Local Government Reorganisation

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.

Having consistently raised concerns about the proposed east Lancashire authority, which would group together some of the most deprived communities in the country, I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision today to pause these plans. Will she assure me that this review will look at deprivation and economic stability and that it will deliver for Blackburn and the surrounding areas? Will she meet me and other Lancashire MPs before any new proposals are made?

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?