PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
English Devolution and Local Government - 5 February 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With permission, I would like to update the House on devolution in England and local government reorganisation.

The No. 1 mission of this Government is to unlock growth in our regions and put money back in the pockets of working people. Every one of our proud towns and cities has a vital contribution to make to growth, but for all the promises of levelling up, when the rubber hits the road, Governments’ first instincts have been to hoard power and hold our economy back. Since I launched the devolution White Paper in December, I have been overwhelmed by the excitement from communities wanting to join the devolution revolution. With the measures I will announce today, if all goes to plan, over 44 million people will see the benefits of devolution, which is close to 80% of the country. That is more progress in a shorter amount of time than under any Government in Britain’s history.

Today, I am delighted to announce six new potential devolution areas that will be part of our devolution priority programme with a view to mayoral elections in May 2026. These places will get a fast-track ticket to drive real change in their area. While devolution can sound techie, the outcome is simple. It is a plan for putting more money in people’s pockets, a plan for quicker, better, cheaper transport designed with local people in mind, and a plan for putting politics back in the service of working people. Today, I can confirm to Members across the House that the places on the devolution priority programme are: Cumbria; Cheshire and Warrington; Greater Essex; Hampshire and Solent; Norfolk and Suffolk; and Sussex and Brighton. Mr Speaker, a seventh area that is somewhat familiar to both of us, Lancashire, is already deciding its mayoral devolution options, and we will look at its proposals in the autumn in parallel with the priority programme.

When I became Deputy Prime Minister, I promised that this Government would change the future of the north of England so that northerners would no longer be dictated to from Whitehall. The programme I announce today will see the north of England covered by devolution, but this programme is for all of England, as is shown by the significant progress in the east and the south. Today, legislation comes into force creating mayoral devolution in Greater Lincolnshire and in Hull and East Yorkshire, which are electing their first mayors this May, as well as foundational devolution in Lancashire and in Devon and Torbay.

Every place can see a benefit from devolution, and we want to move quickly to realise these benefits within the first term of our Government. Whether it is more regular bus services, more affordable housing or the simple fact that local people will have a local champion with regional influence, mayors have a proven track record of delivering growth and higher living standards. But we are clear that where a mayor is not using their powers to benefit their residents, the Government will have the tools to ensure delivery. We will create strong accountability measures in the English devolution Bill to ensure that mayors deliver the housing, transport and infrastructure that their residents need.

But devolution is only as strong as the foundations it is built on. Despite the funding injection from this Government, councils of all political stripes are in crisis. A decade of cuts and sticky-plaster politics has left councils in a 14-year doom loop. That is why we are fixing the foundations of local government by reforming funding and focusing on prevention. I know how vital local government is for achieving our Government missions. I also know that reforming local government means tough choices—choices that the Conservatives were simply too unwilling to take.

Councillors of all types, including district councillors, tell me that the two-tier system is not working, so alongside our wider reforms, this Government are committed to making simpler, more efficient and clearer structures so that residents can access good public services without eye-watering price tags. These kinds of reforms will not happen overnight, but we are determined to deliver fairer funding to end the postcode lottery so that everyone gets the support from public services that they deserve. That is why today I will be issuing a legal invitation to all 21 two-tier areas to submit proposals for new unitary councils. Letters and the accompanying written statement will set out the requirements for these proposals.

New unitary structures will be the right size to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks, but I am clear about the need for flexibility when reorganisation goes hand in hand with mayoral devolution and when it is coupled with ambitious plans for housing growth, so these proposals will be developed with effective local engagement and dovetail with devolution arrangements. I want to reassure Members that this process will involve extensive engagement with local communities and Members of this House.

Turning to the timings of the local elections in May, for certain areas a significant amount of work is needed to unlock devolution and deliver reorganisation. For this reason, some areas requested to postpone their elections until May 2026. The Government’s starting point is for all elections to go ahead unless there is a strong justification for postponement. The bar is high, and rightly so. I am agreeing to only half of the requests that were made. After careful consideration, I have agreed to postpone elections only in places where this is central to our manifesto promise to deliver devolution.

We are not in the business of holding elections to bodies that will not exist, and where we do not know what will replace them. This would be an expensive and irresponsible waste of taxpayers’ money, and any party calling for those elections to go ahead must explain how this waste would be justifiable. To that end, I have agreed to postpone local elections in East Sussex and West Sussex, in Essex and Thurrock, in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, and in Norfolk and Suffolk. I have also agreed to a postponement in Surrey, given the urgency of creating sustainable new unitary structures, to unlock devolution for this area. I intend to move to elections to the new shadow unitary councils in all these areas, as is the usual arrangement for local government reorganisation.

We are postponing elections for one year, from May 2025 to May 2026. There is a well-established precedent, as the Conservative party knows all too well. North Yorkshire, Cumbria, Somerset, Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire all had their elections rescheduled by the previous Government. I will table the relevant secondary legislation when parliamentary time allows, and local elections will take place as scheduled in all other areas. I make it clear that all two-tier areas should be making plans to move to simpler structures, regardless of election delays. The invitation will be sent to all two-tier areas, with a timetable taking into account that their election has been delayed.

I know that the devolution journey may not always be comfortable for politicians in Whitehall, but it is not supposed to be. After all, we are undergoing a generational power shift from Whitehall to the town hall. We have already seen a huge amount of good will from Labour Secretaries of State who are willing to give up newly won powers for the sake of our towns and cities. The Secretaries of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, for Transport, for Work and Pensions for Science, Innovation and Technology have led the devolution charge, and now the Prime Minister and I ask Members to do the same.

I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for giving me advance sight of it.

Although we support the principle of devolving power to local areas, we are totally against the Secretary of State’s plans to abolish every county council and district council in England, and we are against the unprecedented mass postponement of local elections for at least one year. Today is a very worrying day for democracy in this country.

The Secretary of State is making local government less accountable to the people and more accountable to her. Contrary to her statement, she is not doing away with a two-tier system; she is simply creating a new tier of Orwellian-sounding strategic authorities that are closer to her and closer to Whitehall, for her to use as a pawn to implement this Government’s deeply unpopular socialist agenda.

The reality is that this is delegation, not devolution—not devolution but a clear centralisation. As Dr Andy Mycock of Leeds University set out in his recent paper on the Secretary of State’s plans, there are clear concerns about the potential

“power drain of back-bench local councillors if local government is seen increasingly as a delivery agent.”

Let us be clear that this announcement is a huge upheaval of local government right across the country. This was not a Government manifesto commitment, and the Secretary of State has no mandate for it. These are her choices, and she has put a gun to the head of local councils to force them into a decision with little regard for local people. This is not the invitation she claims in her statement; it is an instruction. No council should be bullied or blackmailed into local government restructuring.

Local government should be local to residents and respect local identities. We have a proud record of supporting devolution and, rather than this top-down approach, we have worked with local people to deliver devolution from the ground up. The Government have tried to claim that they are taking a bottom-up approach—indeed, the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution said exactly that on the Floor of the House on 20 January—yet the Secretary of State admits in her statement that

“all two-tier areas should be making plans to move to simpler structures”.

Imposing Whitehall diktat on local people, rather than the locally led approach we followed, is prone to problems, especially when rushed.

