Westminster Hall
09:31
09:31
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I particularly like to thank the speaker for granting me exceptional permission to speak from the backbenches on an issue which many of my constituents feel very strongly about. So one day, not long after the new Labour government came to 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. And following that, a proposal was very swiftly put forward by the Labour mayor of Leicester to expand the boundaries of the city, to swallow up many surrounding areas.
And all 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. And right from the start, it's been clear to me, speaking to people in Leicestershire, that there was very, very strong opposition to this plan. And right from the start I have said to ministers on the floor of the Commons, look, if you believe this is the right thing, 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 in the Commons, ministers treated the idea of giving people a vote as ridiculous or absurd idea.
Why would we ask people what they want?And they said no to allowing us a local referendum. And because the government won't give people a vote, I have given my constituents a vote. And over recent weeks I have been balloting people in the affected area about whether they want to be a part of the city of Leicester, and I sent every household in the area a ballot paper asking, completely neutral way, do you want to become part of the city or not?And the result has been surprising and overwhelming.
I knew that people felt very strongly. It turns out they feel very, very, very strongly about this issue. I sent a vote to all 22,000 households in Oadby and Wigston, and 10,774 have responded. So about half, which is an incredible response to a local informal referendum. And of those who have voted, almost all of them 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 also see him taking over other areas as well, including part of the Harborough district, including great Glen Newton Harcourt and the area around the Stretton's and the bid is put into. Government would actually see him swallowing up all of the Harborough district, including Market Harborough. We have no idea how the government are going to respond to that, but we do know the mayor definitely wants to take over the area around great Glen, but people there are also very, very strongly opposed to this.
I sent out 2000 ballot papers there around that area, 1300, sorry, 1035 people voted, and of them, 1013 voted against being part of the city. So that's 98% of people do not want to join the city. So taking all those together, Oadby, Wigston and the area around Glen. That's 11,423 people who have voted against joining the city, which is an incredible number in quite a small area. I haven't balloted other places nearby in quite the same detail, but I suspect if I give a vote to people in Kibworth or Burton Overy or Gaulby or Kings Norton, they will say exactly the same.
People do not want to be part of the city. And yet so far the Labour government have refused to listen. They haven't wanted to give people a say, and they must now start listening to the wishes of the people. Next month we will find out what the government has 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 people locally, they gave me different reasons why they don't want to be part of the city.
One factor is higher council tax. So for a typical band D property, if you're in the city, you pay £122 more than Oadby Wigston and 139 £139 more than in Harborough. Obviously, if you've got a bigger property, you pay even more so for a band H property, you pay 244 more in the city compared to Wigston, and £278 a year more than in Harborough. But it really isn't when I talk to people. It isn't just the cost that is driving this opposition.
People don't want to lose local accountability and they don't want to lose their own local identity. And all of these places, they 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 like 500 years. Even then, it has two beautiful medieval churches and two spires are what it's known for. In contrast, South Wigston very different.
Again, it's a Victorian model town built by a visionary industrialist called Orson Wright, who built the whole place with his own brickworks. And you can still see that kind of red brick character as you drive up the road. Oadby, as the name implies, lots of bees around. Leicestershire has Viking origins. It has its own quirks and history too. For example, there's, I think, 114 livery companies in this country, and all of them are in the City of London, apart from one, and that one is in Oadby, in the beautiful hall, and the almshouses 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. And I suppose I, as a parliamentarian myself, I should apologise for that. But these are places with their own strong history and the desire to hold on to that local accountability and local identity. It is something that is just seen as ridiculous by local officials. I will give way to my honourable friend.
And all 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. And right from the start, it's been clear to me, speaking to people in Leicestershire, that there was very, very strong opposition to this plan. And right from the start I have said to ministers on the floor of the Commons, look, if you believe this is the right thing, 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 in the Commons, ministers treated the idea of giving people a vote as ridiculous or absurd idea.
Why would we ask people what they want?And they said no to allowing us a local referendum. And because the government won't give people a vote, I have given my constituents a vote. And over recent weeks I have been balloting people in the affected area about whether they want to be a part of the city of Leicester, and I sent every household in the area a ballot paper asking, completely neutral way, do you want to become part of the city or not?And the result has been surprising and overwhelming.
I knew that people felt very strongly. It turns out they feel very, very, very strongly about this issue. I sent a vote to all 22,000 households in Oadby and Wigston, and 10,774 have responded. So about half, which is an incredible response to a local informal referendum. And of those who have voted, almost all of them 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 also see him taking over other areas as well, including part of the Harborough district, including great Glen Newton Harcourt and the area around the Stretton's and the bid is put into. Government would actually see him swallowing up all of the Harborough district, including Market Harborough. We have no idea how the government are going to respond to that, but we do know the mayor definitely wants to take over the area around great Glen, but people there are also very, very strongly opposed to this.
I sent out 2000 ballot papers there around that area, 1300, sorry, 1035 people voted, and of them, 1013 voted against being part of the city. So that's 98% of people do not want to join the city. So taking all those together, Oadby, Wigston and the area around Glen. That's 11,423 people who have voted against joining the city, which is an incredible number in quite a small area. I haven't balloted other places nearby in quite the same detail, but I suspect if I give a vote to people in Kibworth or Burton Overy or Gaulby or Kings Norton, they will say exactly the same.
People do not want to be part of the city. And yet so far the Labour government have refused to listen. They haven't wanted to give people a say, and they must now start listening to the wishes of the people. Next month we will find out what the government has 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 people locally, they gave me different reasons why they don't want to be part of the city.
One factor is higher council tax. So for a typical band D property, if you're in the city, you pay £122 more than Oadby Wigston and 139 £139 more than in Harborough. Obviously, if you've got a bigger property, you pay even more so for a band H property, you pay 244 more in the city compared to Wigston, and £278 a year more than in Harborough. But it really isn't when I talk to people. It isn't just the cost that is driving this opposition.
People don't want to lose local accountability and they don't want to lose their own local identity. And all of these places, they 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 like 500 years. Even then, it has two beautiful medieval churches and two spires are what it's known for. In contrast, South Wigston very different.
Again, it's a Victorian model town built by a visionary industrialist called Orson Wright, who built the whole place with his own brickworks. And you can still see that kind of red brick character as you drive up the road. Oadby, as the name implies, lots of bees around. Leicestershire has Viking origins. It has its own quirks and history too. For example, there's, I think, 114 livery companies in this country, and all of them are in the City of London, apart from one, and that one is in Oadby, in the beautiful hall, and the almshouses 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. And I suppose I, as a parliamentarian myself, I should apologise for that. But these are places with their own strong history and the desire to hold on to that local accountability and local identity. It is something that is just seen as ridiculous by local officials. I will give way to my honourable friend.
09:37
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
My honourable friend for giving way. He's making a really important point about local identity, also a moment ago, about the importance of government ministers to listen. We have a government minister here today listening, and I want to talk about the local government reorganisation in Kent, an area that has an incredibly strong historic identity. It's actually England's oldest county history going back over 2000 years. The Kingdom of Kent, under this local government reorganisation, Kent is due to be broken up. It's not even getting a mayor.
It's going to be fragmented into multiple parts. And that's even though between Kent and Medway, there's a population of over 2 million people. So at the moment Kent has an identity and it has a voice. It's set to lose both of those things through this local government reorganisation and the case for substantial savings simply isn't there. Can I say that I think the local government reorganisation needs to be looked at again, and I think I hope my hon. Friend will agree with me that at the moment these proposals are simply a shambles.
It's going to be fragmented into multiple parts. And that's even though between Kent and Medway, there's a population of over 2 million people. So at the moment Kent has an identity and it has a voice. It's set to lose both of those things through this local government reorganisation and the case for substantial savings simply isn't there. Can I say that I think the local government reorganisation needs to be looked at again, and I think I hope my hon. Friend will agree with me that at the moment these proposals are simply a shambles.
09:38
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Yeah, well, I am very sorry to hear that. And she's actually preempted the point I was just about to make, which is as well as the kind of loss of accountability and local identity, the argument is just wrong, right?So ministers believe that big is always better. Big is beautiful, but the evidence just doesn't support that. If big was beautiful, then Birmingham City Council, which is the biggest union in the country, would be our best council. This is our best council.
No, you have bins piling up in the streets. And it isn't just that one anecdote. You can express it in lots of different ways. For example, if you look at the evidence from the. Local Councils network, they found that when you have councils with more than half a million population, which was the government's original target for this reorganisation, where you have those mega councils, the average council tax is £2,009, whereas the councils that are below that size are actually £250 a year cheaper.
Right?So these big councils, these mega councils are so efficient, so wonderful. Why are they so more expensive?Why are local residents not feeling the benefit of this efficiency?And the truth is, of course, that the gains aren't there. The reorganisation, the chaos that will come with all of this will actually cost us lots of money, and we will end up with something that is remote, but not more efficient. And yet we can see. Please.
No, you have bins piling up in the streets. And it isn't just that one anecdote. You can express it in lots of different ways. For example, if you look at the evidence from the. Local Councils network, they found that when you have councils with more than half a million population, which was the government's original target for this reorganisation, where you have those mega councils, the average council tax is £2,009, whereas the councils that are below that size are actually £250 a year cheaper.
Right?So these big councils, these mega councils are so efficient, so wonderful. Why are they so more expensive?Why are local residents not feeling the benefit of this efficiency?And the truth is, of course, that the gains aren't there. The reorganisation, the chaos that will come with all of this will actually cost us lots of money, and we will end up with something that is remote, but not more efficient. And yet we can see. Please.
09:40
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
I'm very grateful. It's very clear from his powerful speech that his constituents in Leicestershire don't want local government reform, and my constituents in Raleigh and Wickford in Essex don't want it either, because he's seen this letter from 16 council leaders from the county council network, giving a whole host of reasons why it's a bad idea, to which I would add it's a Trojan horse by Labour to try and cover our greenfields in concrete. There's no demand for this. People don't want it. They want to protect their existing local identities.
Does he agree with me?Government should take the hint and drop the whole barmy plan.
Does he agree with me?Government should take the hint and drop the whole barmy plan.
09:41
09:41
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
My honourable friend is quite right. And he's also preempted something I was about to say as well, which is we can see the government is pressing on with this kind of big is beautiful thing. They've expanded Norwich and Ipswich and Portsmouth and Southampton and so on and so forth, and we can see that bigger councils are not are not more efficient. One of the drivers, I think of this, one of the motives from officials is a belief that making these cities bigger will cause more housing to be built.
I don't think it is right, but the logic is, is this they think that having a bigger council will mean that it's more remote from people, so that they'll be less likely, likely to listen to local opposition. They'll be more able to just kind of ride roughshod over things, and in particular, for Labour, there is a belief that by expanding the cities, it makes it easier for those often Labour run urban councils to move their housing need onto the outskirts of the city and not have to ruffle any feathers in the city itself.
I can see why Labour politicians find this idea attractive, but it is the wrong thing, particularly in Leicestershire. What you can see is if you go to Manchester, the places that were derelict mills when I was a teenager are now trendy coffee bars and trendy flats and flat whites, and it's all very cool. In Leicester, all those derelict mills are still just derelict mills, right?The city is in desperate need of urban regeneration. It needs new life and younger people to to move in, but that is not being generated.
Instead, there has been not just with this proposal but from prior moves by the mayor, a desire to just dump the housing need into the areas around him and not do the difficult things to fix the city itself. Please. I'm very grateful to him for giving way, and he's making a powerful case in principle against the whole reorganisation. But if it is to go ahead, would he agree with me that it's only right that the government should stick to the guidelines that it provided to councils in Oxfordshire?We are facing a Labour City proposal for a very similar expansion of the boundaries of that city, which violates many of the principles that were set out, that it should be bounded around the existing district boundaries, and that as far as possible, we should avoid breaking up service provision.
Would you agree with me that if it is to go ahead, we should actually have clear criteria and that the government should stick to those when it makes its decisions?Well, look, I. completely agree with the honourable gentleman. He's absolutely he's absolutely right at this point about the kind of local nature of local government is, is, is, is critical here. The other problem with these councils is just how remote they will be. So in Oadby and Wigston, at the moment, everyone can walk to the council offices or if you if you wanted to drive, it'll take you five minutes.
Max Harbour is a little bigger, but it's still very local, whereas if we get a giant council. My constituents will have to drive 40 minutes up the M1 motorway to go and see their council officers. The whole thing will feel more remote and the whole thing will be less local government. The whole point of local government is to be truly local and to care about the things that a big, remote authority won't necessarily care about. Happy to give way.
I don't think it is right, but the logic is, is this they think that having a bigger council will mean that it's more remote from people, so that they'll be less likely, likely to listen to local opposition. They'll be more able to just kind of ride roughshod over things, and in particular, for Labour, there is a belief that by expanding the cities, it makes it easier for those often Labour run urban councils to move their housing need onto the outskirts of the city and not have to ruffle any feathers in the city itself.
I can see why Labour politicians find this idea attractive, but it is the wrong thing, particularly in Leicestershire. What you can see is if you go to Manchester, the places that were derelict mills when I was a teenager are now trendy coffee bars and trendy flats and flat whites, and it's all very cool. In Leicester, all those derelict mills are still just derelict mills, right?The city is in desperate need of urban regeneration. It needs new life and younger people to to move in, but that is not being generated.
Instead, there has been not just with this proposal but from prior moves by the mayor, a desire to just dump the housing need into the areas around him and not do the difficult things to fix the city itself. Please. I'm very grateful to him for giving way, and he's making a powerful case in principle against the whole reorganisation. But if it is to go ahead, would he agree with me that it's only right that the government should stick to the guidelines that it provided to councils in Oxfordshire?We are facing a Labour City proposal for a very similar expansion of the boundaries of that city, which violates many of the principles that were set out, that it should be bounded around the existing district boundaries, and that as far as possible, we should avoid breaking up service provision.
Would you agree with me that if it is to go ahead, we should actually have clear criteria and that the government should stick to those when it makes its decisions?Well, look, I. completely agree with the honourable gentleman. He's absolutely he's absolutely right at this point about the kind of local nature of local government is, is, is, is critical here. The other problem with these councils is just how remote they will be. So in Oadby and Wigston, at the moment, everyone can walk to the council offices or if you if you wanted to drive, it'll take you five minutes.
Max Harbour is a little bigger, but it's still very local, whereas if we get a giant council. My constituents will have to drive 40 minutes up the M1 motorway to go and see their council officers. The whole thing will feel more remote and the whole thing will be less local government. The whole point of local government is to be truly local and to care about the things that a big, remote authority won't necessarily care about. Happy to give way.
09:44
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way, and he's certainly making an excellent argument for having councils more accountable to the local residents by being closer to them. Does he agree with me that when the government came back to Sussex's proposals by redrawing the red lines that they had originally set and coming forward with a third proposal, it just throws communities into total disarray because they thought that they'd responded to a consultation that was going to form their next council, and now they're told, oh, actually, you can't have either of those things.
We're going to come up with a new solution for you.
We're going to come up with a new solution for you.
09:44
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I'm very sorry to hear that. That sounds really bad. And when people feel like the goalposts are being moved, that, of course, erodes trust in this whole process. Further, the crucial thing about all this is nobody asked for this. No one asked for it. Right?People email me every day about all kinds of things they want sorting out locally. But nobody ever asked me. No one ever emailed me saying they wanted their councils to be abolished and replaced with something bigger and more remote.
