Local Government Reform

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Westminster Hall

11:25

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered local government reform.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I would particularly like to thank Mr Speaker for granting me exceptional permission to speak from the Back Benches on an issue that many of my constituents feel very strongly about.

One day, not long after the new Labour Government came into office, they suddenly announced that they were going to abolish every district and borough council in this country and also change the boundaries of many cities. Following that, a proposal was swiftly put forward by the Labour Mayor of Leicester to expand the boundaries of the city, to swallow up many surrounding areas. All of this came completely out of the blue—it had not been mentioned in the general election—and the Government did not start by asking people what they might want; instead, they simply told them what was going to happen.

Right from the start, it was clear to me from speaking to people in Leicestershire that there was very strong opposition to this plan. Right from the start, I have said to Ministers on the Floor of the Commons, “If you believe this is the right thing, and if you believe this is what local people want, why don’t you let us have a vote on it? Why don’t you give people a say?” But Ministers treated the idea of giving people a vote as ridiculous—“What an absurd idea! Why would we ask people what they want?”—and said no to allowing us a local referendum. Because the Government will not give people a vote, I have given my constituents a vote. Over recent weeks, I have been balloting people in the affected area about whether they want to be part of the city of Leicester. I sent every household in the area a ballot paper asking, in a completely neutral way, “Do you want to become part of the city or not?”

The result has been surprising and overwhelming. I knew that people felt very strongly. It turns out they feel very, very strongly about this issue. I sent a ballot paper to all 22,000 households in Oadby and Wigston, and 10,774 have responded—about half, which is an incredible response to an informal local referendum. Of those who have voted, almost all are opposed to Oadby and Wigston being swallowed up by the city. In fact, 97% of people—10,410—voted against it, so it could not be clearer that people in Oadby and Wigston do not want to be swallowed up by the city.

But that is not all. The plan put forward by the Mayor of Leicester would see him taking over other areas as well, such as part of the Harborough district including Great Glen, Newton Harcourt and the area around the Strettons. The bid he has put into Government would see him swallowing up all of the Harborough district, including Market Harborough. We have no idea how the Government will respond to that.

We know that the mayor definitely wants to take over the area around Great Glen, but people there are also very strongly opposed to this. I sent out 2,000 ballot papers there. Around that area, 1,035 people voted, of whom 1,013 voted against being part of the city—98% of people do not want to join the city. If we take all those together—Oadby and Wigston and the area around Great Glen—that is 11,423 people who have voted against joining the city, which is an incredible number in quite a small area.

I have not balloted other places nearby in quite the same detail, but I suspect that if I gave a vote to people in Kibworth, Burton Overy, Gaulby or King’s Norton, they would say exactly the same. People do not want to be part of the city, yet so far the Labour Government have refused to listen and have not wanted to give people a say. They must now start listening to the wishes of the people. Next month, we will find out what the Government have decided to do. If the Minister decides to push ahead with plans to expand the city, Ministers must know that they are doing so in the face of total and overwhelming local opposition.

When I talk to local people, they give me different reasons why they do not want to be part of the city. One factor is higher council tax. A typical band D property in the city pays £122 more than a property in Oadby and Wigston, and £139 more than a property in Harborough. Obviously, a bigger property pays even more: a band H property pays £244 more in the city than in Oadby and Wigston, and £278 more than in Harborough.

But it is not just the cost that is driving the opposition; people do not want to lose local accountability and their local identity. All these places have their own strong local character. Oadby and Wigston have always been separate from the city of Leicester. Wigston is in the Domesday Book—in fact, it had been around for about 500 years even then. It has two beautiful medieval churches and is known for their two spires. South Wigston is very different. It is a Victorian model town, built by a visionary industrialist called Orson Wright, who built the whole place with his own brickworks. That red brick character can still be seen driving up the Blaby Road.

Oadby, as the name implies—there are lots of “by’s” around Leicestershire—has Viking origins. It has its own quirks and history, too. For example, of the 114 livery companies in this country, all are in the City of London apart from one, which is in Oadby, in the beautiful hall and alms-houses created by the Framework Knitters.

I could go on and on. Great Glen has its own history. It has a beautiful church, which was quite badly damaged by parliamentarians who were camping there during the civil war—I suppose that, as a parliamentarian myself, I should apologise for that. These are places with their own strong history, and their desire to hold on to that local accountability and identity is seen as ridiculous by local officials.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a really important point about local identity and about how important it is that Ministers listen. We have a Minister here today listening. I want to talk about the local government reorganisation in Kent, an area that has an incredibly strong historic identity. It is actually England’s oldest county, with a history going back more than 2,000 years—it was the Kingdom of Kent—yet under this local government reorganisation, Kent is due to be broken up, and it is not even getting a mayor. It will be fragmented into multiple parts. The population between Kent and Medway is over 2 million. At the moment, Kent has an identity and a voice. It is set to lose both through this local government reorganisation, and the case for substantial savings simply is not there. The local government reorganisation needs to be looked at again, and I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that, at the moment, the proposals are a shambles.

[Neil O’Brien]

I am very sorry to hear that. I was just about to make that point: as well as the loss of local accountability and identity, the argument is just wrong. Ministers believe that big is always better—that big is beautiful—but the evidence does not support that. If big were beautiful, Birmingham city council, which is the biggest unitary in the country, would be our best council. Is it our best council? No, it is not; we have bins piling up in the streets.

It is not just that one anecdote; the point can be expressed in lots of different ways. The Local Councils Network found that, for mega-councils with populations of over half a million, which was the Government’s original target for this reorganisation, the average council tax is £2,009, but for councils below that size, it is £250 a year cheaper. If mega-councils are so efficient and wonderful, why are they much more expensive? Why are local residents not feeling the benefit of the efficiency? The truth is, of course, that the gains are not there. The reorganisation, and the chaos that will come with all this, will actually cost us lots of money, and we will end up with something that is remote but not more efficient.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

It is very clear from my hon. Friend’s powerful speech that his constituents in Leicestershire do not want local government reform, and my constituents in Rayleigh and Wickford in Essex do not want it either. Has he seen the letter from 16 council leaders from the County Council Network giving a whole host of reasons why it is a bad idea? I would add that it is a Trojan horse that Labour is using to try to cover our green fields in concrete. There is no demand for this. People do not want it. They want to protect their existing local identities. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should take the hint and drop the whole barmy plan?

[Neil O’Brien]

My right hon. Friend is quite right, and he has also pre-empted something I was about to say. The Government are pressing on with “big is beautiful”—they have expanded Norwich, Ipswich, Portsmouth, Southampton, and so forth—but we can see that bigger councils are not more efficient.

