Local Government Reorganisation

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness O'Neill of Bexley

Monday 7th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating this quite significant Statement. The Government have suddenly paused the reorganisation plans they started for local government. This is astounding. Proposals to merge councils in Norfolk, Suffolk, Hampshire, and Essex have been withdrawn. The 14 areas which formed the third tranche of the programme have also been put on hold. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and West Sussex, which were awaiting the Government’s decision, now face further uncertainty for residents, councillors and council officers.

We are told that this new review follows updated legal advice but is also to align the plans for local government with new government priorities. The only area unaffected is Surrey, where the two new unitary authorities have already been established. This has come too late for them.

It was only in June that we were told that this Government

“remain fully committed to the timetable already set out”,—[Official Report, Commons, 16/7/26; col. 141WS.]

and that their local government reorganisation programme was

“a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that councils genuinely represent the communities they serve today and stand the test of time”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/7/26; col. 139WS.]

Time has hardly passed, and the programme is paused.

Let us not forget that local elections were postponed. Now, elections in May 2027 will go ahead on existing council boundaries. So much time, not to mention money, was spent drawing together proposals, conducting and responding to consultations nationally and locally, with staffing, governance, finance and service delivery about to be restructured—without, by the way, any guarantee that this would end up saving taxpayers any money or improving services for local people. Are we now being told that it may have all been for nothing because the Government did not think through the legal implications or because the new Prime Minister simply does not fancy it?

What is the estimated total cost of this review, both to national government and to the authorities affected? Do the people making those decisions have any idea how damaging the uncertainty and inconsistency is to many councils, including to staff recruitment and staff morale? Councils are losing large numbers of staff who want certainty on their future, and, for the same reason, cannot recruit replacements.

Your Lordships’ House spent eight days in Committee and two days on Report on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026. The Minister said at Second Reading that the Bill would

“drive the biggest transfer of power out of Whitehall to our regions and communities in a generation”.—[Official Report, 8/12/25; col. 30.]

However, we now have the rewiring of state White Paper to look forward to, which will focus on devolution and local government. Can the Minister clarify, if this new Bill is to deliver devolution, was the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act not devolution at all? As we said at the time, it was not community empowerment. It shifted power away from the local to the regional and to Whitehall—from locally elected councillors to mayors, and from democracy routed in local identities to new managerial, technocratic boundaries. Will this new Bill reverse that direction of travel?

We are hearing the same platitudes from this Government to disguise their lack of long-term vision. Can the Minister tell us exactly what the priorities of the new Prime Minister are, and how they will differ? What certainty can she give to local councils receiving this news? I look forward to her response.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Across England, there will be thousands of councillors and council officers who have worked for months, sometimes years, to deliver an effective solution to the Government’s top-down reorganisation diktat. They will have devoted scarce resources in both funding and precious time. Today, they will be despairing. With the stroke of a ministerial pen, all their careful planning has been consigned to the waste bin.

The principle of devolution is the right one. Unfortunately, the Government have conflated devolution with local government reorganisation, and that has resulted in this sorry mess. There are any number of questions that the Minister must answer, given that, in July, she gave an assurance in this Chamber that a decision on the final reorganisation plans for the remaining councils would be made in October.

I am confident that there will be many specific questions about individual councils, so I will restrict my questions to general principles. First, given that the Government’s decision has been made following legal advice, can the Minister publish that advice and provide a summary for us in her response? Will she tell the House when those councils with agreed plans were informed? Some councils had already developed financial planning on the basis of agreed reorganisation. What support will the Government provide for those councils now facing severe financial pressures?

Today’s announcement has left councils and their residents in limbo. The Statement makes it clear that elections for districts will take place next year. That indicates a longer timeframe for reorganisation than a speedy review. Asking people to become councillors for a non-specific period is difficult. Equally, encouraging voter enthusiasm will be more challenging. What are they voting for? How long will it last? Local democracy has been the real loser in all this, with elections cancelled and democratic terms of office extended on a whim.

The process by which the Government determined the parameters of this reorganisation defied the importance and relevance of local communities. For example, new councils were told they had to have a population of at least 300,000, with a maximum of around 500,000—although, of course, one of the new Surrey councils has a population of 700,000. That was stated despite many existing unitary metropolitan councils being smaller than that. For instance, Calderdale, in my own west Yorkshire, has a population of just over 200,000. Many councils in the Manchester mayoral authority have a population of around 300,000 or fewer. That was one reason why communities lost out in this top-down reorganisation.