No one ever emailed me saying they wanted to be part of the city of Leicester, so it's a bad idea being done for the wrong reasons in an undemocratic way. I can see, I can see why the Mayor of Leicester wants to expand. He wants to have a bigger city here. We get all the council tax and the business rates, uh, revenues from the areas that get moved in. He'd 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 can't see what's in it for my constituents. And neither can they. They don't want this. That is clear and indisputable. Now, the government cannot pretend for a second this is in any sense what local people want. Now, the minister here today, this is not her fault, Minister. Today she doesn't live in our area and she hasn't asked people what they think. But now that she has heard, I hope that as she makes decisions about this, she will start to listen to local people.
No one ever emailed me saying they wanted to be part of the city of Leicester, so it's a bad idea being done for the wrong reasons in an undemocratic way. I can see, I can see why the Mayor of Leicester wants to expand. He wants to have a bigger city here. We get all the council tax and the business rates, uh, revenues from the areas that get moved in. He'd 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 can't see what's in it for my constituents. And neither can they. They don't want this. That is clear and indisputable. Now, the government cannot pretend for a second this is in any sense what local people want. Now, the minister here today, this is not her fault, Minister. Today she doesn't live in our area and she hasn't asked people what they think. But now that she has heard, I hope that as she makes decisions about this, she will start to listen to local people.
09:46
09:46
09:46
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, doctor Murison. Pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And can I congratulate my honourable friend for his success in tabling and securing this very important debate here today as he set out to the chamber this morning?A reality is this is the answer to a question that no one asked. And whatever anyone thinks about it, the government has made clear it will impose it. And if we and councils don't engage with it, it will simply be done to us.
I was very clear from the outset that if the government was fixed in local government reorganisation, local government reform, that there were certain conditions, the very minimum that had to be met, that what emerged should not move local services further away from local communities or further away from local accountability. That is part of this process. There should be a genuine listening exercise to not just upper and lower tier authorities, but also to parish councils and indeed most importantly, to local representatives and local residents of the areas who were to be affected by this now.
Similarly to my honourable friend, there are very, very real concerns among my constituents and genuine anger about what may happen here, and I have a few questions as I go through for the minister, and I know the minister of old, she is an extremely diligent minister, and I know she will do her best to answer those questions, and I'm grateful for that in anticipation. Um, will the minister confirm whether or not what emerges when she or Secretary of State on her advice makes a decision on this, that that decision will be based on the proposals put in, not on some proposal that was never put in and some merging together of proposals undertaken by civil servants in her department.
Um. Because despite the fact that there are three different proposals before her from the borough and district, from the county council in my area and from the mayor of Leicester and City, um there are still. And the mayor's proposal does not, at this stage take in all of the areas in my patch that have been very worried about it. But the very real concerns in places like Syston, in Thurmaston and in the villages, that notwithstanding that, the minister's officials could still recommend a line be drawn on a map to expand the city of Leicester, to take in these villages and these towns are my local councillors, councillors, Poland, Bradshaw, Seaton, Jackson, breaker and low in those areas have been campaigning very hard to make sure local voices are heard.
And my constituents in those areas are strongly opposed to. A city land grab by the mayor to try and take into the city areas that historically and in every sense in their identity and indeed in their communities and their economy, are very much of the county. My hon. Friend set out very clearly some of the concerns that they have. They know that if they were absorbed into the city, they would end up paying more for it. They worry that it is simply a reason for the mayor to be able to build on greenfield sites outside of the city boundaries, which don't want that extra burden.
They're already taking an awful lot more housing. And those communities I've just mentioned have taken an incredible lot of development in recent years. They worry about their sense of identity. The hon. Lady will know that every community, even a village community, has a very strong sense of identity compared to the next village, let alone that sense of identity, of being county villages as opposed to part of the city. Worry is that the pillars on which the Mayor of Leicester is pushing and advocating for an expansion of the city simply no longer stand up to scrutiny.
Firstly, the idea that city needs to expand to be able to absorb more housing and to meet the currently unmet housing targets. The city. Well, that's already being dealt with by agreement between the city and the boroughs and districts who are already voluntarily taking a chunk of the housing that the mayor seems incapable of delivering within the city boundaries. So that's already being addressed. Secondly, in terms of the finances, the mayor I know has previously argued that the city's finances need to be more sustainable, and that can only come from an expansion of the city boundaries.
And he bases that on the previous financial position of the city. But we saw, and I'm sure that those in the city will be very grateful to the minister. We saw with the local government finance settlement quite a generous settlement, actually, for the city of Leicester, a little less generous for the county of Leicestershire. But the city has now got its finances moved to a place that is much more sustainable. I'd argue there's a lot more they need to do in the city to actually spend that money wisely and spend it efficiently, but the minister has, to a degree, addressed that problem for them as well.
So I, I worry that the arguments no longer hold water, and I worry as well that the, um, the ideology of bigger is better sadly, doesn't, as my hon. Friend again set out so ably, doesn't reflect the reality of the delivery of services. So I say to the minister, if I may, um, please, as I say, she is a very diligent minister. I've known her a very long time and I know she genuinely cares both about her brief and about the communities up and down this country.
So I say, will she please listen to the people who've responded to the consultation, listen to members of Parliament today. Don't impose what people don't want. Don't endorse a city landgrab of our county, towns and villages. Please do not change the rules of the game. Midway through it by adopting a proposal that wasn't consulted on and wasn't included in that initial consultation, please instead focus on what works and deliver for local people to actually improve local services.
I was very clear from the outset that if the government was fixed in local government reorganisation, local government reform, that there were certain conditions, the very minimum that had to be met, that what emerged should not move local services further away from local communities or further away from local accountability. That is part of this process. There should be a genuine listening exercise to not just upper and lower tier authorities, but also to parish councils and indeed most importantly, to local representatives and local residents of the areas who were to be affected by this now.
Similarly to my honourable friend, there are very, very real concerns among my constituents and genuine anger about what may happen here, and I have a few questions as I go through for the minister, and I know the minister of old, she is an extremely diligent minister, and I know she will do her best to answer those questions, and I'm grateful for that in anticipation. Um, will the minister confirm whether or not what emerges when she or Secretary of State on her advice makes a decision on this, that that decision will be based on the proposals put in, not on some proposal that was never put in and some merging together of proposals undertaken by civil servants in her department.
Um. Because despite the fact that there are three different proposals before her from the borough and district, from the county council in my area and from the mayor of Leicester and City, um there are still. And the mayor's proposal does not, at this stage take in all of the areas in my patch that have been very worried about it. But the very real concerns in places like Syston, in Thurmaston and in the villages, that notwithstanding that, the minister's officials could still recommend a line be drawn on a map to expand the city of Leicester, to take in these villages and these towns are my local councillors, councillors, Poland, Bradshaw, Seaton, Jackson, breaker and low in those areas have been campaigning very hard to make sure local voices are heard.
And my constituents in those areas are strongly opposed to. A city land grab by the mayor to try and take into the city areas that historically and in every sense in their identity and indeed in their communities and their economy, are very much of the county. My hon. Friend set out very clearly some of the concerns that they have. They know that if they were absorbed into the city, they would end up paying more for it. They worry that it is simply a reason for the mayor to be able to build on greenfield sites outside of the city boundaries, which don't want that extra burden.
They're already taking an awful lot more housing. And those communities I've just mentioned have taken an incredible lot of development in recent years. They worry about their sense of identity. The hon. Lady will know that every community, even a village community, has a very strong sense of identity compared to the next village, let alone that sense of identity, of being county villages as opposed to part of the city. Worry is that the pillars on which the Mayor of Leicester is pushing and advocating for an expansion of the city simply no longer stand up to scrutiny.
Firstly, the idea that city needs to expand to be able to absorb more housing and to meet the currently unmet housing targets. The city. Well, that's already being dealt with by agreement between the city and the boroughs and districts who are already voluntarily taking a chunk of the housing that the mayor seems incapable of delivering within the city boundaries. So that's already being addressed. Secondly, in terms of the finances, the mayor I know has previously argued that the city's finances need to be more sustainable, and that can only come from an expansion of the city boundaries.
And he bases that on the previous financial position of the city. But we saw, and I'm sure that those in the city will be very grateful to the minister. We saw with the local government finance settlement quite a generous settlement, actually, for the city of Leicester, a little less generous for the county of Leicestershire. But the city has now got its finances moved to a place that is much more sustainable. I'd argue there's a lot more they need to do in the city to actually spend that money wisely and spend it efficiently, but the minister has, to a degree, addressed that problem for them as well.
So I, I worry that the arguments no longer hold water, and I worry as well that the, um, the ideology of bigger is better sadly, doesn't, as my hon. Friend again set out so ably, doesn't reflect the reality of the delivery of services. So I say to the minister, if I may, um, please, as I say, she is a very diligent minister. I've known her a very long time and I know she genuinely cares both about her brief and about the communities up and down this country.
So I say, will she please listen to the people who've responded to the consultation, listen to members of Parliament today. Don't impose what people don't want. Don't endorse a city landgrab of our county, towns and villages. Please do not change the rules of the game. Midway through it by adopting a proposal that wasn't consulted on and wasn't included in that initial consultation, please instead focus on what works and deliver for local people to actually improve local services.
09:54
09:55
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Mr. Chairman. I, uh, first of all, a real pleasure to serve on your ship and a big thank you to the honourable member for Harborough, uh, Oadby and Wigston for bringing this forward. Um, obviously, the minister responsible for local government reorganisation in Northern Ireland, but I want to give up tan a cautionary approach to what's been put forward today, because what we've done in Northern Ireland and the shortfalls that they had for us, because they are undoubtedly will be replicated here in the mainland. So my, my my contribution will be along those lines can also say the minister.
Minister will know some of the things I've said in the past in the chamber. The question to the honourable lady, and I think it's important that if um if we have done it in Northern Ireland, the Local Government review and reorganisation and it didn't quite work out well, then maybe a cautionary approach should be taken learning from the, the, the promises that were made and were not delivered. Uh, ultimately for us in Northern Ireland. But I do note the optimistic projections before us. The House has told this grand restructuring will streamline services, save an estimated £2.9 billion over five years, and this is to be welcomed if the words bring a reality.
Um, I wish I could say that that was a reality that happened in Northern Ireland. No it didn't. Uh, and it didn't because the promises just weren't realised at all. And from our distinct experience in Northern Ireland, I must therefore issue a strong note of caution to government. We are a reform of all councils in Northern Ireland, reducing the numbers from 26 to 11, are promising. Um, massive savings, less buildings. There won't be any need to have so much staff, because one departmental head will be able to look after the departmental head across two sections.
Uh, we won't need the buildings and in all the places across the councils, because that duplication of the fact. So lots of savings were promised. And unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, uh, they they didn't realise I served in the council for some 26 years, uh, from. Uh, from 1985 right through to 2010. Uh, so there's a very, very special place in my heart for local government. I know first hand the real tangible benefit of local councils making local decisions for the people who live there.
And indeed, some of the best days I had. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I could say were when we did the council, because I love bread and butter issues and those. That's the sort of stuff you get. Got your hands dirty on in local councils. I know that any member who has served at local council level will agree that accessibility to the Council for the general public must be protected at every single level. I suspect in this. Unfortunately, that will not happen.
We know the importance of that level of representation and advocacy. So I look back with fondness to my time as a 26 years of apprenticeship. I think it was, uh, and I did serve for a short period of time, three months as a councillor, uh, as an MLA in the assembly and as a MP. And I did give an undertaking. I resigned from the other two places and I did do so, uh, to take up the position here, the systematic removal of face to face access for people in our towns and villages, causes caused by aggressive centralisation can never, ever be acceptable.
We have seen this movie before. It's like a. Less funny Groundhog Day film. It happened to us in Northern Ireland. It's going to happen here again, except this time you wake up and it won't be so much fun. Northern Ireland is now a decade on from our own major reform of local authorities, which was just the councils from 26 to 11. The promises made then were the promises made today, 2024, Department of communities DFC report concluded that it's still too early to determine if these reforms have been cost effective.
But crucially, the report also revealed that new, new, larger councils are actually spending more than their 26 predecessors combined. Wow. The promises never realised. And did. They went the other way. Um. Bigger does not automatically mean cheaper. They only in the introduction referred to that centralisation does not inherently guarantee efficiency. Therefore, I ask government and I ask the Minister very respectfully, the honourable lady. She does her her best.
And for us all in this chamber looking into Northern Ireland, has the Minister and her Department fully taken into account the findings of this report and the deep financial uncertainties that it highlighted. What ironclad guarantees can the Minister offer to ensure that we're not promising billions in theoretical savings, while in reality taking more hard earned cash from the pockets of local taxpayers and ratepayers?Because that's what it means. That's 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 at a particularly difficult and hard time picking up the tab. So I'm very happy to hear.
Minister will know some of the things I've said in the past in the chamber. The question to the honourable lady, and I think it's important that if um if we have done it in Northern Ireland, the Local Government review and reorganisation and it didn't quite work out well, then maybe a cautionary approach should be taken learning from the, the, the promises that were made and were not delivered. Uh, ultimately for us in Northern Ireland. But I do note the optimistic projections before us. The House has told this grand restructuring will streamline services, save an estimated £2.9 billion over five years, and this is to be welcomed if the words bring a reality.
Um, I wish I could say that that was a reality that happened in Northern Ireland. No it didn't. Uh, and it didn't because the promises just weren't realised at all. And from our distinct experience in Northern Ireland, I must therefore issue a strong note of caution to government. We are a reform of all councils in Northern Ireland, reducing the numbers from 26 to 11, are promising. Um, massive savings, less buildings. There won't be any need to have so much staff, because one departmental head will be able to look after the departmental head across two sections.
Uh, we won't need the buildings and in all the places across the councils, because that duplication of the fact. So lots of savings were promised. And unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, uh, they they didn't realise I served in the council for some 26 years, uh, from. Uh, from 1985 right through to 2010. Uh, so there's a very, very special place in my heart for local government. I know first hand the real tangible benefit of local councils making local decisions for the people who live there.
And indeed, some of the best days I had. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I could say were when we did the council, because I love bread and butter issues and those. That's the sort of stuff you get. Got your hands dirty on in local councils. I know that any member who has served at local council level will agree that accessibility to the Council for the general public must be protected at every single level. I suspect in this. Unfortunately, that will not happen.
We know the importance of that level of representation and advocacy. So I look back with fondness to my time as a 26 years of apprenticeship. I think it was, uh, and I did serve for a short period of time, three months as a councillor, uh, as an MLA in the assembly and as a MP. And I did give an undertaking. I resigned from the other two places and I did do so, uh, to take up the position here, the systematic removal of face to face access for people in our towns and villages, causes caused by aggressive centralisation can never, ever be acceptable.
We have seen this movie before. It's like a. Less funny Groundhog Day film. It happened to us in Northern Ireland. It's going to happen here again, except this time you wake up and it won't be so much fun. Northern Ireland is now a decade on from our own major reform of local authorities, which was just the councils from 26 to 11. The promises made then were the promises made today, 2024, Department of communities DFC report concluded that it's still too early to determine if these reforms have been cost effective.
But crucially, the report also revealed that new, new, larger councils are actually spending more than their 26 predecessors combined. Wow. The promises never realised. And did. They went the other way. Um. Bigger does not automatically mean cheaper. They only in the introduction referred to that centralisation does not inherently guarantee efficiency. Therefore, I ask government and I ask the Minister very respectfully, the honourable lady. She does her her best.
And for us all in this chamber looking into Northern Ireland, has the Minister and her Department fully taken into account the findings of this report and the deep financial uncertainties that it highlighted. What ironclad guarantees can the Minister offer to ensure that we're not promising billions in theoretical savings, while in reality taking more hard earned cash from the pockets of local taxpayers and ratepayers?Because that's what it means. That's 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 at a particularly difficult and hard time picking up the tab. So I'm very happy to hear.
