PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Local Government Reorganisation - 7 September 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on local government reorganisation. This Government are committed to delivering good growth across the country and power in every postcode, with places able to set their own ambitions and integrate services to meet people’s needs. Achieving that requires a fundamental rewiring of the state, giving power held by Westminster and Whitehall back to the people and the places where they live and work. As we set out in the Cabinet statement on rewiring the state, effective and sustainable local government is the vital foundation of our devolution ambitions.

As we are now determined more than ever to devolve power closer to the people we represent, it is only right that I, as the new Secretary of State, ensure that everything we do is working towards that plan to change Britain. [Interruption.]

Order. I think we have had this before, Mr Mayhew. I want to hear this statement; it affects my constituency and others. The last thing I need is you meddling.

They will get their chance, Mr Speaker.

They might not.

The Prime Minister told the House last week that he was

“prepared to look at local government reorganisation”,—[Official Report, 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 65.]

and he asked me, as his Communities Secretary, to do that. Throughout this process, the Government have listened to representations from Members of this House, councils and the public, and I want to be clear on how critical this is to me, given their importance to our democracy and the services they provide for local people. However, there will always be a wide range of divergent views, which means that achieving perfect consensus will never be possible.

I understand that feelings run high and people naturally have strong views in different directions. In that context, and in the light of legal advice, I want to satisfy myself first that the right process is in place, that it is robust and, of course, that it complies with the law. Secondly, I want to fully test whether our proposals for local government reorganisation meet the priorities of the new Administration and the new Prime Minister, and any additional considerations.

With those two considerations in mind, I have decided to withdraw the decisions made in March this year for Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk and, where relevant, their neighbouring unitary authorities. The Government’s legal representatives have notified the court of this step.

I have also decided to conduct a full review of the local government reorganisation programme, including the decisions that were announced in July this year for a further 14 areas, and the two areas where decisions have not yet been taken, and ask that reorganisation activity be paused. These 14 areas are Derbyshire, Devon, East Sussex, Gloucestershire, Hertfordshire, Kent, Lancashire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Worcestershire and, where relevant, their neighbouring unitaries.

I do not take this lightly. I recognise the huge amount of work that has already gone into progressing reorganisation in each of these areas, and I am very grateful for it. I know that many Members of the House and many council leaders will have lots of questions about what this means for them and their communities, and I will try to address those questions as best I can today.

First, we are working across Government on rewiring the state following the Cabinet statement. We recognise that effective and sustainable local government is fundamental to our ambitions for a devolved country that works better for and with communities, and we will consider this issue as part of our wider approach.

Secondly, as an immediate step, I have asked the Minister for Local Government, Devolution and Regional Growth to undertake a rapid review of the current local government reorganisation programme, including the position of the four areas where we have withdrawn and the further 14 areas that we are reviewing and pausing, alongside the two remaining areas. The new councils for East Surrey and West Surrey will be unaffected because they are already established in law, have had their first elections and are on track to go live in April 2027.

Thirdly, I want to be clear about what this means for elections scheduled for next May. Elections will go ahead in May 2027 on existing council boundaries. Finally, my Department will provide support to council leaders, officers and Members representing impacted areas, and the Minister for Local Government has written to leaders and copied in Members of this House.

I want to ensure that all those who represent these areas feel fully included in considering their future, and I will update the House at the earliest opportunity. My ministerial team and civil servants from the Department are ready to discuss and work with those representatives. My team will proactively reach out to discuss the local implications in detail. My Department remains committed to working in partnership with local government, both in this immediate period and in the longer term. I commend this statement to the House.

Order. Can I just say that it is refreshing to hear an announcement first in this Chamber, rather than on TV? I call the shadow Minister.

I welcome the Secretary of State back to the Dispatch Box, and I thank her for early sight of her statement. I am not sure that this was the triumphant return to the subject of devolution that she had in mind, because our councillors and the communities that they represent are looking aghast at yet another shambolic U-turn from this Government. Ministers have repeatedly given assurances to this House from that Dispatch Box that have not been honoured, and it speaks volumes for the Government’s sense of priority that, this far into this Administration, only Surrey has proceeded with its reorganisation—despite all those assurances.

The Secretary of State has already told the House that she is not satisfied that the process that was followed by her predecessor was lawful. Can she tell the House from the Dispatch Box why she is not satisfied that it was lawful, and will she place all the non-privileged documentation and correspondence relating to this debacle in the public domain and in the Library?

Given that the Government have agreed to pay the legal costs of councils that have challenged them on this matter, can the Secretary of State tell us what assessment has she made of the legal costs that will be borne by taxpayers as a consequence of this U-turn? Given that the Government have been banking on millions of pounds in savings—we have challenged them on those savings repeatedly across the Dispatch Boxes—to mitigate costs, which include the massive rise in national insurance that has driven many councils to the verge of bankruptcy, what assessment have Treasury colleagues made, and what advice have they given to the Secretary of State about how they will need to mitigate this further delay in any of those savings being achieved, should they ever materialise?

The Secretary of State has told the House from the Dispatch Box that elections will go ahead. We have all heard that promise made at the Dispatch Box before; indeed, in some cases it has been reversed literally the following day. Given the promises made and that all our political parties have selected candidates who have been campaigning for mayoral elections and new unitary authorities that the Government promised were coming into being, with elections to take place next May, will she give a categorical assurance that those new authorities will be in place, or promise the House clearly that they will not be? Will she tell us what is the timetable—if there is one at all—for bringing those new mayoral combined authorities into existence, particularly given the store by which the Government have set those as their path for devolution?

Finally, I appreciate that the Secretary of State has returned to the role after others have been stewarding it, but will she apologise to all those councillors, all those local government officials, all those political candidates and activists and all those businesses who have engaged in good faith with the Government’s process? All of them have been shamefully let down by this betrayal of local democracy.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place and thank him for his constructive comments. It is disappointing that I have had to come to the House to make this statement. I recognise the work that local authorities, Members of the House and others have put into getting us to this point, but when I took over the role recently and the Prime Minister asked me to look again at the reform, and upon receiving legal advice, I wanted to satisfy myself as the Secretary of State that the process was robust and legally sound. That is why I have made this decision today, but I understand why hon. Members will be disappointed.

I was asked about legal costs. Those will be determined in the usual way. Local government reform is often contested in the courts. It is right and part of our democratic system that important issues can be challenged. The Government engage legal advisers to defend decisions whenever challenges are brought; that does bring costs.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about savings. The Government have made savings in the past through local government reorganisation, but for me it has got to be about not savings but the outcomes for people in their local area. That is what has driven reorganisation from my point of view.

In terms of the new mayoral authorities and what will happen, I am really clear that it has to be done correctly and right. As Secretary of State, I have to believe, in good conscience, that I have dotted every i and crossed every t. That is why I have made the decision I have today.

This has been a long process for Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, where we have ducked and dived as best we can with the announcements that have come over the last two years. The thing that we really care about is devolution, because where the line is drawn on councils is important, but the real powers unleashed by devolution would make a real difference to my constituents. Can the Secretary of State give some indication of the impact on the timetable for moving towards mayoral combined authorities for places like Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, where currently the opportunity does not meet our aspiration?

My hon. Friend is right to raise the opportunities of devolution. The Prime Minister is really clear that the Government’s ambition is to ensure that every area in England has, or is in the process of establishing, a strategic authority by the end of 2027, with strategic authorities in place everywhere by the end of 2028. The process that I have put in place today is about making sure that we have a rapid review and make the right and correct decisions on reorganisation.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of her statement. I have almost lost track of the number of times I have stood in this Chamber and warned the Government about problems with their local government reorganisation plans—yet here I am again. It appears that the Government have finally listened, but they have done so too late and the damage has already been done. Thousands of residents have been denied their right to vote over the course of this process, because of plans that many of us in this Chamber warned were on a very uncertain legal footing. Councils have poured enormous amounts of time, effort and money into proposals they were repeatedly assured were legally sound, only to discover that they are now being abandoned. The abortive costs are likely to be substantial. Worse still, a number of authorities were relying on reorganisation as part of a strategy to address serious financial concerns. Those councils are now being left in limbo.

