Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)

I have to deal with the Front Benchers first, although I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for his enthusiasm. I am very grateful to both noble Baronesses for their comments, and I understand the frustration that has been expressed. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, asked about updated legal advice, government priorities and the fact that, in June, we said we were fully committed to the timetable. It is important that we do not conflate the timetable with the commitment to LGR. As I said, there has been additional legal advice, but we also have a new Prime Minister and a new Secretary of State. In view of both those things, it is only right that we take a step back and have a look at these issues; it would not be right to not do so. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, spoke about elections being postponed, the time and money that has been spent, and improving services and financial gain. The Government’s vision is still that local government reorganisation will go ahead; we are not stepping back from that in any way whatever. This afternoon, my right honourable friend in the House of Commons stated many times, specifically, that our intention is not to row back from local government reorganisation. We see that as a way of improving services, generating the growth we all want to see, and making much more efficient use of the finances that go into local government. The work that has gone in already, which the noble Baroness mentioned, is certainly not wasted, because we are not scrapping the LGR process; we are taking a step back to have a look at it, but we are not scrapping the process. The noble Baroness asked about the cost of the review and the uncertainty. The uncertainty caused by legal uncertainty is not tenable. The programme that we are setting in place will probably last for at least 50 years and maybe longer—the last local government reorganisation did—and it is very important that it is built on a firm foundation of legal certainty. Otherwise, our colleagues, not just in local government but their partners in business and the third sector, will be facing that uncertainty going way forward into the future. We need to make sure that we have the certainty we need. I still stick by what I said when we debated the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: this is the biggest transfer of power out of Whitehall. That is why it will never be straightforward or easy to do. It is a dramatic change to the way the state is wired, and the Prime Minister wants to see that happen. We want to get powers and funding out of Whitehall—I think there was not much disagreement to that in the Chamber when we debated the English Devolution Bill—and, to do that, we need a firm foundation of local government to build on. The other question the noble Baroness asked was around the Prime Minister’s commitment and the long-term vision. I do not think you could have a stronger advocate for promoting devolution than our Prime Minister. He lived and breathed devolution and the devolution agenda during the time he was Mayor of Manchester. He genuinely believes in the transfer of power to every postcode in the country and he has set out very clearly that he has a long-term vision for this country to do just that. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, spoke about top-down reorganisation. This absolutely was not that. I have sat through many meetings with our local government colleagues, who came forward with their own proposals. They did not always agree in each area and it was sometimes very difficult to work through the different options that they came forward with. It will continue to be so, as they can once again put forward their views—some of them very strongly held, as the noble Baroness is aware—as we go through this review process. The process is certainly not confined to the waste-bin, as the noble Baroness put it; it is still very firmly on the table to be worked on, and I look forward to working with our colleagues in local government as we go forward. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, spoke about the assurance that decisions for those areas where we had not taken decisions already would be made in October. We are going to work as quickly as we possibly can on this review. My right honourable colleague the Secretary of State referred many times this afternoon to the fact that she wants this review to proceed at pace. This is not being kicked into the long grass or anything like it. She wants that to move forward as quickly as possible, so we can provide the certainty that local government needs. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned legal advice. We considered the legal advice provided as part of the judicial review process and the decision to withdraw the four decisions reflects that legal advice. It is a long-standing principle, as she will know only too well, that Governments do not publish or comment on legal advice. The legal powers for local government reorganisation remain valid. There are no court findings against the Government. We want to be able to review the decisions, so that the Secretary of State can reassure herself and the Prime Minister that they are the right ones. Respecting the court process means that the way to do this is to withdraw those and consider the programme afresh. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, also asked when councils were informed. They were told today. The legal advice was considered over the weekend and the Secretary of State informed the councils involved today: the 14 that were going to be paused and reviewed and the four that have been withdrawn from the court process. The Secretary of State received many questions on financial provision this afternoon. The Government were putting forward some £63 million to help councils through the transition phase of local government, and she will consider the issues around funding as we go through the review process. I turn to the elections next year. Elections will be held according to the usual boundary elections, so if a council was up for election by thirds next year, that will happen, and if it is the election of a full council, that will happen. From talking to councils in my local area, I can say that they are all very keen on the process of LGR going forward and they look forward to this. They know that the process is coming. They know that it is paused and not stopped, so they will continue to work with their local parties and local councils, as they have done so well in the past. On the importance and relevance of council size, we have always said that council sizes were not fixed. Having gone through all the applications myself, it was clear that you cannot make a fixed point in terms of size. You have to look at each area individually. Geographies and demographics are different, and it is very important that each area is considered separately, according to its needs. On the issue of historic communities and all the other issues, this pause will give the opportunity for people who had those strong views to put them forward again in the review process. I am sure they will do that. Nobody is backward in coming forward in this process and I look forward to hearing from many of them. But the right thing to do at the moment is take this short pause, particularly in respect of the legal advice and the wish of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to review this, so that, when we go forward, it will be with the certainty that everybody in local government needs.