge, and forgetting that we are the biggest city in the county and an engine of growth. Will the Secretary of State reassure me that we will know the criteria soon, that economic growth will be part of that, and that economic growth will happen in all parts of our ceremonial county, not just in Cambridge?

I have had the great pleasure of visiting Peterborough with my hon. Friend on many occasions. He is always very powerful in putting forward the case for the city and the people who live there, and that includes, as he has just shown, his determination to ensure that Peterborough continues to grow in a way that will bring in jobs and investment and put more money in the pockets of his constituents. He is quite right to point to fair funding, because that has corrected unfair funding settlements for Peterborough over a very long time. The final decision on Cambridgeshire and Peterborough will be brought to this House as early as possible after the summer recess. It is important that we get the decision right rather than rush it now, but I will ensure that he is fully involved in those conversations as we move forward.

I live in my patch and I know that there will be genuine local fury at the contempt this Government have shown for my constituents in approving a Leicester city land grab, which has cross-party opposition locally. I have been clear throughout, as have my local councillors and my residents, in our opposition to a Leicester city land grab that will take county communities such as Syston, Thurmaston, Queniborough, Barkby and Beeby into the city and see local residents paying more tax for almost certainly less in the way of services. I continue to oppose what the Secretary of State has announced today, so I have a simple question for him: what makes him think that the views of the Labour Leicester city mayor are worth more than the views of thousands of my constituents?

As the right hon. Gentleman will have heard during the statement, there are reasonable people who support and oppose various decisions that we are taking today, but it is important that we move forward. In the case of Leicester and Leicestershire, the option that we have selected is the one that will best allow economic growth in that county. That is how we bring in the jobs and the opportunities that will put more money in the pockets of his constituents. I hope that, in time, he will come to welcome that.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement confirming the outcome for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. With three very different options on the table, it is inevitable, as we have heard, that there will be opposing views on the outcome. My priority throughout this process has been to secure the best outcome for North West Leicestershire, in services such as planning, highways, housing, care and buses, and to make navigating the complex system of local government that much easier for residents. However, the biggest barrier to growth for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland is being without a mayor. Will the Secretary of State outline how devolution powers can be delivered post local government reorganisation?

I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which she champions her constituents, whom she so ably represents. She is quite right: one of the key reasons for local government reorganisation is to streamline local government so that areas right across England are ready for mayoral devolution and the additional powers that will come with that in due course. That benefits people across the country where they already have those powers, and I want to see it extended right across the country, including to her constituents.

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am an East Cambridgeshire district councillor. There will clearly be a great deal of uncertainty across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. Has the Secretary of State considered additional funding for the electoral staff who are planning for elections in May, which the Secretary of State says he intends will go ahead, when they do not know the boundary of the council, let alone the ward boundaries or the number of councillors? Will he also explain what process he has in place to liaise and consult with local people over the next few months to make a proper decision on what will happen in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough?

I will ensure that the decision is taken in good time for the appropriate electoral arrangements to be put in place. That will be shortly after the summer recess. The council will then be able to prepare for those elections. As I made clear in my statement, there is a record amount of money available for transitioning services into the new authorities, which her constituents and her constituency will also benefit from.

Local Amber Valley leaders and I support devolution, but we are incredibly concerned about the decision to split Amber Valley between two unitary authorities, particularly because the option selected was not subject to public consultation. It also places a huge burden on Amber Valley borough council during the reorganisation, with double the amount of work. I am thinking about my constituents and their absolute right to excellent public services throughout the process, and the Secretary of State will know, through my many representations, of my concern about capacity to deliver the change. My local authority is considering the next steps, and the Secretary should know that that includes all options available to them. I am pleased to hear about the capacity funding—

Order. The hon. Lady needs to ask a question, as indeed do all Members, as quickly as possible, because this is taking a very long time.

Will the Secretary of State give a commitment that the lion’s share of the capacity funding for Derbyshire will go to Amber Valley, given that we are the most affected?

I can attest to the fact that my hon. Friend is a powerful and frequent advocate for her constituents in Amber Valley. The option that we have accepted is the one that best supports economic growth across the county. That will best support her constituents’ ambitions and aspirations for themselves, their children and their communities. It was also the one that we believed best reflected Derbyshire’s north-south geographies and economies. I am always happy to ensure that she has a meeting with relevant Ministers to discuss any further concerns that she has.