In my own area of Surrey, councils were forced down a reorganisation route that now appears to be effectively abandoned by the Government and questionable on a legal basis. Will the Secretary of State commit to meeting Surrey MPs and the new authority leaders to discuss how our county can avoid the risks and uncertainty that the Government say have prompted this decision elsewhere? The Government need to acknowledge the significant democratic harm caused by this episode and take responsibility for it, including by issuing an apology, so will the Secretary of State set out clearly what happens next for communities and local authorities left in limbo by today’s announcement? Will she also publish the legal advice so that Parliament and the affected communities can understand what went wrong with the original process?

I have set out already that I want to be able to review these decisions to ensure myself that they are the right ones, and I think that is the correct course of action. Respecting the court process means that the way to do this is to withdraw and consider afresh. It is a long-standing principle that the Government do not publish or comment on legal advice. The review will consider implications for the timetable, as the hon. Lady mentioned. Local elections scheduled to take place to existing councils in May 2027 will go ahead unless we are in a position to hold elections to new unitary councils at that point. The review does not include reorganisation of Surrey, where councillors have been elected and new councils go live from 1 April.

There is a real appetite for change in my constituency. We are not scared of it; we are eager for it. Only today, we have seen the former Reform Lancashire county councillor for Skelmersdale East defecting to the Labour party because he knows that Labour will deliver for Skem. Can the Secretary of State assure me that the Government will meet the ambition of my constituents, and keep pushing for change and a better system for Lancashire?

Absolutely. I commend the local representatives in Lancashire for their work. I have been really clear that I have paused to have a review of those places in order to make sure that I am confident, as the Secretary of State, that I have dotted every i, crossed every t and worked with local people to ensure that we give them the best possible local government reform and devolution package.

I call the Father of the House.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for looking again at Lincolnshire. I made the point to her predecessor that the proposal for a Greater Lincolnshire authority was, in the eyes of many people, just a gerrymander. Will she look again at it and stop dividing West Lindsey and North Kesteven in half? I represent the Gainsborough South-West ward—the most deprived ward in the entire country. I am on the Pride in Place board. What was the point of dividing Gainsborough and leaving it out on a limb from the rest of the county? Will the right hon. Lady look at our viewpoint in a positive way?

I thank the Father of the House. I can feel his frustration, but I also acknowledge the plug he gave for the Pride in Place funding, which is making a real difference to some of the most deprived areas. I reassure him that this review of the decision is about me making sure that it is the right one. It is about giving me the time to listen to what hon. Members and leaders are saying, so that I can ensure that I have got the correct advice. As Secretary of State, I take that responsibility very seriously and I will make sure that it is done as quickly as possible.

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement today. I support local government reorganisation and the two-unitary option for Derbyshire, but Chris Emmas-Williams—the leader of Amber Valley borough council—and myself have repeatedly made representations against the decision to split Amber Valley in two. My constituents do not want it, and I have concerns about the capacity to deliver that divide while maintaining the high standards of service that my constituents deserve. Will my right hon. Friend commit to meeting me to discuss this further?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that she is doing to represent her Amber Valley constituents. As I have said, there is a pause while we review the programme. I am sure that the Local Government Minister will arrange a meeting with her and local leaders to ensure that we have a full understanding of Amber Valley’s challenges and opportunities, so that we can take this forward.

I thank the Secretary of State for her announcement, which, however she dresses it up, is in fact a decision about common sense and listening. I put it to her that, in Essex, most of the district councils, the county council and most MPs want to stay with two-tier local government. Is that an option? Will she acknowledge that and listen?

I am glad that the hon. Member said “common sense and listening”, because I am trying to listen, use my common sense and be pragmatic. As I said when I embarked on local government reform, it has to be about services for local people. On the two-tiered approach to local authorities, we have always been clear about ensuring that the split is absolutely right, so that we get the scale and so things like education and other services can be delivered. That is why we always said that we would consider those proposals and how best to deliver unitary councils in this Parliament.

As the Secretary of State and her Ministers can attest, throughout the reorganisation process I have been fighting to protect my city’s proud identity and its important, but often neglected, position in Hampshire. I am sorry for all the confusion and politicking that residents have had to face—it is simply not good enough. As she reviews local reorganisation in Portsmouth, will she reassure my residents that any decision will maintain Portsmouth’s strong identity, and will she confirm that today’s announcements will not delay the Government’s plan for devolution and putting power closer to the people we represent?

My hon. Friend has been an absolute champion for the people of Portsmouth since being elected to Parliament, and I do not think any of us will try to take that identity away from the people of Portsmouth—I am sure that she will be pushing that. She is absolutely right to talk about devolution; we need to grasp the nettle on local government reform so that we can put areas in a strong place for devolution. We will be working with her in the coming weeks to ensure that that happens.

The current proposals for Devon were the brainchild of Exeter and Plymouth and were endorsed by the Conservative leader of Torbay council, and they resulted in a rural rump for Devon. Will the Secretary of State assure us that the rural rump of Devon will not rear its ugly head again?

Like I said, I have paused that decision today, and we will be reviewing it. I am sure that the Local Government Minister will be happy to meet with Devon Members to discuss the challenges that they face.

This decision, to put it mildly, is frustrating for everyone in Lancashire who has been involved in the process, and I feel for councillors, council workers and all the service users for having to deal with that frustration. What are the legal reasons, so I can go back to my constituents and explain them? Having listened to this statement, I have nothing I can take back to constituents to explain why this happened, when the next step will be, or whether the boundaries that were just announced in July are going to change. Give us something to go back to people with, please.

I considered the legal advice provided as part of the judicial review process, and the decision to withdraw the decision reflected updated legal clarity. It is a long-standing principle that the Government do not publish or comment on legal advice. I have been clear that I want to be able to review these decisions to ensure, as the new Secretary of State, that they are the right ones. We will consider the programme in the round in the light of the Government’s priorities, as set out in “Rewiring the State”, and Ministers will meet with Members of this House and will set out decisions at our earliest opportunity.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her statement, but I have to confess to being a bit more confused now than I was when I walked into the room. When it comes to Hampshire, is this a pause or a cancellation? When will we know whether this titanic waste of council taxpayers’ money will re-emerge? The Government’s top-down reorganisation plans have cost councils across Hampshire so much time and money, at a point when finances are already stretched to breaking point. Has she calculated the cost? Will local authorities be reimbursed for the time and money already spent? When will we know what is in the plan?

Again, I said that we would work at pace, but I want to be able to review these decisions to ensure that they are the right ones, respecting the court process. That means the way to do this is to withdraw and consider afresh. On the costs so far, I recognise that a lot of work has gone into the financial commitments that have been made. I say to the hon. Member that this work is not wasted, and the Government have committed to providing transitional funding.

There have been lots of different views about reorganisation in my constituency, but one thing everybody is fully agreed on is that Kent county council is a failing organisation. It is too big to be effective, and it consistently lets down residents right across the county. It is critical that we get this right because it is residents who live with the results. While the pause is under way, how can we ensure that momentum is not lost in improving local services and ensuring that Kent and its different communities start to receive decent services? For instance, in my case, I am disappointed that we have lost the Thames Estuary growth board. How can we ensure that we will get the structures and powers we need to succeed and thrive?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to recognise the work that has been done already. We want to work at pace to review the programme, and we will report back to Parliament at the earliest opportunity. Hopefully, the work that has been under way is already paying dividends for those areas. I do understand the frustration, but I ask Members who have worked well in bringing these proposals forward to bear with me as I review this and take us forward at pace.

On 26 March, I said that people will ask whether these reforms are an act of gross gerrymandering and political opportunism, or gross incompetence and stupidity. I think today we recognise that it is both. The right hon. Lady has only just returned to the Dispatch Box, so it cannot really be her fault, so who has screwed up? Who is it that has wasted the time, effort and money of people in Essex and other parts of the country? She has the opportunity now to tell us where, how and why this went wrong, and I encourage her to do so.

Again, I have made it clear that I want to be able to review the decisions. I have made it clear that legal advice was provided to me as part of the JR process, and I have made the decision to withdraw because of where we are up to and to review the decision. I want to also say that a great number of dedicated and professional public servants have worked on this in both central and local government, and I want to thank them on the record. But I want to be sure, as Secretary of State, that I am making the correct decision with all the information available.

Most Gloucester residents are not interested in the detail of who is running what services. What is important to them is: will their services improve, will we feel the benefits of devolution, and will we reverse the years of cuts under the previous Government? Can the Secretary of State confirm that taking time to get this decision right will achieve those three aims?