10:01
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way, and he makes an excellent point about local government finances. My constituency currently sits over two different district councils and the government proposals that they've put forward would mean that my residents in Pagham and Bearsted will end up in a coastal authority that will be bankrupt on day one, and yet the rest of my constituents will be in an authority that should be on a sound financial footing. So what will happen to my residents in Pagham and Bearsted?Their council tax bills will go up overnight to manage the the debt that is currently held in Ada and Worthing.
Um when when their council is currently on a sound financial footing. Does he agree with me?That is an unacceptable position for my for my residents to be put in when they didn't ask for this.
Um when when their council is currently on a sound financial footing. Does he agree with me?That is an unacceptable position for my for my residents to be put in when they didn't ask for this.
10:01
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I thank the honourable lady for an intervention. That intervention sums up in a dance for for my comments as well. Whenever I served over 26 years, uh, it was partnered with the Ards and North Down Council. Uh, the very nature we took on North Downs debt. While we were prudent and very ulster-scottish, uh, made sure that our, that our monies were well managed. Um, it's not a reflection or a bad reflection on North Down Council, but it does illustrate the issue in the honourable lady has illustrated that incredibly well with her comments.
I conclude with this, Mr. Chairman, I am all for making efficiencies, but throwing areas together that have little in common. The honourable lady just said that removing the face to face points, centralizing to a hub that was inaccessible, and doing all of this with no savings to show over ten years, must be a warning to all. Sometimes financial projections don't meet the reality, and we must all be aware of the myriad of difficulties presented. I give an example of Ards Borough Council of Northern Ireland changes.
It didn't work for us, but it worked here.
I conclude with this, Mr. Chairman, I am all for making efficiencies, but throwing areas together that have little in common. The honourable lady just said that removing the face to face points, centralizing to a hub that was inaccessible, and doing all of this with no savings to show over ten years, must be a warning to all. Sometimes financial projections don't meet the reality, and we must all be aware of the myriad of difficulties presented. I give an example of Ards Borough Council of Northern Ireland changes.
It didn't work for us, but it worked here.
10:02
10:02
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
To serve under your chairmanship, can I firstly congratulate my hon. Friend for securing this really important debate?Can I place on record my thanks to Grace Thomas from my office for the notes associated with my speech today. I know that the minister was in front of our Select Committee yesterday and gave us some strong answers as typical of her style. Um, but I'm going to try a slightly different tact, if I may. Um, while I've been on record saying I'm not a fan of Unitaries, I was a councillor for many years, both at parish district and county.
And I know the strengths and the weaknesses associated with that type of model. And I would argue it's a lot better and more efficient than just unitaries. Um, as I said to the minister yesterday, the the proposed savings associated with going with the unitary model, in my experience never comes to fruition. So I would argue that, um, if it's not broke, why change?And we've already spoken about debt levels associated with some authorities. Um, so there is an inherent unfairness associated with taking on someone else's debt and being forced to pay for it.
Um, but the tax I want to get on is volunteers and the voluntary sector last week was volunteers week, providing an opportunity to recognise the extraordinary contribution made by volunteers and charities across south west Hertfordshire. To mark this occasion, I visited a number of outstanding community organisations whose work has made possible through the dedication of volunteers and charitable support. These organisations provide vital services to local residents and strengthen the fabric of our communities. However, 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 has created huge uncertainty, and there are concerns about how changes will affect their ability to continue supporting the 20,000 clients they assist each year. When I met Community Action to call him in Kings Langley, a medium sized charity, they. Simon there spoke about how they are reliant on commissioned contracts from local authorities to provide support in the community. They stress the importance of MPs understanding the. 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 it 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 of this charity's reporting. Increasing pressure to align with government priorities due to 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. In conclusion, the disruption of established funding mechanisms and commissioning structures risks undermining the sustainability of essential local services and the support networks that communities depend upon.
Thank you. thank you.
And I know the strengths and the weaknesses associated with that type of model. And I would argue it's a lot better and more efficient than just unitaries. Um, as I said to the minister yesterday, the the proposed savings associated with going with the unitary model, in my experience never comes to fruition. So I would argue that, um, if it's not broke, why change?And we've already spoken about debt levels associated with some authorities. Um, so there is an inherent unfairness associated with taking on someone else's debt and being forced to pay for it.
Um, but the tax I want to get on is volunteers and the voluntary sector last week was volunteers week, providing an opportunity to recognise the extraordinary contribution made by volunteers and charities across south west Hertfordshire. To mark this occasion, I visited a number of outstanding community organisations whose work has made possible through the dedication of volunteers and charitable support. These organisations provide vital services to local residents and strengthen the fabric of our communities. However, 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 has created huge uncertainty, and there are concerns about how changes will affect their ability to continue supporting the 20,000 clients they assist each year. When I met Community Action to call him in Kings Langley, a medium sized charity, they. Simon there spoke about how they are reliant on commissioned contracts from local authorities to provide support in the community. They stress the importance of MPs understanding the. 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 it 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 of this charity's reporting. Increasing pressure to align with government priorities due to 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. In conclusion, the disruption of established funding mechanisms and commissioning structures risks undermining the sustainability of essential local services and the support networks that communities depend upon.
Thank you. thank you.
10:05
10:05
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Thank you, Doctor Morrison. And I'd like to preface my remarks by saying I have a high personal regard for this Minister. I'm sure that she would never personally wish to do anything unfair or politically partisan, but there are very good reasons why, when changes are made to anything to do with constituency arrangements and democratic arrangements, they are normally carried out under the authority of an impartial body. And I believe, and I suspect my colleagues on these benches also believe, that if a body like, for example, the Boundary Commission had been in charge of this particular operation, the results would have been very different because a coach and horses has been driven through anything to do with local cultural, historic and, um, shall we say, orientation, um, amongst communities, all those ideas have been totally disregarded.
Now, I'd like to congratulate my hon. Friend for Harborough on securing the debate, but I must say to him and to you, Doctor Murison, we are going to need a much longer debate than this if we're going to do justice to the enormity of what is proposed here, my honourable friend laid out the fact that totally inappropriate areas were going to be subsumed and swallowed up by the city of Leicester. This is exactly what is happening in relation to the city of Southampton and the naked land grab of huge areas of the New Forest East constituency, uh wards which are known collectively as the waterside, coupled with another land grab of wards from the Test Valley Borough Council wards that are contained within the constituency of Romsey.
And when this first was proposed, and I must emphasize this fact, it was first proposed long after the general election. It was not in Labour's general election manifesto, and yet Labour quite rightly thought it proper to put in its general election manifesto the fact that they were going to have elected mayors and strategic authorities. But this abolition of historic borough councils, district councils and county councils and this merging of them was nowhere flagged up in advance of anybody's vote. And the government likes to trumpet the fact that it is so strongly in favour of devolution, of political power, of listening to what local people want.
Well, I've got some data for the government because ever since this outrageous proposition that Southampton should take over vast areas of my constituency, splitting the constituency, splitting the New Forest apart, tearing the waterside away from the New Forest to which the waterside inhabitants have looked for hundreds of years as being part of their community. Ever since that happened, a petition online has been gathering signatures. Now this is a relatively local issue to a part in the south of Hampshire, so you might think that if you were lucky, you might get 5 or 6000 signatures to such a petition.
I checked at 10:00 this morning. There are 22,812 signatures so far. And when you take the paper signatures into account as well, I'm sure the total is well over 25,000. 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've heard in other scenarios that have been quoted earlier in the debate, uh, is in a far worse financial position than the people who live at present under the New Forest District Council.
Aegis are accustomed to being. I have many more points that I would like to make. I'm not going to make them out of consideration to my colleagues. I'm just going to make one final point, and that is this we have tried. We really have Doctor Myerson to engage in a sincere way with the government. When the original Minister, the honourable member for Oldham West, wrote to us, he set out what appeared to be reassuring criteria. Those criteria were no duplication unnecessarily, no fragmentation unnecessarily, and that the building blocks of the new unitary authorities would be the areas covered by the existing borough and district councils, unless by, as an exception, there was a very strong reason for interfering with boundaries.
And yet the only reasons that have been given have been vague comments about maximising economic prosperity or something like that, which you could say in justification of any change, no matter how politically outrageous. I am sure that if this minister had, as it were, 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.
Now, I'd like to congratulate my hon. Friend for Harborough on securing the debate, but I must say to him and to you, Doctor Murison, we are going to need a much longer debate than this if we're going to do justice to the enormity of what is proposed here, my honourable friend laid out the fact that totally inappropriate areas were going to be subsumed and swallowed up by the city of Leicester. This is exactly what is happening in relation to the city of Southampton and the naked land grab of huge areas of the New Forest East constituency, uh wards which are known collectively as the waterside, coupled with another land grab of wards from the Test Valley Borough Council wards that are contained within the constituency of Romsey.
And when this first was proposed, and I must emphasize this fact, it was first proposed long after the general election. It was not in Labour's general election manifesto, and yet Labour quite rightly thought it proper to put in its general election manifesto the fact that they were going to have elected mayors and strategic authorities. But this abolition of historic borough councils, district councils and county councils and this merging of them was nowhere flagged up in advance of anybody's vote. And the government likes to trumpet the fact that it is so strongly in favour of devolution, of political power, of listening to what local people want.
Well, I've got some data for the government because ever since this outrageous proposition that Southampton should take over vast areas of my constituency, splitting the constituency, splitting the New Forest apart, tearing the waterside away from the New Forest to which the waterside inhabitants have looked for hundreds of years as being part of their community. Ever since that happened, a petition online has been gathering signatures. Now this is a relatively local issue to a part in the south of Hampshire, so you might think that if you were lucky, you might get 5 or 6000 signatures to such a petition.
I checked at 10:00 this morning. There are 22,812 signatures so far. And when you take the paper signatures into account as well, I'm sure the total is well over 25,000. 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've heard in other scenarios that have been quoted earlier in the debate, uh, is in a far worse financial position than the people who live at present under the New Forest District Council.
Aegis are accustomed to being. I have many more points that I would like to make. I'm not going to make them out of consideration to my colleagues. I'm just going to make one final point, and that is this we have tried. We really have Doctor Myerson to engage in a sincere way with the government. When the original Minister, the honourable member for Oldham West, wrote to us, he set out what appeared to be reassuring criteria. Those criteria were no duplication unnecessarily, no fragmentation unnecessarily, and that the building blocks of the new unitary authorities would be the areas covered by the existing borough and district councils, unless by, as an exception, there was a very strong reason for interfering with boundaries.
And yet the only reasons that have been given have been vague comments about maximising economic prosperity or something like that, which you could say in justification of any change, no matter how politically outrageous. I am sure that if this minister had, as it were, 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.
10:08
10:08
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Thank you, doctor. It's a great pleasure to see you in the chair. And I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend from Harborough for securing this important debate. Um today. It was also a great pleasure to hear from our hon. Everybody's hon. Friend from Strangford. It is not the first time, Doctor Morrison that he has come here and said, I know that Northern Ireland isn't covered by this Minister, but perhaps our experience can be instructive or, boy, was he right.
Today there are two key questions and he highlighted the importance of the first, which is why do this at all, with all the attention it will take, will take away from other priorities?At a time when we're about to have huge changes coming to the system, particularly for special educational needs and disability. The cost involved, as my right hon. Friend said, the question that literally no one was asking, and the answer that was not put in the Labour manifesto. But even if you do accept that there can be reorganisation, the question is on what basis?And this plan.
Doctor Morrison in Hampshire, in East Hampshire, will break up. Communities will take away local identities and put people into new artifices. In my case in East Hampshire, taking the people of Horndean and Clanfield and Rowlands Castle and putting them into a new Super council area centred on Portsmouth and the rest of East Hampshire. Going to this vast area called the Mid Hampshire Unitary Authority and all Doctor Morrison, all for uncertain or quite likely negative return. What does that mean?In plain English, it means local people end up paying more.
And the government, as my right hon. Friend from the New Forest mentioned, set out clear criteria for what the. What a reorganisation should be. A focus on sustainability of high quality services. A minimum scale of 500,000. That number didn't come from nowhere. It was a serious piece of work done by Pricewaterhouse Coopers about minimum scale to deliver services and, crucially, that the building blocks of the new organisation should be existing districts and boroughs. And it was on that basis that local leaders engaged in the process.
It wasn't that they were clamoring for it. It wasn't that people leads in Hampshire were knocking down the door of Mhclg saying, please reorganise us. But they engaged in good faith in the process. Um. Nick Adams, the leader of Hampshire County Council, set out a summary of conditions for change that any new structure must be sustainable financially, operationally and democratically. It must be capable of delivering high quality services, resilient enough to manage demand in adult social care, children's services and SEND.
And crucially, it must have a balanced tax base. It must also reflect real communities and not create winners and losers by stripping growth, infrastructure and income from one area to shore up another. And I don't think I could put it any better than that. But that is not what has happened. There were in Hampshire three different options with three, with different sets of rationale for them. Obviously, the fewer unitary councils in theory, 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.
And there is a big there has been a big disagreement about the analysis of those different options between different people. And, crucially, we do not know. We do not know, Doctor Morrison, what the government's own analysis is of the different options for how you would carve 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 and of course, the Isle of Wight smaller again, although of course there are unique circumstances there.
We do know there are substantial costs. We do know there will be some economies of scale from things moving from a district level to a county level to a level. There will also be diseconomies of scale from things moving from the county level to the unitary level. And those are the biggest things. They are the things the biggest cost pressures in our system. People worry in operation what this will mean for housing and of course, all the local plan work that was going on was done on the basis of the existing district councils, and that now does not work.
They worry about the loss of local knowledge. Parish councils are concerned about the implications for them. And crucially, there is this question about identity and cohesion. I already mentioned Horndean Ronan's Castle and Clanfield being split off into Portsmouth. Of course, it's also true, as my right hon. Said, for parts of the New Forest and for Test Valley and for Winchester, um, this minister herself has spoken in the past of how identities grow up over time. These are entities which have been in place for at least 50 years now.
And of course, then other organisations start to organise themselves. Charities, other public sector organisations organise themselves around these districts and borough boundaries, and it becomes inconvenient for them if the government insists on proceeding. It needs time, it needs sober assessment for local authorities to come together to find consensus on the way forward. It is not a trivial question. It is about some of the most important things in our lives the the care for our ageing mums and dads, the care for the children with the highest needs and the highest vulnerabilities.
And it is a long term decision. This is not something which is going to have an effect for three years or five years. This is a decision which will have an effect for decades. We need to start with knowing on what basis the government made the decision they did. You can't very easily argue with it if you don't know what it is. And the letter that's already been mentioned from the 16 council leaders makes a very reasonable ask to that we should know what the department's own analysis and feasibility assessment was.
And so I say to the minister simply, please show us your workings.
Today there are two key questions and he highlighted the importance of the first, which is why do this at all, with all the attention it will take, will take away from other priorities?At a time when we're about to have huge changes coming to the system, particularly for special educational needs and disability. The cost involved, as my right hon. Friend said, the question that literally no one was asking, and the answer that was not put in the Labour manifesto. But even if you do accept that there can be reorganisation, the question is on what basis?And this plan.
Doctor Morrison in Hampshire, in East Hampshire, will break up. Communities will take away local identities and put people into new artifices. In my case in East Hampshire, taking the people of Horndean and Clanfield and Rowlands Castle and putting them into a new Super council area centred on Portsmouth and the rest of East Hampshire. Going to this vast area called the Mid Hampshire Unitary Authority and all Doctor Morrison, all for uncertain or quite likely negative return. What does that mean?In plain English, it means local people end up paying more.
And the government, as my right hon. Friend from the New Forest mentioned, set out clear criteria for what the. What a reorganisation should be. A focus on sustainability of high quality services. A minimum scale of 500,000. That number didn't come from nowhere. It was a serious piece of work done by Pricewaterhouse Coopers about minimum scale to deliver services and, crucially, that the building blocks of the new organisation should be existing districts and boroughs. And it was on that basis that local leaders engaged in the process.