One motive on the part of officials is the belief that making those cities bigger will cause more housing to be built. I do not think that is right, but the logic is this: a bigger council will be more remote from people, so will be less likely to listen to local opposition and more able to ride roughshod over it. In particular for Labour, there is a belief that expanding cities makes it easier for those often Labour-run urban councils to move the housing need on to the outskirts, and not to have to ruffle any feathers in the city. I can see why Labour politicians find that idea attractive but it is wrong, particularly in Leicestershire.

In Manchester, the places that were derelict mills when I was a teenager are now trendy flats and coffee bars with flat whites, and it is all very cool. In Leicester, all those derelict mills are still just derelict mills. The city is in desperate need of urban regeneration and needs new life and younger people to move in, but that is not being generated. Instead, there is a desire— not just with this proposal, but with prior moves by the mayor—to dump housing need into areas around him and not do the difficult things to fix the city itself.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case against the reorganisation in principle, but does he agree that if it is to go ahead, the Government should stick to the guidelines they provided to councils? In Oxfordshire, a Labour city proposal for a similar expansion of the boundaries of the city violates many of the principles set out, such as that it should be bounded by the existing district boundaries and, as far as possible, avoid breaking up service provision. Does he agree that, if this is to go ahead, the Government should stick to clear criteria when making decisions?

[Neil O’Brien]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is absolutely right. The local nature of local government is critical.

The other problem with these giant councils is how remote they will be. In Oadby and Wigston at the moment, everyone can walk to the council offices, or take a maximum five-minute drive. Harborough is a little bigger, but is still very local. If we get a giant council, my constituents will have to drive 40 minutes up the M1 motorway to see council officers. The whole thing will feel more remote and local government will be less local. The point of local government is to be truly local and to care about the things that a big, remote authority will not necessarily care about.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent argument for councils to be more accountable to local residents by being closer. The Government responded to Sussex’s proposals by redrawing the red lines they had originally set and putting forward a third proposal. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that just throws communities into total disarray? They thought they had responded to a consultation that was going to form the next council, but now they have been told, “Oh, actually, you can’t have either of those things. We’re going to come up with a new solution for you.”

[Neil O’Brien]

I am very sorry to hear that. It is bad when people feel that the goalposts are being moved because it erodes trust in the process even further.

Crucially, nobody asked for this. People email me every day about all kinds of things they want sorted out locally, but nobody ever emailed me to say they wanted their councils to be abolished and replaced with something bigger and more remote. No one emailed me to say they wanted to be part of the city of Leicester. It is a bad idea, being done for the wrong reasons and in an undemocratic way.

I can see why the Mayor of Leicester wants to expand. He wants a bigger city and will get all the council tax and business rate revenues from the areas moved in. He would have a place to dump all the housing need without ruffling any feathers in the city. I can see the upside for him, but I cannot see what is in it for my constituents, and nor can they. They do not want this, as is clear and indisputable. The Government cannot pretend for a second that this is in any sense what local people want. The Minister here today does not live in our area, which is not her fault, but she has asked people what they think. Now that she has heard, I hope she will start to listen to local people as she makes her decisions.

09:44

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on his success in securing this important debate. He has set out how this is the answer to a question that no one asked. Whatever anyone thinks about local government reform, the Government have made it clear that they will impose it, and if we and councils do not engage with it, it will simply be done to us.

I was very clear from the outset that if the Government were fixed on local government reorganisation and reform, there were certain conditions that, at a very minimum, had to be met. I made it very clear that what emerged should not move local services further away from local communities or local accountability, and that as part of the process there should be a genuine listening exercise not just with upper-tier and lower-tier authorities, but with parish councils and, most importantly, local representatives and residents of affected areas.

Similar to my hon. Friend, there are very real concerns among my constituents and genuine anger about what may happen. I have a few questions for the Minister. I know her of old, and she is extremely diligent. I know she will do her best to answer the questions, in anticipation of which I am grateful.

Will the Minister confirm that when she, or the Secretary of State on her advice, makes a decision, it will be based on the proposals that have been presented, not on a proposal that was never presented or on a merging of proposals by civil servants in her Department? There are three different proposals before her, from the borough and district councils, from the county council and from the mayor and city of Leicester. The mayor’s proposal does not, at this stage, take in all the areas of my patch that are very worried about it. There are very real concerns in places like Syston, Thurmaston and the villages. Notwithstanding that, the Minister’s officials could still recommend that a line be drawn on a map to expand the city of Leicester to take in those villages and towns.

Councillors Poland, Bradshaw, Seaton, Jackson, Braker and Lowe have been campaigning very hard to make sure that local voices are heard. My constituents in those areas are strongly opposed to a land grab by the mayor that would take into the city areas that are, historically and in every sense of their identity, communities and economy, very much of the county.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston set out their concerns very clearly. They know they would end up paying more if they were absorbed into the city. They worry that reform is simply a reason to enable the mayor to build on greenfield sites outside the city boundaries that do not want that extra burden. They are already taking an awful lot more housing, and the communities I have just mentioned have taken an incredible amount of development in recent years. The communities worry about their sense of identity. The Minister knows that every community, even a village community, has a very strong sense of identity compared with the next village, let alone of being a county village as opposed to being part of the city.

My worry is that the pillars on which the Mayor of Leicester is pushing and advocating for an expansion of the city no longer stand up to scrutiny. First, the idea that the city needs to expand to be able to absorb more housing to meet its unmet housing targets is already being dealt with by agreement between the city and the boroughs and districts, which are already voluntarily taking a chunk of the housing that the mayor seems incapable of delivering within the city boundaries. That is already being addressed.

Secondly, the mayor has previously argued that the city’s finances need to be more sustainable and that it can come only from an expansion of the city boundaries, which he bases on the city’s previous financial position. We saw quite a generous local government finance settlement for the city of Leicester, and I am sure those in the city will be very grateful to the Minister. It was a little less generous for the county of Leicestershire, but the city now has its finances in a more sustainable place. I would argue that the city needs to do a lot more to spend that money wisely and efficiently, but the Minister has, to a degree, addressed that problem for it, too. I worry that the arguments no longer hold water. I also worry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston set out so ably, that the ideology of “bigger is better” sadly does not reflect the reality of service delivery.

I have known the Minister a very long time, and I know she is very diligent and genuinely cares both about her brief and about communities up and down this country. Will she please listen to the people who have responded to the consultation, and to Members of Parliament today? Do not impose what people do not want by endorsing a city land grab of our counties, towns and villages. Please do not change the rules of the game midway through by adopting a proposal that was not consulted on and was not included in the initial consultation, and please instead focus on what works and delivers for local people to improve local services.

09:51

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) for securing this debate.

Obviously, the Minister is not responsible for local government reorganisation in Northern Ireland, but I want to caution against the approach that has been put forward today, because the shortfalls of what we have done in Northern Ireland will undoubtedly be replicated here on the mainland.

