(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of referendums on local government re-organisation.
It is, as usual, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. Before I begin, I would like to ask the House a simple question: who truly understands the challenges and intricacies of local life in our constituencies? Is it civil servants sitting behind desks in Whitehall, or is it our constituents—the people who live, work and raise their families in the communities affected by local decisions? The obvious answer, as I hope the House will agree, is that our constituents know best, and yet we find ourselves in a situation where the Government appear determined to ignore those voices on local government reorganisation.
Since those plans were announced and rumours emerged of an extension to the city council boundary in Leicester, I have led a campaign against it. I have tabled amendments to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, asked questions on the Floor of the House and written to Ministers, and yet the response remains the same. The Government simply do not want to listen to the people who will be most affected by any local government reorganisation.
This is not to say that I am opposed to reforms. I recognise the potential benefits of consolidation: savings for the hard-pressed taxpayer, particularly at a time when this Government continue to raise taxes to unprecedented levels; and the possibility of more efficient public services. But any changes must be done with communities, not to communities. Residents must have a voice—a say in which neighbourhood plan they fall under, who runs their local services and, crucially, how much council tax they will be asked to pay. I do not want to predetermine what the Minister will say today, but if she decides against opening a discussion on the introduction of referendums, I will continue this campaign. I will be presenting a Bill to the House of Commons to give Members the opportunity to empower their residents with a final say on what local government reorganisation should look like in their areas.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I completely agree with the principle of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but we did not have that opportunity under the last Government when the Conservatives imposed local government reorganisation on places like North Yorkshire. Does he think that his party’s Government should have done the same too?
Mr Bedford
A lot can be learned from previous Governments of all different colours, and I ask the Minister to look at history and not repeat any mistakes that may have been made in the past.
Local identity, democratic consent and keeping council tax low are all at the forefront of my constituents’ concerns. First, there is growing concern throughout villages such as Glenfield, Leicester Forest East, Birstall and many more that if they are absorbed into the city council area, they will have development after development quite literally dumped on their green and beautiful spaces. These communities see their villages—currently served by Leicestershire county council—coming under increased pressure from the city council expansion.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for securing this debate. Having been elected as a councillor back in 1985—in those days, I had some hair—and served some 26 years on the council, there is a special place in my heart for local government and the real benefit of local councils making local decisions. Does he agree that accessibility to the council for the general public must be protected at every level, and the removal of access for people in towns and villages by centralisation can never be acceptable?
Mr Bedford
I absolutely agree: council services should be accessible to all. One of the concerns that my constituents have—particularly those in rural areas—is that if they are absorbed into a city unitary authority, they will have less access to be able to get their views and thoughts across. I share the sentiment that the hon. Member expressed.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
May I share with my hon. Friend a cautionary tale? Often, reorganisation is promoted as delivering better value for money, but since Christchurch was absorbed into the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council area, the consequence has been less efficiency and higher costs, to the extent that BCP council is now applying for a 7.5% increase in council tax this year, without a referendum. The history of the Christchurch council area is that in a local referendum with a 60% turnout, 84% of people were against joining up with Bournemouth and Poole—and they were right. The trouble was that the Government then refused to listen to the views of the local people.
Mr Bedford
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. As I said to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) earlier, this Government should reflect on the mistakes that previous Governments of different colours have made and ensure that the views of local people are always taken on board before any decisions are made, which was not the case in the example my hon. Friend just gave.
In my constituency, development is being pushed further and further outwards, right up to the boundaries. As a result, my constituents see local services being stretched. In Glenfield, for example, it is becoming increasingly clear that the city mayor in Leicester, who recently declared a climate emergency, is looking to build over the much-loved Western Park golf course, which is on the city-county boundary. Residents’ groups are currently able to lobby their local representatives, including me, to try to protect such spaces, but ultimately we all know that if Glenfield is incorporated within the city boundary, residents’ groups will have fewer and fewer avenues through which to defend the character of their community.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his leadership on this issue. I am pleased that he is standing up for his community, which has not been listened to. In Surrey, local government reorganisation is being imposed on us; despite the fact that nine out of 11 boroughs and districts wanted three local councils, the Government imposed two. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that was a mistake?
Mr Bedford
As I said to the hon. Members who intervened earlier, this Government should definitely learn from the mistakes of previous Governments. That is particularly true in relation to the example the hon. Gentleman just gave of local government reform being introduced against the wishes of local people, resulting in an adverse impact on their local services and the community. I take his point and I hope that the Minister will listen to him, too.
I am not raising concerns today because I am a nimby—I fully accept that housing is needed—but we cannot allow a situation to develop whereby overbearing mayors, such as those in London, Birmingham or Leicester, are able to force their housing quotas on to the outer edges of their cities and gravely impact the lives of county communities.
Secondly, it is clear from the consternation of many people in my constituency that they do not wish to be ruled by a city mayor who has little chance of being removed. My communities in Anstey, Birstall and Leicester Forest East, and in many of the villages that border the city, fear being permanently outvoted by the urban-focused city electorate.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
I agree with every word the hon. Gentleman says; he speaks absolute common sense. An even better example is what has happened in Greater London, where the borough of Havering, which has always been in Essex, is being sucked into Greater London and paying huge sums of money to subsidise inner-London areas, but gets very few services in return. The Mayor of London is dictating to places such as Romford when it comes to building high-rise blocks in the town centre and imposing things such as the ultra low emission zone, as well as his crazy, woke political correctness, which I know most people in my constituency and in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency are completely opposed to.
Mr Bedford
The hon. Gentleman makes a passionate point about his constituency. I know that he has been working on this issue for many years and I hope the Minister will take heed of what he just said. I know he will continue to champion those causes.
My constituents have watched Leicester itself decline while the county continues to deliver. The previous Conservative administration at county hall presided over better education services, better roads and better social care—all at a fraction of the cost. Quite simply, my constituents do not want Leicester city, or its mayor, to drag them down. Is it any wonder that they ask, “Who in their right mind would want to be a part of an urban-focused Leicester city council?” Indeed, on the doorsteps many of my constituents tell me that they moved to the county precisely to escape the decline of the city. Frankly, I could not agree with them more: I made the same decision just over a decade ago. I believe in devolution, but expansion would leave county representatives outnumbered and overruled while city priorities, such as the climate crisis, take precedence over the needs of areas such as Mid Leicestershire.
Finally, and perhaps crucially, any reorganisation must be preceded by a referendum—
Mr Forster
As I highlighted, Surrey is being reorganised, partly because of the debt of the former administration in Woking, which is completely unaffordable for my local area, and Surrey council is concerned that it is going to have to pay that tab. How would a referendum work in that situation, where Woking wants reorganisation but none of the surrounding areas do?