It wasn't that they were clamoring for it. It wasn't that people leads in Hampshire were knocking down the door of Mhclg saying, please reorganise us. But they engaged in good faith in the process. Um. Nick Adams, the leader of Hampshire County Council, set out a summary of conditions for change that any new structure must be sustainable financially, operationally and democratically. It must be capable of delivering high quality services, resilient enough to manage demand in adult social care, children's services and SEND.
And crucially, it must have a balanced tax base. It must also reflect real communities and not create winners and losers by stripping growth, infrastructure and income from one area to shore up another. And I don't think I could put it any better than that. But that is not what has happened. There were in Hampshire three different options with three, with different sets of rationale for them. Obviously, the fewer unitary councils in theory, 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.
And there is a big there has been a big disagreement about the analysis of those different options between different people. And, crucially, we do not know. We do not know, Doctor Morrison, what the government's own analysis is of the different options for how you would carve 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 and of course, the Isle of Wight smaller again, although of course there are unique circumstances there.
We do know there are substantial costs. We do know there will be some economies of scale from things moving from a district level to a county level to a level. There will also be diseconomies of scale from things moving from the county level to the unitary level. And those are the biggest things. They are the things the biggest cost pressures in our system. People worry in operation what this will mean for housing and of course, all the local plan work that was going on was done on the basis of the existing district councils, and that now does not work.
They worry about the loss of local knowledge. Parish councils are concerned about the implications for them. And crucially, there is this question about identity and cohesion. I already mentioned Horndean Ronan's Castle and Clanfield being split off into Portsmouth. Of course, it's also true, as my right hon. Said, for parts of the New Forest and for Test Valley and for Winchester, um, this minister herself has spoken in the past of how identities grow up over time. These are entities which have been in place for at least 50 years now.
And of course, then other organisations start to organise themselves. Charities, other public sector organisations organise themselves around these districts and borough boundaries, and it becomes inconvenient for them if the government insists on proceeding. It needs time, it needs sober assessment for local authorities to come together to find consensus on the way forward. It is not a trivial question. It is about some of the most important things in our lives the the care for our ageing mums and dads, the care for the children with the highest needs and the highest vulnerabilities.
And it is a long term decision. This is not something which is going to have an effect for three years or five years. This is a decision which will have an effect for decades. We need to start with knowing on what basis the government made the decision they did. You can't very easily argue with it if you don't know what it is. And the letter that's already been mentioned from the 16 council leaders makes a very reasonable ask to that we should know what the department's own analysis and feasibility assessment was.
And so I say to the minister simply, please show us your workings.
10:15
10:15
10:15
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
And I, too, would like to congratulate my hon. Friend for bringing this important debate before us today and the passion in which he opened the debate. However, I wish to focus on the one issue that has filled my inbox since the proposals were first announced, and that is the government's approach to reorganisation in Leicester and Leicestershire. Reorganisation must be done with the consent of local residents, a point that many hon. Friends have made on this side. Unfortunately, the government, which is so enthusiastic about consultation, appears to be unwilling to give the final say to the very people that matter the most, the people that sent us to this place.
Of course, some members opposite may believe that changes to local government boundaries is small fry, perhaps inconsequential. But I say to them, look at the strength of feeling from our constituents on this issue. The people of Leicestershire certainly do not believe that this is a trivial issue. Many constituents from villages like Birstall tell me they left Leicester City because, precisely because they wanted to be part of a village community, away from the hustle and bustle of city life, they said they no longer felt safe in a city increasingly associated with crime and decline, and they wanted their children to grow up somewhere.
They could walk safely in the streets and feel part of a close knit community. They simply do not want to be back within Leicester City area. Similarly, in Glenfield, particularly those residents who live beside the former Leicester Western Park Golf course, a picturesque and ecologically diverse and rich reserve, they fear that an expanded Leicester City Council would concrete over it in an attempt to push development still further out into Glenfield Green and Pleasant Land 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 if they are absorbed into the city, their priority, their rural priorities will simply be overlooked in an urban focused administration. And frankly, who can blame them?And perhaps most damaging of all, Doctor Morrison, a constituent from Braunstone Town, someone who already lives beside the city boundaries, told me that they had seen first hand the decline of the city, and they 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, and that is why Leicestershire Conservatives, as my hon. Friend mentioned, launched a petition on this matter. Indeed my hon. Friend Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and my hon. Friend for Rutland and Stamford presented that petition of over 10,000 petitioners from the villages that surround the Leicester City Council area. It shows the strength of feeling across our communities, and that is also why I tabled an amendment to the English Devolution Bill to ensure that before any local government reorganisation takes place, residents themselves must be consulted via referendum that was not taken up by the government.
This is because Doctor Morrison 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. And let me be absolutely clear if this government seeks 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. And while other parties not here today are silent on this matter, I want my constituents to know that I am on your side on this immensely important issue.
Of course, some members opposite may believe that changes to local government boundaries is small fry, perhaps inconsequential. But I say to them, look at the strength of feeling from our constituents on this issue. The people of Leicestershire certainly do not believe that this is a trivial issue. Many constituents from villages like Birstall tell me they left Leicester City because, precisely because they wanted to be part of a village community, away from the hustle and bustle of city life, they said they no longer felt safe in a city increasingly associated with crime and decline, and they wanted their children to grow up somewhere.
They could walk safely in the streets and feel part of a close knit community. They simply do not want to be back within Leicester City area. Similarly, in Glenfield, particularly those residents who live beside the former Leicester Western Park Golf course, a picturesque and ecologically diverse and rich reserve, they fear that an expanded Leicester City Council would concrete over it in an attempt to push development still further out into Glenfield Green and Pleasant Land 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 if they are absorbed into the city, their priority, their rural priorities will simply be overlooked in an urban focused administration. And frankly, who can blame them?And perhaps most damaging of all, Doctor Morrison, a constituent from Braunstone Town, someone who already lives beside the city boundaries, told me that they had seen first hand the decline of the city, and they 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, and that is why Leicestershire Conservatives, as my hon. Friend mentioned, launched a petition on this matter. Indeed my hon. Friend Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and my hon. Friend for Rutland and Stamford presented that petition of over 10,000 petitioners from the villages that surround the Leicester City Council area. It shows the strength of feeling across our communities, and that is also why I tabled an amendment to the English Devolution Bill to ensure that before any local government reorganisation takes place, residents themselves must be consulted via referendum that was not taken up by the government.
This is because Doctor Morrison 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. And let me be absolutely clear if this government seeks 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. And while other parties not here today are silent on this matter, I want my constituents to know that I am on your side on this immensely important issue.
10:17
10:17
10:18
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
And 14, 14 of those were on the former Grimsby Borough Council. And, uh, I then served for another 12 years on what became North East Lincolnshire Unitary Council. And I have to say that, um, I tend to favour unitary councils on the whole. I have some sympathy with the elected mayors, but and I can see the value of them in the big cities. But how you then balance the powers, uh, and look after the interests of provincial towns and larger rural counties such as Lincolnshire is open to debate.
And I'm not yet convinced of the need to have a mayor for vast rural county such as such as Lincolnshire. Now the minister will know that, uh, the government, in proposing any form of reform of local government or opening a can of worms, it. Local rivalries, civil war within in the Labour Party, I'm sure, and indeed others. Um now, the minute the minister is too, too young to remember, uh the, the local government reorganisation of 197374 and I think probably I'm the only one who can remember it, but it was, it turned out to be a disaster.
Uh, in many respects. Um, the, my former Grimsby council was pushed into Humberside County, uh, County Humberside was a complete and utter disaster. Uh, the identities of the north and south of the river are completely different. And if and if you mention Humberside nowadays on the streets of Grimsby, you will not be, uh, politely. Responded to shall we, shall we say, uh, no stronger than that. Um. It was a complete and utter disaster. The last government tried to create a Humberside Local Enterprise Partnership that failed because it was Cross cross River.
Um, we still have Humberside Police and Humberside fire authorities and so on, um but even now I would say leave well alone with those as well. Um the thing about devolution and which we all tend to favour because that means local people are making decisions. That's good. But of course it does actually lead to the postcode lottery because different councils will make different decisions. My appeal to the minister at the moment is, is over. The finance of local government.
Now, when I was first elected in way back in 1980, local government was still a real powerful force in the in the local community and could embark on some very important projects that were of great benefit. But over the years, I've seen the powers and responsibilities whittle away. Uh, and local authorities to a great extent, are tools of central government. That's always going to be the case to some extent, because central government relies on local authorities to deliver many essential services. Um, but local pride and local identity play play their part.
I say Grimsby, Grimsby. I keep talking about Grimsby and I've only got one ward of Grimsby in my new constituency, but since I'm a resident there, I can I give me some right to speak about it. We've had a mayor since 1201, uh, apart from a few months, apart from a few months when we when Grimsby was abolished and we merged into North East Lincolnshire. And for a few months we had a chairman. Uh, thankfully, we got a new royal charter and ended up with a mayor, but local identity is important.
People recognise, you know, they like the mayor turning up in the in the red robes and chains and office and opening the church bazaar and these sort of things. It creates identity. And that is something that sadly lacking. We go into any particularly of, you know, northern towns and look around for the in, in, in the central square, you'll see vast town halls and great civic buildings, mostly constructed in Victorian and Edwardian times. They knew how to project local identity and power and responsibility.
Um, and I'd like to see something of a return to that, but my particular plea is the financial basis of local authorities. Many are in debt. Um and unless the local government reorganisation is linked to local reform of local government finance, we are in desperate straits. Many authorities have already declared section 114 notices. Uh, others are teetering on the edge. And many of the new authorities, as the honourable lady who's no longer in her place, mentioned earlier, do not have a financial foundation on which they they they can build.
So we urgently need local government finance reform, the poll tax community charge, uh, from the 1980s sort of now frightens, uh, still lingers. Uh, it was a mistake. And, but the fear of, of reorganising the, the finances lingers on. But unless there is a firm financial foundation, new authorities, as well as some of the existing ones will flounder. So, Doctor Morrison, I say, I think the my plea to the Minister on not only on local government finance, but in in in the case of Northern Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire Council has an excellent conservative run administration.
North East Lincolnshire, sadly has now got a reform leader. But that's only temporary. Hopefully. Yeah. And uh. So, uh, please leave Lincolnshire as it is for the for the moment and look at the finance of local authorities.
And I'm not yet convinced of the need to have a mayor for vast rural county such as such as Lincolnshire. Now the minister will know that, uh, the government, in proposing any form of reform of local government or opening a can of worms, it. Local rivalries, civil war within in the Labour Party, I'm sure, and indeed others. Um now, the minute the minister is too, too young to remember, uh the, the local government reorganisation of 197374 and I think probably I'm the only one who can remember it, but it was, it turned out to be a disaster.
Uh, in many respects. Um, the, my former Grimsby council was pushed into Humberside County, uh, County Humberside was a complete and utter disaster. Uh, the identities of the north and south of the river are completely different. And if and if you mention Humberside nowadays on the streets of Grimsby, you will not be, uh, politely. Responded to shall we, shall we say, uh, no stronger than that. Um. It was a complete and utter disaster. The last government tried to create a Humberside Local Enterprise Partnership that failed because it was Cross cross River.
Um, we still have Humberside Police and Humberside fire authorities and so on, um but even now I would say leave well alone with those as well. Um the thing about devolution and which we all tend to favour because that means local people are making decisions. That's good. But of course it does actually lead to the postcode lottery because different councils will make different decisions. My appeal to the minister at the moment is, is over. The finance of local government.
Now, when I was first elected in way back in 1980, local government was still a real powerful force in the in the local community and could embark on some very important projects that were of great benefit. But over the years, I've seen the powers and responsibilities whittle away. Uh, and local authorities to a great extent, are tools of central government. That's always going to be the case to some extent, because central government relies on local authorities to deliver many essential services. Um, but local pride and local identity play play their part.
I say Grimsby, Grimsby. I keep talking about Grimsby and I've only got one ward of Grimsby in my new constituency, but since I'm a resident there, I can I give me some right to speak about it. We've had a mayor since 1201, uh, apart from a few months, apart from a few months when we when Grimsby was abolished and we merged into North East Lincolnshire. And for a few months we had a chairman. Uh, thankfully, we got a new royal charter and ended up with a mayor, but local identity is important.
People recognise, you know, they like the mayor turning up in the in the red robes and chains and office and opening the church bazaar and these sort of things. It creates identity. And that is something that sadly lacking. We go into any particularly of, you know, northern towns and look around for the in, in, in the central square, you'll see vast town halls and great civic buildings, mostly constructed in Victorian and Edwardian times. They knew how to project local identity and power and responsibility.
Um, and I'd like to see something of a return to that, but my particular plea is the financial basis of local authorities. Many are in debt. Um and unless the local government reorganisation is linked to local reform of local government finance, we are in desperate straits. Many authorities have already declared section 114 notices. Uh, others are teetering on the edge. And many of the new authorities, as the honourable lady who's no longer in her place, mentioned earlier, do not have a financial foundation on which they they they can build.
So we urgently need local government finance reform, the poll tax community charge, uh, from the 1980s sort of now frightens, uh, still lingers. Uh, it was a mistake. And, but the fear of, of reorganising the, the finances lingers on. But unless there is a firm financial foundation, new authorities, as well as some of the existing ones will flounder. So, Doctor Morrison, I say, I think the my plea to the Minister on not only on local government finance, but in in in the case of Northern Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire Council has an excellent conservative run administration.
North East Lincolnshire, sadly has now got a reform leader. But that's only temporary. Hopefully. Yeah. And uh. So, uh, please leave Lincolnshire as it is for the for the moment and look at the finance of local authorities.
10:26
10:26
10:26
10:26
10:26
10:27
10:27
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
And I'd also like to congratulate my honourable friend for securing this important debate this morning. For the past few months, I've worked closely with the local election candidates in my constituency, and I'm pleased to say that their hard work paid off with being elected onto Broxbourne District Council and it remaining under conservative control. with no change to our majority. During that campaign, I spoke to hundreds of local residents ahead of the elections, 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, and I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that when the minister rises to her feet to reply to this 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've seen the letters 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 with the towns and villages, they have no connection to. And that being said, these big new authorities will cost them 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 now. I am yet to see those councils that have been through reorganisation, whether that be North Yorkshire or Somerset, come forward and say, do you know what?We're awash with cash.
We've got so much money now that we've saved all of this money through reorganisation. I haven't, I haven't seen that. In fact, um when Somerset went through reorganisation they had a single large unitary council which the government accepted. They increased council tax by 10%. There was no savings. So I'm yet to see any evidence. So I say to the government minister, if you're hell bent on doing this, if you want to move forward with this, show us the evidence that this type of council serves its residents the best and is cheaper and provides better services.
We learned last year that the department did not even carry out its own cost and analysis of the reorganisation. Now, don't get me wrong, Broxbourne Council is not perfect, nor is any district. But given their reasonable size and proximity to residents, they at least have the chance to make a positive difference if run well. It is no secret as to 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 like waste collection and leisure centres are run better than in neighbouring councils that charge more council tax.
But we all know when reorganisation comes that that new authority will provide the bare minimum in services and hit residents with the highest rates they can get away with. So from day one, this new authority that my constituents will be forced into will be paying more in council tax, but getting less back. For these reasons, our fundamentally opposed this reorganisation. But the process we've seen so far should also make us doubt the government's ability to achieve what they have promised. As has already been mentioned, just last week, the county councils network sent a damning letter to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State.