It is nice to see the Minister in her place. She will know some of the things I have said in the past, including in my questions to her in the Chamber. We have done a local government review and reorganisation in Northern Ireland and it did not quite work out, so perhaps a cautionary approach should be taken, learning from the promises that were made and ultimately not delivered for us in Northern Ireland.

I note the optimistic projections before us. The House was told that this grand restructuring will streamline services and save an estimated £2.9 billion over five years. That is to be welcomed, if those words turn into reality. I wish I could say it is the reality of what happened in Northern Ireland, but it is not because the promises were not realised at all. From our distinct experience in Northern Ireland, I must therefore issue a strong note of caution to the Government.

We had reform of all councils in Northern Ireland, reducing their number from 26 to 11. Massive savings were promised due to less duplication, with no need to have so many middle staff because one departmental head could look after two sections, and no need to have buildings in all the council areas. Lots of savings were promised, and unfortunately they were not realised.

I served on a council for some 26 years from 1985 right through to 2010, so there is a very special place in my heart for local government. I know at first hand the real and tangible benefit of local councils making local decisions for the people who live there. Indeed, some of the best days I had were on the council. I love bread-and-butter issues, and councillors get their hands dirty with that sort of stuff.

I know that any Member who has served at local council level will agree that the general public having access to their council must be protected at every single level. Unfortunately, I suspect that will not happen with these reforms. We know the importance of that level of representation and advocacy. I look back with fondness on my 26 years of apprenticeship. For a short period of three months, I served as a councillor, a Member of the Legislative Assembly and an MP at the same time. I gave an undertaking to resign from the other two places to take up my position here, and I did.

The systematic removal of face-to-face access for people in our towns and villages caused by aggressive centralisation can never be acceptable. We have seen this movie before. It is like a less funny “Groundhog Day”. It happened to us in Northern Ireland, and it is going to happen here again—except when we wake up this time, it will not be so much fun.

Northern Ireland is now a decade on from our own major reform of local authorities, which reduced the number of councils from 26 to 11. The promises made then mirror the promises made today. A 2024 Department for Communities report concluded that it is still too early to determine if those reforms have been cost-effective. Crucially, the report also revealed that the new, larger councils are actually spending more than their 26 predecessors combined—wow. The promises were never realised. Indeed, they went the other way. As has already been said, bigger does not automatically mean cheaper. Centralisation does not inherently guarantee efficiency.

The Minister is an honourable lady who does her best for us all in this Chamber. Looking to Northern Ireland, has she and her Department fully taken into account the findings of that DFC report and the deep financial uncertainties that it highlighted? What iron-clad guarantees can she offer to ensure that we are not promising billions in theoretical savings, when the reality might mean taking more hard-earned cash from the pockets of local taxpayers and ratepayers? That is what this means, as that is who pays for it all at the end of the day.

We must not allow structural change to become an expensive, box-ticking exercise that leaves hard-working families picking up the tab at a particularly difficult time.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about local government finances. My constituency currently sits in two different district councils. The Government’s proposals would mean that my residents in Pagham and Bersted will end up in a coastal authority that will be bankrupt on day one; the rest of my constituents will be in an authority that should be on a sound financial footing. What will happen to my residents in Pagham and Bersted? Their council tax bills will go up overnight to manage the debt that is currently held in Adur and Worthing, when their current council is on a sound financial footing. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is an unacceptable position for my residents to be put in, when they did not ask for this?

[Jim Shannon]

That intervention sums up my comments, and it provides further evidence. When Ards borough council, on which I served for 26 years, was partnered with North Down council, we took on North Down’s debt, while we had been prudent—very Ulster Scottish—and had made sure that our moneys were well managed. That is not a bad reflection on North Down council, but it illustrates the issue. The hon. Lady has illustrated it incredibly well with her comments.

I am all for making efficiencies, but throwing areas together that have little in common, as the hon. Lady just said, and removing the face-to-face contact points, centralising to an inaccessible hub and doing all of that with no savings to show over 10 years must be a warning to all. Sometimes financial projections do not meet the reality. We must all be aware of the myriad difficulties presented. I gave the example of Ards borough council and the changes in Northern Ireland. It did not work for us. Will it work here?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Colleagues will note the number of Members who are interested in speaking and the time available. I will call the Front Benchers from 10.30 am, so please do the maths.

09:58

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on securing this important debate. I place on the record my thanks to Grace Thomas from my office for the notes associated with my speech today.

The Minister was in front of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee yesterday and gave us some strong answers, which is typical of her style. Today, I want to try a slightly different tack. It is on the record that I am not a fan of unitaries. I was a councillor for many years, at parish, district and county level. I know the strengths and weaknesses associated with that model, and I would argue that it is a lot better and more efficient than unitary authorities. As I said to the Minister yesterday, in my experience, the proposed savings from moving to the unitary model never come to fruition. If it is not broken, why change it? Others have already spoken about the debt levels associated with some authorities. There is an inherent unfairness in taking on someone else’s debt and being forced to pay for it.

However, my focus today is volunteers and the voluntary sector. Last week was Volunteers’ Week, which provided us with an opportunity to recognise the extraordinary contribution made by volunteers and charities across South West Hertfordshire. To mark the occasion, I visited a number of outstanding community organisations whose work is made possible by the dedication of volunteers and charitable support. Those organisations provide vital services to local residents and strengthen the fabric of our communities, but many of them rely heavily on local government funding streams and commissioning arrangements to sustain their work. For example, the citizens advice bureau in South Oxhey highlighted that the proposals for local government reform have created huge uncertainty, and that there are concerns about how changes will affect its ability to continue supporting the 20,000 clients it assists each year.

When I met the medium-sized charity Community Action Dacorum in Kings Langley, Simon spoke about how it is reliant on commissioned contracts from local authorities to provide support in the community. The charity stressed the importance of MPs’ understanding the impact of LGR on the funding and operation of charities, describing it as a

“significant risk to the voluntary and community sector”.

Many charities like CAD are concerned that the transition to new unitary structures could disrupt existing commissioning arrangements and funding streams, creating financial instability.

There is also concern about unintended consequences. Charities report increasing pressure to align with Government priorities because of fears that failing to do so could affect future commissioning and funding opportunities. Charities and community organisations should be focused on delivering vital services to local residents, not managing uncertainty over future funding and governance arrangements. The disruption of established funding mechanisms and commissioning structures risks undermining the sustainability of essential local services and the support networks that my communities depend on.

