Local Government Reorganisation: Cambridgeshire

Debate between Ben Obese-Jecty and Sam Carling

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

I am troubled by the unpleasant allegations the hon. Gentleman is making. It would have been pleasant if he had come to talk to me about his concerns at any point over the last few months rather than he and a member of his staff attacking me on social media about this. It is not great.

The hon. Gentleman is raising process concerns. I am sure we all want to see a proper process. Why was it that he went on to social media and made quite a large number of claims about Labour MPs being pre-briefed of an apparent announcement that never happened—claims that therefore cannot possibly have been true, and were not?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I would bounce that back at the hon. Member and ask him why he never came to me or any of the other Huntingdonshire MPs to ask about proposing an option that would split Huntingdonshire in two. The hon. Member told the BBC last summer:

“A Mid Cambridgeshire council would allow rural areas across East Cambridgeshire, Fenland and parts of Huntingdonshire to form an authority that can deliver effectively on residents’ priorities, while a Greater Peterborough council encompassing the most high-growth areas of northern and western Cambridgeshire could better regulate and plan that growth.”

Nonsense. I am fascinated to know how an almost entirely rural Mid Cambridgeshire county council is supposed to thrive when it has no basis for economic growth. The Greater Peterborough council would encompass

“the most high-growth areas of northern and western Cambridgeshire”.

I wonder which authority the hon. Member’s constituency is within.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I concur with the hon. Gentleman. There is absolutely an opportunity here to learn from previous mistakes and make sure that they are not repeated when we drive this forward in the new year.

In early July, news began to leak out from the Local Government Association’s annual conference that Peterborough city council suddenly seemed to be aware that option D was going to get the nod. Word spread quickly among Cambridgeshire senior executives that option D was going to be selected. Who was leaking that information, and why was I left to announce it on ITV News Anglia so that people could see for themselves that the process under this Government was on the cusp of selecting the Labour-proposed option, as has happened in local authority areas across the country? Strangely enough, the response received on Friday to a freedom of information request to Peterborough city council was not able to be answered. I eagerly await the response to my own subject access request in a few days’ time.

It is simply a disgrace that the Government would treat Cambridgeshire residents with this level of contempt by leaking the outcome of a decision that appears to have been almost certainly predetermined to a privileged few, allowing those who have been given the information to achieve a head start and for favoured businesses to gain a competitive advantage, and affecting decisions on employment and education opportunities and future investment decisions.

[Sam Carling]

Might the hon. Gentleman give way again?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

No, I will carry on.

The announcement by the former Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on 16 July therefore makes little sense. He said:

“On Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and West Sussex, I am not making announcements today, because further time is required to get the decisions right.”—[Official Report, 16 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 1097.]

Could the Minister outline precisely what was meant when the former Secretary of State stated that further time was required to get the decisions right? Can he state definitively how much time is required, and can he articulate what specifically is in danger of being got wrong?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I will make a little progress.

Further to this, in his letter of 16 July, somewhat contradictorily, the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), stated:

“I have decided that more time is needed to consider which option, if any, to implement at this time in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.”

We now have a new—old—Secretary of State. Can the Minister clarify whether the Secretary of State also requires more time in order to make a decision? Whether she does or does not, can the Minister clarify when the Secretary of State plans to have made her decision by? Her Department has held no further discussions with Huntingdonshire district council, so what precisely is in need of further discussion that warrants a delay of two months? Can the Minister outline why there has been a delay? Can he also clarify when Labour MPs were informed of the delay to a decision in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough in the first place?

I ask the Minister to clarify, on the record, whether his departmental colleague, Baroness Taylor, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, participated in a meeting with Labour MPs and councillors on Wednesday 15 July 2026, during which local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough was discussed. I ask him to choose his “yes/no” answer to that question very carefully, lest he might later be accused of misleading the House.

My position remains extant: I back a Huntingdonshire unitary authority, which is known locally as option E. It is the option that was overwhelmingly backed by councillors from all parties across Huntingdonshire district council. Disappointingly, the only people not to have backed this option are Huntingdonshire’s two other Members of Parliament. I maintain that a united front in this respect would have sent a stronger message to the Government.