Absolutely, and I commend my hon. Friend for the work he has been undertaking as well. After 14 years of the Conservatives, who took money out of local government and, in fact, boasted about taking money out of the most deprived areas, I was clear that I would work to rebuild the foundations and resilience of local government. Local government reorganisation for me is about ensuring that local areas feel the benefits and also can take forward devolution. I want to ensure that I get that right as Secretary of State, and that is why I have made the decision today.

I want to impress upon the Secretary of State the anger that my local councillors, across all parties, are feeling at yet another pause, because pauses create more uncertainty for local authorities, when they should be planning for the future so that our residents get better services in the long term. Does the Secretary of State believe that a single resident in West Sussex is better off because of the reforms that were announced two years ago?

If we get this right, it can unlock benefits through local government reform, and whether in education, transport, local services, or social care, I absolutely believe it can unlock such reform. I am a big champion of local government. I am a creature of it; I spent a long time there, and represented members who work in local authorities, so I want to get this right. The hon. Member is correct to pull me up on this and say that people are frustrated. I understand that, but I want to ensure, in good conscience, that I have all the information available on working with local areas to get this right.

Back in July I called in this place for a review of the decision about Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, so I hugely welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of the pause and review. The Secretary of State is a long-standing friend of mine, and whatever noise she receives today, she should know that listening and pausing is a sign of strength, not of weakness. Will she assure me that during the review, the views of local residents in Gedling and of local councillors, and indeed my views as the Member of Parliament, will be properly heard, taken seriously, and genuinely reflected on, whatever decision is ultimately made?

Absolutely, and I commend my hon. Friend for his years of service to local government. I had the privilege and honour to be reappointed as Secretary of State, and my No. 1 priority is to get it right for hon. Members, including those from different political parties who have invested so much into local government because they believe that it will unlock potential and support for their constituents. I want to ensure that I have taken the time to get this right, and that is why I have made the decision.

In the Government’s own consultation on whether to expand Leicester, nine out of 10 people said no. Tens of thousands of people signed petitions against it, yet until Ministers hit this legal snag they tried to press on anyway. When I wrote to them, Ministers said that they would not publish any of the advice or guidance they had been given ahead of making this decision, leaving local people wondering what they had to hide. Will the Secretary of State at least answer this? Why do Ministers sat here in London believe that they know better than local people in Leicestershire what local people in Leicestershire want?

I say gently to the hon. Member that what we are trying to achieve is working with local members to get better outcomes for local people. That is why I have made a decision to pause and review this. I am happy for him to meet the Minister who will be taking this forward, and ensure that his views, and those of his local members, are fully engaged and part of this process. I believe as a principle that local government reform can unlock great potential for local areas. I remain committed to that, but I am going to do it properly and right.

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. When the announcement about Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland came forward in July, I wanted reassurance from the then Secretary of State about barriers to growth, which for Leicestershire are not having a mayor and being without a devolution settlement. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give in the light of this announcement that my constituents in North West Leicestershire will no longer feel the delay caused by not having a devolution settlement?

I have been clear that the Government’s ambition is to ensure that every area in England has, or is in the process of establishing, a strategic authority by the end of 2027, with strategic authorities in place everywhere by the end of 2028. I agree with my hon. Friend that achieving good growth requires a fundamental rewiring of the way our country works, and I want to work with her and her local leaders to ensure that they reach their full potential.

Less than two months ago, the right hon. Lady’s predecessor rushed to the House on the last day before recess, to say how essential these measures were, and Conservative Members warned that it was gerrymandering. It is not that the Secretary of State has listened; she has been told by her lawyers that it is gerrymandering. The warning signs were there two months ago when plans for Cambridgeshire were paused. When again announcing a pause for Cambridgeshire, will she tell my constituents how long the pause will be, and how much it will cost?

Again, I have said that I want to do the review at pace and I will be working on that. I want to place on the record that there is no suggestion of wrongdoing by my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed) or my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern). They are quite correct that we must review the processes and learn lessons, and I am pleased that we will today announce the new permanent secretary in my Department, who has an impeccable track record in public service, including local government. I will ensure that we continue at pace to ensure that we get the best local government reform for the right hon. Gentleman’s area.

In North Warwickshire and Bedworth, our councils, businesses and voluntary organisations were all preparing for new unitary councils. They will be disappointed with the news, but we must get reorganisation right. Will the Secretary of State assure the councils struggling to recruit and retain high quality officers, the businesses wanting to invest and the voluntary organisations preparing to restructure, that the pause will not be an undue delay and that the towns and villages in my constituency will not be left behind without the investment that devolution will bring?

Absolutely. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the challenges but also the opportunities that can be unlocked as part of this process. I appreciate the specific work that has been done that needs to be paused, but councils can continue with cross-cutting things like data sharing. My officials will be in touch to ensure that we are giving the right support to her local area, so that we can get back on track and ensure that we deliver for her constituents.

Earlier in the year, the Secretary of State’s predecessor’s decision to cancel elections for 5 million people was overturned on the eve of its going to the courts, amid allegations of gerrymandering. Now, her predecessor’s decision to reorganise local councils has been overturned on the eve of its going to the courts, amid allegations of gerrymandering. What is going wrong in the Secretary of State’s Department? How is she going to reassure people that this Government take decisions fairly and in accordance with the law, and actually respect local democracy?

Let me be really clear: this has not been overturned. As Secretary of State, I have made the decision to withdraw so that I can have a look and clear sight of what is going on, and review those decisions. I have done that in good conscience because I want to ensure that we get this absolutely right.

I dispute the gerrymandering allegation—I do not believe that that is the case. I am really clear that local government reform can unlock potential in the right hon. Gentleman’s area and in areas across England, and that is what I want to do with local people. I understand that we will not get consensus and it is probably going to be a highly litigated area, but I want to work hard to get this right as quickly as possible, so that we can deliver for his constituents.

I welcome the Secretary of State back to her position. I have been an advocate of local government reorganisation, but my thoughts today are with the local government officers and councillors who have been working so hard for so long, including in some instances people who have been employed specifically to manage the transition. Will my right hon. Friend give them some reassurance? What they need, above all else, is certainty, so can she tell the House that for Hertfordshire, where she has promised a full review, she will come forward as soon as possible with clarity about the timeline and what comes next?

Absolutely. I agree with my hon. Friend about the amount of work that has gone in from local officers and council representatives as part of the process; I recognise that a lot of work has gone into the financial commitments as well. I say to the House that this work is not wasted. We are reviewing at pace so that I can come to the House at the earliest opportunity, and the Government have committed to providing transitional funding. I urge my hon. Friend and his local leaders to contact my Department.

In Worcestershire, what has happened has thrown everything into disarray. Now that we are asking people to stand as district councillors next May, will the Secretary of State clarify whether that will be for a four-year term?

What I have said is that the elections next year will be on the old boundaries. We will continue at pace with local government reorganisation, working with areas to ensure that we get it right. I urge the hon. Lady and her local leaders to make contact with my Department and Ministers so we can take that forward.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Before the summer, I raised the concerns of my constituents in Hyndburn about the proposals for a Pennine-Lancs authority, which could become the most deprived in the country. As Ministers undertake the review, will they look at that issue very closely and consider the perspectives of my constituents?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise those issues. We want to ensure that we get this right and work with local leaders; I am sure that she will have the opportunity to speak with Ministers and my officials as we look at the review.

North Norfolk has more than 2,000 people waiting for housing, a coastline that we are trying to prevent falling into the North sea and endless challenges from being an underfunded rural authority. Now it has been made to waste £600,000 on a local government reorganisation programme that the Secretary of State demanded and has now gone back on. One question will be about the future of devolution for Norfolk, but what people in North Norfolk will be thinking first is, “We want our money back.” Will she give it to us?

I would push back a little on that, because I do not think that money has been wasted. I have said that I want a review, and I have put a pause in place to carry out that review and ensure that I get it absolutely right as the Secretary of State. I do not think that money is wasted. I have been really clear that the Government have committed to providing transitional funding. I want to continue to work with the hon. Gentleman’s local leaders so that we can get local government reform on track, but I want to be confident that I am making the correct decisions for his local area and with his local area, delivering what it wants.