How exactly will this restructuring put more money into people’s pockets, as the Secretary of State claims? What evidence does she have that it will mean lower bills for taxpayers? How is this consistent with the Prime Minister’s claim in March 2023 that council tax would not increase by a “single penny” under a Labour Government?

Does the Secretary of State accept that she has no electoral mandate for this huge upheaval? Does she also accept that these changes, which will mean that every single council employee in two-tier areas has to reapply for their job, will have an impact on local services, including planning delays? How will this impact on her plans to deliver 1.5 million homes in this Parliament—a 50% increase on the 50-year record levels delivered by the previous Government?

Councils in areas of the country included in this announcement are carrying very high levels of debt—Woking and Thurrock, to name but two. What support will the Secretary of State give to authorities facing eye-watering levels of debt, and will this debt be written off? What is she doing to ensure that, as a result of today’s announcement, authorities do not embark on reckless asset disposal programmes and spending sprees? Can she confirm that elections will be delayed for a maximum of a year, or is it the case, as we have heard, that elections could be delayed by up to three years?

I have been very clear that Labour is embarking on a once-in-a-generation project to unlock growth in our regions, and to shift power out of Westminster and into local communities. From the shadow Secretary of State’s response, I cannot quite figure out whether the Conservatives agree or disagree with it.

First, this project will unlock billions of pounds to spend on frontline services, which is why councils have come forward and want to work with us to ensure that we deliver. It will be for local areas to decide whether they apply to the priority programme and respond to the statutory invitation to all two-tier areas. We have made no bones about the fact that we want to see reorganisation so that money and funding go into the public services that need it most.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman talks about money. We have put £69 billion into local authorities, which is a 6.8% real-terms increase. In contrast, there were 23% cuts in the last decade under the Conservatives. He talks about council debt, but it was his Government who pushed councils to the brink. He talks about the impact on local services, and we are working with councils to inject the money and resources they need so that they can deliver for local people. It was his Government who brought them to the brink.

I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about housing targets, because his Government failed to meet their housing targets every single year, leaving us with a housing crisis. He should be apologising for his Government’s record on housing.

We are proud of the work we are doing on devolution. We are proud that we are working with councils. We are proud that we are bigging up the work of our local authorities and, unlike the Conservatives, we will continue to support them.

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

I thank the Secretary of State for setting out the Government’s ambitions for devolution across England. I welcome the commitment to putting power into the hands of local communities, so that people feel decisions are being made with them, not to them. We have seen proposals from areas, including Essex county council, that want and welcome some of these changes, and we should respond to them. Some councils will see elections postponed but, again, 19 council areas were expanded under the last Government. The expansion of the mayoral model is welcome, building on the success of the last few years.

On tackling regional inequality, this statement includes parts of the country that, frankly, have been failed by successive Governments. These are major structural reforms to local government, and there are concerns about disruption to services during their implementation. Councils are already seeing this, and it will have an impact on the most vulnerable. Will the Secretary of State ensure that these transition arrangements do not have an impact on the essential day-to-day services on which so many of our constituents rely?

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for recognising that local councils and areas have come forward, and that this Government are responding to their requests and working with them. When I became Secretary of State, I promised them that this Government would set a different tone. We will work with local authorities and respect them, regardless of their political colours, and we will deliver for local people.

I also welcome my hon. Friend’s comments on the mayoral model; we have seen how that model has brought positive change to local areas. I acknowledge the concerns raised about capacity and local services. We are ensuring that we work with local authorities to increase support for them, so that this exercise will deliver better public local services for people and will not be to their detriment.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I thank the Secretary of State for advanced sight of her speech, but I am disappointed that we read the list of cancelled elections on social media, well before it was made available to Parliament. How was that allowed to happen?

A key pillar of our democracy is the right to vote, with people making a mark for the person they want to represent them. The Conservative councils that asked for and have been granted the right to cancel their elections have created crises in special educational needs and have let their residents down. The Conservatives should have been kicked out of county halls last May, as they were kicked out of government last summer, but now those councils have been given the right to help design the new authorities. The plan, which also signals the end of district councils, is completely undemocratic.

We welcome the move to mayoral authorities—it is in train and, as a former council leader, I know councils were already working on it—but there is no democratic mandate for the cancelling of councils in ancient cities such as Colchester and Winchester, the previous capital of England. That was not in the Labour manifesto. What active role will those districts have in the co-production of the new unitary authorities? When will those district councils cease to exist? For priority areas such as Surrey and Hampshire, what assurance will the Secretary of State give that the elections will not take place after May 2026? For places that have had their own authority for hundreds or even thousands of years, what support will be provided to develop meaningful town councils with statutory powers, so that the identity of places such as Winchester can be maintained forever?

I am disappointed when things are on social media first. I respect this House, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I have come here at the earliest opportunity to update the House.

On the cancelled elections, councillors in those areas are elected, and we have delayed for reorganisation only under exceptional circumstances, where councils have come forward. As I have made absolutely clear, the delay is for a year, from May 2025 to May 2026. As I stated earlier, I turned down many more councils because I believe that democracy is crucial. There is an active role for district councils. We are working with districts and local authorities to ensure that the consultation period and reorganisation are being done with them, not being done to them. It is incredibly important to stress that.

May I follow up on two issues? First, following the comments made by the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, while devolution arrangements are being put in place, there is still pressure on councils to deliver existing services. Will the Secretary of State look at some additional short-term funding to help council officials with that process? Secondly, in the longer term, we will need a lot of very good councillors to deliver the new authorities. Will she look once again at reinstating the right of councillors to become part of the local government pension scheme, so that people who often give up financially in order to be councillors do not have to do so in the long term, with reduced pensions?

We recognise the pressures on councils. We are delivering a real cash increase to councils, with £5 billion more in the settlement. The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution will be leading a debate on that later today. We recognise that councils had it difficult under the previous Administration, which is why we are working with them. We are giving them real-terms increases to their budgets and we want to see reorganisation that focuses on the delivery of service for the people who desperately need it.

Some of us have been around the local government reform circus on a number of occasions in the past, and I fear that the Secretary of State will find that this piecemeal approach will be disastrous. One of the oldest local government unions in the country, the Federation of Cinque Ports, may heave a sigh of relief, but I suspect that the district, city and county councils in Kent will find themselves between a rock and a hard place. We have one unitary authority—Medway—and two that we thought were going to be unitary authorities, which it now seems will not be unitary authorities, so how can the Secretary of State reassure me that we will not be left with a lot of lame duck local authorities for the foreseeable future?

First, the right hon. Gentleman cannot be old enough—surely not. I say to him gently that he also cannot have it both ways: he suggests that the reform is piecemeal, but his Front Benchers are suggesting that I am tearing down local democracy, which is just not true. Local areas are coming forward, and we are working with local councils and local areas. I have talked about the real-terms cash injection, which my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution will set out in detail later this afternoon, and about the collaborative way we want to work with local authorities. I do not see any lame duck local authorities out there; I see local authorities, of all political persuasions, delivering vital public services, that have felt absolutely pillared by the previous Government, and now we see a Government determined to change that.