They point out that this top down imposition of local government reorganisation, like we have seen in Sussex, going against the wishes of local councils without the evidence to back it up. And I know lots of honourable and right honourable members have made this point. Please show us the evidence, show us where big unitary councils cost less and deliver better for residents, and then we can at least understand and argue about the nuances about what the government want to achieve. And it is very difficult to do that.
When I have sat on a number of debates, I was on the the devolution Bill committee. Um, I have not seen one shred of evidence that these 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 2 or 3, as they know that councils operate in as close to the people as possible, serves its residents better. So when it comes to making future decisions on reorganisation and let me be crystal clear, for the avoidance of doubt, and it will be no surprise to the Minister I do not want any local government reorganisation in Hertfordshire.
I hope the Department will listen to what councils are saying and act on it, so I urge her again, as I do every time in these debates. Please look at the policy. Please review the policy. Please make sure future decisions are made with our constituents in mind and please ensure whatever system is forced upon us that it will deliver outstanding local services and cheaper council tax.
They wanted to know what I was doing to stop it, and I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that when the minister rises to her feet to reply to this 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've seen the letters 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 with the towns and villages, they have no connection to. And that being said, these big new authorities will cost them 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 now. I am yet to see those councils that have been through reorganisation, whether that be North Yorkshire or Somerset, come forward and say, do you know what?We're awash with cash.
We've got so much money now that we've saved all of this money through reorganisation. I haven't, I haven't seen that. In fact, um when Somerset went through reorganisation they had a single large unitary council which the government accepted. They increased council tax by 10%. There was no savings. So I'm yet to see any evidence. So I say to the government minister, if you're hell bent on doing this, if you want to move forward with this, show us the evidence that this type of council serves its residents the best and is cheaper and provides better services.
We learned last year that the department did not even carry out its own cost and analysis of the reorganisation. Now, don't get me wrong, Broxbourne Council is not perfect, nor is any district. But given their reasonable size and proximity to residents, they at least have the chance to make a positive difference if run well. It is no secret as to 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 like waste collection and leisure centres are run better than in neighbouring councils that charge more council tax.
But we all know when reorganisation comes that that new authority will provide the bare minimum in services and hit residents with the highest rates they can get away with. So from day one, this new authority that my constituents will be forced into will be paying more in council tax, but getting less back. For these reasons, our fundamentally opposed this reorganisation. But the process we've seen so far should also make us doubt the government's ability to achieve what they have promised. As has already been mentioned, just last week, the county councils network sent a damning letter to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State.
They point out that this top down imposition of local government reorganisation, like we have seen in Sussex, going against the wishes of local councils without the evidence to back it up. And I know lots of honourable and right honourable members have made this point. Please show us the evidence, show us where big unitary councils cost less and deliver better for residents, and then we can at least understand and argue about the nuances about what the government want to achieve. And it is very difficult to do that.
When I have sat on a number of debates, I was on the the devolution Bill committee. Um, I have not seen one shred of evidence that these 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 2 or 3, as they know that councils operate in as close to the people as possible, serves its residents better. So when it comes to making future decisions on reorganisation and let me be crystal clear, for the avoidance of doubt, and it will be no surprise to the Minister I do not want any local government reorganisation in Hertfordshire.
I hope the Department will listen to what councils are saying and act on it, so I urge her again, as I do every time in these debates. Please look at the policy. Please review the policy. Please make sure future decisions are made with our constituents in mind and please ensure whatever system is forced upon us that it will deliver outstanding local services and cheaper council tax.
10:36
10:36
10:36
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you, Doctor Merson. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And I do want to thank the honourable member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston for securing this important debate. It's obvious that local government organisation or LGR, is the government running before it can walk on so many issues. We Liberal Democrats are usually pushing the government to go further and faster, but not on this. McLaren is from my constituency of Woking. Even they would think the government is going too fast and too furious.
Local government reorganisation has charged ahead without listening to councils and whilst ignoring residents. A layer of our local democracy is being removed. It's being silenced. It very much feels like Labour is reorganising local government for the sake of it. Without rhyme nor 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, rebounding the change, rebranding and changing the face of the problem doesn't affect the way something works or more importantly, the way it doesn't work.
The Liberal Democrats believe 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 don't actually know why the government has chosen to push ahead with LGR. Any organization always has a fully costed business case, whether that be a charity or a business. They don't change the way that they do things without one. I sit on the housing, Communities and Local Government select committee. It was clear from yesterday's meeting that the Labour government simply hasn't outlined its business case.
Have here is an overly ambitious plan to reform all of local government by 2028. There seems to be no reason other than creating efficiencies. So in that meeting yesterday, when I asked the minister how much money reorganisation would save, the honourable member for Birkenhead said, I quote, it is challenging to answer that question and that unitary councils tend to be more effective. I can't give a direct answer, which I was surprised to hear. That was the answer for a flagship Labour policy, that that would involve the largest change in local government for over half a century.
I will give way.
Local government reorganisation has charged ahead without listening to councils and whilst ignoring residents. A layer of our local democracy is being removed. It's being silenced. It very much feels like Labour is reorganising local government for the sake of it. Without rhyme nor 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, rebounding the change, rebranding and changing the face of the problem doesn't affect the way something works or more importantly, the way it doesn't work.
The Liberal Democrats believe 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 don't actually know why the government has chosen to push ahead with LGR. Any organization always has a fully costed business case, whether that be a charity or a business. They don't change the way that they do things without one. I sit on the housing, Communities and Local Government select committee. It was clear from yesterday's meeting that the Labour government simply hasn't outlined its business case.
Have here is an overly ambitious plan to reform all of local government by 2028. There seems to be no reason other than creating efficiencies. So in that meeting yesterday, when I asked the minister how much money reorganisation would save, the honourable member for Birkenhead said, I quote, it is challenging to answer that question and that unitary councils tend to be more effective. I can't give a direct answer, which I was surprised to hear. That was the answer for a flagship Labour policy, that that would involve the largest change in local government for over half a century.
I will give way.
10:41
10:41
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Well, I miss we miss the honourable member yesterday at the meeting. Um, but I do agree with him. I fear that it won't save any money. The lack of evidence, the lack of a business case is a concern for me and the Liberal Democrats that we express at the committee yesterday. I'm sure he will be able to do the same next week when he joins us. I better I better continue if that's I better if that's I better continue if that's okay.
There are many layers for our democracy. I will give way. Okay. Um.
There are many layers for our democracy. I will give way. Okay. Um.
10:43
10:43
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
I can do, but obviously I'm going to pass over to the minister in a bit, Mr. Morrison, if that's okay. Um, I think if there are 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 spit new, that would split the New Forest area into two mega councils. It's already been referred to this morning, more than 13,000 unhappy residents who signed a petition called 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 absolute chaos and if anything it's a setback and look no further than Woking. Surrey County Council was planning to make Arnold and Eve Road in Maybury safer and nicer, but the scheme has been kicked into the long grass and the council won't engage with me or the local residents that they consulted about the plans with.
It's been palmed off on West Surrey Council that 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 while ministers and civil servants reshuffle the system. LGR is causing delays and it's frustrating the lives of local people who shouldn't have to watch their community services decline. Why councils try to guess the future and all of this with no leadership or direction from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the issues are rife elsewhere too.
In Shropshire, they spend 80% of their council budget on social care. Shropshire Council is another example. Another prime example of the financial pressure facing local services. Alongside underfunding, they have also had their funding cut. Care for the elderly is such a huge burden because 25% of their population is over 65. The lack of transport and other local services make the provision of social care even harder. 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, Woking 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 and now they are making it more difficult for local areas to build, risking 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 £500 million debt write off from Woking's debt that we inherited from the conservatives, half of 500 million, half £1 billion.
We've had that debt write off. We've also had support in known as F's exceptional financial support. The lack of understanding of that issue was so apparent in yesterday's select committee. The minister says they want to get through the fair funding review. This is so they have a better idea of what money local councils need, and fully enable local authorities to have multiyear funding settlements, and I'm fine with that. But it doesn't get rid of the need for cash.
And if you're aware of the lack of it, I want to refer to my point earlier that I mentioned about the minister didn't know how much money could be saved from reorganisation. It's already been mentioned by the honourable friend for Boksburg that the government hasn't got an assessment of how much this will save. That isn't acceptable. Councils need money, but we can't put the money we save from local government reform back into services if we don't know how much will be saved in the first place.
Councils haven't been properly supported for the transition and try as they may, they are without leadership from London, mainly because, as the local government minister says herself, Labour are not full position of the information they need to make a success of it, and in Surrey we're the canary in the coal mine. The elderly, vulnerable children are already suffering and Surrey County Council are refusing requests under the guise of LGR. The whole system is is breaking the changes at. The Minister and the government are making all this effort and they aren't actually addressing the problem.
Ministers know don't know how much to invest. They don't know what the savings will be. That is not solving a problem. It is creating new ones. And I understand they have got their work cut out. It's a big job and it's never easy. But in that discussion yesterday, there are critical questions that need answers. Looking ahead, addressing these 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 that can answer these questions.
I was disappointed with the minister's answers yesterday, but we still don't have an answer on how much money local government reorganisation will save, or why the government has bulldozed through local democracy. I wonder if the minister will tell Parliament the answers to these questions right now.
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 absolute chaos and if anything it's a setback and look no further than Woking. Surrey County Council was planning to make Arnold and Eve Road in Maybury safer and nicer, but the scheme has been kicked into the long grass and the council won't engage with me or the local residents that they consulted about the plans with.
It's been palmed off on West Surrey Council that 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 while ministers and civil servants reshuffle the system. LGR is causing delays and it's frustrating the lives of local people who shouldn't have to watch their community services decline. Why councils try to guess the future and all of this with no leadership or direction from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the issues are rife elsewhere too.
In Shropshire, they spend 80% of their council budget on social care. Shropshire Council is another example. Another prime example of the financial pressure facing local services. Alongside underfunding, they have also had their funding cut. Care for the elderly is such a huge burden because 25% of their population is over 65. The lack of transport and other local services make the provision of social care even harder. 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, Woking 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 and now they are making it more difficult for local areas to build, risking 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 £500 million debt write off from Woking's debt that we inherited from the conservatives, half of 500 million, half £1 billion.
We've had that debt write off. We've also had support in known as F's exceptional financial support. The lack of understanding of that issue was so apparent in yesterday's select committee. The minister says they want to get through the fair funding review. This is so they have a better idea of what money local councils need, and fully enable local authorities to have multiyear funding settlements, and I'm fine with that. But it doesn't get rid of the need for cash.
And if you're aware of the lack of it, I want to refer to my point earlier that I mentioned about the minister didn't know how much money could be saved from reorganisation. It's already been mentioned by the honourable friend for Boksburg that the government hasn't got an assessment of how much this will save. That isn't acceptable. Councils need money, but we can't put the money we save from local government reform back into services if we don't know how much will be saved in the first place.
Councils haven't been properly supported for the transition and try as they may, they are without leadership from London, mainly because, as the local government minister says herself, Labour are not full position of the information they need to make a success of it, and in Surrey we're the canary in the coal mine. The elderly, vulnerable children are already suffering and Surrey County Council are refusing requests under the guise of LGR. The whole system is is breaking the changes at. The Minister and the government are making all this effort and they aren't actually addressing the problem.
Ministers know don't know how much to invest. They don't know what the savings will be. That is not solving a problem. It is creating new ones. And I understand they have got their work cut out. It's a big job and it's never easy. But in that discussion yesterday, there are critical questions that need answers. Looking ahead, addressing these 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 that can answer these questions.
I was disappointed with the minister's answers yesterday, but we still don't have an answer on how much money local government reorganisation will save, or why the government has bulldozed through local democracy. I wonder if the minister will tell Parliament the answers to these questions right now.
10:53
10:54
10:54
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Thank you very much indeed, doctor Morrison, I draw the House's attention to my entry in the register, and I also would like to share my congratulations to the member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston for securing today's debate. I'd also like to congratulate the member for Harlow on his appointment as a PPS in the department. We all know he has been a champion for local government and. And we also all recognise. And we also recognise that his constituents, his constituents like mine, benefited from an enormous vote of confidence in their local conservative Council at the recent elections, and I am sure he will be once again sharing the insights that come from benefiting from that in his role in the department.
Doctor Morrison, the members for Brigg and Immingham, Rayleigh and Wickford, Broxbourne, Melton and Syston. Harper, Oadby and Wigston, Leicestershire, New Forest, East East Hampshire, Faversham and Mid Kent, South West Hertfordshire and Strangford all shared valuable insights about the impact that this local government reorganisation process is having on the communities that they represent, and a lot of those frustrations reflect the simple fact that at the start of this process, the government, perhaps because it wasn't in our manifesto, did not ask the question of 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. And that's certainly something which has been borne out in the local government reorganisations in places like Somerset, which a number of members used as reference points for the concerns that their constituents have. We as a country 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 do in the United States, in France, in Canada, Australia, New Zealand.
And yet we have a government that is bent on a path of reducing that local democratic voice even further. Just last week, announcing that in a planning system where 98% of decisions are already made under delegated powers, that even fewer of those decisions. Will be ones where the community's voice. Local councillors, planning committees and that public forum where people can go and express the concerns that members here so powerfully expressed about the impact on towns of overspill, of concreting over green spaces. They will still further lose the opportunity to share those concerns.
And this is on the basis of a policy which is underpinned by no independent financial analysis at all. I know the member for East Hampshire made reference to the Price Coopers report, which was commissioned by the county councils network to support their case for county based devolution. Now that's an entirely reasonable exercise to undertake, but one would expect that in central government they would then say if that is the case, that is being made by one side, let's see what the case is for. Unitisation, for district based, for reorganisation along some other lines.
But none of that has happened, and that is perhaps why there is such a high level of concern in places like Leicestershire that the impact on this will be higher taxes, poorer quality of services and less ability for local people to share their concerns. In a moment I will put some specific questions which I know the minister will want to consider. But let's just reflect on where we are at this moment. The streets of Belfast are on fire. Just last week we had a massive rise in community tensions in Southampton.
Just last year, my local authority in Hillingdon had to deal with a murder on the streets of a local individual walking his dog by an asylum seeker who was housed in that local area. The ability of credible local leadership to respond to those challenges is absolutely critical at moments like this, and we are all learning the significance of that. So this is not something which is purely about the administrative convenience of Whitehall. This is not something which is, in the words of the former local government minister, about councils as a delivery mechanism for central government policy.
It is about the leaders of those communities, the leaders of those neighbourhoods, being able to have both a powerful and credible voice locally, but also the ability to genuinely affect the decisions that really make a difference in that local area. And by failing to ask that question of what does this government think local councils are for, we are setting the new authorities that are set to be brought into being up to fail, and housing is probably, as a number of mentions highlighted, one of the most obvious examples of that.
The government has set itself 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. Authorities over many years have been granting those consents, and in Broxbourne, in Leicester, in south west Hertfordshire, there are sites that are ready to go. Been designed. They've been laid out. The discussions have been had with the utility companies. And yet the economic conditions created by the government mean that that development is simply not happening.
But rather than focus on addressing those economic conditions, what we see is a focus on removing a little bit more local democracy from the planning system, risking a situation where, as was highlighted in particular, the impact of the expansion of Leicester but also around Southampton, a situation where many of those treasured greenfields will go into the future with planning permission for still unbuilt homes. Whilst those old mills in the city centre still remain undeveloped due to a failure of leadership by a local Labour city mayor and a failure of leadership by a government that is not creating and not developing the economic conditions that will enable that housing development to happen.
And when there are so many challenges to which local government delivering on average 800 different services to local residents could be the answer in public health, in education, in housing, in transport, in 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. So let me conclude, Doctor Morrison with these questions. At the heart of much of this debate has been a process of elections being promised and then cancelled.