I have led two debates in Parliament about local government reorganisation, both of which highlighted the potential issues that arise from getting the decision wrong. The more recent of those debates was last November and during it I provided an in-depth assessment of why option D specifically was unworkable. It is almost as if I expected the Government to stitch up the decision. I will reiterate the points that I made then for the benefit of the Minister who is here today.

Option D rips Huntingdonshire in half, creating east and west Huntingdonshire. There is a significant risk in attempting to disaggregate Huntingdonshire district council. There is a lack of precedent and an absence of lessons being learned, not to mention the destruction of local identity in Huntingdonshire, which is already stronger than local identities elsewhere in Cambridgeshire, particularly in separating Huntingdon from Godmanchester and St Ives. Disaggregating Huntingdonshire district council would also come with greater transition costs and affect service delivery.

Peterborough is a basket case. It is estimated that 11% of Peterborough’s budget is needed simply to service its own debts, with 80% needed to fulfil its statutory adult and children’s social care obligations. How on earth does it plan to run all the other existing county and district functions on a 9% budget?

Peterborough council’s debt gearing is 91%, against a national benchmark of just 50%. Under the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s local authority financial resilience index analysis, Peterborough is rated as high-risk for its overall level of reserves, its unallocated reserves, its earmarked reserves, its interest payable or net revenue expenditure, its gross external debt, its fees and charges to service expenditure ratio, its council tax requirement or net revenue expenditure, and its growth above baseline. Huntingdonshire is not deemed to be high-risk in a single one of those categories.

[Sam Carling]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

No, I am going to carry on.

The option D business case itself states:

“As Peterborough has historically required exceptional financial support and comes from the most financially challenged position, increasing the scale does not necessarily provide the desired resilience. Reserves still remain low. The cost of servicing debt continues to eat into a significant proportion of the net budget and the funding headroom is tight. This could be mitigated by resizing services in line with available funding.”

Option D provides a significantly lower level of reserves, leaving it more vulnerable to shocks. The reserves of Greater Peterborough are comfortably the lowest in Cambridgeshire at just 16%, which is again deemed high-risk. By comparison, Huntingdonshire would be 42%.

On employment, we need look no further than the percentage of universal credit claimants in the local authority; in Huntingdonshire, it is 2.8%, while in Peterborough it is 8%, which is far and away the highest rate locally; Peterborough has the highest unemployment rate in Cambridgeshire. Greater Peterborough is also projected to have the highest prevalence of education, health and care plans, and the greatest risk of special educational needs and disabilities escalation. At present, Huntingdonshire has the second lowest rate of EHCP prevalence in Cambridgeshire.

This analysis strongly suggests that the system would all but immediately collapse. Greater Peterborough will have the highest spend per resident for adult social care and for children’s social care, more than double that of the other two unitaries, as well as the highest SEND spend per resident and the highest percentage of homeless households, at nearly double that of Greater Cambridge.

It is akin to the Berlin Wall being put up overnight, condemning one half of Huntingdonshire to eking out an existence in the bleak Peterborough Democratic Republic while the eastern half enjoys the trappings of a slightly better existence in the Federal Republic of Mid Cambridgeshire. But will we? Is Mid Cambridgeshire any more viable than Greater Peterborough? No, it is not. A unitary authority for Mid Cambridgeshire would be centred upon St Neots as the biggest town, compared with Cambridge or Peterborough in the neighbouring unitaries.

The option D business case barely even attempts to sell the viability of Mid Cambridgeshire, stating:

“It encourages reflection on ensuring the resilience of all unitaries, especially Mid Cambridgeshire”.

It goes on to outline that

“targeted action can be taken to sustain its market, towns and rural communities”

and that this model safeguards the rapid growth trajectories of the two city regions. It makes no effort to address the challenges that this would leave Mid Cambridgeshire to face.