I congratulate the Secretary of State and her Ministers on the work they have done on this matter, and on the exhaustive consultations that have taken place between MPs, local councillors and stakeholders—no one is being forced on this journey. We in Norwich and Norfolk are happy to be on the express elevator to devolution. After 14 years of austerity and cuts to adult social care and children’s services under the last Government, will the Secretary of State promise us that she will encourage the new local authorities to engage in co-development and co-production of those services, and that they will be taken in-house, so that we can end the privatisation and outsourcing that has ruined those services for so many years?

I thank my hon. Friend for recognising the countless rounds of consultation by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution. Dare I say it, his door is always open to all hon. Members to discuss devolution—I once called him “devo-man” at the Local Government Association conference, and I stand by that. There have been significant pressures on adult and children’s services in local government, as Members from across the House have recognised in questions to the Prime Minister and in other debates. I encourage local authorities and local services to see where they can co-design services and support people in their local areas. These measures are not about party politics or what happens here in Westminster, but about the delivery of the vital services that, critically, many people rely on day in, day out.

We are working with local areas using a bottom-up approach to delivering better public services. The right hon. Gentleman’s party pushed local authorities and local government to the brink. He should be apologising, talking to Members on his Front Bench, and getting on board by supporting devolution and local government reorganisation where it delivers for his constituents.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for her statement. I am excited that Essex, including Southend, will be part of the priority programme. I am keen that local areas should keep their local identity, so will she give us some assurances on that? With regard to opposition to local reorganisation, devolution and postponing the elections, the Tories on Essex county council are fully supportive of our programme. Will she provide assurances that delaying the elections is right for democracy and for the taxpayer, because it will save funds in areas where local authorities will not exist in several months’ time?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; there is no point having elections to a body that will not exist in 12 months’ time. That would cost huge sums of taxpayers’ money, which, quite frankly, is not warranted. He is also absolutely right to recognise that the Conservatives in Essex were the ones to come forward. I commend them for that, and for wanting to reorganise and see better services and power put into their local area. On his point about local identity, that will absolutely be the case. I am a Mancunian, but I am also from Tameside. Having a mayor and being part of the combined authority has not stopped Tamesiders being proud of our local area.

Disappointingly, the Heart of Wessex devolution deal was not included in the priority programme, despite the region being well placed to support the Government’s growth objectives and showing national resilience in clean energy, defence, digital technologies and food security. Can the Secretary of State confirm the options available for regions that are not in the priority programme but wish to move at pace to enable them to deliver and benefit from devolution?

I thank the hon. Member for recognising the positivity that devolution can unlock for local areas. The deal she mentions was not included in this round because it was not developed enough. However, I urge Members and those local areas to continue to work with the Government because we want to deliver for them and we will continue to make sure we can deliver devolution across the whole of England.

As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, councils such as Bradford have been cut to the bone. We have lost £350 million—60% of our funding—since 2010, forcing impossible cuts in social care, in homelessness support, and in special educational needs and disabilities services. The reality is that 14 years of Tory failure have resulted in our communities being devastated and our services decimated. Even though additional council tax flexibility has been granted to places such as Bradford, that is no long-term solution. Frankly, it is not fair on residents to have to pick up the tab for 14 years of Tory failure. Will my right hon. Friend confirm how the Government will deliver a long-term sustainable settlement to put councils on a stable financial footing, which must reflect real need?

My hon. Friend is right to categorise what the Conservatives have done to local authorities, and it is not party political to say that; many councils of all different political persuasions will say that the way the previous Government went about local government was not to respect them and not to fund them. We recognise the vital public services that local government delivers and we recognise what it does. The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution will be setting out our plans to give sustainable funding for local government into the future, because we recognise that local government is vitally important and consider its work to be critical to this Government’s mission.

May I invite the Secretary of State to publish the evidence that the local government reorganisations will actually, in the long run, save money? There is none, unless she can publish hard evidence. May I also ask her to heed the warnings of the Chair and former Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee—the hon. Members for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) respectively—who warn about the disruption of abolishing two-tier local government; that it will be a mess; and that the Secretary of State will have to fund that mess out of central Government funding, because otherwise there will be more cuts in public services to pay for the reorganisation? Which is it to be?

The hon. Gentleman should speak to his colleagues in Dorset, because they have made savings and they understand what local government reorganisation can deliver. We have seen that up and down the country. His party used to believe in devolution, and we have seen how that can deliver for local areas and we can save money. This is not just about saving money, however; this is about creating devolution and pushing power out of Whitehall into the town halls so that mayors and local authorities can deliver public services that are responsive to local areas’ needs. That is what we are trying to deliver from the bottom up, working with local authorities. The hon. Gentleman should get on board.

I will take a moment to thank the many council leaders and staff from across my area who have worked tirelessly to remove barriers and blocks in order to get a deal for Bedford, Luton, Milton Keynes and Central Bedfordshire. Unfortunately—and possibly proving the argument for why we, more than any other, need devolution—those council leaders and staff have come into contact with a Government Department that has not tried to move barriers out of the way, but has instead put them in the way of achieving the devolution deal that we want and we know is needed for our region.

Let me be perfectly clear. We know that this Government want to build 1.5 million homes. In a place that is building more homes than almost anywhere else in the country, we could have contributed to that, but the situation I mention will put some barriers in the way of doing so. In a place with one of the most incredible economies in the country, we could have made a contribution, but we are unable to do so. Can the Secretary of State therefore let us know whether she will look again at whether the Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes offer can move forward, so that we can get the deal in place by 2026?

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I also welcome and reiterate his thanks to council leaders who have come forward; I thank them for working with us, and we will continue to do so. The proposals needed further development, but we will work to achieve devolution across the whole of England. The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution will happily continue to meet my hon. Friend and council leaders to develop their proposals.

Under the proposals, Hampshire county council will be scrapped, as will Fareham borough council. Of more pressing concern to residents in Fareham, however, is Hampshire county council’s worrying proposals to close Henry Cort community college, a valuable and popular secondary school, which would disrupt the education of hundreds of local children and families. Given the significant reorganisation to Hampshire county council, is it not right that the proposals should be stopped so that the views of local communities and parents can properly be fed into the process?

The closure of the community college is nothing to do with local government reorganisation or the work that we are setting out today. I kindly remind the right hon. and learned Member that in the previous 14 years her Government took a sledgehammer to local government, which was hit hard by the cuts. Where there was a 23% cut in the last decade, we have given a 6.8% cash terms increase to local authorities, which will hopefully help to turn the tide against the devastation they faced under her Government.

I wholeheartedly welcome the reforms and, importantly, the funding injection, which will help councils to rebuild after 14 years of disastrous Tory austerity. Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that her Department will move to longer-term funding settlements for local authorities as soon as possible, giving financial certainty and helping to deliver local services for local people?

Yes, absolutely. I am really pleased that my hon. Friend welcomes the cash injection to councils. However, I also recognise, and I will say this in the House today, that councils are facing unprecedented pressures on their services. Demand is up and councils have had 14 years of devastation under the Conservatives. That is why we want to work with councils. We recognise the pressures that they are under, and we want to see longer-term funding settlements and to put them on a sustainable footing for the future. That is the difference between this Labour Government that will work with councils and the Tories that cut them.

