Lord Jamieson (Con)

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of this statutory instrument. I wish to make noble Lords aware of my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire Council. I do not think it is an interest, but I am an ex-chairman of the Local Government Association. There are a number of concerns here, which I hope the Minister will be able to address, some of which overlap with those that have been aired. First, as has just been said, the Government’s consultation demonstrated that there was a clear preference among residents—albeit a fairly small number of them: 5,000 out of 1.2 million—for a three-unitary model, not the two-authority model imposed by this order. However, on 28 October 2025, the Secretary of State confirmed that there would be a two-unitary structure. The Minister argued that two authorities will be cheaper and deliver greater efficiencies, but, if efficiency alone were the overriding criterion, would that not point logically towards a single unitary? Where local preference and ministerial preference diverge so clearly, this Committee is entitled to ask why local voices were overridden and what weight was truly given to the consultation process. Secondly, on finance, Surrey’s councils face acute financial pressures, not least because of the high debt levels at Woking Borough Council of around £2 billion and more than £1 billion at Spelthorne. Although the Minister mentioned the £500 million of support for Woking, there has been no central debt write-off. The financial risks of reorganisation, including the risk that projected savings fail to materialise, will ultimately fall on local taxpayers. The Minister said that this would be under review, but can she provide more certainty for local residents than a tenuous statement that this will be looked at in the future? I would like to raise the issue of SEND deficits, which are around £350 million for Surrey. The recent announcement was that SEND deficits will be covered up to 90%, yet in the negotiations as part of this reorganisation a figure of £100 million has been mentioned. Clearly, that is different. Can the Minister clarify whether there will genuinely be 90% funding for SEND deficits, or whether this is also a tenuous statement? The Government have announced £63 million nationally to support local government reorganisation. While any support is very welcome, that figure has to be shared across all areas undertaking structural change. Can the Minister confirm how much Surrey will receive, when those funds will be released and whether the Government accept that the real implementation costs, which locally have been estimated to be substantially higher, will exceed this funding envelope, particularly given the delays and changes in direction of the process? Thirdly, on devolution, residents were led to believe that the structural change would be accompanied by meaningful devolution and a mayoral model. The Government have referred to a foundation strategic authority for Surrey, but assurances about its powers, funding and timing remain ambiguous. What is the Government’s firm commitment to establishing that body, when will it be created, what additional funding will accompany it and when will that funding be received? Structural upheaval without genuine devolution would be a poor bargain for the residents of Surrey. Reorganisation on this scale must command confidence. It must be locally supported, financially credible and embedded with a clear devolution settlement. At present, serious questions remain on all three counts. We seek clarity about transitional governance. Commissioners were appointed to oversee financial sustainability and governance improvements at Woking and Spelthorne Borough Councils. We are now beyond the indicated review period for these appointments. Have they been extended and, if so, until when? Will they continue into the shadow authority period following the upcoming May elections? Where will they be placed in the subsequent authorities? The Committee deserves clarity about who will hold responsibility and accountability during the transition. More broadly, I reflect on the process. In Surrey, the pathway to reorganisation has been clear for more than a year, with the timetable for elections to the new unitaries and implementation on 1 April 2027 set out. Why has the same clarity not applied to the mayoral timetable? Why have the Government not adhered to a clear and published schedule for the establishment of a mayor of Surrey? This raises a wider question. Other devolution deals and local government reorganisations have appeared to be far less orderly, with altered timetables and delayed and then not delayed elections but without the equivalent certainty about the final structure. Those of us who have been through previous rounds of local government reorganisation know that while elections were sometimes postponed for a year, that was done on the basis of clarity about the end state. Why could the Government not achieve the same coherence elsewhere? Finally, I return to the question that the Minister studiously avoided answering in the Chamber last week. While the Government initially decided to postpone the council elections scheduled for May 2026, relying on statutory powers and legal advice, that decision was subsequently reversed on 16 February 2026, following further legal advice. I am not seeking disclosure of that advice; I simply ask what changed. What change of circumstances or what change of information provided meant that the legal advice changed? Legal advice is revised when there is a change of circumstance or in the information provided, so what changed? The Committee is entitled to understand the reasoning behind such significant changes in democratic decisions. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.