Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the draft order for the reorganisation of the 11 districts and one county in Surrey into two unitaries. I do not totally agree with either her solution or the reasoning behind it. The Government are continuing to push through reorganisation that does not have the support of local people or, in this case, even the existing councils.

The Government’s Explanatory Memorandum to this draft SI explains that, of the very small number of responses—around 5,500 from a population of 1.2 million—the vast majority rejected the two-council solution and much preferred a three-council solution, as did several of the local district councils. Businesses also favoured the proposal for three unitary councils: on average, only 25% gave a positive response to the proposal for two unitaries, and 65% for three unitaries. This is being pushed through regardless of local knowledge and wishes, which is never a good backdrop to the creation of new councils. I know; I am in one.

The drive to create large unitary councils is a desire for centralisation, in which all councils are made to fit a predetermined model regardless of geography, demographics and local will. Surrey county—not the county council—has a population of 1.2 million. The creation of just two unitary councils means that each of those will cover a population of about 600,000, which would be bigger than that of the City of Bradford’s council, for example, although not as quite as big as Leeds City Council’s, which is one of the largest in the country. It would be much smaller than all the nearby London boroughs and the north-east metropolitan councils or even Greater Manchester.

What is driving this push for very large unitary councils, when previously created ones do not fit that model? It seems to be driven by a desire by central government to view local government as simply the service delivery arm of central government—local government can deliver adult social care, children’s services, highway functions, licensing functions and so on—but it omits what is really important in local government, which makes it what it is at its very best: to provide ambitions and aspirations for local people, to challenge the status quo and to drive for something better. That is more difficult when you have councils of this population size.

One consequence of creating a unitary council with a population of around 600,000 is that, inevitably, the ward sizes, after a local government boundary review of wards, will be fairly large. I understand that there will be 72 councillors—I think I have got that right—in the new unitary councils. They will represent very large wards. I have experience of being a councillor representing a very large ward; it has 14,000 electors, and it is difficult to keep in touch and make the link that is at the heart of democracy between the elected and the elector. These proposals with large ward sizes will stretch that link to its very limit, which is something to be regretted.

My next point is about the debt, which the Minister referenced. One of the drivers for the abolition of county councils was that they were becoming financially unsustainable, simply because of the services that they were being asked to deliver—the ones with the huge pressures, such as adult social care services, children’s services, SEND, and so on. There were huge and growing financial pressures—I understand that. Meanwhile, in Surrey, Woking council has saddled its district council and residents with, to quote the Minister, huge, unsupported debts. The Minister may like to put a figure on that.

The Government are prepared to provide a sweetener of £500 million pounds to pay off some of that debt. But if I was a councillor in that council, going into the new unitary, I would be wary of entering it while it was saddled with a substantial debt. The Government are prepared to capitalise it, which is great, but that means that more revenue from the revenue budget will be used to fund the mortgage requirements of the debt. It is not a good start for new councils to begin their life, with all the problems that inevitably follow a reorganisation, saddled with a substantial debt. It will make it difficult for those councils to get off to a good start.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

To continue from where we were before the vote, both noble Lords have understandably asked about the Surrey consultation outcome, and I understand why they would ask that question. As the noble Baroness mentioned, we received 5,617 responses: 26 from named consultees and the rest from residents and local organisations, including businesses and town and parish councils. That consultation ran from 17 July to 5 August.

As the noble Baroness has pointed out, the responses demonstrated a preference for the three unitary proposal. However, as the proposals were assessed against the criteria set out in the statutory guidance, and having regard to all representations received throughout the consultation and to all the other relevant information we have been looking at as a way of determining these proposals, in our judgment, although both proposals met the criteria, the proposal for two unitaries better meets the criteria in the case of Surrey. In particular, we believe that it performs better against the second criteria, as it is more likely to be financially sustainable. The criteria are particularly relevant in the unique context of Surrey, where reorganisation is a critical intervention to improve the financial viability of the area’s councils. That is because of the unprecedented levels of unsupported debt in two of the area’s councils.

The important thing about all this is that the new councils are able to drive the growth needed, providing high-quality public services on a geography that works locally. But to meet the second criteria, around the financial viability, it was really important that we consider the consultation responses alongside that. That has been an important part of our consideration.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but this is an important issue. I accept what the Minister is saying about the importance of councils being financially stable but, if I were a resident of Surrey, I would think that I was being punished by the fact that I was having to absorb Woking Borough Council and being saddled with its £2 billion-worth—is that right?—of unsupported debt, and forced to pay that price when the council of which I was a member, in another part of Surrey, was financially stable. That does not seem fair. Residents are picking up the tab for speculative investment that never had any future in providing the council with anything other than a huge debt, which is what has happened. Is that fair?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I certainly do not want to be seen to be condoning or commenting on that speculative debt, but we are where we find ourselves, and the important thing is that residents of Surrey must have sustainable councils going forward. It will not help them if the new structure that we create is equally as unsustainable as that with which they have dealt in the past. The important thing is to make sure that we can deliver effective public services and deal with the levels of debt that we are having to deal with now. I will go into a bit more detail in a moment, if I may, about the support we are providing around Woking, but I think that all those who responded to the consultation would want to make sure that they have a sustainable structure that can take them well into the future. After a lot of reflection and a great deal of work on the proposals, we felt that this two-authorities model would work better from that point of view.