I, too, thank the Deputy Prime Minister for ending the uncertainty around the Gloucestershire county council elections taking place this May. Bearing that in mind, will she set out a clear timetable for those two-tier counties such as Gloucestershire as to when they are expected to provide proposals on any wish to change? Will she also confirm that the county council elected in May this year will serve a full four-year term of office?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. On the certainty that he and local leaders have requested, we will set out a timetable and are writing to all MPs and local areas. As I gently said before, we are trying to work with areas. This is not about us pushing down; it is about us working with local leaders and delivering for local people. We will set out that timetable and work with local areas around that.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her commitment to ending the farcical situation that we have had for a very long time in Hastings and Rye. We have two tiers of local government, which means that when a resident comes to me to talk about a blocked drain, I have to ask them exactly where the leaves are. If they are the top of the drain, it is the responsibility of the borough council; if they are below the grill, it is that of the county council. I welcome her commitment to ending that farcical situation and making services more efficient for residents, but as we embark on this process in East Sussex, I ask her to hear the voices of our seaside communities and to make sure that, when we are designing a unitary authority footprint, it is of a size that works for our communities and that allows us to tackle the inequalities that they face. Will she comment specifically on what size this Government may consider for unitary authorities?

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and for her contribution about what it is like at local level for people, including in Hastings and Rye, when they have a two-tier system in place. I can reassure her about what we are trying to do in terms of the size of the unitary authority. It is not a hard target. We recognise that certain areas may have different needs. This is a way of progressing, and we will work with local areas to look at what their needs are and then adapt. This is not set in stone—we are not saying, “It must be this.” It is about trying to get an idea of a ballpark figure for the size of the authority, but, obviously, this will be with local areas working with us.

It is disgraceful that Eastbourne Conservative councillors have voted for the cancellation of local elections in my town and in Sussex this May, with no consultation, no democracy and no mandate from the people of Eastbourne. They have secured themselves an extra year to squat in County Hall, to press ahead with cuts to Linden Court day centre for people with learning disabilities, Milton Grange for people with dementia, and many more. Does the Secretary of State agree that people who rely on those services would consider the protection of them as an exceptional circumstance to justify the continuation of these elections, not their cancellation?

I kindly say to the hon. Member that, whether we like it or not, the people of Eastbourne voted for those councillors. We have said that we will facilitate a one-year delay for reorganisation that will deliver for the people of Eastbourne. I do not see this as an opportunity for people to “squat”, or whatever else the hon. Member said. Those councillors were elected and they are doing the job for their local areas, and we will continue to deliver the biggest wave of real-terms cash increase—6.8% or £69 billion—to local authorities to help them deliver services and turn the tide on the years of cuts and failure from the Conservatives.

I thank the Government for the additional moneys to my council, which have gone some way to address the horrendous cuts from the previous Government. I love my city and the people in it, but we have been failed by Governments and councils, leaving us with inadequate housing, job opportunities, transport, education and public services across my city. The council’s decision and hard work to apply and now be on the priority list for devolution is a positive and tangible opportunity for the people of Portsmouth, especially in what I believe has been the neglected northern part of my city. I am not denying that hard work, collaboration and co-operation will be needed across councils and parties and that strong leadership, communication and transparency will be vital to ensure success. We know that local government is at its best when decisions are made by local people, and we have seen the positive changes of devolution. I will do what I can to support my city, but can the Minister confirm that Portsmouth, in moving to devolution, will have both financial and government support to enable it to progress and to meet deadlines?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on always championing her city of Portsmouth in this place. She has made a valuable contribution since the general election. I can confirm to her that we will be giving financial and logistical support to local authorities as we move towards supporting them in delivering good local services.

Before I call the next Member, may I ask people to keep their questions short?

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a Norfolk county councillor. The Conservatives leading Norfolk county council have nearly bankrupted our county, failed children with special educational needs and disabilities, penalised those with disabilities, blown £50 million on four miles of never-to-be-built road, broken our transport system, taxed and complicated our recycling centres and left our roads pockmarked with potholes. What is it about this glittering record of success that attracted the Secretary of State to allowing them to negotiate the future of Norfolk’s devolution?

I am not as close to what is happening in the hon. Gentleman’s area as he is, but what I will say is that local people have elected their local councillors and it is for them to do that. What we are trying to achieve here is to push power out of Whitehall into local areas and to reform local government so that we can build better public services for local people. I hope the hon. Gentleman will work with us to deliver that for his constituents.

Getting power out of Whitehall and into the hands of local people will be a game-changer for many communities who feel very distant from this place, but can we ensure that Whitehall, its vested interests and petty rules do not get in the way of more devolution in the west midlands? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is sign of how the Conservative party has changed that it now fundamentally disagrees with Lord Heseltine’s view of local government set out some time ago?

I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend knows local government particularly well because of his contribution for many years before he was elected to this place. We do want to see more devolution across the west midlands. This Government are determined to work with local authorities and local areas to deliver devolution, because we know that people with skin in the game will deliver better public services, which those people rely on.

I am one of the few Scots who are big fans of English devolution. I sort of believe that England can just about survive without the input of Scots like me. The right hon. Lady calls this reform “ambitious”, but it has all the ambition of a hesitant dormouse. Where is the grand Gordon Brown vision of a senate of the nations and regions and the abolition of the House of Lords? The only thing that seems to be going on down there is her stuffing that place full of even more Labour donors, cronies and failed MPs.

It was the last Labour Government who delivered devolution for Scotland, and we are really proud of our history. I think “timid” is an unfair characterisation. I have never been considered timid in the way that I do my politics. As I set out in my statement, 80% of England will be covered by devolution under these plans. That is a fantastic step forward for all parts of England, and I look forward to continuing to work with Scotland—they have got their devolution, which we delivered for them.

In Burton-on-Trent, we have a magnificent grade 2 listed town hall that was donated to the town by Michael Bass. It now serves as the headquarters for East Staffordshire borough council. What assurances can the Deputy Prime Minister give me that buildings like this, which are key to our local identity, will be protected as local reorganisation takes place?

We value local community assets and are bringing forward plans for greater powers, including community right to buy. We will ask all councils to ensure that heritage assets are considered. He will know that the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), who is not in his place today, has been doing vital work in this area. If my hon. Friend wants a meeting with him, I will make sure that he gets one.

Labour is cancelling the local elections for antidemocratic reasons—it is as simple as that. [Interruption.] Labour Members do not want to hear it, but it is as simple as that. If the Secretary of State really believes that there is widespread public support in Essex for this devolution process, let us have a referendum to prove it. And finally, if local government is as skint as she says, why is this Government going pay 18 billion quid to Mauritius to rent back a base that we already own? How does that help local government?

I want short, on-point questions.

It is not Labour that is cancelling the local elections; it is those councils that are asking for the opportunity to do reorganisation. I thought the right hon. Gentleman would welcome the idea of not wasting taxpayers’ money, but maybe I am wrong, and he has had a change of heart.

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a Leicestershire county councillor. I thank the Secretary of State for her statement on local government reorganisation. As Leicestershire has applied to go forward in the fast-track scheme, but was unsuccessful, can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm the timetable for those other local authorities, so that they can also be included in the devolution revolution and secure long-term benefits for our communities?

Again, I encourage local authorities to respond to the consultation. We recognise that some will be disappointed that we have not taken their offer forward this time round. Some of them needed a bit more time and development, but we are absolutely committed to deliver that, because I want to see devolution across the whole of England.