Mr Bedford
I think all the residents who would be impacted by any changes should be consulted in a referendum. All the constituents who would be part of a potential new authority should be consulted as part of that referendum—that is how I see it working. Of course, there are different models, and the Government could explain and explore those models in any approach they introduce.
As I was saying, any reorganisation must be preceded by a referendum, because reorganisations directly determine local priorities and how much council tax our constituents will pay. If the boundaries are redrawn and my constituents are absorbed into a city council area, I believe they will face higher taxes for poorer services. Why on earth should we say to my constituents in villages such as Birstall, Anstey or Thurcaston, who are already dealing with the highest tax burden in a generation, that they will pay more for less—and without a say?
To conclude, at a time when trust in politics and in this place is at an all-time low, what better way is there for the Government to show that they are listening than letting ordinary people—the people who are impacted by such reorganisations—have the final say on how their local services are delivered? They should have the final decision on how changes are implemented.
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak and that interventions should be short. We will come to the Front-Bench speeches just before 3.30 pm.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing this debate. It is always right that the House has the opportunity to discuss how local government works, how it can work better and how we ensure that it delivers for the people we represent. Although I do not believe that referendums are necessarily desirable in the context of the current local government reorganisations, for reasons I will come to shortly, I do believe that there is real value in debating these issues openly and transparently. Local government reorganisation is complex, consequential and long lasting, so it deserves serious consideration.
It is true that the Conservative-led coalition Government conducted a round of referendums in 2012 across a huge swathe of our major cities. The issue is that when people were asked whether they would like a mayor, every city—bar one—said no, but only a few years later, they got one anyway. They did not seek to repeat that exercise. The referendums the Conservatives held were, in truth, little more than lip service.
I think that most people here will think that mayoralties in the main—with honourable exceptions—have been a successful endeavour: they give power and autonomy to the places that have often been forgotten in the past. Of course, in recent years many places underwent local government reorganisation with no referendum at all.
It is worth mentioning an elephant in the room when it comes to the postponement of elections by a year in places such as Suffolk, which I represent, until all-out elections in 2027 and mayoralty elections in 2028. The Conservative party’s new-found aversion to postponing elections is quite remarkable, not least because, as Local Government Minister, the Leader of the Opposition postponed elections in Cumbria, while the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), also made the decision, as Local Government Minister, to postpone all-out district elections before reorganisation in Buckinghamshire in 2019. And Robert Jenrick—remember him? I was going to say he was the latest recruit to Reform—
Jack Abbott
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that correction from a sedentary position. The right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), while Secretary of State for Local Government, when talking about postponements in places such as Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset, said that elections in certain circumstances
“risk confusing voters and would be hard to justify where members could be elected to serve shortened terms.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 24WS.]
It is an interesting volte-face for both Reform and the Conservative party. That is the previous Conservative leader, the current Conservative leader, and the right hon. Member for Newark, who, up until last week, was agitating to be the next one, so I will take with a pinch of salt the Conservatives’ new-found desire for referendums or postponements—not least because one particular referendum was arguably the start of a psychodrama that continues to envelop them nearly a decade later.
We did have a referendum in 2024: we had a general election. Local government reorganisation was a clear and explicit part of our Government’s manifesto. I know that, under the Conservative party, delivering on manifesto commitments fell out of fashion—they were little more than vibes, at best, by the end. But we were elected on a mandate of change, and that included rebuilding and reforming local government as the foundation for meaningful devolution. The British people endorsed that programme at the ballot box, and it is our responsibility to deliver it.
Tom Gordon
The hon. Gentleman says that the electorate endorsed that at the ballot box. I wonder if he might show a little contrition in acknowledging that Labour got less than 50% of the vote, so trying to make out that that general election was a glowing endorsement of this Government and this manifesto commitment is perhaps putting a bit of a shine on it.
Jack Abbott
We are sitting here with a parliamentary party of more than 400 MPs. That is an overwhelming mandate under the electoral system that we have been operating under for centuries. The Conservative party can probably reflect on that, if we are talking about numbers.
Andrew Rosindell
Can the hon. Member will tell us whether it was also in the Labour manifesto to abolish local council elections?
Jack Abbott
As I have already laid out, and as the hon. Gentleman will know from when he was a member of the Conservative party, postponing elections where a local government was undergoing reorganisation happened a number of times. I was not here, so I cannot remember whether he spoke out against his Government at the time for doing so. A number of local government Ministers decided to postpone those elections, and I presume that he fully endorsed those postponements at the time—although I am happy for him to correct the record on that point.
The Government were elected on a mandate of change, and that included rebuilding and reforming local government as the foundation for meaningful devolution. The British people endorsed that programme at the ballot box, and it is our responsibility to deliver it. Our Government are embarking on the biggest transformation of local government in a generation. This is not change for change’s sake, but because the status quo has been failing far too many communities for far too long.
Tom Gordon
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way and being so generous with his time. He talks about change, but we are seeing the continuation of the same local government reorganisation that we saw under the previous Government, with the rolling out of the same mayoralties as well. This is not change so much as a continuity of plans that were already in place—unless he wants to give us anything new that I am not already aware of.
Jack Abbott
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is slightly mistaken. In my own patch in Suffolk, for instance, the devolution proposed under the previous Government meant handing out a few more powers for a tiny bit of extra money. We are proposing unitarisation of places such as Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk, plus a mayoral candidate for the elections in 2028. What we are seeing is far more radical and significant; in fact, for my part of the world, it is the most significant change in local government for more than 50 years, so it is a big step change from what the previous Conservative Government proposed.
For decades, power has been hoarded in Westminster and Whitehall while local councils were stripped of capacity, fragmented in structure and left struggling to meet rising demands after having their funding hollowed out. Nowhere is that failure clearer than in my home county of Suffolk. In a past life I was a county councillor, and I do not believe that the current status quo is working—I do not think many people living locally do, either. Although I accept that that is due to severe hollowing-out of funding over 15 years, a do-nothing approach is clearly not an option for us either.
Those sorts of issues—pot holes left unrepaired, special educational needs provision in crisis, children and families passed from pillar to post and adult social care under unbearable strain—are not abstract problems. They affect people’s daily lives, their dignity and their trust in local democracy. The truth is that the current system is not working, and we needed to do something radical. As I said, a do-nothing approach is not a neutral option, but a decision not to change how local government is structured and empowered. It would simply condemn communities such as mine to more of the same.
That is why the Government are choosing to devolve and not dictate through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. We are rebuilding local government so that it has the strength, scale and capability to deliver—[Interruption.] We hear chortling on the Conservative Benches, but the Conservative Suffolk county council requested this process and has also consulted with the public. People were able to put their views forward.