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. A pause in the review is clearly the right step, but my constituents—particularly those in East Saltdean, Peacehaven and Telscombe—will want to know what comes next. Will she answer two specific questions? First, will the review that she has announced look again at the precise boundaries announced in May, as well as the legal process that got to them? Secondly, how will my constituents have a chance to shape that decision? Will it be through MPs? Will there be another consultation? How can they feed in so that we can get this right and make LGR the success that we both know it can be?

The review will look at those issues; I will then be able to give a more detailed response to how that happens with Ministers. I want to ensure that local Members feel that this review takes into account the issues and concerns that people raise and that it is done in a prompt and inclusive way, so that we can make the right decisions for my hon. Friend’s local area.

Building 1.5 million new homes and doing LGR at the same time was clearly bonkers. From freedom of information requests that I have submitted, I know that local councils in my area have already spent more than £1 million trying to do LGR. That much-needed money could have been spent on special educational needs and disabilities and other critical things in my county. Before any more money is wasted, will the Secretary of State be very explicit about what is happening in Devon? Will elections be happening next May? Can she give an indication of when a decision will be reached?

I have said that we will look at the review happening as speedily as possible. The Government have committed £63 million for transition costs to support councils, including £900,000 per unitary. Again, I do not think this money is wasted. Certainly, from my perspective as the Secretary of State and from the perspective of the Prime Minister, local government reform is about delivering for people in their local area with better services. I want to work with the hon. Gentleman and his local leaders to ensure that that happens.

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I know it was incredibly difficult to make, but I also know how disappointed and concerned local residents, businesses, organisations and councils will be—they have put a huge amount of work into this area, not least in the six months since the original decision was made.

However, this issue is not just about looking to the past; it is about looking forward to the future. That is why so many people, including me, are championing Greater Ipswich or Ipswich and South Suffolk, alongside an East Suffolk council and a West Suffolk council. Just when we were on the verge of thinking that a new future was possible, this statement has changed everything. Will the Secretary of State offer some reassurance to all my local residents, businesses, organisations and councils that we are not going to go right back to the drawing board?

I recognise the amount of work that local leaders, my hon. Friend and others have put into this matter. Effective and sustainable local government is key to our ambitions on devolution, and as part of that we are looking at the overall programme timings, but we are not moving back from local government reform—I absolutely believe in that. As the Secretary of State, I am ensuring that I review those decisions and take them forward in a way that satisfies me that I have delivered what is expected of me in my obligations to this House. I would rather come to this House and say, “I have had to put in a delay to satisfy myself of that,” than make in haste and regret at leisure.

I assure the hon. Member that the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton, is in his place and will be meeting Lancashire Members. We want to make sure that we unlock the potential of that area. The Prime Minister talks about growth in every postcode, which includes making sure that devolution and local government reorganisation deliver for everybody across the whole of Lancashire. That is what we want to do through this review, and it is at the forefront of my mind.

I have to say that I am really disappointed by this decision. Councils have spent months working on proposals; resources and precious time have been spent—or, I would say, wasted—on them. Growth is meant to be a priority for this Government, and Oxfordshire is a high growth delivery area, yet we have no devolution, no local government reorganisation and no timescale for either. Will the Secretary of State or one of her Ministers meet me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) to discuss the shortcomings in this high-value growth area?

Absolutely; the Minister and I will happily meet my hon. Friend as part of this programme. The new Prime Minister has made absolutely clear that we want growth in every postcode; in order for the UK—and England in particular—to raise its growth agenda, every area needs to feel that. The Chancellor made a statement earlier today about how he sees that as a priority and about devolution being part of that programme. We will be in touch with my hon. Friend to support his area.

I am delighted by the reprieve—the New Forest was to be split, and part of it swallowed by Southampton. Will the Secretary of State accept my representation that we want the integrity of the New Forest to remain, and the last thing we want is for it all to be swallowed by Southampton?

I am glad to have pleased the right hon. Member; I do not think I have ever done that before. Of course, I am happy to work with him going forward, and you never know—I might even visit the New Forest, without the split.

Back to Lancashire: the residents of Lancashire—in particular the residents of the two authorities that I represent, Chorley and South Ribble—are rightly really disappointed with this new Secretary of State. However, can she reiterate and commit that local government reorganisation in Lancashire is still a commitment of this Government—that this is a pause, that she will be reporting back, and that we will hopefully go to the four unitary model?

I am absolutely committed to making sure that areas such as Chorley and Lancashire more widely get local government reform, and that we take that forward. This is a pause. I have not taken that decision lightly, but I want to review the decisions and make sure, for my peace of mind as Secretary of State, that I have got this absolutely right; that I have taken on board the legal advice given to me recently; and that I can go to the Prime Minister, who tasked me last week with reviewing these decisions, and say that I have reviewed them and we are making the right decisions. I accept that I will not get the consent of everybody around the House, but I want to make sure that I have at least heard everybody’s views.

At the Government’s request, councillors and council officers have put a huge amount of time into preparing for these proposals—time that could have been put into improving council services. If there is going to be another extended period of instability, that will further worsen that situation. Does the Secretary of State accept that local government funding is extremely stretched, especially for councils that run services such as SEND and social care, and that councils very little money for anything else? Does she agree that if local government reorganisation is to go ahead and devolution is to be meaningful, it needs to put money into the hands of local people, and there needs to be proper funding for local government?

This Government have recognised that, after 14 years of failure by the Conservatives, local government had faced the brunt of austerity, and we put in additional funding. We also recognise that the most important thing about local government reorganisation is delivering better services for local people. The Prime Minister has recognised that in terms of devolution. We recognise the investment that has gone in—that is why we put transitional funding in place to support councils—and I want to work to get this policy right, because I absolutely believe that it will be the best thing for the hon. Member’s constituents.

I very much welcome what the Secretary of State has said from the Dispatch Box today for two reasons. First, there is no question but that the two-tier system is very bad for people in Sittingbourne and Sheppey and across Kent, so I welcome her commitment to press ahead with local government reorganisation. Secondly, at the same time, the geographies announced by her predecessor just before the summer recess were terrible for the people of Sittingbourne and Sheppey. How can local councillors, local residents, businesses, other organisations locally and I feed into this review, which I am grateful will be happening?

My Department will be reaching out to local authorities and the areas affected to make sure that we are taking into account all the information that we have at hand. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton, is willing to meet representatives of the local area to ensure that we get this right. I do not want this review to go on for a considerable time; I want to do it rapidly, but I want to be reassured that the decisions we are making are the right ones.

The Labour leader of City of Lincoln council has put forward suggestions that votes should be weighted on the basis of deprivation, leading to proposed wards with an electorate of 2,100 electors per councillor and others with 4,700 electors per councillor. Does the Secretary of State agree that all our votes should be created equal?

None of that is progressing.

Devolution and local government reorganisation are different things. To be honest, they should probably be considered separately, but they have become so interlinked and intertwined in this debate that it is impossible to do so. If we are to have a stronger devolution settlement, it is right to spend more time getting it right. Does the Secretary of State agree that any new structures that emerge should be based on economic growth and dynamism, rather than having to be built on existing districts? Those building blocks were established in a very different economic era.

I agree with my hon. Friend. In our past lives, we worked in local government and on local government policy for some time. We have to take time to get this policy right, and he is right to make the distinction between local government reform and devolution, but the two can intertwine to help us on our way. This review does not impact on the timetable for devolution. Unitary local government can help with smoothing the functions of strategic authorities, but that is not a prerequisite.

Devon is one of 14 areas where local government reorganisation is being reviewed and paused, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for having listened to Liberal Democrats in Devon and perhaps also to her legal advisers. When the rapid review takes place, will the Secretary of State please consider the greater costs associated with delivering in the countryside, such as rural Devon?

One of the challenges that rural areas face is transport. One of the reasons that the Prime Minister has been so eager to make sure that devolution happens is that those who are closest to what is going on in their local area know what challenges are being faced and how we can unlock some of the potential, and Devon can take the positives from that. We want to work with Devon to make sure that people in Devon get the right local devolution and local government reform for them. That is why I paused the decision.

My constituents, and people in Kent generally, cannot wait any longer to see an improvement in their roads, bus services, social care and SEND provision. They were let down by decades of Tory administration, and are now being let down by Reform. Can the Secretary of State reassure them that this pause will not create more uncertainty, and will not lead to any further decline in public services?

