Local Government Reorganisation: Cambridgeshire

Debate between Ben Obese-Jecty and Daniel Zeichner

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of local government reorganisation on Cambridgeshire.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. Last week I wrote to the Secretary of State outlining my concerns regarding the delayed decision on the future of local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. Thus far we have heard little of her position regarding the criteria under which a decision will be made and how it may differ from that of her predecessor, who decided to delay the decision in the first place. I outlined how the pregnant pause preceding this interregnum is creating uncertainty and instability and affecting the retention of experienced council personnel, investment decisions for local businesses and questions about the viability of local plans crucial to the success of Huntingdonshire.

In Huntingdonshire, we fear a local government reorganisation stitch-up. In January, I asked the then Prime Minister whether he could

“offer assurances to my constituents and people across Huntingdonshire that the decision is not already a done deal, and that the democratic will of Huntingdonshire district council will not be overridden to satisfy an unelected Labour regional office”.—[Official Report, 14 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 928.]

He said:

“There are no done deals here; we are going through the proper process.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 928.]

In March, I asked the previous Minister for Local Government whether she could

“reassure me that Huntingdonshire will not be split in two”.—[Official Report, 26 March 2026; Vol. 783, c. 411.]

She did not offer any reassurance, so here we are in September with no decision having yet been made as we await the announcement of what we fear will be a stitched-up local government reorganisation in favour of a gerrymandered pork barrel option that even Labour councillors in Huntingdonshire despise.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Cambridge city council has long punched above its weight and has carried much of the rest of the county, but it is a second-tier authority. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a globally recognised city like Cambridge is long overdue unitary status?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

Given that Peterborough has unitary status, I agree that it makes sense for a city the size of Cambridge to have that unitary basis. However, I stress that I do not believe that should come at the expense of other regions across the county.

The Government splitting Huntingdonshire in two and using the wealthier half to try to prop up their two MPs in the north of the county is going to go down badly. The hon. Members for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) and for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) proposed option D after it was concocted by the Labour East regional office. Nobody in Huntingdonshire was asked or consulted about the proposal, but as soon as it was put forward by those two MPs, it was clear that it would be the one likely chosen by the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I agree. The numbers that I saw were terrifying. I think somewhere in the region of 80% to 90% of Cambridgeshire’s peat roads would be based in the Mid Cambridgeshire authority; the roads budget itself simply would not be able to cope with that. I did not know the point about the internal drainage board and the mid-level commissioners, but having seen some of that infrastructure I can well imagine that the bill for replacing that will be terrifying if it falls solely on Mid Cambridgeshire.

The business case also states that Mid Cambridgeshire’s

“proposed lower levels of funding may result in difficulty in being able to deliver services to residents within its budget envelope. A significant transformation programme will be required to ensure services are resized accordingly”.

We can read that to mean “reduced”. The business case later adds that

“Mid Cambridgeshire may face particular challenges in both capacity and funding for high-cost statutory services”,

and that Mid Cambridgeshire

“in particular, may require additional support to ensure it can participate fully and equitably in regional initiatives”.

That is very reflective of the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire about the land grab for high-growth areas that Greater Peterborough is attempting. Mid Cambridgeshire will be set up to fail.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Member may remember the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough independent economic review, which was commissioned during the time of Mayor James Palmer. That identified three discrete economies within the area. Is that significant to this debate?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I am not aware of that; I have not seen the detail of the report so it would be remiss of me to opine on it, but I have read the business cases in detail. While splitting the county into those three distinct regions may look like it makes sense, the travel regions for those areas are very distinct and do not necessarily reflect the make-up of the option D business case.

It is worth highlighting that in the option D proposal the travel-to-work patterns and commercial activity data clearly illustrate that the movement of people within Mid Cambridgeshire is limited to within each of the three component areas of Huntingdonshire, Fenland and East Cambridgeshire. There is little in the way of movement between them, which begs the question of why three distinct areas would then form a viable unitary authority. The evidence clearly shows that Huntingdonshire would benefit from being its own unitary authority, rather than its being split in two, given that there is little in the way of movement from the northern part of Huntingdonshire into Peterborough, and vice versa.

When we look at option D further, we see that it does Mid Cambridgeshire no favours when it comes to gross value added per capita. The two councils with the highest GVA per capita are Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire, which are to be combined to form Greater Cambridge. The next two highest are Peterborough and Huntingdonshire, with the wealthier half of the latter to be merged into Greater Peterborough. That leaves the two councils with the lowest GVA per capita to be combined, along with half of the next lowest, resulting in a Mid Cambridgeshire authority with a GVA per capita that is roughly 50% of neighbouring Greater Cambridge. The lack of potential for growth in Mid Cambridgeshire is baked in by design. If that option is selected by the Government, I would like to understand how Mid Cambridgeshire is supposed to wash its own face.