Mayors being committed to. And then those elections deferred. And it would certainly help us, I think, all to understand the decision making in the Department. If the government were willing to release the correspondence between the Secretary of State and those local authorities about election cancellation, that has been the subject of both FOI requests questions in the House. But I think this minister, who I know is committed to local democracy, will understand it would build confidence if the government were simply willing to share what the Secretary of State was giving by way of a steer to those local government leaders, as that controversial process underwent.
Secondly, will she commit to a full and independent financial analysis of the impact of this reorganization process, not simply relying on something that was written specifically to support a particular case for reorganisation, but an independent one that says what is in the interests of the whole country. Will she tell us why, in her view, it isn't appropriate for local residents to have a say at any point in this process?Now there will be a debate about is a referendum, is it a local election manifesto?Matter is a matter for a mayoral election.
There are various ways in which that can happen, but a number of members have given that example of the sense of frustration felt by local people. But the absence of a route by which they can have their say. Of course.
Doctor Morrison, the members for Brigg and Immingham, Rayleigh and Wickford, Broxbourne, Melton and Syston. Harper, Oadby and Wigston, Leicestershire, New Forest, East East Hampshire, Faversham and Mid Kent, South West Hertfordshire and Strangford all shared valuable insights about the impact that this local government reorganisation process is having on the communities that they represent, and a lot of those frustrations reflect the simple fact that at the start of this process, the government, perhaps because it wasn't in our manifesto, did not ask the question of 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. And that's certainly something which has been borne out in the local government reorganisations in places like Somerset, which a number of members used as reference points for the concerns that their constituents have. We as a country 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 do in the United States, in France, in Canada, Australia, New Zealand.
And yet we have a government that is bent on a path of reducing that local democratic voice even further. Just last week, announcing that in a planning system where 98% of decisions are already made under delegated powers, that even fewer of those decisions. Will be ones where the community's voice. Local councillors, planning committees and that public forum where people can go and express the concerns that members here so powerfully expressed about the impact on towns of overspill, of concreting over green spaces. They will still further lose the opportunity to share those concerns.
And this is on the basis of a policy which is underpinned by no independent financial analysis at all. I know the member for East Hampshire made reference to the Price Coopers report, which was commissioned by the county councils network to support their case for county based devolution. Now that's an entirely reasonable exercise to undertake, but one would expect that in central government they would then say if that is the case, that is being made by one side, let's see what the case is for. Unitisation, for district based, for reorganisation along some other lines.
But none of that has happened, and that is perhaps why there is such a high level of concern in places like Leicestershire that the impact on this will be higher taxes, poorer quality of services and less ability for local people to share their concerns. In a moment I will put some specific questions which I know the minister will want to consider. But let's just reflect on where we are at this moment. The streets of Belfast are on fire. Just last week we had a massive rise in community tensions in Southampton.
Just last year, my local authority in Hillingdon had to deal with a murder on the streets of a local individual walking his dog by an asylum seeker who was housed in that local area. The ability of credible local leadership to respond to those challenges is absolutely critical at moments like this, and we are all learning the significance of that. So this is not something which is purely about the administrative convenience of Whitehall. This is not something which is, in the words of the former local government minister, about councils as a delivery mechanism for central government policy.
It is about the leaders of those communities, the leaders of those neighbourhoods, being able to have both a powerful and credible voice locally, but also the ability to genuinely affect the decisions that really make a difference in that local area. And by failing to ask that question of what does this government think local councils are for, we are setting the new authorities that are set to be brought into being up to fail, and housing is probably, as a number of mentions highlighted, one of the most obvious examples of that.
The government has set itself 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. Authorities over many years have been granting those consents, and in Broxbourne, in Leicester, in south west Hertfordshire, there are sites that are ready to go. Been designed. They've been laid out. The discussions have been had with the utility companies. And yet the economic conditions created by the government mean that that development is simply not happening.
But rather than focus on addressing those economic conditions, what we see is a focus on removing a little bit more local democracy from the planning system, risking a situation where, as was highlighted in particular, the impact of the expansion of Leicester but also around Southampton, a situation where many of those treasured greenfields will go into the future with planning permission for still unbuilt homes. Whilst those old mills in the city centre still remain undeveloped due to a failure of leadership by a local Labour city mayor and a failure of leadership by a government that is not creating and not developing the economic conditions that will enable that housing development to happen.
And when there are so many challenges to which local government delivering on average 800 different services to local residents could be the answer in public health, in education, in housing, in transport, in 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. So let me conclude, Doctor Morrison with these questions. At the heart of much of this debate has been a process of elections being promised and then cancelled.
Mayors being committed to. And then those elections deferred. And it would certainly help us, I think, all to understand the decision making in the Department. If the government were willing to release the correspondence between the Secretary of State and those local authorities about election cancellation, that has been the subject of both FOI requests questions in the House. But I think this minister, who I know is committed to local democracy, will understand it would build confidence if the government were simply willing to share what the Secretary of State was giving by way of a steer to those local government leaders, as that controversial process underwent.
Secondly, will she commit to a full and independent financial analysis of the impact of this reorganization process, not simply relying on something that was written specifically to support a particular case for reorganisation, but an independent one that says what is in the interests of the whole country. Will she tell us why, in her view, it isn't appropriate for local residents to have a say at any point in this process?Now there will be a debate about is a referendum, is it a local election manifesto?Matter is a matter for a mayoral election.
There are various ways in which that can happen, but a number of members have given that example of the sense of frustration felt by local people. But the absence of a route by which they can have their say. Of course.
11:11
11:11
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
One point which perhaps I should have mentioned in support of emphasizing how united the community is, is that when I wrote initially to the minister's predecessor, the letter that I wrote was co-signed by the leaders of not just the conservative group on New Forest District Council, but the Lib Dem group, the independent Group and the green Group. And when there was a vote about supporting the Keep the New Forest Together campaign, every single member, including the sole Labour member of New Forest District Council, voted in favour of it. This is a unified community howl of protest against what's being imposed on us.
11:12
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Yes, well, doctor, my experience does not go as far back as Redcliffe-maud. And like the member for Brigg and Immingham. But what's been described over those years, as we've just heard from New Forest East, is that sense of frustration, of people being done to rather than done with that. This is not about local community leadership growing up from those neighborhoods. It's about the administrative convenience and Whitehall. And I would finish with this question, which is the last of the ones I'd like to put to the minister, and that is probably at the heart of building that sense of community confidence.
It feels at the moment to residents in Leicestershire and around Hampshire, 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.
It feels at the moment to residents in Leicestershire and around Hampshire, 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.
11:14
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Saint Albans that has been the subject of legal action and government intervention in the past. So we need from the outset that absolute transparency. What is it that the government actually wants these new councils to do so that those residents know, when they go to the ballot box, when they engage in that consultation, when they talk to their members of exactly what it is, so that they know that the form of those new councils follows the functions that they are there for. What it will cost them, what it will mean for their neighbourhood.
It is not too late for the government to pause the process on which it is bent, to listen to the voices that have been powerfully expressed today, and by colleagues on the Minister's own back benches, and to look at how those lessons can be learned. So we have a local government system that is fit for the future.
It is not too late for the government to pause the process on which it is bent, to listen to the voices that have been powerfully expressed today, and by colleagues on the Minister's own back benches, and to look at how those lessons can be learned. So we have a local government system that is fit for the future.
11:15
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Thank you, Doctor Morrison. And as ever, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship. And may I add my own congratulations to your important anniversary. I'm very grateful to the member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston for securing today's debate on Local government reorganisation. And I know, and we've heard today that he has strongly held views on the future for his constituency, and it has been a pleasure to hear. Many members. I won't repeat as the Shadow Minister did, all those who've spoken for reasons of time, but it's been a pleasure to hear many members describe their communities.
It has been a joy to do that. And I would just say from the outset to all members, I know we disagree on this topic and the point of this House is disagreement. So that disagreement is not only expected, it's also welcome. But in listening to honourable members today, you might think that there is no problem in local government. Everything is okay. If only we were not proceeding with local government reorganisation. And I would simply say to members across this House that that the problems in local government, particularly those related to finance, have arisen due to the age of our population and the burden that local government holds on adult social care and other things, and a suite of failing policy areas across send homelessness, adult social care and children's care.
That meant that local government has carried the can for policy failure. That has happened in this place, and it now falls. I'm going to make my point for a minute, and it now falls to those of us in this House to try to put it right. And I would say to the honourable member for Woking, when he mentioned the half £1 billion of debt write off for his community. The words he was looking for were, thank you. And I would say to him, he is perfectly at liberty to selectively quote me as any member of this House can, but selectively quoting a minister is not an argument.
It is not a case to be made when in fact this government has put 5.6 billion of grant into local government at the spending review. We have committed 4 billion for Send. As a part of the White Paper, we are investing in local government to try to get it out of this situation, and as I did yesterday, I will merely repeat what I said in response to the member for East Hampshire on a previous occasion that whilst the analysis we have done in the Department to understand the finances of this change is important, given the very high and spiking costs that local government is currently facing, the priority has to be to deal with those cases, and I would challenge anyone to come up with a perfect cost benefit analysis in this environment.
That is what I said yesterday, and I repeat it here again today for clarification. Now, that said, I want to do what a number of colleagues have asked me to do, which is to set 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. It slows down decisions as different councils try to agree, and it leads to fragmented public services and is confusing about who does what and who is responsible.
Now, in the honourable member's own area, Leicestershire, the county council has reported previously that a 140 000 people called the wrong council when trying to get help and support. The government is committed to local reorganisation to get clarity and for other reasons that I will set out and we are committed to the timetable. We have already set out. We want to see stronger local councils equipped to work with strong mayors and strategic authorities for the purposes of economic growth, improving public services and empowering communities.
That is the point of reorganisation, so that we have councils that match the real economic footprint of our cities and towns, rather than lines drawn on a map. 50 years ago. And I might just say at this point that members will know that I might not have been alive in 1974, but having been born in 1980, I was born into the relatively newly created area of the Wirral. At the time, part of the, uh, the county of Merseyside. As an area.
We have subsequently become part of the Liverpool City region. So as members know, in my opinion, of course, administrative boundaries do change, but the identity of the place I was born, the village of Bromborough, as once was, and the hospital. I was born in the village of Bebington, as was the identity of those places, is still as strong as it ever was, though we take part in the Liverpool City region with all of the benefits that that brings. So councils, I'm very short of time, but I will give way to minister.
It has been a joy to do that. And I would just say from the outset to all members, I know we disagree on this topic and the point of this House is disagreement. So that disagreement is not only expected, it's also welcome. But in listening to honourable members today, you might think that there is no problem in local government. Everything is okay. If only we were not proceeding with local government reorganisation. And I would simply say to members across this House that that the problems in local government, particularly those related to finance, have arisen due to the age of our population and the burden that local government holds on adult social care and other things, and a suite of failing policy areas across send homelessness, adult social care and children's care.
That meant that local government has carried the can for policy failure. That has happened in this place, and it now falls. I'm going to make my point for a minute, and it now falls to those of us in this House to try to put it right. And I would say to the honourable member for Woking, when he mentioned the half £1 billion of debt write off for his community. The words he was looking for were, thank you. And I would say to him, he is perfectly at liberty to selectively quote me as any member of this House can, but selectively quoting a minister is not an argument.
It is not a case to be made when in fact this government has put 5.6 billion of grant into local government at the spending review. We have committed 4 billion for Send. As a part of the White Paper, we are investing in local government to try to get it out of this situation, and as I did yesterday, I will merely repeat what I said in response to the member for East Hampshire on a previous occasion that whilst the analysis we have done in the Department to understand the finances of this change is important, given the very high and spiking costs that local government is currently facing, the priority has to be to deal with those cases, and I would challenge anyone to come up with a perfect cost benefit analysis in this environment.
That is what I said yesterday, and I repeat it here again today for clarification. Now, that said, I want to do what a number of colleagues have asked me to do, which is to set 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. It slows down decisions as different councils try to agree, and it leads to fragmented public services and is confusing about who does what and who is responsible.
Now, in the honourable member's own area, Leicestershire, the county council has reported previously that a 140 000 people called the wrong council when trying to get help and support. The government is committed to local reorganisation to get clarity and for other reasons that I will set out and we are committed to the timetable. We have already set out. We want to see stronger local councils equipped to work with strong mayors and strategic authorities for the purposes of economic growth, improving public services and empowering communities.
That is the point of reorganisation, so that we have councils that match the real economic footprint of our cities and towns, rather than lines drawn on a map. 50 years ago. And I might just say at this point that members will know that I might not have been alive in 1974, but having been born in 1980, I was born into the relatively newly created area of the Wirral. At the time, part of the, uh, the county of Merseyside. As an area.
We have subsequently become part of the Liverpool City region. So as members know, in my opinion, of course, administrative boundaries do change, but the identity of the place I was born, the village of Bromborough, as once was, and the hospital. I was born in the village of Bebington, as was the identity of those places, is still as strong as it ever was, though we take part in the Liverpool City region with all of the benefits that that brings. So councils, I'm very short of time, but I will give way to minister.
11:26
11:27
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Thank you, Doctor Morrison. I understand the question. The honourable gentleman is asking and I obviously can't respond directly in relation to the place that we are talking about. In response to Leicestershire, because that decision hasn't been taken yet. But I just want to I just want to clarify, and I'm happy to engage with him, that the Secretary of State can modify submissions or reject them entirely. He can invite proposals for councils, which is what we've done. However, the Secretary of State does not have the power to draw up completely new proposals from scratch.
So I am happy to engage with the right hon. Gentleman. Um, if he wishes to, just to get that absolutely clear, but that is the position, as I've read it out there. Um, local government can help councils play a much clearer and stronger role in building our economy and making sure 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. And there are also social and public services benefits.
Most of the government's key objectives, whether that be getting more young people into work or lifting children out of poverty, rely on cooperation and integration between our public services, and I have heard from members of this House how the split in the two tier system is preventing their councils working together on, for example, things like homelessness. That is why we want to bring services like housing, public health and social care under one roof, one council being able to see the full picture and spot problems early and for example, supporting a family in need of housing, then supporting those children to stay in school.
I am really pleased on the progress we have made so far with decisions. With decisions on. Councils for five areas announced an. Elections held for the new councils in Surrey and turning to the honourable member's own council areas in Leicestershire, we remain on course to announce decisions before the summer recess period. We are on track for the councils to go live in April 2028 as planned, and this applies to all other areas awaiting an announcement. Now, as I said, I listened with interest to today's debate, as I always do in these debates and honourable members have put on record their views on local government reorganisation in their areas.
Now, I am very conscious of time and I am going to try and answer questions, but I have very little time to do so. So members will have to bear with me. The um, the shadow minister asked about local consultation and listening to people. And we do that and members should consider this debate as part of that consultation process. And I will make sure that the Department is aware of their concerns that they have set out today. The shadow minister also asked me.
Me about, um, looking at this and what's in the interests of the whole country. And of course, he will know that the previous conservative administration introduced the OBR, um for purposes of transparency, um on related matters, we um take the decisions based on the evidence put in front of us and he will, he will also know that advice given to ministers in that way is treated, as it always is by all governments. Uh, for the purposes of FOI and other things, um I know that um members were.
Very keen to make sure that their constituents had the opportunity to participate in the consultation. And I want to 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. I just want to respond to one point that members have made about bigger being better, in that, I would say that there are councils of various sizes that are good and that the evidence that we have from looking at where we have council failure is that governance, leadership and culture are the primary factors.
So, um, it is not the case that bigger is always better councils of various different sizes can perform well or less well. In relation to the decisions announced before Easter recess, we are confident that decisions we have taken will enable strong, sustainable local government and is connected to the community that it serves. I accept that reasonable people can and will disagree on our decisions, and I also recognise the work that is now required to make sure that the transitions to new councils is done safely, especially in key social care services that some of our constituents rely on.