My hon. Friend is right to mention what happened under the Conservatives. This Labour Government recognised what local government had been through, and took steps to build back resilience and deal with funding pressures. For me, local government reform is about ensuring that people receive the right services at the right level and that we can deliver the best for their local areas, and that, hopefully, is what we will be able to do. I still believe in and am committed to local government reform; I just want to make sure that we get this right.

Since the Secretary of State first announced these plans, when she last held this role, the Labour Government have played fast and loose with our local democracy, cancelling elections and creating chaos and uncertainty in our councils as they struggle to deliver key frontline services. As she goes to work on this review, will she publish, alongside the legal advice that she has received, the financial costs that councils in Essex have faced as a result of this massive U-turn? Has she assessed the adverse impact on local services caused by the time and resources spent on these changes?

Again, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me gently say that this is not a U-turn. This is me, as Secretary of State, reviewing the position and ensuring that we get this right. I still believe that local government reform in the right hon. Lady’s area in particular can deliver for her constituents, and I want them to engage with us. We have provided transitional funding to give support, and her local authorities and those in her local areas can get in touch with my Department to discuss it.

May I warmly welcome the Secretary of State back to her place? I especially welcome this statement, as will many people back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme who only wanted to be listened to.

Back in July, in the strongest terms, I asked the Secretary of State’s predecessor to pause and think again. Today the Secretary of State has done that, and I am grateful. I hope that she will also listen to the many representations that I have made to her Department. May I go one step further, however, and ask her to focus on establishing the new mayoral authorities, which will provide the comprehensive cross-party, cross-community support that we need when it comes to changes of this scale?

The Prime Minister has been clear about what he wants to see in terms of our devolution agenda, and we will be taking that forward. As I have said, this will be a rapid review. I want to make sure that that is done and that the decisions are the right decisions, but we are moving forward with devolution, and we will be engaging with those in my hon. Friend’s area so that they can unlock their full potential.

My constituents never asked for local government reorganisation. They do not support local government reorganisation, which they see as leading to decisions being taken by a more remote, more expensive and less accountable authority. Will the Secretary of State confirm that maintaining the status quo is at least an option as a part of her review, and will she also say whether the intention is still to go ahead with the mayoral election in Essex in 2028?

Let me gently say to the right hon. Member that, as I have already said, I think that local government reform can unlock potential for areas, but we want to do this with areas, and, indeed, to look into how we can deliver for his area and improve services for his local constituents.. There are opportunities, but sometimes there is duplication, so I welcome that discussion. As for taking forward the devolution agenda, I do not envisage that being interrupted by this process.

It is never too late to make sure that a decision is the right one, but I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State recognise the challenge that this pause presents to local councils such as my district council, Rushmoor borough council, which has worked so hard to deliver local government reorganisation in our community. However, it also has an impact on businesses, schools and community organisations across Aldershot and Farnborough, which have spent months committing time and energy to preparing for this reorganisation on the basis of the Government’s decision. Does the Secretary of State recognise how frustrating it is for them to have that certainty pulled away, and has the Department considered the cost and disruption that this decision will cause beyond local councils themselves?

I thank my hon. Friend and members of her local community for engaging in local government reform. I reiterate from the Dispatch Box my commitment to that, but we need to make sure that we get it right. The example that I can give, especially to the young people in her area, is that if they feel that they do not have all the information, it is okay to say so and to take that forward in the correct way. That is the right and correct way forward. We are committed to providing transitional funding, and I urge my hon. Friend and her local leaders to be in touch with my Department so that we can take a look at this issue.

As we heard a short while ago from the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), Lincolnshire county council welcomes the review, but in the north of the county, where the two unitaries are, I and my two constituency neighbours, who are Labour colleagues, favour the status quo, as do council leaders. May I urge the Secretary of State to take an early decision to continue the status quo in respect of the two unitaries?

I want to give clarity to the hon. Gentleman and his local leaders, and I will review the situation at pace to make sure that we are able to do so.

My constituents in Gillingham and Rainham want local government that works for them and delivers the services that they need. Could the Secretary of State provide some reassurance that while the review is taking place she will continue to look at local government funding and finances, and particularly at how councils such as mine—Medway council, which is in a non-mayoral area— are able to access investment and growth opportunities in the way that other devolved authorities are able to do?

Absolutely. As the Prime Minister set out, it is really important that every area and every postcode feels the benefits of growth and that we can unlock potential through devolution. Local government reform is part of that process but not the only bit. I believe that we will put areas in a strong position through devolution, and that we will be able to deliver better services for her local area and start to repair some of the damage that was done by the cuts to local government under the previous Government.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the mayoral election in Cumbria will go ahead as planned and that the planned combined authority will be introduced without further hindrance, disruption or uncertainty? Will she also take this opportunity to review the other mistake that this Government have made on devolution in the last couple of years: the errors when it comes to what is referred to, wrongly, as “fairer funding”? Westmorland and Furness is the most rural unitary authority in England, and for that crime it has borne the penalty of a 31% cut in its funding from the Government, meaning that devolution no longer looks like devolution of power and instead looks more like a delegation of cuts for the people of Cumbria.

I recognise what local government has been through after 14 years of the Conservatives—in fact, I think the hon. Gentleman’s party was involved at the time. In trying to recognise the challenges that areas face, I believe that what I am saying today about local government reorganisation does not impact on the timetable for devolution. I believe that that will go ahead, and unitary local government can help with the smooth functioning of strategic authorities.

In Chesterfield, there will be unmitigated despair at the statement we have heard today from my right hon. Friend. For the authorities for which she is doing a review—the 14 that thought they had got their decision in July—could she clarify the basis of that review? Is she still attempting to achieve what we were attempting to achieve previously in terms of the size of authorities, or is she relooking at the basis of what reorganisation should achieve? We were told in February, when the 2026 elections had been cancelled and then the cancellation was cancelled, that this reorganisation would definitely not happen in 2027. What has actually gone wrong? There is a real lack of confidence that what we are being told one day is the same thing that we will be told the next.

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s frustration, but I have considered the legal advice provided as part of the judicial review process. The Prime Minister asked me to review this process, and I took the decision that I needed more time. I really appreciate how that has left people, and their frustration. This is not the end of local government reform. We remain committed to unitary councils, and the review will consider proposals for how best to deliver unitary councils in this Parliament, and to ensure alignment with the priorities of the new Administration.

Communities like mine in Eastleigh are being denied funding opportunities because they do not yet have an elected mayor. With the timeline for local government reorganisation and elections now thrown into doubt, will the Secretary of State ensure that funding opportunities are offered to all local authorities, whether or not they have an elected mayor?

Devolution can unlock funding and potential, but an area does not necessarily need to have a mayor. I think the Prime Minister outlined that in his statement, when he took questions for over three hours; the hon. Member should look back at that. This is about making sure that devolution can be unlocked for areas at the pace they wish. As I said in my statement, I do not believe that this pause will have an impact on people’s ability to continue with the devolution agenda.

I understand the limits on what my right hon. Friend can say today, but it seems that there have been real failures in the official process. The situation in many of our constituencies is being put on hold. She is taking accountability, even though she is not actually responsible for this. Will she assure me that she will investigate any failures of process that have occurred, and that have led to this situation, so that we can learn the lessons, and so that this does not happen again?

My hon. Friend is right that we have to review the process and learn lessons. As I said to the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), we are announcing our new permanent secretary, who I am sure will be listening to this debate and will want to take this forward. I want to place on record my thanks to the dedicated, professional public servants from both central and local government who have worked on this, and to my predecessor. I want to reassure the House that I have taken this action, as Secretary of State, to ensure that I have all the facts, so that I can make the decision.

I have to confess to the Secretary of State that I am even more confused now than my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) was 40 minutes ago. Could the Secretary of State just be clear with my residents that the combined authority elections due next May are off, and the borough council elections are on, but the combined authority elections might be on if she gets her skates on and the borough council elections might be off? If the combined authority elections are off, when will they be on, and is the mayoral election in 2028 on or off? If it is off, what is going to happen to police governance?

I have said that the review is on and the elections are on, and I am ready to get on with it. I am sure that the right hon. Member will work with me to make sure we get it sorted—and it is on.

One of the policy goals of LGR is to encourage economically important cities like Exeter to better play their role in generating jobs, growth, housing and better place-based services. In our case, devolution does not work if Exeter is not in the strategic authority, as it is one of the two big economic drivers of the region. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this remains the case, and that after the rapid review, should it have a positive outcome, we can move forward with both LGR and devolution in Devon quickly?