With a stroke of his Whitehall pen, the Secretary of State has just abolished Malvern Hills district council, Worcester city council, wonderful Wychavon district council and Worcestershire county council. He said in his statement that this is about making “real improvements to people’s lives and…communities”. Can he explain how it will help with the situation faced by my constituents, in which two major highways in west Worcestershire have collapsed and the council has no plan to repair them? This chaos is surely going to slow that down.

It is regrettable that the hon. Lady appears to be defending a system with so much duplication that money is being wasted on multiple tiers of senior officers when it could be saved and ploughed back into the frontline services that might address the very concern that she is talking about. Labour Members and I want to see public money spent on frontline services, not wasted on duplication. I urge her to consider that what she advocates would see more waste and less money available for her constituents.

Like many in Cannock Chase, I am glad that this reorganisation, which no one asked for and no one voted for, is finally nearing its conclusion. It is fair to say there was not a whole lot of consensus on council boundaries in Staffordshire, but there is consensus on wanting a combined authority, so that we can seize the opportunities open to other parts of England and turbocharge growth in our incredible county. Will the Secretary of State give me some reassurance that we can get on with this as quickly as possible, for the benefit of the people of Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent?

As always, my hon. Friend is powerfully advocating for his constituents. The option we selected is the one that is the best for growth. It will support opportunities in Stoke-on-Trent and Cannock Chase, bringing in investment and creating new job opportunities, so that people living in the area can access the same opportunities that people in other parts of the country take for granted but that people in his county have been denied for far too long. We are here, and he is here, to change that.

It is astonishing that the decision for West Sussex has been postponed yet again. I understand that local council leaders received the information only this morning, in a six-minute phone call during which they were not allowed to ask questions. There is a high degree of consensus about what to do, but the Labour group on the south coast wishes to gerrymander a coastal authority that would be unviable from day one—the very thing about which the Secretary of State professes to be concerned. Will he, or his successor, have a meeting with all local leaders before we commit ourselves to this disastrous decision?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there was a re-consultation on the situation in West Sussex, and an awful lot of stakeholders across the county submitted evidence. He would surely agree that it is only right and respectful that we take the time to consider all those proposals, rather than ignoring them and taking a decision without listening to what local people have said.

I thank the Minister for his statement. The option taken for Nottingham and Nottinghamshire sees Broxtowe borough council split in two; Eastwood and Brinsley will sit in the county and the rest of the borough will form part of the Greater Nottingham authority. What consideration has he given to the additional difficulties that splitting up an area will cause for our public services and electoral services?

I remind my hon. Friend of the additional funding that is available for transitional arrangements; that is a recognition of the challenges that she has just described. The option we have selected for Nottingham and Nottinghamshire is the one that is the most financially sustainable and the best for economic growth. We cannot allow the wide economic chasms across this country, which the Conservative party did nothing about, to continue. Her constituents deserve far better futures than those left to them by the Conservatives.

The Secretary of State has announced that there will be a delay to the decision in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. Most Cambridgeshire and Peterborough MPs are in the Chamber, but he has not gone into more detail on the reasons for the delay. What specific issues are causing a delay to the decision in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough?

The Secretary of State also mentioned that the election timeline will be stuck to, so when will the structural changes order need to be made for Cambridgeshire to ensure that the elections can be delivered? Finally, he offered the hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) a meeting to further discuss these concerns; will he extend the same courtesy to me?

I am happy to extend the opportunity of a meeting to the hon. Gentleman so that he can make clear his views. It is important that we take time to get decisions right in cases where I am not satisfied that the information available is sufficient, so we are doing that. We will make the announcements in due course, and the elections will go ahead as scheduled in 2027.

I have so often been frustrated when constituents come to me with their problems with a district council, a borough council or the county council, and the councils pass the buck between them, so I am a strong advocate of people having a single unitary council. I am particularly pleased that the decision for Hertfordshire is a new central authority that goes along the A1(M) corridor, which would be great for our local economy. That is a major undertaking, so what review of the benefits and challenges of reorganisation will there be in the years ahead?