Our county council has put forward an option for a single unitary authority, and all the district and borough councils have put forward an option for three unitary authorities, so there has been significant consultation at local level. Parties of all stripes, although they may disagree on which outcome they would like to see, have all engaged constructively in this process on the whole.
We are looking to transfer power out of Westminster and into communities, and to give local leaders the tools to drive growth, create jobs and improve living standards. This is about rebalancing decades-old divides and, as I said, we have not seen this sort of reorganisation in my part of the world for more than 50 years.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The hon. Member is making a very powerful speech for an area of the country that is still two tier. However, having been a representative in a unitary council and lived in one for a number of years, it is worth putting on the record that being part of a unitary authority does not mean that potholes or SEND provision are perfect. I appreciate that that is probably not what he is implying, but someone listening to this debate might be led to believe, mistakenly, that unitarisation is a silver bullet. Does he agree that we need to be realistic about that?
Jack Abbott
Absolutely. I agree wholeheartedly that unitarisation or local government reorganisation alone is not a magic bullet. The things the hon. Member describes are due to severe underfunding. Pothole and road maintenance funding fell to around £17 million a year, down from £20 million, although it crept up again. We are putting much more money into that. We saw bus services shredded in the previous 14 years, but we now have the biggest upgrade to bus services since 1998. Some of those things will help; I believe that unitarisation will help to deliver better public services, and provide more of a single point of accountability for voters, but change also comes down to leadership, culture and investment.
In Suffolk there is a credible, detailed and ambitious alternative to the status quo. In my opinion, the proposal for three unitary councils put forward by all the district borough councils of Ipswich, Mid Suffolk, Babergh, East Suffolk and West Suffolk clearly shows that this is not a partisan project, but a set of proposals put forward by politicians of all stripes. It is a collaborative effort across political parties, grounding in evidence and focused on outcomes.
I believe it would be simpler for residents: there would be a single point of contact, as mentioned earlier, and more accountability, ending the confusion over who is responsible for what. Anyone who has knocked on doors will have heard residents say, “I don’t care who it is—I just want the council to fix it.” That is a sentiment that is shared quite widely.
Andrew Rosindell
All of us knock on doors and talk to our constituents. The thing they are really unhappy about, in all councils, is the fact that councils are not operating effectively and getting the true local jobs done in their local communities. The more remote the system and the bigger the council area, the less effective it will be. Does the hon. Gentleman see the point about smaller towns, villages and boroughs losing their identity and local control because it goes to some big bureaucracy somewhere else, a long way from where they are?
Jack Abbott
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point; there is a balancing act to be achieved, ensuring that we have the size and scale of councils to deliver public services efficiently, while also rooting them in their local communities. That is why I am backing a proposal for three unitary councils over the proposal from the Conservatives at Suffolk county council for a single unitary council.
As part of the local government reorganisation, places such as Ipswich, which I hope will turn into a greater Ipswich authority, would still need to retain a town council, and the parish council element would be really strong. I used to be a parish councillor, so I recognise the value and importance of those communities and having that very local representation as part of this.
Funnily enough, that leads me directly on to my next point: crucially, the three unitary councils proposal strikes the right balance: it is big enough to deliver but local enough to care. A greater Ipswich council, alongside strong East and West Suffolk authorities, would allow each area to play to its natural economic strengths, make faster decisions and champion its communities with strong local voices.
Although this has been a constructive debate in my part of the world, the conduct of the county council has at times been deeply disappointing. Rather than making a positive case for its own proposal, it has repeatedly resorted to misleading and aggressive tactics. Nearly £50,000 of taxpayers’ money has reportedly been spent on social media advertising for its own single campaign, with further tens of thousands earmarked for so-called “Alice in Wonderland” leaflets, which seek to ridicule all alternative proposals. That is not engagement; it is propaganda, and I urge the Minister and the Department to look at it carefully. At a time when potholes are going unfilled and children with special educational needs are being failed by that same county council, voters and residents in my area are entitled to ask why public money is being spent on spin, rather than services. The council’s behaviour betrays a lack of confidence in its own case and a disregard for local people.
Local government reorganisation must be about the future. It is about not just tomorrow, but the next 30, 40 or 50 years. It certainly cannot be about the preservation of power, status or the status quo. It must be about improving services, strengthening accountability and restoring trust. The Government have set the direction. We were elected with a mandate for change and we are delivering on that. Devolution is fundamentally about people, ensuring that communities such as Ipswich and Suffolk have the resources, powers and trust to determine their own futures. That is why referendums are not needed to delay or derail this progress. What we need is leadership, honesty and the courage to build a system that finally works for the people it serves.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to see you presiding over these proceedings today, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing this important debate; it is good to have an opportunity to discuss these issues openly.
It is also a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott). He made a lot of the fact that there are hundreds of Labour MPs and the great mandate that that has given this Government. I find it vexing that, with a majority as large as the one this incoming Government have, that they should choose as priorities things such as digital ID, attacking jury trials, taking away school freedoms, trying to ban vaping in pub gardens and trail hunting, and a costly reorganisation of local government.
I am relatively agnostic when it comes to the structure of local government. Some people say that they are in favour of unitaries or of two-tier authorities; I always find that a peculiar position. It is possible to give a decent argument in favour of almost any structure of local government. The one thing I dislike is the upheaval when they are changed. Sometimes there is a good argument for change and we must do it, but we should never pretend that there is no cost to that change. There is a financial cost to reorganisation—what happens to buildings and all sorts of other things—and an effectiveness cost when any organisation is in a state of flux.
In the case of Hampshire, we will be moving from a two-tier system to a single tier of unitaries. There will be some economies of scale and benefits that come with that; for example, bin collections will be on bigger scale, and we should be able to get that at a lower unit cost. There will also be diseconomies in those services that are moving from the county level to the smaller level, for example adult social care and aspects of children’s social care and so on. We do not know—unless the Minister is able to intervene and tell me—what the net effect will be. I have tabled some written questions to ask what the Government’s assumption is on the net effect, and we do not have an answer to that.
If there is a net benefit from the mixture of those economies, diseconomies and costs of transitions, I guarantee that it will not come in year one. All of these plans end up being a classic hockey-stick sales projection—“Of course things are going to get better, but first we have to invest to make that happen,” so the curve goes down before it goes up. I am afraid that, for many sales projections, years one to three turn out to be accurately predicted, but the out years much less so.
There are big choices to be made in reorganising to unitaries—as was alluded to a moment ago in the context of Surrey and Suffolk—in terms of the number of different unitaries in a particular area. That can make a very practical difference to residents. Big-cost items are going to move from county level—the upper tier—into these unitaries. As everybody knows, the two biggest costs are adult social care and high needs children’s social care in education. They are going into the unitaries, so it will make an enormous difference for a district council, depending on which other areas it goes in with.