And I must reassure members that the department is working very hard, in lockstep with councils to make sure that this transition happens well. And I will have to leave it there, but I know that members will be in touch with me directly on further issues.
So I am happy to engage with the right hon. Gentleman. Um, if he wishes to, just to get that absolutely clear, but that is the position, as I've read it out there. Um, local government can help councils play a much clearer and stronger role in building our economy and making sure 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. And there are also social and public services benefits.
Most of the government's key objectives, whether that be getting more young people into work or lifting children out of poverty, rely on cooperation and integration between our public services, and I have heard from members of this House how the split in the two tier system is preventing their councils working together on, for example, things like homelessness. That is why we want to bring services like housing, public health and social care under one roof, one council being able to see the full picture and spot problems early and for example, supporting a family in need of housing, then supporting those children to stay in school.
I am really pleased on the progress we have made so far with decisions. With decisions on. Councils for five areas announced an. Elections held for the new councils in Surrey and turning to the honourable member's own council areas in Leicestershire, we remain on course to announce decisions before the summer recess period. We are on track for the councils to go live in April 2028 as planned, and this applies to all other areas awaiting an announcement. Now, as I said, I listened with interest to today's debate, as I always do in these debates and honourable members have put on record their views on local government reorganisation in their areas.
Now, I am very conscious of time and I am going to try and answer questions, but I have very little time to do so. So members will have to bear with me. The um, the shadow minister asked about local consultation and listening to people. And we do that and members should consider this debate as part of that consultation process. And I will make sure that the Department is aware of their concerns that they have set out today. The shadow minister also asked me.
Me about, um, looking at this and what's in the interests of the whole country. And of course, he will know that the previous conservative administration introduced the OBR, um for purposes of transparency, um on related matters, we um take the decisions based on the evidence put in front of us and he will, he will also know that advice given to ministers in that way is treated, as it always is by all governments. Uh, for the purposes of FOI and other things, um I know that um members were.
Very keen to make sure that their constituents had the opportunity to participate in the consultation. And I want to 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. I just want to respond to one point that members have made about bigger being better, in that, I would say that there are councils of various sizes that are good and that the evidence that we have from looking at where we have council failure is that governance, leadership and culture are the primary factors.
So, um, it is not the case that bigger is always better councils of various different sizes can perform well or less well. In relation to the decisions announced before Easter recess, we are confident that decisions we have taken will enable strong, sustainable local government and is connected to the community that it serves. I accept that reasonable people can and will disagree on our decisions, and I also recognise the work that is now required to make sure that the transitions to new councils is done safely, especially in key social care services that some of our constituents rely on.
And I must reassure members that the department is working very hard, in lockstep with councils to make sure that this transition happens well. And I will have to leave it there, but I know that members will be in touch with me directly on further issues.
11:37
11:37
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Thank you for your chairmanship, Doctor Morrison. The irony of all this, of course, is that ministers own. The argument is that we must avoid having two tier system. And what the government wants to do is to replace one two tier system with a completely different two tier system, with a mayor, a new industry authority. So it's an exercise in the utmost futility.
11:38
11:39
11:40
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
I beg to move that the House has considered children in child contact arrangements. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Doctor Morrison. It's also a pleasure to lead on a debate on putting children first in child contact arrangements, an issue which is of great importance to me, my constituents in Scarborough and Whitby and to other members of this House. When parents have separated and children are involved, they often turn to the family court. Family courts are at the centre of a child's right to safe family arrangements, however, so many are not functioning in the child's best interests.
Allegations of domestic abuse are estimated to occur in up to 62% of Private Law Children Act cases in family courts in England and Wales, and increasingly, counterclaims of parental alienation are being made in response to allegations of abuse, so-called parental alienation syndrome is when one parent undermines or destroys the child relationship to the other parent through a pattern of manipulative behaviour. It is a pseudoscientific concept with no basis in law or medicine. However, accusations of parental alienation have been made on multiple occasions by unregulated experts appointed to assess the family and provide recommendations to the court.
Way to the honourable member.
Allegations of domestic abuse are estimated to occur in up to 62% of Private Law Children Act cases in family courts in England and Wales, and increasingly, counterclaims of parental alienation are being made in response to allegations of abuse, so-called parental alienation syndrome is when one parent undermines or destroys the child relationship to the other parent through a pattern of manipulative behaviour. It is a pseudoscientific concept with no basis in law or medicine. However, accusations of parental alienation have been made on multiple occasions by unregulated experts appointed to assess the family and provide recommendations to the court.
Way to the honourable member.
11:41
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
First of all, can I commend the honourable for bringing this forward to a very complex issue, but does the honourable Lady, is the honourable be aware that the courts Bill had elements that were impossible to support, but also sought to address the issue of consent and contact cases and, importantly, the child's opinion to be. Awaited consideration. So does the honourable lady not agree that the child's desires must be considered and not simply overlooked, and that government must bring. These changes about outside of the bill if it falls?
11:41
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
I thank the honourable member for his intervention, and I completely agree with him that the child's voice must be heard and is too often overlooked. Some of the so-called experts lack proper qualifications and are not regulated by the Health and Care Professions. Council proposed changes in 2025 to address unregulated. Psychologists have been criticised as too weak and do not affect experts who are registered by the Hcpc. Hph regulation is also limited, with complaints taking up to seven years, while experts can continue to practice and current proposed changes will not do anything to address parental alienation, experts who are successfully registered, registered and regulated.
And I'm concerned that if only unregulated experts have focused on any reviews or reform, all this will do will be to drive more business into the hands and pockets of experts. And if parents do file a complaint, then that in itself can be used as evidence against the parent alleged to be practising parental alienation as proof that they are entrenched and unable to accept professional opinions that do not align with theirs. I will give way.
And I'm concerned that if only unregulated experts have focused on any reviews or reform, all this will do will be to drive more business into the hands and pockets of experts. And if parents do file a complaint, then that in itself can be used as evidence against the parent alleged to be practising parental alienation as proof that they are entrenched and unable to accept professional opinions that do not align with theirs. I will give way.
11:41
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
I thank her for bringing this debate to the House, and I also thank her for mentioning the point of the so-called experts. Um, we know that accusations of so-called parental alienation are too often used against mothers trying to protect their children. But because so few family law cases are publicly available, we do not know the true extent of the problem. So campaigns led by Right to equality, Women's Aid and others are important. But does my honourable friend agree that when a mother says my child is not safe, the court should hear her and believe her?Rather than using the guise of parental alienation to dismiss her?
11:41
11:41
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
I thank my honourable friend for that intervention. And can I also thank her for the work that she's been doing on this issue?And I completely agree that, unfortunately, we are seeing far, far too many mothers who are disbelieved, removed from their children, the children removed from them without any basis at all for doing so, and lives are destroyed. So as a result, if a parent complains, then there's a very significant risk that, um, it will be used against them and ultimately it should not matter whether an expert is regulated or unregulated if both rely on the same harmful pseudoscience and inflict equally devastating consequences, particularly as we've just heard on mothers and their children.
So the advice provided by experts can have a significant influence on the judge's decision about child contact arrangements. The Ministry of Justice 2020 report Harm Report has highlighted that allegations of parental alienation are often accepted by the Family Court without robust scrutiny and evidence from survivors continues to show that counter-allegations of parental alienation are taken more seriously than those of domestic abuse. In many cases, claims of alienation can lead to the child being removed from the survivor parent, despite existing evidence of abuse. I have had a constituent who had her children removed in an alienation case when the theory was introduced after she alleged domestic abuse, the nonprofit Right to Equality conducted a large scale survey of mothers whose children were removed from their care in private law proceedings.
The survey reveals concerning patterns around child removal, including the role of parental alienation allegations, limited fact finding on abuse and the influence of expert recommendations. In total, the 217 mothers had 342 children removed from their care. This is quite clearly not in the best interests of these children, and is deeply traumatic for their mothers. I have heard countless seriously concerning stories about children put into high risk arrangements by the family Court. Julia Margo, co-founder of charity Fair Hearing, which I've been working closely with, had a traumatic experience with the family justice system.
After discovering that her former partner had been convicted for child sexual abuse, she endured years of legal battles in which he took her to court 37 times, demanding access to their children. Meanwhile, she felt dismissed and disbelieved by the system. She said that the courts seemed more concerned about the risk of parental alienation than about the safety of her sons being left alone with a paedophile. In another case, a child was taken away from her mother without warning at ten years old that day, a social worker came to the house and told her she had half an hour to pack her things.
She recalls. I stuffed my favorite outfit in a bag this blue shirt and leggings, along with a photo of me and mum. And then I got this bunny, my favourite soft toy, and I left it on her bed. It's what mum would do for me if she ever had to go away. The young girl later discovered that this simple goodbye had been used to criticise her mother, who had been her main carer since her parents separated two years earlier. She said.
The social worker said to my mum that no child should be worried about their parents feelings and it was a sign of abuse at 12. Years old, she wrote to the president of the Family division, England's most senior family judge, seeking the representation. She was previously denied a district judge had found abuse from her father and found her mother harboured a great deal of anger against her father, a consultant psychiatrist, doctor Mark Berlowitz, was then brought into the case and claimed that the reason she was opposed to seeing her father was because she'd been subjected to her mother's unresolved, angry feelings about the breakdown of her relationship.
The judge then ordered the child should move to live with her father, as her mother was not giving her emotional permission to enjoy a relationship with her father. It is clear that in this case, like so many others, parental alienation allegations represented the complete disregard of a child's wishes during the court process. In the child's words, I was removed from my mother's care within hours of a court order being made. I spent the ensuing five years faced with professional after professional who refused to believe me.
They said I was repeating my mother's words and that despite findings of domestic abuse, it was better to have a relationship with the parent who frightened me. Parental alienation is a harmful ideology that profoundly impacts children. However, there are signs that the winds of change may now be moving through the family courts. In February this year, the president of the family division handed down a landmark judgment dismissing findings of so-called alienation against a mother she had been prohibited from seeing her children for five years after alleging abuse in private family law proceedings.
Lawyers have since characterised the initial ruling as draconian and extraordinary. In December 2019, the children ordered that the court ordered that the children, then aged nine and 12, be removed and granted the father sole custody. The evidence was given by an unregulated psychologist, Melanie Gill, in overturning court findings informed by Gill's report. The president of the family division's ruling could open the door for other families assessed by Gill, who has acted as an expert witness in up to 200 cases guidance. Published by the Family Justice Council in December 2024, says experts should not be appointed to look for alienation.
Instead, judges should take a factual approach to identifying specific, alienating behaviours. It was this new behaviour, this new information, that enabled the mother to bring her case back to court. In a historic part of the judgment, the president of the Family Division has recognised that the significant barriers mothers face when seeking to appeal, and asked the Family Justice Council to consider an alternative procedural approach proposed by the legal team representing the mother and her son. I would urge the Family Justice counsel to consider this proposal as a matter of urgency, so that children and their parents, who have been wrongfully separated due to pseudoscientific claims, can finally have their cases reviewed.
However, there's still more work to be done. Hundreds of children and mothers have now been wrongfully separated by family courts in England and Wales. This is a matter of national shame. While the 2024 guidance and recent judgment from Sir Andrew McFarlane are clear and consistent, there is a risk that by themselves they cannot prevent the underlying error as a route to justice. Judgments such as this depend on the protective parent securing legal representation. Identifying the procedural defect and bringing apartheid in.
Set aside application years after the original order. As I've already mentioned, the president of the family division himself has acknowledged that mothers in this position face significant barriers to appeal. And that's why I've been working on an amendment to the Courts and Tribunals bill, and I'm grateful to Baroness Levitt KC, parliamentary Under-Secretary of state in the Ministry of Justice, for the time she has taken to discuss this with me. Through this amendment, I'm proposing to introduce a statutory presumption operating at the front end of proceedings before findings of fact are made and before residents is disturbed.
This would effectively prevent harm rather than relying on a remedial route that few will successfully be able to navigate, we need to ensure that the family justice system is reformed so that the voice of the child is always put at the centre of proceedings, and the allegations of alienation never take precedence over allegations of abuse. I welcome that, thanks to tireless campaigning by the indomitable Claire Throssell and my hon. Friend the member for penicillin, Stocksbridge, the Courts and Tribunals Bill will repeal the presumption of parental involvement in the Children's Act 1989.
This is a long overdue correction to the pro contact culture identified in the 2020 Harm Report, and will address what the court must presume about contact in general. I also welcome the government rolling out child focused courts nationally, which will put children at the centre of proceedings and resolve cases quicker. However, an important question remains left unaddressed when a child resists or refuses contact with a parent against whom abuse is alleged, what weight should the court give to that response as evidence?This gap is currently doing significant harm.
Too often in current practice, the answer has been to reframe that resistance as the product of so-called alienating behaviour by the protective parent. In doing so, the child's voice risks being reinterpreted not as a possible indicator of harm, but as evidence of manipulation. I am also aware of cases where a child discloses abuse by their father, particularly child sexual abuse, and then these disclosures is used as evidence of alienation against their mothers, meaning that when a child makes a disclosure, it can work against the mother who risks losing the child.
My simple amendment would effectively prevent counterclaims of alienation being used to undermine or distract from allegations of domestic abuse, and ensure that the child's evidence has the weight it deserves. So in conclusion, I'd just like to ask the minister, does she agree that for many of the hundreds and hundreds of children and mothers that have been forcibly separated the route to justice through appeal is hard to access?Could the minister also reflect in her response, whether she agrees that further reform is urgently needed to ensure that children's voices carry the evidential weight that they should in family court proceedings?And does she support further strengthening to the Courts and Tribunals Bill so that if a child has experienced or witnessed abuse, then the child not wanting to see the perpetrator is first assumed to be a reasonable reaction in the family courts to.
I will give way briefly.
So the advice provided by experts can have a significant influence on the judge's decision about child contact arrangements. The Ministry of Justice 2020 report Harm Report has highlighted that allegations of parental alienation are often accepted by the Family Court without robust scrutiny and evidence from survivors continues to show that counter-allegations of parental alienation are taken more seriously than those of domestic abuse. In many cases, claims of alienation can lead to the child being removed from the survivor parent, despite existing evidence of abuse. I have had a constituent who had her children removed in an alienation case when the theory was introduced after she alleged domestic abuse, the nonprofit Right to Equality conducted a large scale survey of mothers whose children were removed from their care in private law proceedings.
The survey reveals concerning patterns around child removal, including the role of parental alienation allegations, limited fact finding on abuse and the influence of expert recommendations. In total, the 217 mothers had 342 children removed from their care. This is quite clearly not in the best interests of these children, and is deeply traumatic for their mothers. I have heard countless seriously concerning stories about children put into high risk arrangements by the family Court. Julia Margo, co-founder of charity Fair Hearing, which I've been working closely with, had a traumatic experience with the family justice system.
After discovering that her former partner had been convicted for child sexual abuse, she endured years of legal battles in which he took her to court 37 times, demanding access to their children. Meanwhile, she felt dismissed and disbelieved by the system. She said that the courts seemed more concerned about the risk of parental alienation than about the safety of her sons being left alone with a paedophile. In another case, a child was taken away from her mother without warning at ten years old that day, a social worker came to the house and told her she had half an hour to pack her things.
She recalls. I stuffed my favorite outfit in a bag this blue shirt and leggings, along with a photo of me and mum. And then I got this bunny, my favourite soft toy, and I left it on her bed. It's what mum would do for me if she ever had to go away. The young girl later discovered that this simple goodbye had been used to criticise her mother, who had been her main carer since her parents separated two years earlier. She said.