“Splitting Huntingdonshire could weaken this cohesion and reduce its prominence relative to neighbouring authorities.”

That is a direct quote from the option D business case, which identifies the threat to Huntingdonshire alongside the lack of viability of either Greater Peterborough or Mid Cambridgeshire. We are now in the crucial final phase prior to the final decision on the outcome of LGR in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and what that decision will mean for the historic county of Huntingdonshire. Will it continue or will it be consigned to history? Mr Speaker marked Huntingdonshire Day this year, posing with the Huntingdonshire flag. That may never happen again.

I have outlined the concerns about the proposed changes, the manner in which those changes have been discussed in secret between Labour party politicians and members, and the concerns regarding their feasibility. I have outlined why option D—the option we believe the Government are most likely to select based on conversations among officials within Cambridgeshire—or a variant thereof would not work and would leave Huntingdonshire in a far more perilous state than it is anywhere near today. I have outlined how the business case for option D itself repeatedly raises concerns about the viability of a Mid Cambridgeshire unitary authority—something that those within Huntingdonshire widely believe will fail within a few years.

From a scheduling perspective, every day that goes by without a formal decision being taken on the future of local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough further jeopardises the likelihood of implementing it successfully. It is vital that a swift and uncontroversial decision is made in order to give officers the best opportunity to facilitate the transition if we are to realistically meet the May 2027 election timetable currently in place.

It is evident that I could have spoken about this issue for a good while longer. That is before discussing the effect it will have on both the local plan, which will now likely be voted on before a decision has been taken, and on Project Fairfax, the defence technology cluster at RAF Wyton for which a memorandum of understanding is already in place with the Ministry of Defence. That project is crucial for fuelling growth in Huntingdonshire and facilitating the growth in every postcode that the new Prime Minister has pitched. Can the Minister confirm what discussions his Department has held with the MOD regarding the impact of LGR on the feasibility of delivering Project Fairfax?

Option E—a Huntingdonshire unitary authority—would allow Project Fairfax to flourish. It is the option that Huntingdonshire voted for. Centred around the existing boundaries and an established regional identity, it would create the institutional stability required for long-term investment and growth, and would ensure consistency in leadership, existing teams, partnerships, development pipelines and investor relationships.

This is the third time I have made the case for Huntingdonshire to the Minister, so he knows the arguments well by now. He knows that there is no strong argument for pursuing option D at this late stage. I hope that the Secretary of State heeds the details in this speech. Option D simply will not work, and nobody wants it. It would weaken the direct relationship between a defined region and local government, divide the community and destroy an identity. If nothing else, pursuing it would make his party unelectable in Huntingdonshire for a generation.

“The public deserves better—better policies that support better outcomes and are better connected to the places people live. Putting place over political party demands collaboration and long-term decision-making within a stable governance structure”.

Those are not my words; they are from the Cabinet statement on rewiring the state on 31 July. The Prime Minister should stay true to his word and apply his aspiration to Huntingdonshire.

Rural Affairs

Debate between Ben Obese-Jecty and Daniel Zeichner

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to wind up this debate and to add my gratitude to, and support for, farmers working hard up and down the country to feed the nation and protect our environment.

I welcome the shadow Ministers to their places on the Opposition Front Bench. I spent nearly five years sitting there, and I have to say it is better on this side. During that time, how rarely we ever got to discuss rural policy in the Chamber. It is interesting that it has taken a Labour Government to give Government time to allow Members to speak up for rural areas. What brilliant contributions we have had from Labour Members about the things that matter to rural areas. I shall mention some of the excellent speeches.

I was thrilled to hear the three maiden speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) spoke about a range of issues—[Interruption.] Of course farming is important, but Conservatives should remember that many other things are going on in rural areas. We heard about those from my hon. Friend, but we also heard about ghastly homophobic bullying, and I pay tribute to him for his brave comments. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) about the extraordinary pedigree in his constituency, as well the wide range of issues, including film and television production, that help to create rural prosperity.

Closer to my part of the world, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) described the beautiful countryside, but also talked of the challenges in housing and the food banks that scar our country. How much we should all work to ensure that food poverty is not faced in the future.

I cannot talk about all the speeches today, but I was pleased to hear the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) raising some other issues beyond the one that I will come to in a moment. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) about flooding—a feature of many speeches. We heard a powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) about the positive things that the Labour Government are doing to address the real issues that we face.

We also heard from the Chair of the Select Committee, who is not in his place—[Interruption.] I am sorry—I missed him. I think he has moved. I always listen closely to his speeches and he made an important point when he said it is not about the figures. That is true, because the figures have been misrepresented, but he was right to say that there is a real fear out there—precisely because of the misrepresentations, not because of the figures.