Rural Affairs

Debate between Ben Obese-Jecty and Sam Carling

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

Some 81% of the land in the area that I represent is agricultural, meaning that North West Cambridgeshire, like much of the east of England, contributes a great deal to our country’s food security. As the Government have repeatedly and rightly said, food security is national security, and I am proud that my constituents play a huge role in that.

Farmers suffered under the last Government. Just before the general election, farmer confidence was at its lowest level since records began, but this Government are taking positive steps to reverse that trend. The farming budget for 2025-26 will be £2.4 billion, which is the biggest budget ever directed at sustainable food production, and will be vital for farmers across the country and in my constituency.

For those affected by flooding last year, I welcome the immediate £60 million made available from the farming recovery fund, which is a big increase compared with the figure under the last Government. I was also glad to hear the Secretary of State clarify earlier that the “vast majority” of farmers will not be affected by the change to agricultural property relief, and his assurances that the Government will protect family farms by preventing people coming from outside and buying farmland over the heads of local people to evade taxes.

One of the most pressing and significant issues that farmers have raised with me is the income of food producers. The dynamic between buyers and producers needs reform, with many producers reporting that they take under 1% of profit after retailers and intermediaries have taken their cut. With more than 95% of our food sold through just 10 retailers, many feel that some supermarkets are not giving them a fair deal. I strongly encourage the Government to look at that issue.

I also welcome the Secretary of State’s earlier comments about ensuring that trade deals do not undermine our farmers. For too long, we have allowed imports of food, both plant and animal products, that has been produced to lower standards than we expect of our farmers. That undermines them and tilts the playing field towards imported food because it prevents them competing on price. We must take action on that.

I now turn to rural crime. Many of our country’s rural towns have significant problems with crime, with a lower police presence following cuts under the last Conservative Government and an under-resourced justice system that has not been able to cope. My constituency has several rural towns and villages, including Ramsey, which has faced a string of robberies and knife-related incidents in recent years. Although the offenders in many of those incidents have been arrested and charged—I thank Cambridgeshire police for that—we must resource our police to restore their ability to work on prevention, not just to respond to crises.

The Government stood on a clear pledge to combat crime in our towns by bringing back neighbourhood and community policing with thousands of additional officers. Rural towns such as Ramsey must get their fair share of that, and I know that the Government are hearing that message.

Transport is also a significant issue, with limited public transport options in Ramsey and other towns. People living in rural areas often have fewer options for services, including education, employment and health services, and those who rely on public transport, which can be limited and inconvenient, are at a double disadvantage. Timetabling decisions based on commercial factors mean that children who live in rural areas in my constituency struggle to get to school, particularly in the village of Wittering.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

Buses in Cambridgeshire are controlled by the combined authority and its Labour Mayor. Will the hon. Member, whose constituency neighbours mine, put pressure on Mayor Johnson to ensure that all our rural communities are included in the bus franchising and that we get the services that are desperately needed? As the hon. Member has pointed out, the Mayor is failing in that respect so far.

[Sam Carling]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He claims that bus services are under the control of the combined authority, but the problem is that we do not have franchising yet. We are working on that and, in case any of my constituents are listening, the consultation is still open but will close on 20 November, so please fill it in—I just wanted to get that plug in.

In the lead-up to franchising, which will hopefully come through, the combined authority is already working to subsidise essential services and working with commercial companies to tackle the issues. I am confident in the work that we are doing. I am proud that the Government’s better buses Bill will deliver the opportunity for franchising to more local authorities. I urge the Government to keep making progress on making franchising easier, alongside their progress on nationalising our rail infrastructure, which we heard more about earlier.

Broadband connectivity must be another priority. Internet and mobile phone coverage has improved, but the service for people living in rural areas still has a long way to go. As of January, 47% of rural premises had access to gigabit-capable broadband, compared with 84% of premises in urban areas. That has serious implications for productivity, making it harder for people to work from home who would otherwise do so, for example. More widely, it has an impact on the ability to stay in contact with friends and loved ones who may be further afield.

I thank all hon. Members across the House for raising so many points today. I look forward to the Minister’s response.