10:04

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I preface my remarks by saying that I have a high personal regard for the Minister and I am sure that she would never personally wish to do anything unfair or politically partisan. However, there are very good reasons why, when changes are made to anything to do with constituency arrangements or democratic arrangements, they are normally carried out under the authority of an impartial body. I believe, as I suspect my Conservative colleagues believe, that if a body such as the Boundary Commission had been in charge of this operation, the results would have been very different. A coach and horses has been driven through anything to do with local, cultural or historical, as well as, shall we say, orientation among communities—all those ideas have been totally disregarded.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on securing the debate, but I must say to him and to you, Dr Murrison, that we would need a much longer debate if we were to do justice to the enormity of what has been proposed. My hon. Friend laid out the fact that totally inappropriate areas will be subsumed under and swallowed up by the city of Leicester. That is exactly what is happening in the city of Southampton, with the naked land-grab of huge areas of the New Forest East constituency—wards known collectively as the Waterside—coupled with another land-grab of wards from Test Valley borough council that are contained in the Romsey and Southampton North constituency.

I must emphasise that the changes were first proposed long after the general election and were not in Labour’s general election manifesto. Labour rightly thought it proper to put in its manifesto the fact that there would be elected mayors and strategic authorities, but the abolition and merging of historic borough councils, district councils and county councils was nowhere flagged up in advance of anybody’s vote.

The Government like to trumpet the fact that they are strongly in favour of the devolution of political power and of listening to what local people want. Well, I have some data for the Government. Ever since this outrageous proposition that Southampton should take over vast areas of my constituency—splitting the constituency and the New Forest apart and tearing the Waterside away from the New Forest, which Waterside inhabitants have for hundreds of years viewed as part of their community—an online petition has been gathering signatures. This issue is relatively local to a part of the south of Hampshire, so we might think that, if we were lucky, the petition might get 5,000 or 6,000 signatures. I checked at exactly 10 o’clock this morning and there are 22,812 signatures so far, and I am sure that the total is well over 25,000 with paper signatures taken into account. What sort of issue must there be for 25,000 people in a local area to say that they utterly reject the tearing apart of the New Forest in this way and its takeover by the city of Southampton, which, as we have heard is the case in other scenarios, is in a far worse financial position than the people who live at present under the aegis of New Forest district council are accustomed to being in?

I have many more points that I would like to make, but, out of consideration for my colleagues, I am not going to make them. I will make just one final point. We have tried—we really have—to engage in a sincere way with the Government. When the original Minister, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), wrote to us, he set out what appeared to be reassuring criteria: there would be no unnecessary duplication or fragmentation, and the building blocks of the new unitary authorities would be the areas covered by the existing borough and district councils unless—as an exception—there was a very strong reason for interfering with boundaries. However, the only reasons given have been vague comments about maximising economic prosperity or something, which could be said in justification of any change, no matter how politically outrageous.

I am sure that if this Minister had full strategic authority—to make a bad pun—over this policy, we would not be experiencing what we are experiencing. There is total outrage about this matter. It needs to be put right, and I hope the Government can be persuaded to think again.

10:06

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Dr Murrison. I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) for securing this important debate.

It was also a pleasure to hear from everybody’s honourable friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It is not the first time he has come here and said, “I know that Northern Ireland is not covered by this, Minister, but perhaps our experience can be instructive,” but boy was he right today. There are two key questions, and he highlighted the importance of the first: “Why do this at all?” With all the attention it needs, it will take away from other priorities, at a time, in particular, when we are about to have huge changes to the system for special educational needs and disability. There are also the costs involved. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar) said, it is a question that literally no one was asking, and the answer was not in the Labour manifesto.

Even if we accept that there can be reorganisation, we must ask: “On what basis?” In East Hampshire, this plan will break up communities, take away local identities and put people into new artifices. It will take the people of Horndean, Clanfield and Rowlands Castle and put them into a new super-council area centred on Portsmouth, with the rest of East Hampshire going to a vast area called the Mid Hampshire unitary authority, all for an uncertain and quite likely negative return. In plain English, that means that local people will end up paying more.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) mentioned, the Government set out clear criteria for reorganisation, which included a focus on sustainability of high-quality services and a minimum scale of 500,000—that number did not come out of nowhere; it came from a serious piece of work by PricewaterhouseCoopers about the minimum scale needed to deliver services—and, crucially, that the building blocks of the new organisation should be existing districts and boroughs. It was on that basis that local leaders engaged in the process. They were not clamouring for it—leaders in Hampshire were not knocking down the door of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government saying, “Please reorganise us!”—but they engaged in good faith in the process.

Nick Adams-King, the leader of Hampshire county council, set out a summary of conditions for change, including that any new structure must be sustainable financially, operationally and democratically. He said:

“It must be capable of delivering high-quality services”

and

“resilient enough to manage demand in adult social care, children’s services and SEND.”

Crucially, he said, it must have “a balanced tax base” and “reflect real communities”, and

“not create winners and losers by stripping growth, infrastructure and income from area to shore up another.”

I do not think I could put it any better than that, but that is not what has happened. There were three different options in Hampshire, with different rationales for them. In theory, the fewer the unitary councils, the bigger the cost savings, but Hampshire county council and my district council in East Hampshire preferred the middle option, which was to have four authorities—a balance between delivering savings and reducing risk.

There has been a big disagreement about the analysis of those different options by different people looking at them. Crucially, we do not know the Government’s own analysis of the different options for carving up Hampshire and why they chose the one they did. We do know that, of the different local authorities, two on the mainland are smaller than the 500,000 minimum. Of course, the Isle of Wight is smaller again, although there are unique circumstances there.

We know that there are substantial costs. Although there will be some economies of scale in things moving from district level to unitary level, there will also be diseconomies of scale in things moving from county level to unitary level, and those are the things with the biggest cost pressures in our system. People worry what this will mean for housing. All the local plan work was done on the basis of the existing district councils; now, that will not work. People worry about the loss of local knowledge. Parish councils are concerned about the implications for them.

Crucially, there is the question of identity and cohesion. I already mentioned Horndean, Rowlands Castle and Clanfield being split off into Portsmouth, and this is also a concern, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East said, for parts of the New Forest, for Test Valley and for Winchester. The Minister has spoken of how identities grow over time. These are entities that have been in place for at least 50 years, around which other organisations have organised themselves. Charities and other public sector organisations organise themselves around district and borough boundaries, and these changes will inconvenience them.

If the Government insist on proceeding, the process will need time and sober assessment, and for local authorities to come together to find consensus on the way forward. This is not a trivial question; it is about some of the most important things in our lives, such as the care for our ageing mums and dads and for the children with the highest needs and vulnerabilities. It is a long-term decision. This will not have an effect for three or five years; it will have an effect for decades.

We need to start by knowing on what basis the Government made their decision. We cannot very easily argue with it if we do not know what it is. The letter from the 16 council leaders mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) makes a very reasonable ask: that we should know the Department’s own analysis and feasibility assessment. I say to the Minister simply: please, show us your workings.

10:12

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on bringing this important debate before us today and on the passion with which he spoke. I wish to focus on the one issue that has filled my inbox since the proposal was first announced: the Government’s approach to reorganisation in Leicester and Leicestershire.

