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.

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?

The MP expressed concerns about the legal uncertainty and democratic harm caused by the reorganisation plans, particularly in Surrey, where councils invested substantial time and resources. She requested a meeting with Surrey MPs and authority leaders to address the risks and uncertainties and asked for the publication of legal advice to clarify the process.

The MP expressed the eagerness of his constituents for change in Lancashire and sought assurance that the Government would meet the ambition of his constituents and continue pushing for reform.

The MP questioned the Greater Lincolnshire authority proposal, suggesting it was a gerrymander, and asked the Secretary of State to look at Gainsborough's viewpoint positively.

The MP sought a meeting to discuss the decision to split Amber Valley in two, which her constituents do not support.

The MP expressed support for the Secretary of State's decision to listen and consider the preferences for two-tier local government in Essex.

The MP sought reassurance that Portsmouth's strong identity would be maintained during the review of local reorganisation and asked about the impact on the Government's plan for devolution.

The MP asked for assurance that the rural rump of Devon would not re-emerge in future decisions.

The MP requested clarity on the legal reasons behind the decision and asked for information on the next steps and whether the boundaries announced in July would change.

The MP expressed confusion about the status of the Hampshire reorganisation plans and asked for clarity on whether it was a pause or cancellation, along with the timing of future announcements and potential reimbursement of costs.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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 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?

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?

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?

The Secretary of State's predecessor's decision to cancel elections for 5 million people was overturned amid gerrymandering allegations. Similarly, her predecessor's decision to reorganise local councils was also overturned on similar grounds. The MP asks how the Secretary of State plans to reassure people that the Government will make fair and lawful decisions that respect local democracy.

Welcoming the Secretary of State back to her position, the MP asks for reassurance for local government officers and councillors who have been working on the reorganisation process. The MP specifically asks about the timeline and next steps for Hertfordshire, where a full review has been promised.

In Worcestershire, the MP asks whether the elections scheduled for next May will be for a four-year term, given the reorganisation process.

The MP raises concerns about the proposals for a Pennine-Lancs authority, which could become the most deprived in the country. She asks if the review will look at this issue closely and consider the perspectives of her constituents.

The MP asks for the return of the £600,000 spent by North Norfolk on the local government reorganisation programme, which the Secretary of State has now gone back on. The MP also asks about the future of devolution for Norfolk.

The MP thanks the Secretary of State for her statement and asks two specific questions: will the review look at the precise boundaries announced in May and the legal process that got to them? Will his constituents have a chance to shape the decision through MPs or another consultation?

The MP expresses that building 1.5 million new homes and doing LGR simultaneously was clearly bonkers. He asks if the review will be explicit about what is happening in Devon, including whether elections will be happening next May and when a decision will be reached.

The MP thanks the Secretary of State for her statement and expresses disappointment and concern among local residents, businesses, organisations, and councils. He asks for reassurance that the review will not go back to the drawing board and will look forward to the future with a new Greater Ipswich or Ipswich and South Suffolk council.

The MP welcomes the Secretary of State’s decision to pause plans for the proposed east Lancashire authority and asks for assurances that the review will look at deprivation and economic stability, delivering for Blackburn and surrounding areas. He also asks to meet the Secretary of State before any new proposals are made.

The MP expresses disappointment over the decision and asks for a meeting with the Secretary of State or her Ministers to discuss the shortcomings in a high-value growth area like Oxfordshire, which has no devolution, no local government reorganisation, and no timescale.

Desmond Swayne expressed relief that the New Forest would not be split and swallowed by Southampton, asking the Secretary of State to commit to preserving the integrity of the New Forest.

Paul Foster questioned the commitment to local government reorganisation in Lancashire, asking for reassurance that it is a pause and not a cancellation.

Adrian Ramsay raised concerns about the impact of instability on local government funding and services, questioning the need for proper funding for any future reorganisation.

Kevin McKenna welcomed the commitment to local government reorganisation and asked how local councillors, residents, businesses, and other organisations can feed into the review.

Caroline Johnson questioned whether votes should be weighted based on deprivation, leading to proposed wards with varying numbers of electors per councillor.

Daniel Zeichner discussed the difference between devolution and local government reorganisation, suggesting that new structures should be based on economic growth and dynamism.

Richard Foord asked the Secretary of State to consider the greater costs associated with delivering in the countryside, such as in rural Devon, during the review.

Sojan Joseph expressed concern about the impact of the pause on public services and asked for reassurance that the review would not create more uncertainty.

Priti Patel questioned the financial costs and adverse impact on local services due to the cancellation of elections and changes in local governance.