My hon. Friend is a very powerful champion for Stevenage, and I have had the pleasure of visiting the constituency with him on numerous occasions. He is right to point to the many problems that come with duplication and the benefits of eliminating it. Buckinghamshire council estimates that it costs it £30,000 just to tell people that they have phoned the wrong council. That money will now be available in that county, and similar amounts will be available in other areas going through a reorganisation, to invest in frontline services. That will benefit his constituents.

The way we will measure the benefits of the changes is through improved frontline public services. I have also announced proposals for an outcomes framework and a neighbourhood guarantee, so that my hon. Friend and residents can see for themselves how well their services are performing compared with other councils in the area and across the country.

Essex is a county of nearly 2 million people who are opposed to Labour’s plans by more than two to one, yet in a train-crash statement that has lasted more than an hour, the Secretary of State has not referred to Essex once. What on earth is going on in Essex? We are going to have shadow elections in May, but we may not know until autumn which councils are having the elections. When will we learn what is happening in Essex? Is there any chance at all, given the overwhelming public opposition, that he will drop the whole barmy proposal?

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that I made the announcements about Essex in a previous statement—perhaps he was not paying attention, but he should have been. I am sorry, as well, that he is against the savings that this will deliver, which will be invested in the frontline services that his residents will benefit from. When that funding goes in, perhaps he would like to write to his residents to tell them that he opposed the additional funding for those public services, and that it is Labour that put the money in.

What are you doing in Essex?

Order. Mr Francois!

He did not make a—

Order. Good temper and moderation are called for at all times in this Chamber.

I welcome today’s decision, which brings an end to decades of destabilising indecision across Warwickshire, and I thank the Government for being decisive. The decision, which has cross-party support from four of the five districts in Warwickshire, will empower North Warwickshire to focus on growth, investment and funding to meet the needs of our communities, and allow us to be the masters of our own destiny. A previous report raised concerns about sustainability—this was before the Government’s generous settlement under fair funding—so can the Secretary of State reassure my residents that financial assessments were done in full before considering the options?

I thank my hon. Friend for recognising the benefit to her constituents from eliminating duplication and putting the savings into the frontline services that her residents care about—it is a shame that the shouty Members on the Opposition Benches do not care about their constituents in the same way as she cares about hers. Of course, financial viability was one of the key criteria that we took into account in accepting the proposals that we are putting forward today.

What chaos in Sussex! The West Sussex decision has been delayed, and splitting East Sussex is okay according to the Secretary of State. My constituency is the only one that covers both East and West Sussex in its current form. It is a dog’s breakfast. It is unclear on special educational needs and disabilities and adult social care. In the letter sent to me today there was no clarity on the Sussex mayoralty. There is uncertainty on elections. The one thing that is certain is that Labour and Lib Dem proposals are priorities. Why have the Secretary of State and this Department shifted so far from the initial proposals that we in Sussex considered in good faith? Surely that explains why so many people feel that this is such a huge mess.

The proposals we are bringing forward are the best for economic growth and for savings, which we can plough into the frontline services that I believe the hon. Member’s residents care about the most. I have said on a number of occasions already that the reason for the delay in West Sussex is that there was a reconsultation. We have had a huge amount of responses to that. I want to show those people who took the time to share their views the respect of considering them before we come forward with final proposals. She referred to social care services. We have announced £1 million of transitional funding for all areas undergoing a reorganisation, so that we can guarantee that services come through local government reorganisation in a stronger position than they went into it.

My constituency straddles both the proposed Staffordshire unitaries quite substantially. I welcome the creation of a North Staffordshire unitary—an area that has a long-held identity and significant growth potential—but opting for the smaller proposal for North Staffordshire and creating one much larger Southern Staffordshire unitary does create some concerns. I know that my Stone rural villages, such as Swynnerton and Oulton, will be happy with today’s announcement, but can the Secretary of State reassure my Stone rural constituents that they will be heard equally sitting north of Stafford, as they will be in the large southern unitary, and that the proposed smaller North Staffordshire unitary will be an equal member in the strategic authority following devolution?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, her constituents in both the areas she refers to deserve and will have their voices heard. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 allows for the establishment of area committees or town committees—whatever they want to call them—on which the councillors representing the area on the unitary can come together and operate a scrutiny function through which they can advocate for that area. That will give them a voice that I am sure she will ensure they are helped to use.