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for giving my constituents in Reigate and Banstead certainty over the timing of elections; however, many of them will be disappointed. One of my big concerns, which needs to be seriously considered, relates to debt. I am not against unitaries in principle; there are many benefits and advantages to them. However, I have great concerns about debt sitting in other district and borough councils for which my constituents may end up footing the bill. Please can she reassure me that my constituents will not be paying a bill that they did not incur?

The hon. Member makes a fair comment, and I welcome her appreciation of the certainty that people need. We will continue to work with local areas. I understand that some areas have more debt than others. The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution will lead a debate later on the local government settlement. We know the difficulties that local councils have faced, and we will continue to have discussions to ensure that the hon. Member’s local area will not suffer detriment because of unitarisation. We want to see positivity for her local constituents.

I enthusiastically welcome the statement, and the great quality of consultation and ambition behind it. I particularly welcome what it means for Lancashire. We have been left behind for far too long, so it is wonderful to see the Government prioritising our great county. Full devolution with a mayor, along with local government reorganisation, can unlock our potential, deliver growth, and ultimately put money in our residents’ pockets. Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in calling on Lancashire leaders to grasp this generational opportunity?

Absolutely. I am hopeful that Lancashire will have a mayor by 2026. We will continue to work with local leaders across Lancashire to deliver that, so that my hon. Friend can continue to be proud of his local area and the contribution that it makes to all people of Lancashire, as I am sure Mr Speaker is as well.

When I speak to residents across Guildford, they raise again and again their fear of the impact of debt, and the particular financial problems that we have in Surrey. Local organisations have raised again and again their worries about how those problems will affect their bottom line, and the funds that they need to serve residents when councils no longer provide services. Will the Minister agree to meet all Surrey MPs to discuss how the Government will address the issues of Surrey’s finances? So far, we have not been involved in those conversations.

We understand the impact of debt on Surrey, which is why it is in the priority programme. I am happy for the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution to meet the hon. Member and others on this issue. We recognise the difficulty in Surrey, and want to make sure that people across the whole of England can benefit from reorganisation, including her constituents.

Special educational needs and disabilities families in Erewash and across Derbyshire have been broadly let down by Conservative-run Derbyshire county council, as was profoundly shown in the recent Ofsted report. While I firmly believe that reorganisation of our local services will improve SEND services, news of the devolution plans has caused families in my area to worry that reorganisation might mean further disruption to services. Can the Secretary of State reassure me and the many SEND families in Erewash that measures will be taken to ensure a smooth handover between the old authorities and the new?

I totally understand the concerns that my hon. Friend raises on behalf of his constituents in Erewash, and the situation that Derbyshire county council faces. We put £1 billion into SEND, and we have increased funding for local authorities. We recognise the pressure; I think it is fair to say that SEND comes up significantly in this Chamber. We are working, hopefully on a cross-party basis, to deliver for children with special educational needs and disabilities. We heard only this afternoon during Prime Minister’s questions about families who are really concerned about the lack of services and support, and we will continue to deliver for them.

I thank the Secretary of State for finally confirming that elections will go ahead in Devon. However, we had been told that, if we were not selected this time round, devolution would be imposed on us. Will the Secretary of State please give an explanation to my constituents in Exmouth and Exeter East of what that imposition will look like?

We signed the devolution deal for Devon just this week, and are working to go forward. I welcome the hon. Member’s comments on the certainty that we are delivering. This is the start of a process. We will continue to work with local leaders, including Members of Parliament from across the House who have interests in their local area, to deliver better public services and push power down from Westminster into local areas so that they can unleash the opportunities around transport and skills that we are determined to deliver for the people of Devon.

Conservative-led Gloucestershire county council has a dreadful record. The Care Quality Commission says that adult social services require improvement, children’s services are described as catastrophic, the fire service is in special measures, the health service is failing, local authority schools are crumbling, the SEND system is broken, and do not get me started on the potholes. No wonder the Conservatives on the county council wanted our elections cancelled this May. Will the Deputy Prime Minister agree to meet me and local leaders in Gloucester to ensure that we get the best deal for Gloucester residents from local government reorganisation and devolution?

Like the rest of England, Gloucester did not fare well when the Conservatives were in power. Councils have faced significant pressures and increases, at the same time as a 23% cut in the last decade by the previous Government. The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution will happily meet my hon. Friend and other Members on these issues. We are determined to deliver better funding for local authorities, and unlock their potential through the devolution agenda that we have set out.

The Deputy Prime Minister has talked a lot about additional resources, but they are not being spread evenly. There are significant additional costs to deliver services in the rural areas that I represent, but as well as abolishing the rural services grant, the provisional settlement will give around 40% less spending power per head to rural areas than to urban areas. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that that is not fair, and commit to doing something about it?

Rural areas will also receive a cash-terms increase; we have given one of 6.8%. We recognise the challenges that local authorities have faced, particularly in rural areas. That is why we have been working with local authorities to turn the tide on the cuts under the previous Government, and invest in our local public services to ensure that they are fit for purpose and can deliver for local people.

I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s announcement on devolution in Essex, which both the Conservative leader and the Labour-run unitaries are very supportive of. This announcement is right. It is generation-defining, and will deliver real local democracy. Southend and Rochford, and Essex, will be at their very best when decisions are made by local people who have skin in the game. Does the Secretary of State agree that the benefits of devolution are best achieved where there is strong local leadership and accountability?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I am really pleased that Essex devolution is going forward, and that there has been cross-party support and real collaboration to achieve it. That is the culture change that I wanted to see. As the Secretary of State, that is what I envisage going forward, which is why I will work with all local authorities to deliver for people across England.

I am a strong supporter of genuine devolution of funding and powers, but when the Deputy Prime Minister says that she wants to devolve power from Whitehall to the town hall, my constituents are concerned that it could in practice mean centralising power from local communities to remote county halls. Can she confirm that the Government will not impose huge remote unitary county councils if that is against the wishes of local residents, and how can she justify cancelling local elections when the county councillors last elected in 2021 have no mandate to lead on negotiating changes that are expected to last half a century?

Again, I have been clear that where there is cancellation, it is for devolution and reorganisation to go forward. I have made it absolutely clear that it will be from May 2025 to May 2026. I cannot be much clearer than that as this Dispatch Box. On devolution and the support for local areas, we are clear that we want to push powers out of Whitehall down into local communities. I want to unlock the potential of local areas and see reorganisation that delivers for local people, and I hope the hon. Member will engage with that given his comments on strongly supporting devolution. Let’s see him get on board and deliver it.

As we have already heard, Derbyshire county council has a terrible record on delivering SEND services, but it also has a terrible record across everything else, including doing a fire sale of our much-loved community assets and care homes, including the Grange in my constituency, and being ranked the worst council for potholes last winter. The opportunity to give the council the treatment it deserves in May is much welcomed. In contrast, North East Derbyshire district council and Chesterfield borough council have been doing a sterling job. Can the Deputy Prime Minister assure me that the best of our councils will be involved in any reorganisation and that we will take the good forward?

Absolutely. We will work with councils to deliver better services: that is what it is about for North East Derbyshire, along with all other areas that are coming forward. I have been in North East Derbyshire and understand the issues around potholes; our Government have been investing in delivery to end the pothole scandal that we saw under the previous Government.

