From Policy to Practice: Devolution, LGR, and the Future of Public Services
- truthaboutlocalgov
- Jul 17, 2025
- 7 min read
In a recent conversation with Paul Bell—National Officer at UNISON and Cabinet Member for Health and Adult Social Care at Lewisham Council—we explored the evolving landscape of local government reorganisation (LGR) and devolution. Paul’s dual role gives him a unique vantage point, bridging national policy and local delivery.
As Paul put it, “Local government to me is a joyous experience.” His work spans English devolution, environmental health, food standards, and service delivery—particularly insourcing, a growing counterpoint to decades of outsourcing. His passion is rooted in fairness and justice, values that drive both his union work and his role as an elected councillor.
Paul’s perspective is particularly timely in light of the 2025 Devolution Protocol report, which outlines UNISON’s principles for fair devolution. He emphasised the importance of ensuring that any new deals or reorganisations are done with the workforce, not to them. “It’s all about leadership, representation, and understanding the subject matter,” he said.
His motivation is deeply personal. “I have ADHD,” he shared, “and with that comes a burning sense of fairness.” That sense of justice fuels his commitment to advocating for both civil servants and local constituents—ensuring access to services, fair treatment, and a voice for those who might otherwise go unheard. As local authorities navigate the next wave of devolution deals, Paul’s message is clear: success lies in collaboration, transparency, and a genuine commitment to the people delivering public services on the ground.
Risks and Opportunities in the Next Phase of Devolution
As the conversation deepened, Paul Bell drew a clear distinction between English devolution and local government reorganisation (LGR)—two processes often conflated but fundamentally different in scope and intent. “We were all expecting English devolution,” he explained, “but we were not expecting local government reorganisation.”
UNISON’s policy response, he noted, was shaped by input from across the union, focusing on the real-world implications for finance, staffing, and service delivery. The financial risks are stark: “Local authorities have lost 60p in every pound since 2010,” Paul said. While the new government is beginning to reverse some of that damage, the gap remains vast—£3.4 billion has been stripped from English local government.
One of the most pressing concerns is how these reorganisations will be funded. Strategic authorities may be created, but without adequate investment, councils simply won’t be able to absorb the costs. Estimates from the Local Government Association suggest reorganisations could cost between £20 million and £100 million—figures that far exceed what most councils can afford. Beyond finance, Paul highlighted the risk of losing experienced staff and the confusion that can follow structural change. “District councils will all but disappear,” he warned, citing Northamptonshire’s long and difficult transition as a cautionary tale. Without a robust communications strategy, residents may not know where to turn for services, and staff may struggle to adapt without proper training.
Yet, amidst the challenges, there are opportunities. Devolution could be a lever for addressing long-standing inequalities in pay and representation. “We have a chance to tackle the gender, ethnicity, and disability pay gaps,” Paul said. There’s also potential to reshape new unitary authorities in ways that reflect the needs of both residents and staff.
However, he was clear that this potential is far from guaranteed. “Last week I spoke with MHCLG to explain that this isn’t happening,” he said, referring to the lack of engagement with trade unions. For devolution and LGR to succeed, staff voices must be heard, and their representatives brought into the conversation from the outset.
Strategic Scale, Local Voice: The Balancing Act of Reorganisation
As the dust settles around the latest wave of devolution and local government reorganisation (LGR), questions about scale, strategy, and local accountability remain front and centre. Matthew Masters raised a critical point in his discussion with Paul Bell: the population threshold of 500,000 for new shadow authorities. “It didn’t feel like something that was clearly justified,” he noted. “If this is genuinely about efficiencies, how do you achieve that?”
The inconsistency in proposals—some county-led, others more cooperative—only adds to the complexity. With population sizes now trending downward, the rationale for efficiency becomes harder to sustain. And as Matthew pointed out, if LGR is pursued in isolation, without a strategic view of the wider public sector—including NHS integration and health outcomes—it risks becoming a missed opportunity.
Paul agreed, reinforcing the importance of keeping “the local in local.” That means ensuring both residents and staff are protected and empowered through the transition. Historic challenges, such as Birmingham’s equal pay lawsuit, serve as stark reminders of what happens when workforce equality is neglected. “It just feels like the perfect storm,” Matthew observed, reflecting on the scale and speed of change. The conversation turned to UNISON’s stance on embedding worker voice and equality into the devolution framework. Paul emphasised the need for authorities to engage meaningfully with trade unions, especially when shaping national pay negotiations and workforce policy. “There’s a real opportunity here,” he said, “but only if staff are part of the conversation from the beginning.”