The social worker said to my mum that no child should be worried about their parents feelings and it was a sign of abuse at 12. Years old, she wrote to the president of the Family division, England's most senior family judge, seeking the representation. She was previously denied a district judge had found abuse from her father and found her mother harboured a great deal of anger against her father, a consultant psychiatrist, doctor Mark Berlowitz, was then brought into the case and claimed that the reason she was opposed to seeing her father was because she'd been subjected to her mother's unresolved, angry feelings about the breakdown of her relationship.
The judge then ordered the child should move to live with her father, as her mother was not giving her emotional permission to enjoy a relationship with her father. It is clear that in this case, like so many others, parental alienation allegations represented the complete disregard of a child's wishes during the court process. In the child's words, I was removed from my mother's care within hours of a court order being made. I spent the ensuing five years faced with professional after professional who refused to believe me.
They said I was repeating my mother's words and that despite findings of domestic abuse, it was better to have a relationship with the parent who frightened me. Parental alienation is a harmful ideology that profoundly impacts children. However, there are signs that the winds of change may now be moving through the family courts. In February this year, the president of the family division handed down a landmark judgment dismissing findings of so-called alienation against a mother she had been prohibited from seeing her children for five years after alleging abuse in private family law proceedings.
Lawyers have since characterised the initial ruling as draconian and extraordinary. In December 2019, the children ordered that the court ordered that the children, then aged nine and 12, be removed and granted the father sole custody. The evidence was given by an unregulated psychologist, Melanie Gill, in overturning court findings informed by Gill's report. The president of the family division's ruling could open the door for other families assessed by Gill, who has acted as an expert witness in up to 200 cases guidance. Published by the Family Justice Council in December 2024, says experts should not be appointed to look for alienation.
Instead, judges should take a factual approach to identifying specific, alienating behaviours. It was this new behaviour, this new information, that enabled the mother to bring her case back to court. In a historic part of the judgment, the president of the Family Division has recognised that the significant barriers mothers face when seeking to appeal, and asked the Family Justice Council to consider an alternative procedural approach proposed by the legal team representing the mother and her son. I would urge the Family Justice counsel to consider this proposal as a matter of urgency, so that children and their parents, who have been wrongfully separated due to pseudoscientific claims, can finally have their cases reviewed.
However, there's still more work to be done. Hundreds of children and mothers have now been wrongfully separated by family courts in England and Wales. This is a matter of national shame. While the 2024 guidance and recent judgment from Sir Andrew McFarlane are clear and consistent, there is a risk that by themselves they cannot prevent the underlying error as a route to justice. Judgments such as this depend on the protective parent securing legal representation. Identifying the procedural defect and bringing apartheid in.
Set aside application years after the original order. As I've already mentioned, the president of the family division himself has acknowledged that mothers in this position face significant barriers to appeal. And that's why I've been working on an amendment to the Courts and Tribunals bill, and I'm grateful to Baroness Levitt KC, parliamentary Under-Secretary of state in the Ministry of Justice, for the time she has taken to discuss this with me. Through this amendment, I'm proposing to introduce a statutory presumption operating at the front end of proceedings before findings of fact are made and before residents is disturbed.
This would effectively prevent harm rather than relying on a remedial route that few will successfully be able to navigate, we need to ensure that the family justice system is reformed so that the voice of the child is always put at the centre of proceedings, and the allegations of alienation never take precedence over allegations of abuse. I welcome that, thanks to tireless campaigning by the indomitable Claire Throssell and my hon. Friend the member for penicillin, Stocksbridge, the Courts and Tribunals Bill will repeal the presumption of parental involvement in the Children's Act 1989.
This is a long overdue correction to the pro contact culture identified in the 2020 Harm Report, and will address what the court must presume about contact in general. I also welcome the government rolling out child focused courts nationally, which will put children at the centre of proceedings and resolve cases quicker. However, an important question remains left unaddressed when a child resists or refuses contact with a parent against whom abuse is alleged, what weight should the court give to that response as evidence?This gap is currently doing significant harm.
Too often in current practice, the answer has been to reframe that resistance as the product of so-called alienating behaviour by the protective parent. In doing so, the child's voice risks being reinterpreted not as a possible indicator of harm, but as evidence of manipulation. I am also aware of cases where a child discloses abuse by their father, particularly child sexual abuse, and then these disclosures is used as evidence of alienation against their mothers, meaning that when a child makes a disclosure, it can work against the mother who risks losing the child.
My simple amendment would effectively prevent counterclaims of alienation being used to undermine or distract from allegations of domestic abuse, and ensure that the child's evidence has the weight it deserves. So in conclusion, I'd just like to ask the minister, does she agree that for many of the hundreds and hundreds of children and mothers that have been forcibly separated the route to justice through appeal is hard to access?Could the minister also reflect in her response, whether she agrees that further reform is urgently needed to ensure that children's voices carry the evidential weight that they should in family court proceedings?And does she support further strengthening to the Courts and Tribunals Bill so that if a child has experienced or witnessed abuse, then the child not wanting to see the perpetrator is first assumed to be a reasonable reaction in the family courts to.
I will give way briefly.
11:41
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
I want to thank the honourable lady for giving way. I completely endorse her calls. I've talked about the fact that we need reform to family, the family courts. I'm also concerned about the. The. I also want the lady to the honourable lady to support me in my calls to ensure the government supports family contact centre as well. In my constituency of Woking, the Woking Family Contact Centre has been run for volunteers by. For 25 years, which is an amazing achievement.
We need to ensure that children are well supported after there has been traumatic incidents. Does she agree with me that the government needs to do much more to support family family contact centres?
We need to ensure that children are well supported after there has been traumatic incidents. Does she agree with me that the government needs to do much more to support family family contact centres?
11:41
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
I thank the honourable member for his intervention. In fact, it is something that I have raised with Baroness Levitt. Not only the lack of access to child contact centres, but the cost of accessing them, and it appears to be that many of them are unregulated. So I thank him very much for that intervention. So to conclude, Doctor Morrison, I know that everybody wants to see the family justice system evolve to better recognise children's lived experiences, support safer and more effective participation, and make decisions that promote long term recovery and healthy outcomes.
So I would ask the government to seize the opportunity presented by the Courts and Tribunal Bill to totally discredit the use of experts that subscribe to parental alienation and to enshrine the rights of the child in law, ensuring that those speaking their truth are properly heard.
So I would ask the government to seize the opportunity presented by the Courts and Tribunal Bill to totally discredit the use of experts that subscribe to parental alienation and to enshrine the rights of the child in law, ensuring that those speaking their truth are properly heard.
11:41
11:41
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Thank you, Doctor Morrison. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank my honourable friend the member for Scarborough and Whitby, and commend her for securing such an important debate. I want to start by reflecting on the stories that she shared, stories of children feeling unheard of, families in anguish. No one could listen to them and fail to be moved. And as a mum, I find them really difficult to hear. But you don't need to be a parent to understand the pain that they describe.
Anyone who cares about children, their safety, their well-being, their future. As all of us here today do, will recognise the profound responsibility carried when decisions are made about their lives and I pay. Tribute to my honourable friend for her determination and persistence in bringing these issues to light. I know from her previous speeches in the House, as well as the meetings that she has held with my colleague Baroness Levitt, just how deeply she cares about making sure that children's voices are not lost in family court proceedings.
And she is right. No one could disagree that children must be right at the heart of any decision the court makes about contact, or indeed any decision that has a profound impact on their lives and wherever, whenever we seek to reform the family justice system, it is these children who we work for. It is their welfare, their experiences, and their futures that matter. And they are who I have in mind when I speak today. Friend spoke powerfully about the work she is doing in the context of the Court and Tribunals Bill, and the need for children's voices to be heard and believed.
When they say they have experienced abuse. The question is, when a child tells us something is wrong, are we listening?The family courts are often dealing with the most complex, painful and emotionally charged circumstances imaginable. And throughout those proceedings, the child's welfare must be the guiding principle. And I would reassure her that that is precisely the approach enshrined in section one of the Children Act 1989, which makes clear that whenever the court is making a decision about the upbringing of a child, it is that child's welfare that will be the court's paramount consideration.
It is also why the welfare checklist sets out in section one three that requires the. Court to consider, among other things, the clear wishes and feelings of the child concerned. These requirements reflect a fundamental belief that children are not bystanders. They are individuals with experiences, views and voices that matter. And my hon. Friend also raised the issue of so-called parental alienation, and I also thank the honourable member for Bolton North East, who also raised this issue. And I want to reiterate the government's position.
Clearly, we do not recognise parental alienation syndrome, and we do not believe it can be diagnosed. Of course.
Anyone who cares about children, their safety, their well-being, their future. As all of us here today do, will recognise the profound responsibility carried when decisions are made about their lives and I pay. Tribute to my honourable friend for her determination and persistence in bringing these issues to light. I know from her previous speeches in the House, as well as the meetings that she has held with my colleague Baroness Levitt, just how deeply she cares about making sure that children's voices are not lost in family court proceedings.
And she is right. No one could disagree that children must be right at the heart of any decision the court makes about contact, or indeed any decision that has a profound impact on their lives and wherever, whenever we seek to reform the family justice system, it is these children who we work for. It is their welfare, their experiences, and their futures that matter. And they are who I have in mind when I speak today. Friend spoke powerfully about the work she is doing in the context of the Court and Tribunals Bill, and the need for children's voices to be heard and believed.
When they say they have experienced abuse. The question is, when a child tells us something is wrong, are we listening?The family courts are often dealing with the most complex, painful and emotionally charged circumstances imaginable. And throughout those proceedings, the child's welfare must be the guiding principle. And I would reassure her that that is precisely the approach enshrined in section one of the Children Act 1989, which makes clear that whenever the court is making a decision about the upbringing of a child, it is that child's welfare that will be the court's paramount consideration.
It is also why the welfare checklist sets out in section one three that requires the. Court to consider, among other things, the clear wishes and feelings of the child concerned. These requirements reflect a fundamental belief that children are not bystanders. They are individuals with experiences, views and voices that matter. And my hon. Friend also raised the issue of so-called parental alienation, and I also thank the honourable member for Bolton North East, who also raised this issue. And I want to reiterate the government's position.
Clearly, we do not recognise parental alienation syndrome, and we do not believe it can be diagnosed. Of course.
11:41
11:41
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
True that the government don't recognise parental alienation in the syndrome, but courts too often do. In fact, a report released just yesterday by the campaign group Right to Equality, which analysed language used in family Court judgement, found that 70% over 70% of those judgements used victim blaming language. So does my hon. Friend agree that we need to open up the judicial College to some scrutiny?If this is the kind of digits they are producing.
11:41
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I was discussing that report with Baroness Levitt yesterday. So it is one that I am conscious of and one that we will be looking at. The Family Justice Council has published guidance to assist courts in handling cases of this nature. Importantly, the guidance recognises that there can be entirely justified reasons why a child might fear or reject contact with a parent. Those reasons can include domestic abuse, a parent's limited involvement in the child's life, and poor parenting.
The guidance is explicit that where findings of domestic abuse are made and a child's rejection, that is a justified response to that abuse. This behaviour should not be characterized as alienating behaviour, and that's incredibly important because children who have experienced abuse have already shown extraordinary courage in speaking about what has happened to them. The justice system must be capable of hearing those voices fairly and with compassion, and taken together, the legislation and the Family Justice Council's guidance are clear. Children's voices must always be central.
In these cases. But I would also like to acknowledge the important point that the honourable member from Woking made and the fantastic work that contact centres do undertake, which is so important to the relationships of, of, of not just parents and their children, but wider family relationships as well. My hon. Friend also raised the experiences of families who believe that they have been wrongly separated from their children following allegations of so-called parental alienation, and their difficulties in accessing an appeal in accessing an appeal.
As I have said, she is absolutely right to highlight these cases and the families affected have my deepest sympathies. The human reality of this is a parent and a child torn apart, and a family living with uncertainty, grief and deep distress, seemingly with no straightforward means of resolution. And that is why I welcome the important work now being undertaken by the Family Justice Council at the invitation of the former president of the Family Division, to consider whether an alternative and more appropriate procedural approach is needed in cases where unregulated parental alienation experts have been instructed.
While it would be, it would not be appropriate for the government to pre-empt the outcome. I would just assure my hon. Friend that we recognise the importance of these concerns and are closely monitoring this work as it progresses. She also raised an important question what more can we do to ensure that children's voices carry weight in family courts?That is the most important question for our system to consider, and it is right that we continue to ask it. And I want to assure her that there are already really encouraging signs of progress.
In March, the president of the family division released a toolkit to support judges on how to write to children so they better understand the decisions that affect their lives. Cafcass and Kafka's Camry continue to strengthen the way that their staff engage with children, and the Family Justice Board is bringing the voices of children into the heart of the government's work here, including representatives of the Family Justice Young People's Board in its meetings. This means that those responsible for driving improvement in the system hear directly from children and young people themselves, but we know that there is more to do.
My hon. Friend has rightly noted the child focused model and the following. And following a highly successful pilot, we are rolling this out nationally over the next three years. This is a significant change in approach. Too often, family proceedings can become focused on the conflict between parents, between adults. The child focused model centres on the needs and views of children. Right at the start of every case, through the introduction of the Child Impact Report. This report represents an assessment of risks and issues through direct engagement with the parties, relevant agencies and, crucially, the children themselves.
The guidance is explicit that where findings of domestic abuse are made and a child's rejection, that is a justified response to that abuse. This behaviour should not be characterized as alienating behaviour, and that's incredibly important because children who have experienced abuse have already shown extraordinary courage in speaking about what has happened to them. The justice system must be capable of hearing those voices fairly and with compassion, and taken together, the legislation and the Family Justice Council's guidance are clear. Children's voices must always be central.
In these cases. But I would also like to acknowledge the important point that the honourable member from Woking made and the fantastic work that contact centres do undertake, which is so important to the relationships of, of, of not just parents and their children, but wider family relationships as well. My hon. Friend also raised the experiences of families who believe that they have been wrongly separated from their children following allegations of so-called parental alienation, and their difficulties in accessing an appeal in accessing an appeal.
As I have said, she is absolutely right to highlight these cases and the families affected have my deepest sympathies. The human reality of this is a parent and a child torn apart, and a family living with uncertainty, grief and deep distress, seemingly with no straightforward means of resolution. And that is why I welcome the important work now being undertaken by the Family Justice Council at the invitation of the former president of the Family Division, to consider whether an alternative and more appropriate procedural approach is needed in cases where unregulated parental alienation experts have been instructed.
While it would be, it would not be appropriate for the government to pre-empt the outcome. I would just assure my hon. Friend that we recognise the importance of these concerns and are closely monitoring this work as it progresses. She also raised an important question what more can we do to ensure that children's voices carry weight in family courts?That is the most important question for our system to consider, and it is right that we continue to ask it. And I want to assure her that there are already really encouraging signs of progress.
In March, the president of the family division released a toolkit to support judges on how to write to children so they better understand the decisions that affect their lives. Cafcass and Kafka's Camry continue to strengthen the way that their staff engage with children, and the Family Justice Board is bringing the voices of children into the heart of the government's work here, including representatives of the Family Justice Young People's Board in its meetings. This means that those responsible for driving improvement in the system hear directly from children and young people themselves, but we know that there is more to do.
My hon. Friend has rightly noted the child focused model and the following. And following a highly successful pilot, we are rolling this out nationally over the next three years. This is a significant change in approach. Too often, family proceedings can become focused on the conflict between parents, between adults. The child focused model centres on the needs and views of children. Right at the start of every case, through the introduction of the Child Impact Report. This report represents an assessment of risks and issues through direct engagement with the parties, relevant agencies and, crucially, the children themselves.