The Isle of Wight council is already a unitary authority. Given that the Deputy Prime Minister is postponing our elections, can she confirm that that will mean the future reorganisation of the council is on the negotiating table? Otherwise, why would she be cancelling our elections?

The hon. Member will know that the fact that it is an island produces limitations, but nothing has been taken off the table. We want to deliver reorganisation and deliver for the people of the Isle of Wight, and we will continue to work with him, as well as local leaders, to deliver that.

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Nuneaton was recently named the town with the best potential growth in the UK. That is truly an opportunity to transform the lives of my constituents, but it also speaks to the immense challenges we face. For far too long, there have been serious questions about the appalling service level, the SEND crisis, stifled growth and low wages after 20 years of an underfunded Conservative county council that tried to push for a rapid resolution to our devolution. Getting this right is vital. For Nuneaton to achieve that amazing potential requires a full appraisal of all possible options and of the best way forward. Can the Secretary of State reassure us that support will be given in the process?

Absolutely. I congratulate my hon. Friend on always seeing the potential of Nuneaton, and this Government want to work to release the opportunities there. But we also recognise that the 14 years of Conservative failure have left many councils and local areas without the funding and support they need. That is why we are putting a cash-terms real increase of 6.8% into local government—£69 billion—and we will continue to work with local areas to unleash the full potential of all areas of England.

Given the Secretary of State’s statement, I remind her that proper functioning democracy costs money. My constituents in Great Yarmouth do not like being represented by unelected councillors, so can she give a copper-bottomed guarantee that the new Norfolk and Suffolk homunculus council will have its elections in May 2026?

I have been consistently clear on the elections. Elections do cost money, but how can we justify having an election to then have another election within 12 months, which will cost huge sums of money for taxpayers? I gently say to the hon. Member that councillors were elected and that we are working with local councillors to deliver for local people.

As a councillor for nearly 10 years, I welcome the devolution proposals. As Bournemouth East MP, I backed Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council becoming part of the Hampshire proposal, and so did the BCP Labour group. Frankly, we have closer economic ties and geographic similarities with Hampshire. BCP council voted for a Wessex deal late in the day, and I am disappointed that BCP will not be prioritised for devolution of skills where they could have been under a Hampshire proposal. How can I ensure that my local communities will not be left behind, and will the Deputy Prime Minister secure a meeting for me with the Local Government Minister to put BCP back on the agenda?

I am happy to facilitate a meeting and, as I said before, the Minister for Local Government is happy to meet with local leaders. We want to see more devolution. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s disappointment on skills. We want to push forward with devolution, unlocking the potential and pushing power down from Whitehall into local areas, and I am sure that his meeting with the Minister will be fruitful.

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As the Member of Parliament for Lewes, I put on record my outrage and the outrage of many local people who have written to me about the cancellation of elections in East Sussex in May. As a county councillor, I was present in the chamber last month when we debated the matter, and every single non-Conservative member, including Labour members, voted against it, so to suggest that this has widespread support in East Sussex is just not true. What is the Secretary of State’s justification for giving a Conservative administration that has lost its overall majority and hangs on by the chair’s casting vote a mandate to negotiate a generation-defining deal on behalf of the residents of East Sussex against their will?

Again, we are working with local areas to deliver devolution. This is about pushing power down to local areas and about reorganisation, and we are working with local authorities to deliver for their local area. I have been clear on the terms to which there was a 12-month delay to those elections to facilitate reorganisation and devolution in those areas. This is not a new phenomenon; it happened under the previous Government. We are turbocharging devolution so that we can deliver for local areas.

I welcome the statement made by my right hon. Friend. I also draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In North Warwickshire and Bedworth, my constituents can see the benefits of devolution just over the boundary in the West Midlands combined authority, and I am sure that they want to see those benefits for themselves. I ask her why Conservative-run Warwickshire county council asked to have their elections postponed. Was it because they wanted to avoid public scrutiny of their appalling record on SEND education, on fixing our rural roads and on rural transport? Does she agree that it is better that districts and counties work together to come up with the best solution for residents on devolution, and will she set out the timetable for the second stage of that devolution, so that I can tell my constituents when they can feel the benefits of investment, growth and better transport?

As I have said, we will work with all local authorities to deliver devolution. I understand that some areas will be disappointed that we did not take it forward in this priority scheme, but we continue to be committed, and the Minister for Local Government is happy to take that forward. As I said, we will write to local authorities and continue to work with them, so that Warwickshire and her constituents can benefit from that. It would be remiss of me to comment other than to say that a lot more areas came forward to ask for delays to their elections. I am not speculating on the reasons. I have been very clear and narrow in setting a high bar for the cancellation of those elections within a short period of time. That is the right thing to do to go forward and deliver for those local areas.

What a mess this whole consultation has been. Let’s face it: the councils were going to have to jump or be pushed. As she said in her own statement:

“I will be issuing a legal invitation to all 21 two-tier”

authorities. In the spirit of working with local leaders, would she accept my legal invitation to meet all the borough leaders—cross-party—the MPs and the Leicestershire county council leadership to discuss what our shape would look like when it comes to devolution?

I have said time and again that we are happy to meet local leaders. We will continue that consultation exercise and we will meet local MPs. The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, who is sitting next to me, is always open to those conversations. This is not about telling people what to do from the top down; it is about the direction of travel, which we have made absolutely clear and which the hon. Gentleman’s party was taking in government. We have seen benefits in parts of England. We want to expand that to other areas, working with local leaders and Members, and we are happy to meet on that basis.

As the MP for England’s most northerly city, and one of five MPs representing the most northern area selected for devolution, I warmly welcome today’s announcement. I keenly look forward to the elections for the Mayor of Cumbria, but my excitement is eclipsed entirely by the fevered speculation and contest that has been under way among Cumbria Conservative association members for several months now. Given that one rumoured member of that association was formerly a Member of this House and racked up hundreds of hours in a second job during his tenure here, will my right hon. Friend assure us that the democratic accountability that she desires for mayors will include a ban on second jobs?

The Government’s direction of travel on second jobs is absolutely clear. As my hon. Friend knows, I have visited Cumbria and know what a fantastic place it is, and as a northerner, I can attest to the fact that it is even more northern.

In her statement, the Secretary of State said that local elections in Surrey will be cancelled

“given the urgency of creating sustainable new unitary structures”.

Does she find it perverse that, because of financial mismanagement by Conservatives in Surrey, my constituents will lose their democratic right to vote and remove from power the Conservatives who caused that mess in the first place?

Again, I acknowledge the situation in Surrey. We have said that we want to work with Surrey to deliver. That is why we are bringing this forward. As I say, it is a short-term delay; democracy comes to us all eventually.

Mayors can make a huge difference to local communities. Indeed, we have seen that in Greater Manchester, where public control of bus services has made a massive difference to residents. I want public control of bus services in Hartlepool, where services are not good enough. Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that the Conservative Mayor of Tees Valley has ruled out public control of buses? When mayors do not use their powers, what can we do to force them to do so?

I welcome what Greater Manchester buses have delivered for my constituents in Tameside—better services all round. We want the same for Hartlepool. I gently encourage all Members from the Teesside area to work with the mayor to unleash all the powers I mentioned in my statement, in order to deliver better transport and connectivity. That is how we will unlock growth in all our regional areas, which is what we want to see across Hartlepool, Teesside and the whole of England.