To fund all that expenditure requires income—from business rates, for example. The overall age structure in the broader footprint of the area also matters. People of working age are net contributors. Retired people and children need cash support. There is also the question of housing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire put accurately and succinctly. There is a lot of controversy about the current targets for housing in rural areas, which have gone up under this Government by an average of 71% in new areas and 100% in areas such as mine—East Hampshire.
Some people feel that reorganisation and merging with nearby councils will solve that problem—all that housing will not have to go in the countryside after all; it can go in brownfield sites and developed areas, as it should. I fear that the opposite may be the case. We look to councillors to understand—as they do—the areas they represent. The further away decisions are made on things that really matter to local people, the less likely they are to be good for them.
Jack Abbott
What the right hon. Gentleman describes is already happening. Suffolk county council represents the entire county. The argument he is making is already playing out at the moment. We are having these conversations. This has already happened. We have rural councils making decisions about urban issues and vice versa. I do not think it is either/or.
Damian Hinds
I am grateful. I was talking about housing development and planning, which in Hampshire is decided by East Hampshire district council, not by Hampshire county council.
There is also the question of identity. Counties and parishes are anciently formed areas. Districts are quite often not; they are modern constructs in many cases, sometimes dating back only to 1974. How does that affect people’s sense of identity? That is half a century ago. I know that makes us all feel a little depressed; I was born in 1969. Over time, they acquire more of an identity, which we should think about.
The hon. Member for Ipswich was right when he said that local government reorganisation is complex, consequential and long-lasting. He also made a lot of having a mandate for change. There were loads of things about change in the Labour manifesto—it said “change” on the front cover. It did not say that the change would include this precise type of local government reorganisation, involving moving specifically to unitary councils. Because it is complex, consequential and long-lasting, it warrants a steady and sober assessment of the implications for all our residents.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing this debate.
I have made no secret of my views, unlike some Members who have kept their views to themselves on the outcome they would like. That is because I have a deep conviction, as someone who grew up in the area, of what feels right and what my constituents wish to see. I am in an interesting position because I am Plymouth born and bred, have served as a unitary city councillor, and now represent 40,000 residents in the city as their MP, but I do not believe the city needs to expand to deliver what it wants to. The plan is for an arbitrary number, which I genuinely believe is for land for homes and increased council tax receipts that villages such as Wembury, Yealmpton, Bickleigh, Woolwell, Newton Ferrers and Noss Mayo would provide.
Devon is an interesting county, and a big one. It is the fourth largest county in the country, which I think people often forget, and is therefore very varied. We have national landscapes, Dartmoor national park, the largest naval base in western Europe, the Roman city of Exeter, a huge amount of manufacturing, and cultural gems, such as Saltram House in my constituency. Therefore, a plan that is entirely bottom-heavy—two cities and a large town coming together to say, “We’ll look after ourselves, guv,” and the rest of the county being left on its own—has understandably not landed that well with what is considered “the rest of Devon” but is, I gently point out, more than 50% of the population.
What we know about the county of Devon is that local identity matters hugely. That means that the whole county needs to thrive as a result of local government reorganisation, rather than there just being pockets of investment and development and then everybody else. Along the lines of what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said about the age profile, in a lot of rural Devon there are lots of older people, and the young and working population is in the big cities.
That is why it is not surprising that 90% of those who completed surveys that I have conducted on the local government reorganisation plans are against the plans to subsume 13 parishes in my constituency into Plymouth city council, and why approximately 1,900 people signed a petition to say the same. I have to say that, although Plymouth city council has done the consultation it is supposed to, the figure it shared with me for the number of residents it heard from was about half the number who have been in communication with me as the MP.
Those statistics come directly from constituents who currently have no formal voice in the LGR process. When the two cities in Devon seem determined to secure their own future rather than be realistic about the economic viability of the rest of Devon, it is not hard to see why my constituents are unhappy. As it stands, the LGR process has resulted in a bidding war and caused local councils, such as some in Devon, to pick the best bits at the expense of the rest. Obviously, that is my opinion, but that is what I am watching happen across the county. That is why I am against Plymouth and Exeter’s proposal to carve off the parishes that they think will get them to the magic number of about 300,000 that they have in their head, never mind what else happens. They literally call it, “the rest of Devon.”
The Government claim that consultation is taking place—I know that it is, because I have been invited to take part in it—but it is not the mass inquiry that I think we are talking about today. I do not necessarily think that it has to be a referendum, but something more formal would have been better. Options for Members of Parliament have been limited. I, for one, have been quite proactive. I have gone out to find out what my constituents think, and will be writing to the Minister to share their views. Other local MPs have written to the Minister simply based on their own political views without surveying their residents.
Local councils are being taken at their word. They may have carried out consultations, but they have been written up by the very people who want the change where there is a huge vested interest in seeing it delivered. They are quite literally marking their own homework. I know they have tried to be fair and spoken to as many people as they possibly can, but I am still not happy that that should be given greater weight than any of the information that Members of Parliament are sharing. One of the consultations the Minister will have received from the council implies that it has consulted with local MPs. Well, the only consultation was when I rang them to say, “Why have you said you have consulted with me when I have not actually heard from you?” They have had an opportunity and it has not been taken properly, which has left quite a bad taste in the mouth of Members of Parliament like me.
What we really need is a formal consultation of the communities affected. In this case, that should be county-wide, rather than just in the pockets that want to see delivery for themselves. Devon is a huge county, and a coherent consultation has been very difficult because so many options have been on the table. There has been a consultation for each individual plan, and none of them look at the big picture; they all look at the view that the particular council or group has been proposing. In a county like Devon, where the two key cities have Labour councils and majority Labour MPs, and with a Labour Government calling for this change, it is unsurprising that local people are doubtful of the proposals. I appreciate that it is all being done in good faith, but that is how it comes across at the moment.
Local identity really matters where there is a connection between urban and rural. That is what I am trying to present this afternoon. I am stuck in the middle, so to speak, between an urban city that ultimately needs money in its most deprived parts, and the country parishes, which are deemed richer. However, the whole south-west is poorer than large parts of the rest of the country, so we are comparing apples and pears, rather than like for like. Some 67% of those surveyed identified as being from Devon. I appreciate this was not a qualitative exercise, but 10% identified as being from Plymouth; and 18% typically named their small town or village as where they are from. That might not change, but to start having rubbish collected and services provided by the big city down the road is deeply concerning for a lot of rural villages, so imposing a top-down decision on communities like mine has, as I have mentioned, gone down very badly.