I reassure my hon. Friend that I have said that this review should be rapid, and that we should get on as quickly as possible with engagement, but also that the timetable for devolution should not be affected. We need to make sure that we make the right decisions on local government reform, but we want to take forward devolution at pace.

It is apparent to absolutely everyone that this local government reform is now a shambolic, incompetent mess. I just want to put on record how much time, as well as money, has been spent by councillors and council officials right across Norfolk, where this has been a massive, monumental distraction, not for months, but for years. The independent Local Government Association says:

“There is no excuse for the Government’s mishandling of this process.”

Does the Secretary of State agree?

No. What I have said is that I have reviewed the decisions. I have said on record that people across Norfolk, and representatives from across the whole conurbation, have put in a great amount of work. I want to respect that work, as the new Secretary of State, and make sure that I am listening, that I have reviewed the decisions, and that I am making the correct ones. I do not believe that is a waste of the time and resources that have been put in. I believe that local government reform is an opportunity for Norfolk. I will work with local leaders at pace to give them certainty. I wanted to ensure, out of respect for their work, that I take that work into consideration, as Secretary of State.

I echo the comments of Lancashire colleagues, particularly on the opportunity to review the boundary decisions, but I also think that all those councillors and officers in Lancashire who worked so hard on reorganisation and made so much progress deserve an apology.

More fundamentally, every day and every week that goes past, Lancashire falls further behind our neighbours in Manchester and Liverpool, simply through lack of an effective structure and the capacity and capability to deliver our growth potential. I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State’s recommitment to growth in every postcode. Will she meet me, along with Lancashire colleagues, to agree how we can properly resource Lancashire’s growth potential? We cannot wait; we need to do it now. We need to properly resource it, and we need to deliver on our potential through this period of uncertainty.

Again, I say to my hon. Friend that I recognise the work that has gone in. That work is not wasted. The pause will be about working with local areas at pace to get this right, but it does not mean that we cannot take advantage of unlocking growth in every postcode. The Ministers here will be happy to work with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members from his area to ensure that we get the right devolution, and a package that works for them.

I am going to try a different tack, rather than commenting on the hokey-cokey of this process. The more serious point is that local government reorganisation was always a significant risk to the voluntary and community sector. Many funders are reluctant to fund organisations with annual incomes exceeding £1 million, leaving those organisations reliant on commissioned contracts from local government, NHS bodies and other public sector departments. The proposed transition to unitary authorities was already disrupting funding streams; today’s announcement creates further disruption. Can the Secretary of State reassure those important community organisations that they will have the funding, and give them certainty about the direction of travel, so that they have the confidence to start and continue providing services for my community?

Again, I want to reassure the hon. Member that this is about getting the process right. I want him and those local organisations to get in contact with my officials, so that we can be sure that we are doing everything possible to support the process. I have said that unitary local government can help with the smooth functioning of strategic authorities. I also recognise that the Government are committed to providing transition funding, so please go ahead and get in touch with my Department.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her statement. It will be met with some disappointment and frustration locally, not least because many businesses, community groups, charities, councillors and council officers have put an enormous amount of effort into the proposal for a north Hampshire authority. I believe it is still the right course to set up a north Hampshire. Can she reassure those people that their effort has not been in vain, and that she will provide certainty and take a decision on the new proposals as soon as possible?

I absolutely provide that reassurance. I needed that time. With the advice that I received during the judicial review process, and with the Prime Minister asking me to look at this again, it was only right that I did so, in a timely way. As I have reiterated, I am absolutely clear that I want to take this forward. Local government reform is a priority, and I want to undertake it at pace, as do Members across the House, including my hon. Friend and his local leaders.

There is a video circulating online that claims the three most difficult things to say in life are “I’m sorry,” “I love you” and “Worcestershire”. It is fascinating to see that the right hon. Lady struggles with at least two of those three things. I am glad that she has abandoned, or at least paused, her decision to destroy the well run, low-tax, Conservative-controlled Wychavon district council, but is she aware of the chaos and cost that she has caused to councils in Worcestershire and across the country? She is giving very strong vibes that she does not know what she is doing. Is that because she does not know what she is doing?

I am sorry, but I am not sure that I love the hon. Gentleman, but I love something—and Worcestershire. I apologise. I do know what I am doing. I know that this has been a disappointment for some areas. I do not make this statement to the House lightly, but I am doing this, in all sincerity, to get it right. I hope that hon. Members from across Worcestershire and every other area where we are looking at local government reorganisation appreciate that. Even if I cannot say “I love you”, hopefully the hon. Gentleman will be able to say that he loves me at the end of this process.

First, I thank the councillors and council officers from East Staffordshire borough council and Staffordshire county council for the hard work that they have put into the process. The rapid review is essential to give residents and council workers the certainty that they need. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) said, it should be seen as being apart from mayoral devolution, which is the real prize for our communities; it will bring power out of this place and into Staffordshire. Will the Secretary of State commit to a meeting in No. 10 North with Stoke and Staffordshire MPs, so that we can talk about getting that deal in place?

My hon. Friend is right that devolution can happen at pace, and that it will unlock potential. I am sure that the Minister will be happy to meet him and my colleagues from No. 10 North to ensure that we unlock the potential of his area.

I absolutely share the shock and anger of councillors and council officers at the announcement. At the heart of this are councillors who are working so hard to deliver frontline services, whether that is education, housing or social care. It is they who are battling this change. I am still uncertain about what will happen in May, so will the Secretary of State please reassure the people of Hertfordshire, and say what they will be voting for in May? Will councils be reimbursed for the money and time spent, so that the money can go to the services that are desperately needed?

I gently say to the hon. Member that while I appreciate she uses language like “shock and anger”, it was important to me, as Secretary of State, to make the right decision, so I came to this House and spoke to hon. Members to ensure that I do that. I still believe that local government reform will unlock potential for the hon. Member’s area. I want to ensure that I am doing this with local people’s consent; I know that we cannot get everyone’s consent, but I absolutely believe that we can design services that will improve her area. We have committed to providing transition funding. Hopefully, through local government reform, we can transform some of the thorny issues that have been around for a long time, like adult social care, as the Prime Minister said, and build resilience at a local level.

The Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office set out their plans last week to rewire the state, and effective local government remains fundamental to that. Will the Secretary of State double down on her commitment to listening—as she did so well with us in Cornwall—to Members of this House, local councils and members of the public in this process?

Absolutely. Last week, I said clearly that I recognised the work of those in local government, and how difficult this has been for our local government colleagues, given the changes that have happened in our communities and the demands and pressures put on local government. I absolutely believe that local government is critical to ensuring that we get the devolution agenda right, and that we must build back resilience at a local level, so that councils can carry on delivering excellent services to their residents.

Local government reform in Essex has been a farce from the outset, because the people never wanted it. The council tax payers themselves never had any desire for this process. I welcome the fact that Labour’s five gerrymandered unitary authorities are clearly now stone dead, but I want to give the Secretary of State some honest advice: drop it and walk away—including the mayoralty. We have got by in Essex for 1,000 years without a mayor, and the last thing we want in our county is another Sadiq Khan. Just get rid.

I will not drop it, because I believe that the people of Essex and people all over England deserve good local services. Where there is something that I believe will improve local services and is worth exploring with local leaders, whether in Essex or elsewhere, I am up for that challenge. I am not ready to drop it. I think we can work together to improve local services, and I would be happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman, or any of his local leaders, to progress that.

I welcome the review, which gives us a real opportunity to get local government reorganisation right for my constituents. I hope that they will now be heard. Infrastructure in my constituency is creaking at the seams due to years of neglect by the previous Government. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the real concerns in my constituency about planning, local infrastructure and local government reorganisation, as well as an exciting opportunity to create a local country park?

Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, Sherwood Forest and a local country park—I am really up for that. When I was in the Lake district over the bank holiday weekend, though, I managed to fall halfway down a mountain—that is why my legs are not used to bouncing up and down at the moment, because my knees are not so good—so I am hoping that the park will be a bit flatter and that the gradient will be a little better for me. My hon. Friend asks if we can meet, and I am sure that the relevant Minister will be happy to meet her to discuss how we can progress, ensuring that her area, including Sherwood Forest, benefits from devolution and local government.