Devolution can succeed only when it reflects real economic opportunity, not when boundaries are drawn around the communities facing the greatest challenges. I ask the Minister why my constituency’s council, Blackburn with Darwen, covering an area already facing high levels of deprivation, is being grouped with other councils that suffer equally from very high levels of deprivation. Why is Ribble Valley excluded from these proposals? There is cross-party consensus and consensus across my constituency and other constituencies that this is a stitch-up. All the Government are doing is lumping together deprived communities and areas. This plan will not work, so I ask the Minister to reconsider his proposals.

I respectfully urge the hon. Member to remember that fair funding reforms have aligned funding with deprivation. Under the previous Government, only three out of 10 areas got funding that aligned with levels of deprivation and need. Now it is over nine out of 10—a far better outcome for the entire country. The decision we have taken for Lancashire, including Blackburn with Darwen, is the best option for economic growth and investment in the infrastructure, which will create jobs and put money in the pockets of his constituents.

I have long advocated for Warwickshire to be served by two unitary councils, so I am absolutely delighted that the Secretary of State has listened. It is the model that is rooted in our place-based, problem-solving approach. It makes the most sense for the way people access local services, and it gives my constituents the best opportunities for transport, growth and jobs. My constituents have not been served well by Warwick, so I look forward to working with my hon. Friends the Members for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) and for Rugby (John Slinger) to help make our new council the best it can be for all our residents. Will the Minister outline what support the Department will provide to us and our council through the reorganisation process?

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and her support for the changes being brought in, which, indeed, she has long advocated for. As a powerful advocate for her area, she will ensure that the changes happen successfully. Up to £1 million is available for each area undergoing reorganisation, to ensure that services transition safely and securely into the new organisations that will be responsible for running them.

I have long been a proponent of the principles of LGR, which Lancashire and my constituents have desperately needed for a long time. It is a chance to reinvent local government. However, today, in respect of a decision made by the Secretary of State, I have to associate myself with the comments made by my parliamentary neighbours, my hon. Friends the Members for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) and for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith). I cannot accept the suggestion—the claim—that these boundaries match the natural economics of Lancashire. It will leave us with the most deprived local authority area in the country. We are good at making the best of things, so I ask the Secretary of State to work with me and us to bring in the much more significant capacity and capability funding that we need to reverse that deprivation and catch up with neighbouring places, such as Manchester. Will he meet me and east Lancashire colleagues to drive this forward with urgency?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and his powerful advocacy for his constituents. The changes we are making are, in part, intended to lay the framework for the mayoral devolution that will follow. That will provide significant new powers for Lancashire when it comes. I am happy to ensure that he gets the meeting he has asked for.

I am proud to represent Portsmouth, whose local people want their pride reflected in the name of the reorganised local council. Both Portsmouth MPs and, I believe, councils representing over 75% of residents, support including Portsmouth in the name. It would be laughable, if it was not so awful, that the new name being publicly criticised by the council is the one that was submitted by Portsmouth city council itself. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time for the Liberal Democrat council to stop playing political games, stop scaremongering, stop wasting time and—I know it might be hard for them—be honest with residents about this process? Will he help me ensure that Portsmouth is indeed in the name of the new unitary council, because it is so important?

I have had the great pleasure of visiting Portsmouth with my hon. Friend on several occasions, so I have seen at first hand what a powerful champion she is for her constituents. She has raised this point with me previously. I am more than happy to ensure that she has a meeting with me or another appropriate Minister to discuss her very legitimate concerns.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This morning, the Department arranged an official briefing for Members about what was going to happen to their communities, but Leicestershire Conservative MPs were not invited. I have seen the schedule, and we are not on the list. I thought it was a rule of this House that MPs should be told everything at the same time, yet some appear to be more equal than others. Can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what redress we can seek?

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair, but he has put his point on the record. I am sure the Secretary of State will have heard his comments, and if a correction is needed, he will make it.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I call Oliver Ryan.

—Michael Payne.

I simply seek to correct the record. I should have, when I made a contribution in the statement, drawn attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving Gedling borough councillor. I seek through this point of order to correct the record.

Perhaps I also need to correct the record—it has been a long summer already.

I thank the hon. Member for correcting the record in that way as it did pertain to this particular statement.