Embedding Workforce Voice in Devolution: From Stakeholder to Equal Partner
While headlines often focus on structures and savings, Paul Bell reminded us that the heart of local government is its people. When discussing how to embed equality and worker voice into English devolution and local government reorganisation (LGR), he was clear: trade unions must be treated not just as stakeholders, but as equal partners.
“Most staff live locally,” Paul explained. “They wear two hats—they’re residents and workers. They know what they’re talking about.” This dual perspective makes their input invaluable, not only in shaping services but in ensuring that transitions are fair, inclusive, and sustainable.
Paul also highlighted the importance of community cohesion. In areas like Norfolk and Suffolk—vastly different in geography and identity—merging under a single authority raises real questions about representation and local identity. “Most local authorities that submitted proposals by 21 March don’t even agree with each other,” he noted. “So what happens next? Will the Secretary of State impose a deal? And how will we know it’s the right one?”
UNISON’s position is not one of opposition to devolution or reorganisation. Rather, it’s a call for realism and responsibility—a pause to consider the pace, cost, and impact on the workforce. Paul stressed the need for a consistent and fair bargaining framework, pointing to the National Joint Council (NJC) and the Green Book as essential tools for harmonising pay and conditions across new authorities.
He cited his experience in Northamptonshire, where inconsistent bargaining arrangements between districts and the county created confusion and inequality. “We want the NJC involved in collective discussions,” he said. “It’s the fairest way forward.”
Beyond pay, there are practical concerns: TUPE arrangements, facility time for union reps, and job evaluation systems that ensure fairness when staff from different authorities are brought together. “You can’t have someone doing the same job as someone else and being paid less,” Paul warned. “You need a plan, funding, and training—especially when district and county councils deliver very different services.”
Consensus, Cost, and the Clock: Can We Get This Right?
When asked what being an equal partner really means, Paul Bell didn’t hesitate: “It’s being at the table, working together towards a collective goal.” He contrasted this with the top-down approach that too often dominates public sector reform. “Consensus is how we make progress,” he said. “In life, you don’t get everything you want, so you bring everyone together to find the most positive outcome.”
But that consensus, he warned, is currently missing. Without it, the risk is a demoralised workforce and a plan shaped by too few voices—disconnected from those delivering and receiving services. “It needs to be informed by the people doing the work, the people receiving the services, and the leaders taking it forward.”
Matthew Masters echoed the urgency of this point, noting that 2028 is the working date for many of these changes. With so much to do—TUPE negotiations, training, funding, and structural planning—the question is whether there’s enough time to do it properly. “This needs to be progress with the sector,” he said, “not something that cuts the sector off before it even starts the race.” The financial implications are equally daunting. In areas like Suffolk and Norfolk, multiple proposals are on the table, each with vastly different cost projections. “We’re talking millions of pounds in difference,” Matthew noted. “What’s right and what we can afford may be two very different things.”
Paul agreed, reinforcing that while UNISON supports the principle of reorganisation, it must be done with care, clarity, and fairness.
“To get the TUPE process right, we need time, planning, and proper engagement,” he said. “Otherwise, we risk building something unstable from the start.”
Making It Work: Time, Trust, and Human Leadership
As the conversation drew to a close, Paul Bell returned to a central theme: if this transformation must happen, it must be done well.
“Yes, it can be done,” he said, “but only in partnership and with the consensus of everyone involved and affected.”
He pointed out that while many are working towards 2027, the reality is that May 2026 will be a key milestone for both devolution priority areas and some local government reorganisations. “The clock is ticking,” he warned. “Where is the project plan? Where is the timeline that allows each local area to test what will work and what won’t?”
Paul’s advice to local authorities was clear: use the structures already in place. Every council has a UNISON branch and access to regional organisers. “If you’re not engaging with them on LGR or devolution, ask yourself why,” he said. “What are you afraid of? Because your workforce will be the ones delivering this.” He reminded leaders that no politician can deliver home care or empty bins. “We can jump on a dustbin lorry for a photo, but it’s the staff who will implement these changes. Have you spoken to them enough to make this a success?”
In closing, Paul offered a deeply human perspective on negotiation and leadership.
“Be kind. Be human. Everyone involved has a family, lives in a community. If we start from the point that we are all equals, and kindness is the vehicle, there’s nothing we can’t resolve.”
The message is simple but powerful: this isn’t just about systems and structures—it’s about people. And if we’re to build a better future for local government, we must do it with those people, not in spite of them.