Large numbers of my constituents took part in the Government’s consultation on proposed boundaries for the East Sussex unitary authority in good faith. They were appalled by Brighton and Hove city council’s attempted land grab in our area, and together, we resisted it. Can the Secretary of State be crystal clear for my constituents on whether she intends to reopen the discussion over East Sussex’s local government boundaries as part of this review?

Again, at the moment I can give the hon. Member an assurance that I am looking at the areas, and that I will look to ensure that all the consultation, information and advice is correct and that we are making robust decisions. I want to ensure that I do that. I am happy for him to be in contact with the relevant Minister or myself to ensure that we hear what he is saying about that process, but I have heard him today.

I appreciate that the Secretary of State is new in post, so the issues that she has outlined today are not necessarily of her making, but I must tell her that this is extremely frustrating for people in Derbyshire, and that service delivery and business confidence will be undermined while this pause goes ahead. I am at a loss as to how it has proceeded so far without it being totally legally watertight. I would appreciate any assurances the Secretary of State can give me that it will not be torpedoed in the courts again. Crucially, we are going to be asking people to stand for the existing local authorities in Derbyshire next May—people of all parties; civic-minded, community-spirited people. How long will they serve for? I think we owe it to them to tell them how long their term will be, because they will be making professional and family sacrifices. If she could offer me that information, it would be very helpful.

Again, I do recognise the frustration that my hon. Friend has expressed at parts of this process. I want to ensure that we take this forward and that it is robust, and that is why I have come to this House to say that I want to review the decisions on the basis of the legal advice provided as part of the JR process. I want to ensure that the rationale for those that go forward, including the 14 other areas, is absolutely watertight. I ask my hon. Friend to meet the Ministers as part of this process and we can iron out some of those concerns.

When the Secretary of State embarked on local government reorganisation for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, her Department accepted the principle that the Isle of Wight council should remain a stand-alone unitary authority. Now that she is reviewing local government reorganisation, will she reconfirm that the Isle of Wight council will remain a stand-alone unitary authority and that it is not, and will not be, at risk of merging with a part of the mainland?

I think it is fair to say that there is a very strong argument and rationale for it. I will make sure that the review happens speedily and that we can give those reassurances as part of the process after the review.

I have repeatedly argued with colleagues that LGR is extremely complex but extremely important. It therefore did not need to be a term-one priority for this Government, and I remain of that view, because for me our councils should be building council houses, tackling homelessness, strengthening trade standards and regenerating high streets, not focusing on administrative structures. Assuming that LGR still goes ahead in some form—I advise the Secretary of State to think deeply about that—will she please explain how the views of Rushcliffe and Nottinghamshire residents, many of whom felt ignored through the last process, will be fully considered in this new approach?

Again, we will ensure within the review that people are engaged in the process. I say to my hon. Friend that local government reform is challenging and complex, but the aim for me is to deliver better services for local people. That means building the homes that we desperately need and renewing our high streets, which this Government are taking forward. We can deliver better services, we can reorganise and we can do better. I believe that working with local leaders is the way forward to deliver for the people of this country. I am committed to local government reform, and I want to make sure that we get it right. That is why I have made the decision to have the review.

I am the only MP in the House who represents constituents in both East Sussex and West Sussex and three district councils, including Lewes, which was previously potentially going to be split previously, along with West Sussex. The confusion around devolution and LGR in West Sussex is a terrible mess, because we have different speeds and approaches and an unclear mayoral timetable. The Secretary of State will acknowledge that the two previous East Sussex and Wessex Sussex leaders spent huge amounts of time on this process and brought positive energy to it. The right hon. Lady rightly talks about outcomes, but what can she tell my constituents about how their services, including education, social care, roads, and infrastructure, will be delivered in the future?

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s local leaders and the work that they are doing in local government. I recognise the challenges that they face, and I have outlined what has happened to local government over the decade and a half that her Government were in power. I have tried to build up that resilience for local leaders. Previous Ministers chose to take more time to consider the proposals—she referenced two of the places involved—and we will consider these alongside the wider review of the programme.

When I am out on the doorsteps in Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove, residents tell me that too often they feel distant from decisions that affect their lives. I want residents to feel that decision making is being brought closer to home and that locally we are taking better decisions about improving our buses and houses and giving young people the skills that match their potential. Can the Secretary of State please confirm that devolved powers are still coming to Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire and that they are coming at speed, because we cannot be left behind?

Absolutely. Devolution is at the heart of our plans to rewire the state. I am making this statement today exactly to ensure that that happens.

We are 26 months in, and the Secretary of State has already admitted that the real cost that the Government have not assessed are the costs of the lost programmes, projects and services that have not been delivered in West Sussex and Arun because the bandwidth, headspace and resources have been devoted to LGR. Can she tell me, first, what has been the financial cost—nationally, in West Sussex and in Arun—of this so far failed experiment with LGR? Secondly, how many months can the district councillors elected in 2027 expect to serve?

Again, I do not see local government reorganisation as a wasted endeavour. I have been really clear about the reason for the pause: to get the decision right. We have committed to providing transitional funding. Where local government reform has happened in the past, we have seen that there have been savings, but my motivation is to work with local authorities to improve their services. Local authorities recognise that we could do that. I am absolutely committed to continuing that, and we will work at pace to deliver for the hon. Member’s area.

I welcome my right hon. Friend back to her role and thank her for her statement. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) is no longer in his place, because I wanted to assure him that, far from being swallowed up, his constituents would have had a warm welcome and excellent local public services as part of Southampton.

I understand the difficult decision that the Secretary of State has had to make, but I must express disappointment that after all the hard work across councils and across parties, the five unitaries for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight will not be going ahead. Will she confirm that, after her rapid review, Southampton and the surrounding councils will still have the opportunity to reorganise if they so wish, or is this the last we will hear of LGR?

I absolutely want to reassure hon. Members that this is not the end of local government reorganisation, because I am absolutely committed to it. I commend my hon. Friend for his work, and his local partners and others across the House who recognise what local government reorganisation could do for their area. I want to work at pace to put us on a firm footing, so that I as Secretary of State am clear-eyed about the decision I am making and that we can go ahead, with their consent or not.

From the LGR options that were on the table for Devon, the Government opted for a Labour-led proposal to create three urban growth areas, with all the rural bits that were left behind dumped together into one huge, unworkable authority that divided communities, had no economic hub and had little chance of being sustainable. I therefore welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that she will review the decision, although it is not clear how the review will happen, who will do it or how long it will take. Will she commit to meeting all Opposition Members who represent rural Devon so that we can discuss the best proposal for the for the biggest number of people across Devon? The one we had was going to leave rural Devon behind, and we want to ensure that does not happen again.

I want to reassure the hon. Member that we do not want to leave rural Devon behind, either. As the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), has just had to nip out for another meeting, I will volunteer him for the commitment to meet those Members. It is of serious concern for me to ensure that people are heard in the process. That is why I decided to have the review.

I know that the pause will be frustrating for people in Adur and Worthing who want to see the back of West Sussex county council and have power and money brought closer to them, but I do accept that it is important to take the time to get this right. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the review will not diminish the Government’s plans to devolve power closer to my constituents?

Absolutely. We are committed to devolution and to devolving power. The Prime Minister has made it really clear that that is one of his priorities. We want to ensure that we do this right, with local people, so that the power is there and we give areas the resources and support they need to flourish.

Local councils across South Cambridgeshire spent time and money in good faith preparing for local government reorganisation according to the Government’s criteria and timelines. Businesses in one of the fastest growing areas of the country welcome the prospect of certainty with a final decision, yet further delay leaves them all in limbo. Does the Secretary of State agree that chaos is not good for local democracy and not good for investment? Will she meet me and local council leaders to understand the implications of this decision for Cambridgeshire?

I totally recognise that Cambridgeshire has a huge amount of potential, and we will absolutely ensure that a meeting is set up with myself or the Minister. I gently say that I understand the implications of me coming to the House today, as Secretary of State, and reviewing these decisions. I have said that I want to do it at pace, but I have also made it really clear that I felt that I needed to put that review in place so that I could satisfy myself that we are doing it correct. These are some really big reforms, as the hon. Lady is aware. I want to make sure we get it right so that her area can reach its full potential, and I am sure it will.