The Deputy Prime Minister said that this is not a top-down approach, but non-top-down approaches do not start with the issuing of legal invitations. A legal invitation sounds like the kind of invitation my wife gives me to do something around the house—it is not an invitation; it is an instruction that one does not disobey. Many businesses and residents in Fylde are deeply concerned about this. They are represented by Fylde Council and Wyre Council, which have been well run, have kept council tax low and have not racked up debt. Any merger would see them join local authorities that have racked up massive debts and are not running the kinds of services that their local areas want and need. From one proud northerner to another, I ask her to nip up the road, have a pint with me, and meet not the local council leaders, councillors and other MPs, but residents and businesses themselves. They are concerned about this process, and I am sure they would love the opportunity to have a pint with her—or a vodka cocktail, which I believe she enjoys.

The hon. Gentleman could not handle my cocktails, but if he wants to buy me a pint, I’m happy to accept. Lancashire has already agreed to come forward with its proposals, and we are working with it. This is not about pushing people. I have made no bones about the fact that I want to see devolution across the whole of England, but we are taking an approach of working with local areas, and I hope that he can see that in the way we have taken these things forward. If his wife is giving him legal notices, I suggest marriage counselling.

Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. The Cornish people are proudly subject to the Council of Europe framework convention for the protection of national minorities. I respectfully invite the Secretary of State to guarantee that when the devolution Bill is published, it will in no way contravene the letter or the spirit of that European convention.

My hon. Friend knows that I have met MPs for the Cornish area. I recognise the Council of Europe status and the uniqueness of their area, and I hope that that has come across in our conversations. We will continue to have conversations to ensure that we are acutely sensitive to the needs of the Cornish people, and that we take devolution forward in the way that it is intended: to deliver for people across Cornwall, and to do it with them, not to them.

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Voters in Chichester will rightly be disappointed that their right to vote has been stripped away in favour of creating what seems like a rushed unitary authority in just 12 months. West Sussex county council failed to fill potholes, find social care contracts and deliver education, health and care plans in 12 months, so the suggestion that it would be able to deliver a unitary authority is for the birds. Does the Secretary of State really believe that my constituents will get to vote in May next year not just for a mayor, but for a unitary authority, and will their taxpayer money still be used to deliver bold regeneration projects locally, rather than to bail out other areas when the unitary is created?

This is not a rushed process. Reorganisation is coming because we are working with local areas. The areas in the priority programme were selected for it because they had plans that we felt were credible to achieve within that 12-month programme. We will continue to provide financial and logistical support to ensure that people across the hon. Lady’s constituency feel the benefit of reorganisation. After 14 years of local services being hammered by the Conservatives, they have a Labour Government who are delivering for local people.

This is very good news for Norwich and Norfolk and it will allow us to fulfil our potential. Many of my colleagues from Norfolk have spoken. Whatever they think of the proposals, I urge them to work across parties now to get the best possible outcomes for our residents. On growth, Norwich already contributes £3 billion annually to the economy, but we can contribute so much more. Will my right hon. Friend outline the powers that mayors will have, and will she reassure us that cities such as Norwich, which are key drivers of growth, will have their voices heard in this process?

I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments, because she talks up what is happening across Norwich and the £3 billion of growth already being delivered there. We want local growth plans to work centrally with Government to deliver opportunities across skills, transport, housing and infrastructure, so that we can deliver for people across Norwich. I welcome the spirit in which she has talked about cross-party working. She puts the people of Norwich first, and that is why she was elected to represent them.

The Deputy Prime Minister said that new unitary authorities need to be the right size to withstand financial shocks, so will she explain how merging councils that are in severe financial difficulty and just hoping that they get on with it will provide the security that we need?

As I said, we are working with local areas so that we can deliver local government reorganisation. I have also said that the 500,000 population figure is a guide for efficiency—we recognise that it might vary. We also recognise the financial constraints that councils have faced after 14 years under the Conservatives. That is why we have put a cash-terms increase of 6.8% into councils; it is why we are considering how to give long-term funding settlements, which the Minister for Local Government will outline; and it is why we will continue to support, and the Minister will continue to work on, the devolution agenda.

This Government have unlocked £2 billion in the funding settlement for local services across the country. Despite what we might hear from the Conservatives in Lys Kernow about £5 million here or there, or grumblings about burning the Prime Minister’s turkey dinner, that is a very welcome boost to Cornwall. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that we end the postcode lottery forever and get local people the services they deserve?

This is one part of a package, through which we are trying to reverse the decline and decay that we saw under the previous Conservative Government. They made cuts of 23% in a decade, as I say, whereas we have implemented a cash-terms increase for local authorities. Devolution is part of that agenda. We want to see Cornwall continue to thrive; I am glad that my hon. Friend is in his place, and we will continue to work with him to deliver for the people of Cornwall.

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for allowing the people of my constituency to vote in the Devon county council elections this year, and I congratulate her on seeing through the tired Tory administration, which was seeking to avoid the voters’ verdict. May I ask her for an assurance that when she sends out her invitation to the two-tier areas, that will include district councils as well as the county council, so that we get a representative view from across the entire area?

I thank the hon. Member for welcoming the clarity we have delivered today. As I set out in my statement, we will be writing out to two-tier areas. We want to engage with all tiers in those areas, and the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution will continue that work. If the hon. Member wants to meet the Minister at a future date, I am sure the Minister will be happy to meet him.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for her statement. Does she agree with me, as Conservative-led Essex county council does, that these plans will make local government in Essex clearer and more efficient, but also more accountable? It will mean that we can finally take to task the people who are to blame for the dreaded potholes that plague my constituency.

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. [Interruption.] The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution chunters that there is more to it than potholes, but there is a serious point here—this is about things like decaying local roads and people seeing that local services have been pulled back over 14 years of the Conservatives taking a sledgehammer to local government. I commend the Conservatives on Essex county council for working with us, because they are putting people first in their local area, which is what we want to deliver. I have tried to say from this Dispatch Box, as I said in opposition, that as a Secretary of State I will always champion local government; I am biased, since I come from a local government background. I know the exceptional work that local government workers have delivered for people in exceptional circumstances, and I commend them for the work they do across local government.

Lancashire combined county authority has now been established, and my constituents are keen to unleash its potential, creating new jobs and inviting funding and investment into the county. Can the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that the Government will help progress that combined authority into the next phase of devolution?

That legal order was, of course, signed this week. I commend the hon. Gentleman, other Members and the local leaders for working to continue to put Lancashire on the map—of course, Mr Speaker is always part of that as well. We want to see areas such as Lancashire reach their full potential, because that is our growth mission. As the Prime Minister set out, people have to see that growth in their pockets across the whole of England, and that is what our agenda is about. It is about working with local leaders and Members of Parliament to genuinely unleash the growth potential that we have across Lancashire and the whole of England.

I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for her statement. One of the points of detail in the statement is that Surrey, where my constituency of Surrey Heath is located, is excluded from the devolution priority programme, yet elections in Surrey have been cancelled none the less. My residents face the prospect of having none of the advantages of being in the priority programme and all of the disadvantages of losing their elections. Can the Secretary of State explain to me and my residents why Surrey has been added on as a kind of addendum to the list that she has provided, and why did it not qualify for the priority programme in the first place?