Reorganisation must be done with the consent of local residents, which is a point that many of my Conservative colleagues have made today. Unfortunately, the Government, who are so enthusiastic about consultation, appear to be unwilling to give the final say to the very people who matter the most—the people who sent us to this place. Some Government Members may believe that change to local government boundaries is small fry, even inconsequential. They should look at our constituents’ strength of feeling on this issue. The people of Mid Leicestershire certainly do not believe that it is trivial.

Many constituents from villages such as Birstall tell me that they left Leicester city precisely because they wanted to be part of a village community away from the hustle and bustle of city life. They say they no longer felt safe in a city increasingly associated with crime and decline. They wanted their children to grow up where they could walk safely in the streets and feel part of a close-knit community. They simply do not want to be back within the Leicester city area.

Similarly, residents in Glenfield, and particularly those who live beside the former Western Park golf course, a picturesque and ecologically diverse and rich reserve, fear that the expanded Leicester city council would concrete over it in an attempt to push development still further out into Glenfield’s green and pleasant land, rather than repurposing the abundance of brownfield sites already within the existing city council area.

Furthermore, my constituents in Leicester Forest East and Kirby Muxloe tell me that they fear that their rural priorities will simply be overlooked in an urban-focused administration if they are absorbed into the city. Frankly, who can blame them? Perhaps most damaging of all, a constituent from Braunstone Town, who already lives beside the city’s boundaries, told me that they had seen at first hand the decline of the city and want nothing to do with it.

My constituents should be under no illusion: I will not accept, under any circumstances, an attempt by the Government to force our beautiful villages into the Leicester city council area. That is why Leicestershire Conservatives, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston mentioned, launched a petition on that matter. Indeed, he and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) presented that petition with more than 10,000 signatories from the villages surrounding the Leicester city council area, showing the strength of feeling across our communities.

That is also why I tabled an amendment to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 to ensure that, before any local government reorganisation takes place, residents must be consulted via referendum. That was not taken up by the Government. I did that because decisions about local government boundaries should be made by local communities, not by Ministers or civil servants in Whitehall who have very little understanding of the character and identities of our local communities.

Let me be absolutely clear: if this Government seek to place any of the villages that I represent under the remit of Leicester city council, I will fight tooth and nail to oppose that. While other parties not here today are silent on the matter, I want my constituents to know that I am on their side on this immensely important issue.

10:16

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on securing this important debate.

Like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I served for 26 years as a local councillor, 14 of them were on the former Grimsby borough council. I then served for another 12 years on what became North East Lincolnshire unitary authority. I tend to favour unitary councils on the whole, and I have some sympathy with elected mayors—I can see the value of them in the big cities—but how we balance their powers and look after the interests of provincial towns and larger rural counties is open to debate. I am not yet convinced of the need to have a mayor for a vast rural county such as Lincolnshire.

The Minister will know that the Government, in proposing any form of local government reform, are opening a can of worms of local rivalries—civil war within the Labour party, I am sure, and other issues. The Minister is too young to remember the local government reorganisation of 1973-74; I think I am probably the only one who can remember it but, in many respects, it turned out to be a disaster.

My former Grimsby council was pushed into Humberside county. County Humberside was a complete and utter disaster. The identities north and south of the river are completely different. If Humberside is mentioned on the streets of Grimsby nowadays, the response is—shall we say—not polite, to say no stronger than that. It was a complete and utter disaster. The previous Government tried to create a Humber local enterprise partnership, which failed because it was cross-river. We still have Humberside police and Humberside fire authorities and so on, but even now I would say to leave those well alone.

We all tend to favour devolution because it means that local people are making decisions. That is good but, of course, it leads to a postcode lottery, because different councils will make different decisions. My appeal to the Minister is about local government finance. When I was first elected, way back in 1980, local government was still a really powerful force in the local community and could embark on some very important projects of great benefit; but over the years I have seen the powers and responsibilities whittled away, and local authorities, to a great extent, are tools of central Government. That will always be the case to some degree, because central Government relies on local authorities to deliver many essential services, but local pride and local identity play their part.

I keep talking about Grimsby—I only have one ward of Grimsby in my new constituency, but I am a resident there, and that gives me some right to speak about it. We have had a mayor since 1201, apart from a few months when Grimsby was abolished and we merged into North East Lincolnshire, and we had a chairman. Thankfully, we got a new royal charter and ended up with a mayor, because local identity is important. People like the mayor turning up in the red robes and chains of office to open the church bazaar and those sorts of things. It creates identity, something that is sadly lacking. If we go into any northern town and look around the central square, we will see vast town halls and great civic buildings, mostly constructed in Victorian and Edwardian times. They knew how to project local identity, power and responsibility, and I would like to see something of a return to that.

My particular plea is on the financial basis of local authorities. Many are in debt, and unless local government reorganisation is linked to reform of local government finance, we are in desperate straits. Many authorities have already issued section 114 notices, and others are teetering on the edge. As the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), who is no longer in her place, mentioned earlier, many of the new authorities do not have a financial foundation on which to build. We urgently need local government finance reform. The poll tax—community charge—from the 1980s now frightens us. It was a mistake, but the fear of reorganising the finances lingers on. Unless there is a firm financial foundation, new authorities, as well as some of the existing ones, will flounder.

North Lincolnshire council has an excellent Conservative-run administration. North East Lincolnshire council sadly now has a Reform leader, but that is hopefully only temporary. My plea to the Minister is this: “Please leave Lincolnshire as it is for the moment and look at the finance of local authorities.”

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Last but by no means least, I call Lewis Cocking.

09:34

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. May I congratulate you on the 25th anniversary of your election to this House, which happened a few days ago? I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on securing this important debate.

For the past few months, I have worked closely with the local election candidates in my constituency, and I am pleased to say that their hard work paid off: they were elected on to Broxbourne district council and it remained under Conservative control, with no change to our majority. During that campaign, I spoke to hundreds of local residents, and not one person said to me that they wanted to see Broxbourne council abolished. If they were aware of the Government’s plans to do just that and force us into a large unitary authority stretching 40 miles from top to bottom, they wanted to know what I was doing to stop it.

I suspect that when the Minister replies to the debate, we will be told that local councils were knocking down the door of MHCLG, saying, “We want to reorganise. We want to go into large unitary councils.” Well, I have seen the letter that the Government sent to my council, and councils had no alternative but to reply to that letter. This is forced local government reorganisation, no matter what people say.

The people of Broxbourne instinctively understand what Ministers continue to deny: that large councils are remote from the people they serve, with decision makers naturally less concerned about towns and villages that they have no connection to. Moreover, the big new authorities will cost towns and villages money, not save it. There will be no savings from reorganisation. I am yet to see any evidence that unitary councils provide better government than the two-tier system that we have in place. I am yet to see those councils that have been through reorganisation—whether North Yorkshire or Somerset—come forward and say, “D’you know what? We’re awash with cash. We’ve got so much money now that we’ve saved so much through reorganisation.” I have not seen that.