In the absence of a referendum, I call on the Minister to weigh heavily the evidence from MPs like myself where we can show community engagement among our own constituencies. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Perhaps the Department could have encouraged independent consultation rather than each of the groups’ creating their own plan and doing their own consultation, because I genuinely think they have gone and written up the answers that they want to portray. What I have heard is certainly not what I have had presented back to me by the councils.
I urge the Minister to look at Devon as a whole, as a county that has so much to offer. If it is left to cities and the rest of Devon, it will not necessarily be in the greatest interests of the county. I urge her to listen to the views of everybody, not just those from large cities, which, as I have said, make up less than half the county’s population.
I have one further question for the Minister. We have heard plenty this afternoon about the different services that can be provided by different councils. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) mentioned precepts. A confusing thing that has not been talked about is that as the change happens, we are not looking at a level playing field on council tax. In Plymouth at the moment we pay council tax to the unitary authority, but the district council, the parish council and county council get money. It is my understanding that precepts will remain for the parts of the unitary that are not in the city, and that we will end up with parts of my constituency paying more council tax than others.
Interestingly, there is an offer of creating town councils in new bits. Some of the independent councillors in one community in my constituency are pushing to create a town council in Plympton. I do not think the constituency is clear whether that means that the council tax will go up to pay for that new town council or the parish council. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that, just to make it ultra-clear what we are talking about on the ground.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing this timely debate. I have listened to colleagues who feel passionate about their towns, villages and counties. We have heard about Leicestershire, Hampshire, Suffolk and now Devon—all wonderful great English counties. It shows that whatever party we belong to, we care about the communities that we come from.
We want the best local government structure that works for local people and delivers services, but it is also about identity. For me, as a proud Essex MP, being stuck in this artificial creation called Greater London has never been good, so radical reform of local government is needed, and it needs to be as local as possible. True democracy is at a local level, not in some bureaucratic organisation in a city. It is local to villages and communities, which is where it should be. We should all work to achieve that and make it as democratic as possible.
On behalf of, I believe, local people the length and breadth of England, I would like to add my voice to the chorus of outrage against this Labour Government’s decision to delay an ever-increasing number of local government elections under the guise of restructuring. That is just an excuse not to hold elections. It is nothing less than a blatant attempt to hide themselves from the scrutiny of the ballot box, silencing the voices of millions of voters on the local issues that matter most to daily lives. I, alongside my new Reform UK colleagues here in Parliament, totally oppose the ditching of democracy in such a way.
Reform UK has launched a legal challenge, including a judicial review, due to be heard this week. We are clear that democracy delayed is democracy denied. The Labour Government are running from the fight of their lives in the upcoming elections on 7 May. There is no way that the British people will let them off the hook. They may delay the elections, but they are just delaying their own defeat and demise. The British people will not forget that it is Labour who have abolished democracy in whole swathes of the country on 7 May.
History tells us that only dictators cancel elections yet, shockingly, 30 local authority leaders have written to the Secretary of State requesting that local democracy be denied and their positions secured for another period without elections.
Jack Abbott
As I asked earlier, when the hon. Member did not correct me, did he have an issue when his former leader—either his current former leader or the one before—delayed elections as Local Government Minister? Considering his recent conversion, did he also speak out when the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) postponed elections when he was Secretary of State for Local Government? Does he liken those individuals to dictators as well?
Andrew Rosindell
There is always a legitimate case to have a short delay when there is a serious purpose for doing so. I remember when Mrs Thatcher abolished the Greater London Council—what a glorious day that was. We did not have elections for the GLC and extended it for one more year. In circumstances such as that, where it is one more year, there are legitimate reasons to delay, but we are talking now about up to three years. That is unacceptable and completely beyond what is reasonable or necessary to get everything organised and ready for any local government restructure.
Andrew Rosindell
I am not going to give way because I know what the hon. Member is going to say. In my borough there have been no delays or restructuring for many years, so it has not affected my area. That is why I have not spoken about delayed elections in other areas; that is for other Members to have done during those restructures.
I would love local government to be restructured in the Greater London area—I have been calling for that for many years. Sadly, my former party refused to countenance such a thing. Tony Blair recreated the GLC under the guise of the GLA and introduced the elected Mayor of London, which nobody really wants and is very costly. We had the opportunity for 14 years to do something about that.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) also has concerns about the way that the Mayor of London and the GLA have operated, and he will reply from the Opposition Front Bench later. I am interested to hear whether a future Government that the Conservatives are part of will be radical and actually do something about the artificial local government structure that has been imposed on us in the Greater London area.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight a democratic deficit. West Sussex county council, which is Conservative-led, has chosen to delays its elections for another year, which means that its county councillors will end up serving seven-year terms, without seeking a democratic mandate since 2021. Does he share my concern that the constituents of Romford did not elect a Reform MP?
Andrew Rosindell
At the general election, which we need as soon as possible, we will see how many Reform MPs are elected. I am happy to have an election as soon as possible, because this country needs change. We have been stuck in a rut for years and the British people have had enough. So yes, let us have a general election to get rid of this disastrous Government and put our country in a better place. Going back to the original point, most of the boroughs that are delaying their elections are Labour-controlled, but the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have also requested cancellations, so they do not get off the hook scot-free.
As it stands, more than 600 council seats will not be contested later this year. Almost 4 million people will be denied the chance to elect their local council representatives. It really is shameful. It is unnecessary and wrong, and the policy should be changed. This is nothing short of a scandal. The British people deserve better; they deserve a say about who runs their local councils. That is why Reform UK supports serious consultations on local government reorganisation, and ultimately referendums on it. Local voices cannot be silenced, and we will fight to ensure that they are heard.
Although it brings a short-term advantage to the Labour party, blocking elections harms local people. Take my borough of Havering, for example. In 2000, London governance was reorganised in a manner not dissimilar to the reorganisation that is taking place across the country today. In the 1960s, our area had the administrative title of the London borough of Havering imposed on us, but everyone in Havering knows that we are in Essex. We did not need to be told that we are suddenly part of London when for one and a half millennia we have been under Essex, but the bureaucracy imposed that new title on us. Now we are under the thumb of the elected Mayor and the Greater London Authority, so please can we have a referendum on whether to stay part of that regional government structure?
Havering is not London. We do not want our local government controlled by a London Mayor—particularly the current one—and I think most of my constituents would like us to get out. We want to connect with our Essex roots, both culturally and administratively. The people of Havering deserve a referendum on whether they want to continue to be dominated by a political mayor. Whether we remain part of that structure must be their decision. I believe it is time to give local constituents in Romford and throughout the borough of Havering a choice about whether we are under the Mayor of London or whether we should regain our independence and our local identity.
At one point, the Ministry stated that
“all elections should go ahead unless there is strong, evidence-based justification for a temporary delay.”