I thank the hon. Member for raising the important issue of the challenges that Surrey faces. That is why we have put Surrey within the priority programme, but we do need a reorganisation first, because it would be a single council, so we would have a single council mayoral area, which is not what the devolution agenda is about. The reorganisation is about recognising the challenges that Surrey faces and working with local leaders to deliver services to local areas. At a later date, we can then look at whether we are able to take that forward, but we do recognise the unique situation that Surrey is in, which is why we have put it in the priority programme.

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

In my constituency, we are lucky enough to have a district council that is very well run and very well funded. For that reason, we have been able to preserve, for example, a theatre that is run and owned by the council, which would surely have been lost if it had been exposed to the bottomless pit of SEN budgets and adult social care. I am concerned that the loss of a two-tier system means that our wonderful institutions will be at risk unless they receive some kind of protection. Can the Secretary of State offer us anything for the future when we become a unitary?

As I have said, local government reform is about supporting local areas and making sure they can deliver good public services. I recognise that areas have faced significant cuts and that it has been a challenge for them to keep local heritage and local community assets, as I said in a previous answer. That is why we are bringing forward other legislation and support to protect those things as well, but we will continue to engage with local areas to make sure that local government reform delivers better services for the hon. Member’s constituents.

What does the Secretary of State have to say to the 5 million people who have lost their right to vote in this election, who want to vote before this generational power shift and not after it?

I would say to the hon. Member that they have not lost their right to vote. Their right to vote will be there, but voting in an election for something that is not going to be there—an election that would cost taxpayers huge sums of money—is not efficient, and it is not a way forward. We are working with local, democratically elected councillors to deliver better local services after 14 years of decay and destruction under the Conservatives.

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement today, but I want to pull out a few points of procedural process that we will be going through over the next 12 months. First, senior officers will be spending hundreds of hours focusing on reorganisation, rather than on the challenges of delivering frontline services. In response to a previous question, the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned financial support, so will officers’ time be able to be charged back to the Government?

Secondly, we have not heard about local consultation as we go through this process. Boundary changes and boundary reviews will have to be done internally. I have been on a council where I have done those things myself, and that alone took over 12 months to achieve and included statutory provisions for consultation. Also, if we have an election in May 2026, organisations and political parties will need to know what the wards are at an early stage, so that they can do their selection and their approvals. I am sure that Reform will learn about the importance of approval processes in all-out elections.

If there are delays in the processes, what mechanism does the Deputy Prime Minister have for elections to go ahead even without a body in place to be elected to, if she is good to her word that elections will happen next May? Finally, how will she keep the House updated on progress?

I recognise that senior officers and local areas will be working on this issue—they have been working on it to develop their proposals in the first place, so this has come from those areas. We have committed to financial and logistical support for those areas; obviously, they will come forward with what they need as part of that process, and we are determined to deliver that on a case-by-case basis. There will be local consultation in that process, and as I have said, to get to the point we are at today of approving areas for the priority programme, lots of work has already been undertaken, and there will continue to be consultation as part of that process. The details will be outlined in letters that are sent out. I do not envisage delays in the process. I have been clear about why I have refused delays to other elections, but these delays have been put in place specifically because we believe they can help the delivery of reorganisation for areas, and of better services within a tight timescale.

Dictators, not democracies, cancel elections, and 5.5 million voters in southern England are being denied the right to pass judgment on the performance of their councillors over the past four years—interestingly, in areas where Reform UK is expected to do rather well. In cancelling these elections, the Secretary of State has admitted that she does not know what will replace them, and it seems there is a serious risk, as previously mentioned, of areas not being ready in 12 months’ time. Can the Secretary of State be crystal clear about what will happen in that case: will those elections be delayed by a further year, or will they go ahead in May 2026?

The hon. Member talks about dictators, but the leader of Reform has not faced an election to get to his leadership position—the only leader who has not.

We are not cancelling elections. I have been clear about the rationale, which is not unique or something that has not been done before. This delay is for reorganisation, and for further devolution so that people in local areas will get more powers from this Government. That is what we promised in our manifesto, and we will continue to deliver for people. I have strict and narrow guidance on which I allowed those areas to delay their elections, and I am confident they will be able to deliver. That is why I refused others. I am acutely aware that we want to ensure that people have a say in their local areas. That is what the devolution agenda is all about: giving local people more say and more powers.

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

It is fair to say that in the streets of Henley and Thame, strategic mayoral authorities were not on the lips of residents during the general election. Health was, however, with the dire situation that the Conservatives left in my constituency. There is still perhaps a crumb of opportunity in this reorganisation regarding realigning authorities with integrated care boards, so that we avoid issues where constituents cannot get services on other borders. Is that being taken into account?

Although the exact word “devolution” might not have been on people’s lips, change was, which is why we got the mandate we did. The hon. Member talks about health. We put £22 billion of extra investment into our NHS because we recognise the challenges that it faces. ICBs are part of the devolution Bill and White Paper, and we will continue to work to ensure that mayors have a say over what happens.

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I thank the Secretary of State for answering so many questions this afternoon—she has been on her feet for some time. I am dismayed by the delay to elections in West Sussex, partly because when the district recently went through a reorganisation of its boundaries, it took nearly two years to complete. Unitary authorities are large entities and this is an enormous task, especially given the scope of what has been announced today for the south and east of England. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the capacity of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to deliver the boundary reviews? Will she expand on the financial support that will be given to councils to ensure that they are able to merge vital public services?

I hope that my lunch is delayed and not cancelled, Madam Deputy Speaker.

On delaying elections, I have been clear about the high bar that I set. I absolutely understand the enormous task that is faced when looking at reorganisation, which is why we will put extra support in place. I cannot outline exactly what that will be for the hon. Member’s area, because it depends on what is needed on a case-by-case basis. The Government are committed to working with authorities to meet that timetable. I have been clear from the Dispatch Box that we want those elections to go ahead in May 2026. We will be working on that basis, and my Department will be working with local leaders to deliver it, on the basis that they knew the delay was happening.

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and on behalf of my constituents I thank her for giving people the opportunity to vote and give their verdict on the failing Conservative-run Devon county council, which has been badly failing our most vulnerable children for the past decade.

Devon is a huge rural area, and there are concerns that if it becomes a unitary it could end up devolving power away from people in a sparsely populated area, and moving the centre of power away from local communities, which does not feel like devolution. Will the Secretary of State clarify what size of unitary authority she will be looking for? Part of Torbay is in my constituency—it is one of the smallest unitaries in the country, with 139,000 people. Will it be allowed to continue as a unitary, or will it be required to be part of a greater whole?

I recognise that Devon is a huge rural area, and as I have said in previous debates on this issue, we have issued a guide for unitary authorities—it is a guide; I have said that it is not set in stone. I recognise that Torbay is now a unitary, but it also faces challenges and I want to work with local leaders. If they want to expand, we want to facilitate that. We want to deliver—our guiding principle is better public services that are responsive to the needs of local people. I believe that Members across the House want to deliver the same, so hopefully working by working together we can provide the investment that public services have not had for the last 14 years, and deliver it in the right way in the right place so that people feel it is responsive to their local needs.