Adam Jogee welcomed the statement and asked the Secretary of State to focus on establishing new mayoral authorities for comprehensive cross-party support.

John Whittingdale questioned whether maintaining the status quo is an option and inquired about the intention to proceed with the mayoral election in Essex in 2028.

Acknowledges the challenge posed by the pause in local government reorganisation for local councils and communities, highlighting the impact on businesses, schools, and community organisations. Asks if the Secretary of State recognises the frustration caused by this decision and whether the Department has considered the associated costs and disruption.

Urges the Secretary of State to take an early decision to continue the status quo for the two unitaries in the north of Lincolnshire, where both the MP and his Labour colleagues, as well as council leaders, support the current arrangement.

Requests reassurance that the review will consider local government funding and finances, particularly for councils in non-mayoral areas like Medway, and how they can access investment and growth opportunities.

Confirms that the mayoral election in Cumbria will go ahead as planned and requests a review of the 'fairer funding' policy, citing a 31% funding cut for Westmorland and Furness, the most rural unitary authority in England.

Clarifies the basis of the review for the 14 authorities that received their decision in July, inquires about the future of the reorganisation process, and expresses a lack of confidence in the consistency of the Government’s message.

Requests that funding opportunities be offered to all local authorities, regardless of whether they have an elected mayor, given the uncertain timeline for local government reorganisation and elections.

Asks the Secretary of State to investigate any process failures that have led to the current situation and to ensure that such issues do not occur again.

Requests clarification on the status of combined authority elections and borough council elections, as well as mayoral elections in 2028, and the impact on police governance.

Inquires about the role of Exeter in generating jobs, growth, housing, and place-based services, and confirms that devolution should proceed if Exeter is included in the strategic authority.

Describes the local government reform as a shambolic, incompetent mess, citing the significant time and resources spent by councillors and officials in Norfolk.

Echoed colleagues' comments on the boundary decisions review, and the progress made by Lancashire councillors and officers despite falling behind neighbours due to lack of structure and resources, requested meeting with the Secretary of State to properly resource Lancashire’s growth.

Asked for reassurance on funding and certainty for the voluntary and community sector during the transition to unitary authorities, highlighted the disruption to funding streams.

Expressed disappointment and frustration over the reorganisation pause, asked for reassurance that efforts towards the north Hampshire authority have not been in vain, requested a speedy decision.

Said the Secretary of State struggles with saying “I’m sorry” and “I love you,” questioned the chaos and cost caused by her decision, asked if she knows what she is doing.

Thanked councillors and officers for their work, requested a meeting in No. 10 North to discuss devolution and unlocking potential for Staffordshire.

Expressed uncertainty about May's voting process, asked for reassurance and reimbursement for councils' efforts and expenses.

Asked the Secretary of State to double down on her commitment to listening to Members, local councils, and the public during the reorganisation process.

Said local government reform in Essex has been a farce, welcomed the end of Labour's unitary authorities, advised the Secretary of State to drop the plans.

Welcomed the review and requested a meeting to discuss local infrastructure, planning, and the opportunity to create a local country park.

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?

How long will the existing local authorities in Derbyshire serve for, and can the Secretary of State give assurances that the process will not be torpedoed in the courts again?

Will the Secretary of State reconfirm that the Isle of Wight council will remain a stand-alone unitary authority and not be at risk of merging with a part of the mainland?

How will the views of Rushcliffe and Nottinghamshire residents, who felt ignored through the last process, be fully considered in this new approach?

What can the Secretary of State tell my constituents about how their services, including education, social care, roads, and infrastructure, will be delivered in the future?

Can the Secretary of State confirm that devolved powers are still coming to Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire and that they are coming at speed?

What has been the financial cost of this so far failed experiment with LGR, and how many months can the district councillors elected in 2027 expect to serve?

Will Southampton and the surrounding councils still have the opportunity to reorganise if they so wish after the rapid review?

Will the Secretary of State commit to meeting all Opposition Members who represent rural Devon so that we can discuss the best proposal for the biggest number of people across Devon?

Will the review diminish the Government’s plans to devolve power closer to my constituents?

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?

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 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.

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 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?

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 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 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?

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?

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?

Concerns about Surrey being the only county in an experimental reorganisation under the legislation, questioning the legal stability and the faith residents can have in the experiment's success before 1 April 2027.

Questions the credibility of the Government given the changes faced by the people of Essex, including council elections, over-subscribed hospitals, and 30,000 new homes, many on greenfield land, over the last two years.