Those words are now haunting the Labour party. I firmly believe that local and regional government is in dire need of reform, not only in my borough of Havering but across the country, but the answer cannot be less engagement with local people. It must be the opposite of that: giving local people a genuine say about the structure of their local councils.
There should be thorough consultations, crystal clear explanations and referendums in local areas so that the decision is made by local people. Central Government bureaucrats must not make decisions above the heads of local people, ignoring what they truly want. The Government’s current excuses are simply that—worse, in fact. The reality is that this is a political stitch-up to keep local authorities under Labour control. From speaking to people in my constituency who have experienced a Labour Government and a Labour Mayor of London, I have to say that the last thing they want is for Labour to be running their local council. Labour is running from the polls and taking democracy with it; it should change this policy quickly.
There is still time for the Government to do their favourite thing: make a U-turn. We have seen a lot of those recently, so let us see another one on this issue. Local government needs fundamental reform, but the Government must consult people more broadly, respect democracy and allow elections to go ahead as planned. Anything else is unacceptable to local people across this country, regardless of their political affiliations. Reform UK will fight this every step of the way.
I commend the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who made a very good point about the identity of the historic counties. For many years, I have fought to combine the historic and the ceremonial counties so that we all have one county identity, rather than the muddle that we have at the moment of ceremonial counties, administrative counties and historic counties. Three definitions of counties is nonsense.
Local government reorganisation means we should go back to the simple concept of a county being a geographical and historical area that we can all feel part of because it is our history and identity. My borough should have always have been under the ceremonial county of Essex. There are lots of other anomalies across the country—in Leicestershire and other parts—but perhaps the Minister could at least take this one back, so that we can have one county identity, which we could then celebrate across the country.
Mr Forster
The hon. Gentleman seems to have a focus on identity, whether geographical or party political, but my constituents in Woking are much more concerned about potholes and the appalling child safety issues under the county council. Does the hon. Gentlemen not think those issues should be the primary focus?
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman replies, we have a Division. I think there will be three Divisions, so Members should come back in 35 minutes.
Andrew Rosindell
I was about to conclude my remarks when the Division bell rang. I hope that the Minister takes on board my point about the historic and ceremonial counties, and that councils across our land will proudly fly the county flags from each town and county hall across England. I know that will delight the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller).
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a Norfolk county councillor. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing the debate. Might I say how welcome it is that, unlike the Norfolk Conservatives, he is a Conservative who thinks that local government reorganisation requires more democracy, not less?
The Labour Government’s novel approach of centralised devolution has put an enormous strain on local authorities and caused a great deal of concern for my local residents. North Norfolk is an area with unique characteristics, and we have been well served in recent years by a Liberal Democrat-led district council that is well armed with local knowledge to deliver for my constituents.
We have the oldest population in the country, an economy that relies heavily on tourism, and unique environmental factors ranging from England’s largest seal colony to the fastest-eroding coastline in north-west Europe. It beggars belief that the Government, and Norfolk county council’s Conservatives, think that all that could be easily handled by one local authority that also has to contend with the needs of a further 800,000 people and 1,700 square miles of county. Whitehall’s demand to arbitrarily find populations of 500,000 or more for authorities proves that they have not taken the reality of rural areas into account.
Across the Government’s programme for local government reorganisation, little consideration has been given to the specific needs and characteristics of rural and coastal communities. Trying to bundle us together with inland areas completely misunderstands the unique challenges and opportunities we face, and risks worsening both. Furthermore, lumping in our rural economy to compete for funding and resources with an urban economic centre in Norwich and the surrounding area risks pulling support from our local businesses and preventing us from unleashing the rural powerhouse that North Norfolk can be. That is why I, and the vast majority of Norfolk’s councils and MPs, support the Future Norfolk proposal for three local authorities, and I strongly urge the Minister’s Department to go ahead with that.
I know that similar concerns and challenges are felt across the country, with Whitehall trying to dictate devolution and fundamentally misunderstanding much of how the world works outside SW1. It was deeply disappointing to see the Government delay our mayoral election for two further years. Devolution is important in Norfolk and Suffolk to deliver a brighter future for both counties and seize upon the new powers and funding from Government to drive change forward. We are left behind yet again.
I am concerned about the financial black hole that the decision has left, not only in Norfolk but for many authorities with delayed elections. We have heard today about the end of the shared prosperity fund, which was set to coincide with the arrival of combined authority funding and allow for a smooth transition to continue funding for important work done by local authorities. However, the delay means that we now see a cliff edge in September this year, with no support until we elect our mayors in May 2028. Will the Minister confirm what consideration the Department gave to that issue when it delayed our elections? What support is she going to provide for the stretched local authorities that have seen their balance sheets take yet another hit from the Government?
Jess Brown-Fuller
Our mayoral election in Sussex has been postponed until 2028, but the statutory instrument for the creation of combined authorities is still going ahead, and two elected representatives from each local authority are going to form the combined authority. That means Conservative councillors who have not had a democratic mandate since 2021 will create the combined authority; does my hon. Friend agree that that is the reason why they are holding on and delaying elections?
Steff Aquarone
Not only do I cynically agree with my hon. Friend, but I think that is precisely why it is so important to have local elections, because of not just the time that will have elapsed but the very important the decisions that authorities will make as part of the local government reorganisation that, as she pointed out, has already been legislated for.
I thank the Minister’s colleague in the Lords, Baroness Taylor, who made the picturesque journey all the way to Cromer to meet local leaders in North Norfolk, and who also made time to meet me and hear my concerns. Frustratingly, her considered approach does not seem to be reflected across Government. On much of the devolution agenda, the left hand does not seem to know what the right hand is doing. The Government are giving councils new statutory responsibilities and costs, which must be delivered ahead of LGR, but without providing any certainty about how to ensure that capital investment and budgetary decisions will be well suited to the set-up in a couple of years’ time.
There are valid reasons for, and drawbacks to, having referendums around the programme of local government reorganisation. I can understand sympathetic arguments from both sides. However, I fully understand why, given the track record of Norfolk Conservatives, my constituents are very worried about the blank cheque that the Government handed to them to work on LGR and devolution. Our devolution was delayed for years under the last Government, while the Tories in Norfolk fought among themselves as to who would be coronated as the elected leader. Our devolution was then pulled entirely, before being redrawn by the Labour Government.
When we look at how the Conservatives have run Norfolk since 2017, is it any wonder that my constituents might find the prospect of a referendum on their work appealing? The Conservatives rode roughshod over the views of local residents, threatened to evict people with bailiffs, and acted like playground bullies because people in Sheringham dared to oppose their plans to bulldoze the bus shelter. They are denying children in Holt a long-promised primary school, despite being given the money by the Government and the site being there to build on, and they have allowed our transport system to crumble, spending millions on shiny new buses in Norwich rather than embarking on a much-needed rural transport overhaul.