This is a thorough and embarrassing dog’s breakfast for the Government. It has all stemmed from the flawed notion that the financial crisis facing county councils could be resolved by changing the seats around the table and going for reorganisation, while ignoring the historic community ties around which many councils were created. The Government have much to do to put the “local” back into local government. I look forward to a thorough explanation from the Minister.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness O'Neill of Bexley

Committee stage
Monday 9th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I have a real concern about this group of amendments, which appears to look to tinker around the edges to bring the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority into line with other strategic authorities. We already established in an earlier session that governance in London was the first established; it has never been repeated and, indeed, this Bill does not seek to repeat it either. Surely the sensible route is the one that we suggested in Amendment 75: to have a full review, consider the future governance of London and deal with issues such as this at that time.

I do not want to revisit the earlier argument, but I remind noble Lords that in London there is not the same relationship between the mayor and the boroughs as is suggested there might be in the new governance relationships, or indeed that exists elsewhere. In practice, that means that the mayor might not appreciate local circumstances—as I have said before, not all of London is the same. The mayor might not appreciate the local policing capacity, or lack of it, and the implications of that on licensing decisions. He might not understand the local economy and what licensing could mean for that. He might not appreciate the impact of the local demographics when decisions are being made to overturn local licensing decisions.

What is more, as we have heard before, the current scrutiny of the mayor is not considered to be effective. Devolution should mean respect for decision-making at its lowest common denominator—in this case, the borough level. If a more strategic decision is needed for a wider area, the decision should include the local decision-making processes or partners. For those reasons, I urge the Minister to consider the proposals put forward previously for a thorough review, at which time the implications of these amendments could be considered.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I heard what the Minister said in her introduction to this group of amendments about it following a proposed change to the Bill in the Commons. Like the previous speaker, I understand the need, in a global city such as London, to reverse—for justifiable reasons—the direction of devolution and enable a power grab from the local boroughs in some circumstances. However, the circumstances are not defined, apart from saying that they have to be of “strategic importance” across Greater London. Yet the definition of “strategic importance” is left to regulations.

It is not at all clear how the mayor will make such decisions when they have been defined as being of strategic importance. Will they be based on the licensing priorities, which is a requirement for local borough licensing committees? How will local concerns be heard and considered? This appears to be a profound and unnecessary centralisation of power that threatens to strip local democratically elected committees of their voice in matters that affect their communities’ daily lives.

Under this proposal, which is set out in Amendment 179A—it contains a proposed new section headed “Licence applications of potential strategic importance”—local London licensing authorities, such as borough councils, would legally be required to notify the GLA of applications for the sale of alcohol, regulated entertainment or late-night refreshment. A further proposal grants the Mayor of London the power, in effect, to veto or override the decisions of these local authorities. So if a borough council decides to grant or reject a licence, that decision is suspended and has no effect until the mayor decides whether to intervene. This is allegedly the devolution Bill, but I am yet to be convinced that it has any relationship to devolution; this is the imposition of top-down command structure over local democracy.

The additional problem is that, if there is a veto and it is called in by the mayor, how quickly will the mayor decide? What is the democratic way in which that will be decided? Is it just the mayor in his or her office making a decision, or will it go to a scrutiny committee for discussion first? Will there be an open and transparent hearing where the local borough council—or several local borough councils, if it is something that affects several of them—can come and explain its decision? Will the mayor have to explain why it has been called in? A lot here is unsatisfactory, to say the least. I ask myself: who is best placed to make a judgment about licence applications, which can have significant effects on people’s daily lives? Is it those who live there and their elected representatives, or is it the mayor of 7 million or 8 million people who says, “Actually, I know best. This is important for business, so hard luck if it affects your daily life”? That is the risk in this.

In the end, this group of amendments is unsatisfactory until we know the definition of “strategic importance” and the methods that will be used for decision-making. For those reasons, I hope the Minister will think again and reconsider. I understand why, if it is a significant application that will affect large parts of London, you would want a mayoral authority to take that decision. But I would want to know how that is defined and how that decision will be taken in a public setting, with the ability for people to have their voices heard and an appeal process.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness O'Neill of Bexley

Report stage
Tuesday 11th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this group of government amendments, which are in response to the strong arguments made in Committee by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.

It is astonishing that those who draft legislation continue to do so without recognising the implications of devolution. One would think that by now the lesson would have been learned. This is not the first time in this or other Bills that late-stage amendments to recognise the facts of devolution have had to be made. It would be good to hear the Minister confirm that in future the implications of devolution for draft legislation will be considered at an early stage, not at the last minute, but we welcome these changes that have been made.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

I remind the House that I am the leader of the London Borough of Bexley and therefore have associated connections with London Councils and the Local Government Association. As leader of the London Borough of Bexley, my experience of devolution in London has been under three different mayors. I am a firm believer in devolution, but it must always be to the lowest common denominator. That spend must be to address local issues and allow local government to be answerable to the electorate.