In fact, when Somerset council went through reorganisation to become a single, large unitary council that the Government accepted, it increased council tax by 10%. There were no savings. If the Government are hellbent on doing this and want to move forward with it, they should show us the evidence that that type of council serves its residents the best, is cheaper and provides better services.

Last year we learned that the Department did not even carry out its own cost analysis of the reorganisation. Do not get me wrong—Broxbourne council is not perfect, nor is any district council—but, given its reasonable size and proximity to residents it at least has a chance to make a positive difference, if run well. It is no secret why Broxbourne residents voted to keep the council the same, as they do year after year. Council tax is lower than anywhere else, while services such as waste collection and leisure centres are run better than in neighbouring councils that charge more council tax. We all know that, when reorganisation comes, the new authority will provide the bare minimum in services and hit residents with the highest rates that it can get away with. From day one residents in the new authority, which my constituents will be forced into, will pay more in council tax but get less back. For those reasons, I fundamentally oppose the reorganisation.

The process we have seen so far should also make us doubt the Government’s ability to achieve what they have promised. As already mentioned, just last week the County Councils Network sent a damning letter to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, pointing out that the top-down imposition of local government reorganisation, as we have seen in Sussex, goes against the wishes of local councils without the evidence to back it up.

Many right hon. and hon. Members have made this point, but I too say, “Please show us the evidence. Show us where big unitary councils cost less and deliver better for residents, then we can at least understand and argue about the nuances of what the Government want to achieve.” It is difficult to do that when I have sat in a number of debates on this issue—I was on the Bill Committee for the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026—and not seen one shred of evidence that the new authorities will deliver better services and charge less in council tax. The majority of councils in Hertfordshire, including Broxbourne, support the proposal to create four unitary councils, rather than two or three, as they know that councils operating as close to the people as possible serve their residents better.

When it comes to making future decisions on reorganisation—and let me be crystal clear for the avoidance of doubt, though it will be no surprise to the Minister, I do not want any local government reorganisation in Hertfordshire—I hope that the Department will listen to what councils are saying and act on that. I urge the Minister, as I do every time in such debates, “Please review the policy, please make sure that future decisions are made with our constituents in mind and please ensure that whatever system is forced upon us will deliver outstanding local services and cheaper council tax.”

10:28

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) for securing this important debate. It is obvious that LGR is the Government running before they can walk. On so many issues, we Liberal Democrats push the Government to go further and faster—but not on this. Even McLaren, from my constituency, would think that the Government are going too fast and too furious.

Local government reorganisation has charged ahead without listening to councils and while ignoring residents. A layer of our local democracy is being removed and silenced. It very much feels as if Labour is reorganising local government for the sake of it, without rhyme or reason. Severe funding pressures are pushing local services to the brink. Vulnerable children, the elderly and the safety of our roads are suffering because of years of Conservative mismanagement and neglect, but rebranding and changing the face of the problem does not affect the way that something works—or, more importantly, the way it does not work. The Liberal Democrats believe that we need to fix our public services first and involve local people before we even think about redrawing lines on the map.

Of course, we still do not know why the Government have chosen to push ahead with LGR. Organisations, whether charities or businesses, always have a fully costed business case; they do not change the way they do things without one. I sit on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and it was clear from yesterday’s meeting that the Labour Government simply have not outlined their business case.

What we have here is an overly ambitious plan to reform all local government by 2028. There seem to be no reason other than creating “efficiencies”. In the meeting yesterday, when I asked the Minister how much money reorganisation would save, she said, “It is challenging to answer that question,” and, “Unitary councils tend to be more effective. I can’t give a direct answer.” I was surprised to hear that. That was the answer for a flagship Labour policy that would involve the largest change to local government for over half a century.

[Lewis Cocking]

I, too, sit on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reason the Government are struggling to answer that question is that local government reorganisation will not save a single penny?

[Mr Forster]

We missed the hon. Gentleman at yesterday’s meeting. I agree; I fear that it will not save any money. The lack of evidence and a business case is a concern for me and the Liberal Democrats, and we expressed that at the Committee yesterday. I am sure he will be able to do the same next week when he joins us.

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

Would the hon. Gentleman like to continue with the rest of what I said?

[Mr Forster]

I can do, but obviously I am going to pass over to the Minister in a bit.

If there are to be such monumental changes to the way we operate and run our society, we need to consult local people. Repeatedly, through this entire process, local views have been disregarded. Back in April, hundreds of people staged a protest against plans that would split the New Forest area into two mega-councils, as has already been referred to. More than 13,000 unhappy residents signed a petition calling for New Forest district council to take legal advice and pursue a judicial review. Local government reorganisation should be driven by councils and local areas, not dictated to by London. We are told that LGR is about efficiency and a fresh start, but the reality on the ground looks like absolute chaos. If anything, it is a setback.

We need look no further than Woking. Surrey county council was planning to make Arnold Road and Eve Road in Maybury safer and nicer, but the scheme has been kicked into the long grass and the council will not engage with me or the local residents it consulted about the plans. It has been palmed off on West Surrey council, which is being created next year. That is shocking. The situation is a prime example of how local government plans are grinding to a halt. Essential infrastructure is on pause as Ministers and civil servants reshuffle the system. LGR is causing delays and frustrating the lives of local people, who should not have to watch their community services decline while councils try to guess the future. That is all happening with no leadership or direction from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

The issues are rife elsewhere too. Shropshire council spends 80% of its budget on social care. It is a prime example of the financial pressure facing local services. Alongside underfunding, it has also had its funding cut. Care for the elderly is such a huge burden, because 25% of its population is over 65, and the lack of transport and other local services makes the provision of social care even harder.

The Government’s LGR is making it more difficult for areas to build homes, as councils are having to concentrate on LGR rather than the national housing crisis. My local authority, Wokingham borough council, has just started to draft a new local plan where local people get to decide where we build the homes we need. But next year it will be abolished. Labour’s manifesto pledged to build 1.5 million homes. Now it is making it more difficult for local areas to build and risk reneging on that manifesto promise.

Alongside the local plan, since coming to power in Woking, the Liberal Democrats have been trying to fix the mess left by others. Last year I helped secure a £500 million debt write-off from Woking’s debt that we inherited from the Conservatives.

[Damian Hinds]

Half a billion pounds?

[Mr Forster]

Half a billion pounds. We have had that debt write-off and we have also had exceptional financial support—known as EFS. The lack of understanding of that issue was apparent in yesterday’s Select Committee. The Minister says that they want to get through the fair funding review so that they have a better idea of what money local councils need, to fully enable local authorities to have multi-year funding settlements. I am fine with that, but it does not get rid of the need for cash and being aware of the lack of it. Referring to my earlier point that the Minister did not know how much money could be saved from reorganisation, it has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) that the Government do not have an assessment of how much this will save. That is not acceptable.