The Conservatives in Norfolk are also allowing the loss of vital convalescence care beds in Cromer and Cossey, which is worsening our healthcare crisis. They have driven our council to the brink of bankruptcy and are now having to go cap in hand to the Government to get bailed out after blowing £50 million on the white elephant that is the Norwich western link road, without an inch of road to show for it.
Now, to the shock of nobody, the Conservatives in Norfolk want to chicken out of elections for a second year running. They do not even have the guts to admit it: the letter from their administration to the Government was so unclear that they were asked to write it again and explain what they meant. Their assessment of whether our election should be cancelled read like a letter from Vicky Pollard: “Yeah, but no, but—”.
I made the point to a previous Secretary of State that the Conservative administration in Norfolk is totally unfit to preside over Norfolk’s future, and I remain steadfast in that opinion. Failing Conservative administrations have been propped up by the Government and allowed to do this across the country—[Interruption.] Sorry, Ms McVey.
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
I just wanted you to get to the end of your sentence.
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
Well, we will leave it there anyway. There is a Division, so we will suspend the debate for 15 minutes—unless Members are back sooner. If you all leg it back, we will start again sooner.
Steff Aquarone
As I said, I remain steadfast in the view that failing Conservative administrations have been propped up by the Government and allowed to do this across the country. It is simply not right—they should be facing the voters in their areas and held accountable for their years of failure. Although referendums are one of the means for getting democratic legitimacy for local government reorganisation, I would far prefer for that legitimacy to be sought by councillors facing their electorate. I apologise for being out of breath—I ran back here quickly on your instructions, Ms McVey.
Local government reorganisation is too important for the Government to get wrong. It cannot be done to people; it must be done with them. A more collaborative approach from the Government that fully considers local character and issues and does not do this work at the expense of democratic legitimacy would be greatly welcomed.
I finish with a straightforward challenge to the Norfolk Conservatives running scared of an election: we are ready to face the ballot box in May. Are you?
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing this important debate and congratulate him on the excellent points he made in his speech.
Local government holds a special place in our multilayered and multifaceted democracy. It is democratically accountable, inherently bottom-up and strongly community-minded. The average local authority delivers more than 800 different services, providing key day-to-day functions that represent, for most people, the most noticeable interactions with political choices and democratic management. Whether it is bins, potholes, recycling and waste, libraries, adult social care or SEND services, the most obvious impact of many people’s choices at the ballot box are those delivered at the local level in their parish, district or county council.
I am especially aware of that having served as a local councillor in the London borough of Bexley for 23 years and, on a regional level, as a London Assembly member for 13 years. It was a privilege to serve my constituents in those positions, just as it is as a Member of Parliament. That is why I know that local government deserves support and respect. Unfortunately, it has become increasingly clear that the Labour Government do not share that view.
Along with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), I noted that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) said that local government reorganisation is complex, consequential and long-lasting. He is completely correct on that. However, my right hon. Friend was also completely correct to say that there was nothing in the Labour party manifesto that suggested a top-down, nationwide structural reorganisation of all local councils. There was no mention of riding roughshod over the wishes of local people and local government, but that is exactly the course the Government are pursuing. We have heard today from right hon. and hon. Members how the Government’s plans, which stretch far beyond the platform that they stood for at the election, will impact their local area and constituents.
The Government’s programme of so-called devolution is already having sweeping impacts on councils and local people—not least, as we have seen for the second time in as many years, with the likelihood of the cancellation of local elections across vast swathes of the country. It is telling that of the 63 councils offered the chance to postpone elections by the Government, nearly three quarters of those doing so are Labour run or have a Labour majority. Following on from the Liberal Democrats spokesman, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), there are a further four local authorities where the Liberal Democrats have at least a share of power, and one where they are in outright control.
It is widely believed that Labour is denying democracy and running scared of voters by cancelling elections where it feels it will get a pasting. Independent voices—from academia to politics and the Electoral Commission—are urging that the elections should go ahead. Just recently, the Government told us they would. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, told the House on Monday:
“Just before Christmas, the Minister highlighted that councils were asked to delay elections, after the Secretary of State had repeatedly told our Committee that they would be going ahead…I am concerned that we are seeing a postponement yet again.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 58-59.]
Her argument was supported by the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer), who said:
“As a former leader of a major council and a Labour MP, I find this completely embarrassing. A Labour Government should not be taking the vote away from 3.7 million people. It is completely unprecedented for a Labour Government to do that. There is clearly a vested interest for some councillors who may feel, looking at the opinion polls, that they will lose their seat.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 60.]
He is surely correct in his assertion that this is what lies behind the Government’s actions. When 3.7 million people are being denied the right to vote and the Government’s excuse is their own radically top-down and botched reorganisation of local government, it is no wonder that local people feel so ignored and insulted, as hon. Members have made clear today.
Let me make it clear again: the Conservative party’s position is that the elections should go ahead. Our line has been completely clear and consistent. This mass suppression of democracy is, perhaps, the most egregious of the many negative outcomes of the Government’s bungled restructuring programme, although it is far from the only one.
The greatest scandal comes in the Government’s approach to local councils as they seek to carry out this unmandated position. It is vital that local councils—the elected representatives of local people—and the communities in which they live are heard throughout any process affecting the make-up, functions and form of their local democratic institutions. Instead, Labour’s approach has been to dictate from Whitehall, forcing councils to sign up to a prescribed model of restructuring, imposed from the centre and leaving local people without a voice. We believe that true devolution requires clarity, accountability and sustainability in funding, elections and structure, but the Government have offered none of those things.
While local referenda are expensive and non-binding, they provide another collective voice that could feed into the debate about how people want to be represented. The voices of local people should be front and centre of any restructuring process, but sadly, given their current approach, even if there were local referenda, it appears likely that this Government would simply ignore any view that did not correspond with their own.
Jack Abbott
I think there is a short-term memory issue here. The hon. Gentleman talks about referendums, but the Conservative Government held a whole heap on mayoralties in 2012 and then ignored all the outcomes. He says he values local government, which is incredibly welcome, but his party hollowed out local government funding, and we have seen the cost of that. When the Conservatives were in power, they suspended a number of elections to consider local government reorganisation, including those involving the Leader of the Opposition—why has there suddenly been this volte-face in the last few weeks?
Gareth Bacon
Three local elections were delayed by one year in 2021, all of which were the result of local government reorganisations; a consultation took place with the authorities affected in advance and their views were taken on board. That is in complete contrast with what the Labour Government are doing right now. They are riding roughshod over the views of local people and cancelling elections for the second year running.