We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), who showed the difference between this side of the House and the other side. The future will be different for rural areas, food production and farming—[Interruption.] In a good way, because we are the future, they are the past. Then we went to my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), and we heard about how important it is to work collaboratively with people. We also heard about the important transition from the basic payments system towards the new way of working with and rewarding farmers effectively.

From my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) we heard about crime. It was interesting that it took a Labour Member, so deep into the debate, to talk about an issue that anyone who had actually been out on farms would have heard about—the constant thefts of GPS units. I sometimes wonder what world Conservative Members are living in—do they just read The Daily Telegraph all the time? Is that where they get their information?

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) spoke about wonderful national parks and better access to the countryside, which is important for so many people; the Government will deliver on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) spoke about how prosperity comes to rural areas. Sometimes it comes from filming and TV. There are many ways in which prosperity is earned in the countryside; this is the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) spoke about rural crime and PC Susan Holliday; I very much commend her for her work. My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) spoke about not just flooding but biosecurity, which is so important, and mental health, which we will come to in the Adjournment debate. I associate myself with the comments of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), about the important work that so many charities are doing.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) spoke about rural homelessness, which is an important topic. I was struck by how negative Opposition Members are about the prospect of building more homes. That is what matters to all our constituents. They need somewhere to live, not just somewhere to rent out to people at extortionate rates. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) reminded the House about the extraordinary low levels of farmer confidence when the last Government were in power. The Conservatives bear some responsibility for that lack of confidence.

I was delighted to visit Hexham last week for the excellent conference. I say to the shadow Minister, it is striking how many people come up to me after each of these events and say, “You’re right. You’re right. You’re right.” Of course, against the huge peer pressure they are reluctant to say it, but they know that we are right. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) is the first Labour MP for that area. The Conservatives might want to think about why that is. I think it is because they are looking to the past, not the future. We finished by hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger). How long it took in the debate to get to parish councils—the people closest to the ground.

Let me turn to the issue that the Opposition are consistently raising. I hear and understand what people are saying, but I waited in vain through the entire debate for an Opposition Member to address the real figures—the actual claims that have been made under APR. They are not a projection or a guess, but the figures published by the people in the Treasury who actually collect the tax. Those figures are of course the figures that we have been quoting: between 400 and 500 claims per year. With the changes in behaviour that are likely as a consequence of the policy—possibly, and quite likely, very good consequences—the numbers will be very small. That is not just what we have said; Paul Johnson from the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said it.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

Will the Minister give way?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I will not, because I am afraid we are very close to the end. Opposition Members had four hours to get to the figures, but of course they would not want to engage with them because they tell a different story. We are confident that the policy can be made to work, but I am in discussion with the NFU and others on the figures so that they can understand how we arrived at the policy. We will continue to ensure that we engage properly with everybody. My hon. Friends have discovered that when they go and talk to people and explain it clearly, people are reassured. People should be reassuring rather than frightening.

Members raised issues around the devolved budgets. This year’s settlement has been carried forward in the same way as before, but what has changed is that it is no longer ringfenced for the devolved Administrations, so they can make the decisions. I would hope that the devolved Administrations would welcome that.

Let me finish on the positive news about the future that we are setting out for our food production system. I give credit to the previous Government for the agricultural transition that they began. The difference now is that we will turbocharge it and ensure that we transition in such a way that in the future we not only have strong food production in this country, but protect the environment and nature, with the stability of the biggest budget ever—over half a billion pounds for SFI this year. That would not have happened under the previous Government. I am confident that we will have a strong future for British farming in this country, provided that people do not spend the whole time talking it down.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered rural affairs.

Budget: Implications for Farming Communities

Debate between Ben Obese-Jecty and Daniel Zeichner

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Lady will know that farming policy is different in Scotland, but on the tax issues, which are UK-wide, that is absolutely right, but I would suggest that she gets her farmers to look in detail at these proposals, and what they will find is the vast majority—[Interruption.] When they look at them in detail, they will find that the vast majority will be absolutely fine.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

As a fellow Cambridgeshire MP, and having already announced a forthcoming ban on neonicotinoids for our sugar beet farmers, what message will the Minister give to the Cambridgeshire farmers so gravely impacted by the Government’s family farms tax that will lead to farmland being sold, and potentially see more of our best and most versatile land being used for vast solar farms? How does the slashing of agricultural property relief help farmers in Cambridgeshire?

[Daniel Zeichner]

It is very good to see my near neighbour. What I will say to Cambridgeshire farmers is that the thing they need most of all is a stable economy, and they also need a sound environment in which they can farm. The measures that we are putting in place will ensure their prosperity for the future.