Councils need money, but we cannot put the money we save from local government reform back into services if we do not know how much will be saved in the first place. Councils have not been properly supported for the transition and, try as they may, they are without leadership from London, mainly because, as the Minister says, Labour is not in full possession of the information that it needs to make a success of it.

In Surrey we are the canary in the coalmine. The elderly, vulnerable and children are already suffering and Surrey county council is refusing requests under the guise of LGR. The whole system is breaking. The Minister and Government are making all this effort with these changes, yet are not actually addressing the problem. Ministers do not know how much to invest or what the savings will be. That is not solving a problem; it is creating new ones.

I understand that they have their work cut out—it is a big job and it is never easy. However, in that discussion yesterday, there are critical questions that needed answers. Looking ahead, addressing those challenges will be essential for anyone hoping to secure a role under Andy Burnham. If the Mayor of Greater Manchester becomes Prime Minister, he will be looking for a Local Government Minister who can answer these questions. I was disappointed with the Minister’s answers yesterday, but we still do not have an answer on how much money local government reorganisation will save, or why the Government have bulldozed through local democracy. I wonder if the Minister will tell Parliament the answers to those questions right now.

10:37

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also share my congratulations with my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on securing today’s debate. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) on his appointment as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department. We all know that he has been a champion for local government and we all recognise that his constituents—like mine—benefited from an enormous vote of confidence in their local Conservative council at the recent elections. I am sure that he will be once again sharing the insights of benefiting from that in his role at the Department.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), my right hon. Friends the Members for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), my right hon. Friends the Members for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) and for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) all shared valuable insights about the impact that the local government reorganisation process is having on the communities that they represent. A lot of those frustrations reflect the simple fact that at the start of this process, the Government—perhaps because it was not in their manifesto—did not ask what, in their view, local government is for.

Essentially, this is an instruction to do what is being done at the moment, but a bit less of it, at lower quality and at a higher rate of tax. That is certainly something borne out in the local government reorganisations in places like Somerset, which a number of Members used as a reference point for the concerns that their constituents have.

As a country we already have the fewest elected representatives for our constituents of any major democracy. Our constituents have less elected representation in the decisions that affect their lives than their counterparts in the United States, France, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Yet we have a Government bent on a path of reducing that local democratic voice even further.

Just last week the Government announced that, in a planning system where 98% of decisions are already made under delegated powers, even fewer of those decisions will hear the community’s voice, whether local councillors, planning committees or a public forum where people can express concerns—as Members have proudly expressed today—about the impact on towns of overspill and concreting over green spaces. They will further lose the opportunity to share those concerns.

That is based on a policy that is underpinned by no independent financial analysis. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire referred to the PricewaterhouseCoopers report commissioned by the County Councils Network to support its case for county-based devolution. That was an entirely reasonable exercise to undertake. One would expect that central Government would then say, “If that is the case being made by one side, let’s see what the case is for unitarisation, for district-based and for reorganisation along some other lines.” None of that has happened, which is perhaps why there is a high level of concern in places such as Leicestershire that the impact will be higher taxes, poorer quality of services and less ability for local people to share their concerns.

In a moment I will put specific questions that I know the Minister will want to consider, but let us reflect on where we are. The streets of Belfast are on fire and last week there was a massive rise in community tension in Southampton. Last year, my local authority of Hillingdon had to deal with a murder on the street of a local individual walking his dog, by an asylum seeker housed in the local area. The ability of credible local leadership to respond to those challenges is critical at such moments. We are all learning the significance of that.

This is not purely about the administrative convenience of Whitehall. This is not, in the words of a former Local Government Minister, about councils as a delivery mechanism for central Government policy. It is about the leaders of those communities and neighbourhoods having a powerful and credible voice locally and the ability genuinely to affect the decisions that make a difference in that area. By failing to ask what local councils are for, the Government are setting up the new authorities to fail.

As a number of Members highlighted, housing is one of the most obvious examples. The Government have set a target of 1.5 million new homes to be delivered over the course of the Parliament. Those 1.5 million new homes already have planning permission. Local authorities have been granting those consents over many years. In Broxbourne, Leicester and South West Hertfordshire there are sites ready to go. They have been designed, laid out, and discussions have been had with utility companies. Yet the economic conditions created by the Government mean that that development is simply not happening.

Rather than addressing those economic conditions, the focus is on removing a bit more local democracy from the planning system. That risks a situation, highlighted by the impact of the expansion of Leicester and Southampton, where many treasured green fields will have planning permission for unbuilt homes, while old mills in city centres remain undeveloped. That is due to a failure of leadership by a local Labour city mayor and a Government not creating the economic conditions for housing development to happen. When there are so many challenges, to which local government delivering on average 800 different services to local residents could be the answer, whether in public health, education, housing, transport and the environment, the fact that we have what is essentially a reductive exercise about how can we do this, but a bit worse at a higher cost, is simply not the answer.

I will conclude with these questions. At the heart of much of this debate has been the fact that elections were promised and cancelled, and mayors committed to and their elections deferred. It would certainly help us all to understand the decision making in the Department if the Government were willing to release the correspondence between the Secretary of State and the local authorities about the cancellation of elections. That has been the subject of freedom of information requests and questions in the House. The Minister, who I know is committed to local democracy, will understand that it would build confidence if the Government were willing to share how the Secretary of State gave local government leaders a steer in that controversial process.

Secondly, will the Minister commit to a full and independent financial analysis of the impact of the reorganisation process? That analysis should not simply rely on something written specifically to support reorganisation, but should be independent and say what is in the interests of the whole country. Will she tell us why it is not appropriate, in her view, for local residents to have a say at any point in the process? There will be debate about whether this is a matter for referendum, local election or mayoral election—there are various ways for it to happen—but a number of Members have shared the sense of frustration felt by local people about the absence of a route by which they can have their say.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

There is one point that I should perhaps have mentioned to emphasise how united the community is. When I wrote initially to the Minister’s predecessor, the letter was co-signed by the leaders not just of the Conservative group on New Forest district council, but of the Lib Dem group, the independent group and the Green group. When there was a vote on supporting the New Forest Together campaign, every single member, including the sole Labour member of New Forest district council, voted in favour. This is a unified community howl of protest against what is being imposed on us.

[David Simmonds]

My experience, unlike that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham, does not go as far back as the Redcliffe-Maud report, but what has been described over the years, as we have just heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East, is people’s frustration about things being done to rather than with them. This is not about local community leadership growing up from those neighbourhoods; it is about administrative convenience in Whitehall.