It is vital that communities get the real empowerment they deserve, that taxpayers get the accountability they pay for and that new structures face proper scrutiny. That is why, on Report and Third Reading of the devolution Bill, the Opposition urged the Government to look again and accept amendments to ensure that the Bill provided those key tenets; true to form, the Government ignored those entreaties. The Opposition will continue to vote against the Government in Parliament on their botched handling of this issue.
If the Government do not listen to local people, through whatever democratic means, we face a future for local government in which power is stripped from genuinely local authorities and people—parishes, town councils, neighbourhood groups and civic institutions—and centralised within geographically and demographically distant authorities instead. While the Government’s track record speaks for itself with rushed, top-down reorganisations of local government and higher council tax burdens on residents, the Conservatives believe that communities deserve a voice—not another expensive restructure that sidelines local priorities, moves decision making further away from voters and inflates the cost for taxpayers.
While referenda, like elections, could be ignored by a Government who appear indifferent to the views of voters, the Opposition believe in local voices and will continue to stand up for our local democratic institutions. Our electoral process should not be abused or bent to the will of a particular party for its own partisan benefit. Ministers should treat voters with respect instead of disdain, stop undermining our democratic system and let the people of this country make their own decisions.
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. On behalf of everyone, I thank you for the excellent way in which you dealt with the suspensions. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing this important debate on local government reorganisation. He made the case on behalf of his constituents very well, and I was listening to what he said.
I also listened to the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott), the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and the hon. Members for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) and for Orpington (Gareth Bacon). Many Members spoke up for the identity of their constituents and the culture and history of their constituencies. It is important that we are able to do that in this House, and I congratulate all Members on doing so. I will try as best I can to respond to the points they raised.
I will set out why we are reorganising local government and why it matters. Nearly a third of the population—about 20 million people—live in areas with two-tier local government, which splits functions and services across county and district councils, slows down decisions as different councils try to agree and leads to fragmented public services. It is confusing for citizens in terms of who does what and who is responsible.
My constituency is in the Wirral, which was reorganised six years before I was born. As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire said, over time, the Wirral has come to have its own identity, but people still have identities from long before. The county of Cheshire, which is near my constituency, still has a strong identity—as you will know, Ms McVey. It was reorganised in 2009, but, while the unitary authorities have grown in different ways, that Cheshire identity is still there.
This is a continuing journey, as Members have said. In the area of the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire, Leicestershire county council reported that 140,000 people called the wrong council when trying to get help and support. We can all do better than that, and I want to work with local government to make that happen. We want to simplify local government and have single-tier, unitary councils everywhere, making stronger local councils that are equipped to create the conditions for growth, improve public services and empower communities. This is not a bureaucratic exercise; it is the biggest reform to local government in 50 years. We want to make the most of that opportunity. Councils need to play a much clearer and stronger role in building our economy and making sure that everyone everywhere is part of our national growth story. Reorganisation can help to do that: with one council in charge in each area, we will see quicker decisions, grow our towns and cities and connect people to opportunity.
The right hon. Member for East Hampshire, who made an important contribution, asked what the net effect would be. It is different for each area, which makes it hard to forecast, but I want to point out another issue. We are currently seeing spiking costs in particular areas, including SEND, as he will know well, children’s care, temporary accommodation and homelessness. I would be wary of drawing hard and fast conclusions because of the cost environment that we are in. We will have a number of opportunities to discuss the finances of local councils on the Floor of the House in the months to come, but I would be happy to discuss those issues with him. Local government finance is complicated but very important, and I noted his strong contribution.
Particularly in these areas, we want public services to be designed for people’s lives rather than in council silos. Bringing housing, public health and social care together under one roof means that one council can see the full picture and spot problems early. That is very important in the case of children’s care, where we want to take a preventive approach and improve parenting support.
Strong local government is the only way that we can really tackle deprivation and poverty in the round. People living in neighbourhoods with high levels of deprivation especially deserve public services that will help them to reach their full potential. Rather than multiple councils with confusing and inefficient structures, one council will take responsibility for making sure that its area turns a corner.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
As the Minister knows, in Surrey, which is going through a process of reorganisation, two unitary authorities have been selected, and each will cover more than 600,000 people. There is a great concern that that is too big or will feel too remote. An added complication is that, with potentially £4.5 billion of debt in the new West Surrey, which my constituency is in, many of my residents will end up paying a very high cost for debt that they had no part in accumulating. That may directly affect the very public services that the Minister has just mentioned. Will she speak directly to my residents and tell them why they should be paying for debt they did not accrue, and offer them reassurance that they will get the public services they deserve?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the time he has spent engaging with me on these issues. He will know that the Government took an unprecedented decision in relation to debt in Surrey, and we continue to be concerned about ensuring that we can reach financial sustainability, for all the reasons that he describes. I would say to his residents that their MPs are engaging with the Government and others on the subject. It is very serious, and we will continue to work together on it.
In early February, we expect to launch a consultation on proposals for the remaining 14 areas, including the area of the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire. I know that he is actively engaged in the discussion on reorganisation in Leicestershire and has been encouraging his constituents to have their say, as he described—I applaud and welcome that. I reassure him and other Members that we take people’s views very seriously; as I said before, I was listening very carefully to the contributions that colleagues have made. Community engagement and neighbourhood empowerment form part of our judgment in looking at proposals for new councils, and I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon for her contribution on that subject.
Like existing councils, new councils must listen to their communities and deliver genuine opportunities for neighbourhoods to shape the places where they live. That is part of another area of policy in the Department; whether it is pride in place or the measures in the Bill that is going through the House at the moment, community engagement is important.
The hon. Member for South West Devon asked about precepts. Deciding on that process will be a part of the reorganisation. If she would like further details, I would be happy to correspond with her, but it is part of the overall set of arrangements that we need to decide.
Residents can make their views known through the upcoming consultation on local government reorganisation. The responses to the consultation will all be taken into account, and I hope that Members will consider this process as part of the discussion that we are having.
I thank Members for engaging. If there are issues that I have not picked up for reasons of time, I will respond to them individually in writing. All Members are most welcome to take part in the discussions and consultations on the reorganisation. In the end, this is about outcomes; we want to see our country grow economically and socially. I thank Members for taking part in making the process work.
Mr Bedford
I thank all Members from across the House for contributing to the debate. There is clearly passion across the House about our local areas and constituencies. Local decision making matters so much to our residents. I ask the Minister to reconsider the Government’s approach, particularly in the light of my point that local people should always have the final say on structural changes in their areas. That could be achieved by introducing local referenda. I reiterate my point to the Minister and ask the Government to reconsider their position.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential merits of referendums on local government reorganisation.