When the right hon. Lady came to the House last year to announce her consultation, I called it a mess. Fast forward 18 months: there is now chaos in the outcome and decisions. Make no mistake, the reason we are here now is the threat of the courts. My concern comes because in Leicestershire, we had three applications go forward and the Government chose their own fourth application. Will the Secretary of State ensure that her review involves not just the process but the boundaries as well, because the biggest contention in Leicestershire is the massive land grab coming from the city, and nine out of 10 people in her own consultation said that this was not acceptable?

I reassure the Member that I am going to review those issues and make sure that I am confident in the decision that is made, including within the boundaries, to ensure that any decisions that are made are the right ones. I will update him, and work with him and other Members to ensure they have that clarity. We might not agree, but I will make sure that I have listened and that I at least know where I am going and make the decision confidently.

I was not in favour of the decision announced by the right hon. Lady’s predecessor before the summer break for a single unitary Gloucestershire. I would have preferred something more Cheltenham-centric. However, that decision seems to reflect the political consensus across the parties in Gloucestershire, so I have to ask the Secretary of State: is she in the business of overturning the political consensus across party locally in Gloucestershire? If not, will she just let us get on with it so that the councils can get on with doing the things that my residents want, including ensuring that there are no unwanted cuts to fire services because of cuts from Westminster to our budgets, that the town centre in Cheltenham is fixed up and that we get a tip reopened for Cheltenham? Those are the things my residents want. They are not so bothered about boundaries, even if they are concerned about Cheltenham losing its historic voice.

This is not about overturning or overpowering local decisions. This is about me reviewing these decisions and making sure that there is a robust system that says, “This is where we want to go”, and taking that forward. I hope to do that within a matter of weeks—not too long a process—and to get it right. That is fundamentally the first and foremost point: I want to get it right for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents so that they can get on and get the things that they absolutely want and desire.

Given that the right hon. Lady emphasised listening to local people, empowering local communities and making decisions with their consent, does she agree that local communities such as those in Leicestershire should have local referendums before decisions are imposed upon them, such as being dragged into an enlarged Leicester city council area?

I have to say that I am not a big fan of referendums, if I am really honest. That is my personal opinion, but I am open to having discussions about how we can make sure that the hon. Member’s local residents feel like they are engaged and see the benefits of local government reform. That is my ultimate aim as part of this process, and I look forward to working with him on that endeavour.

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a district councillor on East Cambs district council. The residents of Ely and East Cambridgeshire will be relieved that they are not going to have the wrong unitary imposed on them, but they will be worried about the chaos and uncertainty that we have heard about, and about what happens next and when. What is the remit of the review? How is it going to be run to ensure that local people get their voices heard? And what is the real timetable? “As quickly as possible” and “at pace” are all great, but what is the actual timetable? Also, the Secretary of State appeared to say that May’s elections would be held on the existing district council boundaries unless the unitaries were in place by then. What did she mean by that?

I have asked the Minister for local government, devolution and regional growth to undertake a rapid review of the local government reorganisation programme. That is a review regarding the decisions that were announced in March and July, and the two remaining areas of West Sussex, and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. I have said that the review will cover 18 decisions already taken and the two areas where decisions have not yet been made. I want the programme to be reviewed at pace and will report back to Parliament at the earliest opportunity.

This process has been a complete shambles from start to finish and has failed to have Worcestershire’s best interests at its heart. Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House whether this is actually being paused or whether, in reality, the can is being kicked down the road, under the veil of the process being delayed, rather than the Government admitting embarrassment? If it has been paused, and she is going to revisit the decision, will the evidence base be revisited, and will there be a new consultation with stakeholders, including residents? If so, will the Secretary of State meet me, as the Member of Parliament for Bromsgrove, before she takes a decision? I think she said earlier that the Government had allocated £63 million to support councils across the country in this process. How much of that £63 million has been spent so far?

This is a pause. It is a review—I have made that absolutely crystal clear—for me to consider the legal advice that was provided as part of the JR process, as well as for me to be able to do what the Prime Minister asked us last week, which was to look at the local government reform programme. That is what I am doing. I did talk about the £63 million. That money is earmarked. If those areas have financial concerns regarding the money they have spent on local government reorganisation, they can contact my Department.

This sudden U-turn is greatly disappointing for my constituency, after so much work by council officials, residents, councillors and other partners, and after so much money wasted on LGR costs. Given that the two-unitary model in Warwickshire—South Warwickshire and North Warwickshire—was championed by my constituents, the majority of local council leaders and the majority of Warwickshire MPs, will the Secretary of State reassure us all regarding the timescale for this review? Above all, will she reassure us that the decision will respect the democratic input of the people of Warwickshire who contributed to the previous LGR process?

Absolutely, I reassure the hon. Member that this is about me reviewing the decisions and making sure they are absolutely correct. I want to do that. I recognise the work that has gone in from her local area and those representatives, and I pay tribute to the work that they are doing. I have indicated that I want the review to take weeks rather than months. I do not want to kick the can down the road; I just want to ensure that the decisions that we made are robust and take us forward in the spirit of co-operation with local areas.

When I led a debate in Westminster Hall last week on the impact of local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire, I could not possibly have anticipated that it would have been powerful enough to stop it dead in its tracks. I welcome the pause to tranche 3, but I want to get a bit of clarity for the councillors in my constituency. The plan is going to be reviewed. If it comes back, will we potentially see local elections in May 2028 for a new shadow unitary? With that in mind, will the Secretary of State meet me and Huntingdonshire district council to discuss some of the topics that are still outstanding and the reason why Cambridgeshire and Peterborough was delayed in the first instance?

I thank the hon. Member for his comments; I believe that he enjoyed the Westminster Hall debate with the Local Government Minister. I am sure that the Minister would like to continue that conversation to ensure that we get the best deal over the line. I do not want to pre-empt the review, but I want to ensure that we have heard from the hon. Member and his local representatives about the challenges. I am sure that the Minister will set a meeting up in his diary as soon as possible, so that we expedite the process.

My constituents in Esher and Walton, in Surrey, are left wondering whether they have been thrown under the bus by a Government who failed to be secure in the legal advice and the costs from the very beginning. This is incompetent. Will the Government release the legal advice? What are the legal implications for Surrey? What extra support will she give Surrey regarding the cost implications, given the gross underestimation of how much LGR would cost and the significant debt that Conservative Surrey has amassed in the two years that this has been going on under the unfair funding formula?

I say again that the review does not include the reorganisation of Surrey. Councillors have been elected and new councils go live from 1 April.

You wait a while and two Surrey questions come along at once! One of the potential unintended consequences of today’s announcement is to leave Surrey in the slightly discomfiting position of being in an experimental cohort with a sample size of one—the one county being reorganised under this legislation. We all know why: it is because the Conservative-run Surrey county council begged the Government to put it on this rollercoaster with no known destination and, as it turns out today, with legally slightly shonky rails. Do the legal concerns that the Secretary of State has expressed today also relate to Surrey? If Surrey is affected by those legal concerns, what faith should my residents have that this experiment is not going to come fully off the rails before 1 April 2027?

I gently say that, for me, this is not an experiment; it is about working with local areas to deliver local services and improve on them. The review does not include the reorganisation of Surrey. As I said, councillors have been elected already, and the new councils go live on 1 April 2027. I hope that Surrey, with the two new unitary councils, will be able to deliver across the area on vital services, like adult social care, transport and those good services that people want to see across their area, and I will work with them to deliver that.

I thank the Secretary of State for sharing—I have fluffed it now. Forgive me, I have had a two-hour wait, and I have completely lost my train of thought.

Over the last two years, the people of Essex have faced a dizzying array of changes, from council elections—off and on—to over-subscribed hospitals and 30,000 new homes to be built, many of which will be on greenfield land. The question is: how can we trust this Government to deliver on anything when they say one thing and do the other?

I appreciate the hon. Member’s frustration, but—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock) may wish, out of courtesy to this House and certainly to the Secretary of State—and to his constituents and my constituents—to stay in his seat to listen to the response by the Secretary of State.

The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) raised these issues before, and I do appreciate the frustration in Essex. In response to the right hon. Member, who was here a while ago and raised these issues, I made it really clear that local government reorganisation is about delivering—

I’m still here!

I know you’re still here! I made it really clear that local government reorganisation is delivering for people across Essex. I understand the pressures on local services. Essex does have a need for more housing and more infrastructure, and a need for local government reform. This Government are there to work with the local people of Essex to deliver that.