I will finish with a question at the heart of building a sense of community confidence. Residents in Leicestershire and Hampshire feel that this is about enabling cities to dump their housing targets—which they have failed to achieve within their own boundaries—in the neighbouring area. We have seen that issue around the fringes of London, historically in south-west Hertfordshire in places such as St Albans. That has been the subject of legal action and Government intervention in the past. We need absolute transparency from the outset.

What do the Government want the new councils to do? When they go to the ballot box, and when they engage in consultation and talk to their Members of Parliament, residents need to know that the new councils will exercise the functions that they are there for, and they need to know what it will cost them and what it will mean for their neighbourhood. It is not too late for the Government to pause the process, listen to the concerns that have been expressed powerfully today, including by the Minister’s own Back Benchers, and look at how lessons can be learned, so that we have a local government system fit for the future.

10:49

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

It is, as ever, a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and I add my own congratulations on your important anniversary. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) for securing this debate on local government reorganisation. I know that he has strongly held views on the future of his constituency, as we have heard today. For reasons of time, I will not repeat the names of all those who have spoken, but it has been a joy to hear so many Members describe their communities.

I say to all Members that I know we disagree on this topic. The point of this House is disagreement, so our disagreement is not only expected but welcome. However, someone listening to hon. Members might think, “There is no problem in local government and everything is okay—if only we were not proceeding with local government reorganisation!” I simply say to Members that the problems in local government, particularly those related to finance, have arisen because of the age of our population, the burden on local government in adult social care and other things, and a suite of failing policy areas, including special educational needs and disabilities, homelessness, adult social care and children’s care, which have meant that local government has carried the can for policy failure in this place. It now falls to those of us in this House to try to put that right.

[Lewis Cocking]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

I will make some progress.

The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) mentioned £0.5 billion of debt write-off for his community. The words he was looking for were, “Thank you”. He is perfectly at liberty to quote me selectively, as is any Member of the House, but selectively quoting a Minister is not an argument—it is not a case to be made. This Government put £5.6 billion of grant funding into local government at the spending review. We have committed £4 billion to SEND as part of the White Paper. We are investing in local government to try to get it out of this situation.

As I did yesterday, let me repeat what I have said before to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds): although the Department’s analysis of the finances of this change is important, given the high and spiking costs that local government currently faces, the priority must be to deal with those cases. I challenge anyone to come up with a perfect cost-benefit analysis in this environment. That is what I said yesterday, and I repeat it again for clarification.

That said, I will do as a number of colleagues have asked by setting out why we are ending the two-tier system of local government. In two-tier areas, services and functions are split across county and district councils. That slows down decisions as different councils try to agree, and it leads to fragmented public services, meaning that it is unclear who does what and who is responsible. In Leicestershire, the area of the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, the county council reported that 140,000 people called the wrong council when trying to get help and support.

The Government are committed to local government reorganisation, for clarity and other reasons that I will set out, and to the timetable that we have set out. We want stronger local councils, equipped to work with strong mayors and strategic authorities, for the purposes of economic growth, improved public services and empowered communities. That is the point of reorganisation: councils that match the real economic footprint of our cities and towns, rather than lines drawn on a map 50 years ago.

I might not have been alive in 1974, but I was born in 1980 into the relatively newly created area of the Wirral. At the time, it was part of the county of Merseyside. We subsequently became part of the Liverpool city region. Of course, administrative boundaries change, as Members know, but the identity of the place I am from—the village of Bebington, where I was born in hospital, and the village of Bromborough—is still as strong as it ever was, and we take part in the Liverpool city region with all the benefits that it brings.

[Edward Argar]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

I am short of time, but I will give way.

[Edward Argar]

Can the Minister confirm that only the three proposals for Leicestershire—from the boroughs and districts, the county and the city—will be considered, and that no new fourth proposal that has not been put forward locally will emerge from officials?

[Alison McGovern]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s question, but I cannot respond directly on Leicestershire because the decision has not yet been taken. To clarify, the Secretary of State can modify submissions or reject them entirely, and he can invite proposals for councils, which is what we have done, but he does not have the power to draw up completely new proposals from scratch. I am happy to engage with the right hon. Gentleman to make that absolutely clear, but that is the position.

Local government can help councils to play a much clearer and stronger role in building our economy and ensuring that everywhere and everyone is part of our national growth story. Reorganisation will speed up house building, get vital infrastructure projects moving and attract new investment. It also has social and public services benefits. Most of the Government’s key objectives, whether to get more young people into work or lift children out of poverty, rely on co-operation and integration between our public services. I have heard from hon. Members about how the split in the two-tier system is preventing their councils from working together on homelessness, for example. That is why we want to bring services such as housing, public health and social care under one roof, with one council able to see the full picture and spot problems early—for example, supporting a family in need of housing and then supporting the children to stay in school.

I am pleased with our progress so far. Decisions on councils for five areas have been announced and elections have been held for the new councils in Surrey. On the Leicestershire council areas of the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, we remain on course to announce decisions before the summer recess in July. We are on track for the councils to go live in April 2028, as planned. That applies to all areas awaiting an announcement.

I listened to the debate with interest, as I always do. Members have put their views on local government reorganisation in their areas on the record, and I will try to answer their questions, but I am conscious that I have little time, so I ask them to bear with me.

The shadow Minister asked about local consultation and listening to people. We do that. Members should consider this debate to be part of the consultation process; I will ensure that the Department is aware of their concerns. The shadow Minister also asked about considering the interests of the whole country. He will know that the previous Conservative Administration introduced the Office for Budget Responsibility for the purposes of transparency on related matters. We take decisions based on the evidence in front of us. He will also know how advice given to Ministers in that way is treated by all Governments for the purposes of FOI and other things.

Hon. Members were keen to ensure that their constituents have the opportunity to participate in the consultation. I reassure them that decisions on the appropriate option for each area will be judgments in the round, having regard to the criteria and the statutory guidance.

Some hon. Members made a point about bigger being better. There are good councils of various sizes, and the evidence we have is that the primary factors in council failure are governance, leadership and culture. It is not the case that bigger is always better; councils of various sizes can perform well or less well.

We are confident that the decisions we announced before the Easter recess will enable strong, sustainable local government that is connected to the community it serves. I accept that reasonable people can and will disagree on our decisions; I also recognise the work that is now required to ensure that the transition to new councils is done safely, especially in those key social care services on which some of our constituents rely. I reassure hon. Members that the Department is working very hard, in lockstep with councils, to ensure that the transition goes well.

I will have to leave it there, but I know that hon. Members will be in touch with me directly on further issues.

11:00

[Neil O’Brien]

Thank you for your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The irony of all this is that the Minister’s only argument is that we must avoid a two-tier system, but what the Government want is to replace one two-tier system with a completely different two-tier system that has a mayor and unitary authority. It is an exercise in the utmost futility.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).