Local Government Reform: Cambridgeshire

Debate between Jim McMahon and Steve Barclay

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) on securing this debate on local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire. His speech was very thoughtful. He covered quite a lot of ground, including ICB boundaries, devolution and the fair funding review, so it might not be possible to get through all of it. However, I am sure that we will communicate further—maybe in writing—as a follow-up on matters that we cannot cover here today.

This debate is an opportunity to look ahead to what the future holds for the hon. Member’s constituency, and indeed for local government across England. The Government are committed to resetting the relationship with local government, empowering local leaders to make the right decisions for their communities. We will work together to grow an inclusive economy, to reform public services and to secure better outcomes for local people.

As the Deputy Prime Minister said in her speech at the Local Government Association conference last week, true reform of local government means taking a long, serious look at the plumbing of local government, and we will not shy away from shifting local government on to a stronger footing. It is clear that the two-tier system of local government just does not work. We have heard from many councils that unitarisation or council mergers can help to strengthen local leadership, improve local services, save taxpayers money and improve local accountability.

Our plans for reorganisation will create structures that are simpler, more efficient and clearer to the public that local government is there to serve. This means that residents can access good public services without paying, as they do today, the two-tier premium. We must take the brilliant leadership being shown by district and county councillors across the country, and move it into local government structures that are simpler and more sustainable.

Local government reorganisation is already well under way. In March, we received interim plans for the 21 counties in the two-tier system that will undergo reorganisation. We have provided feedback to all areas as they develop their own proposals. Councils in Cambridgeshire and neighbouring Peterborough have a deadline of 28 November for final proposals to be submitted to Government. After that date, the Government will consult on selected proposals, before making a final decision on which proposals to implement. The fastest possible timetable has elections to new authorities in May 2027 and the new authorities will then go live in April 2028.

I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to comment now on the specific boundaries that he mentioned or the proposals that have been developed at a local level, because that would run the risk of pre-empting decisions that are being made later in the statutory process. However, I can give clarity on some of the specific points that he raised.

First, the consultation that is taking place at local level by the councils as they develop their proposals ahead of submission to Government is important. Many councils are conducting such consultations. To be clear, such consultation does not replace the statutory consultation that the Government will conduct with the public in those areas that are affected, to ensure that we can gauge the public view on the range of proposals that are viable and meet the criteria.

On the question of whether elections will take place, which I know is an issue affecting many district councils, there is no intention, as things stand, to cancel or postpone any of the 26 programmed elections.

I suppose there is a challenge, and perhaps even a tension, about the degree to which Government here in Westminster should dictate to local areas across 21 counties—covering a third of the population of England—what is right for their area. However, we have said that we will reset the relationship, and that we trust local people to know their areas better. So, we want local councils and councillors to lead local government reorganisation in their area.

Of course we have a statutory role, and we will make sure that the criteria are adhered to and the consultation takes place. Surely, however, the hon. Member will agree that it is for local people, who know their area better than people outside it, to determine what type of councils, in terms of their size and coverage, are right for their area. That should not be determined centrally.

[Steve Barclay]

If it is the Minister’s argument, as he has just set out, that it is not for Government to dictate the territory that would be covered, why do two different Government Departments appear to be dictating two different things? On ICBs, there is one geography, and then from his Department there are three options that cover a different alignment.

I will just take the example of transport. In Cambridge, there is the Greater Cambridge Partnership, which covers transport. Also in Cambridge, there is the metro Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, who covers transport, too. Cambridge city council and South Cambridgeshire district council also cover transport. The Oxford to Cambridge authority is looking at the rail link between the two. There are so many different bodies dealing with transport into Cambridge. We should avoid that situation for health, and make sure that health organisation aligns with local authorities.

[Jim McMahon]

I think we can agree on that, which is why the White Paper published in December said that we need to reconcile things now and have a much simpler system of regional government in this country. The truth is that because it has been so fluid—some might say ad hoc—it has been allowed to develop in different ways in different parts of the country where there are overlapping boundaries when it comes to transport, the economy, the health service and local government. It does not make sense and makes it difficult for local people to know who to hold to account politically for decisions made on their behalf.

The White Paper is clear that we want to see boundaries aligned with ICBs and other public services. There is a role for local government in reorganisation. New unitary authorities will be created where workforce transfers take place, but there is no reason why authorities cannot work in partnership. There is no reorganisation taking place in Greater Manchester, for example, but the local authorities in Greater Manchester are today working on building a better model for children’s residential care because they recognise that across the 10 councils they can provide a better service at a better cost with better outcomes. So we encourage partnerships to align across boundaries, and over time that will develop.

We recognise that a lot of boundaries across England have never quite made sense; they have always overlapped and been a bit disjointed, but we are starting from the founding principle that alignment makes sense. We should be careful, though, not to conflate. I find that quite a lot of conversations in Parliament conflate or amalgamate the conversations about mayoral devolution and local reorganisation. They have a relationship, of course, but they are quite separate processes.

On reorganisation, it is important that local people and local councillors are given the freedom and flexibility to do what is right for their area and put their best foot forward to make a submission to the Government. We will then consult on the proposals that meet the criteria in good faith. We will listen to what local people say, and that will be taken into account. There are a range of factors that we need to consider, which I will come on to shortly, but I think it is the right approach. This is not the Government letting go. We have defined the criteria in this round of local government reorganisation in far more detail than any other round of reorganisation in the last 20 years, because we know how significant it is to that reorganisation’s covering 21 counties. But within those criteria and that process we have to allow for local areas to determine what is right for their area in partnership with local people. That brings me to another point.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon mentioned how disconnected Members of Parliament feel from the process. In every consultation and communication that we have had in webinars, written confirmations and statements to Parliament, we have been absolutely clear—this is a minimum expectation—that when local authorities, particularly lead authorities, are developing proposals, going out to consultation, firming up their evidence base, and testing founding principles themselves, it is a minimum expectation that Members of Parliament will be part of that conversation. It is not acceptable, regardless of political affiliation at a local or national level, for MPs who have been democratically elected, and of course have an interest, not to be part of those conversations. I am happy to put that on the record, and to follow up with local authorities that Members of Parliament should be included. That does not mean that Members of Parliament will have the ability to prevent a submission. A local authority has to follow the statutory process. There could be points where there is disagreement, but at the very start they should at least be in good faith and discussions should take place. We extend that, by the way, to police and crime commissioners and other interested parties at a local level, too.

On the criteria that the hon. Member for Huntingdon mentioned, in the invitation that went out to local authorities on 5 February we set out the statutory guidance to support councils informing their submissions. The first was on population size. We said that as a founding principle 500,000 was where we wanted councils to start from, but it is clear that some have gone lower than that. If it is right for their area, they can make the best case in that context. Some have gone higher, and we want to allow that flexibility in the system.

On the point that the hon. Member mentioned about population size and population forecasts, it is for the local area to determine what their own housing growth forecasts are. If they want to take that into account as part of their submission, we would be open to that. I say that only because different areas are at different points in the process. Some have local plans, for instance, and some do not have local plans, but efficiency and financial sustainability, local public service delivery, community engagement and devolution should be supported, too. We are taking a partnership approach.

Of course we shall give guidance, and we have set that out clearly. We have been clear about what the Government’s role is and what the local authority’s role is. We believe that is the right thing to do. Ultimately it leads us to sustainable public services that are there to serve the public, who we are all here to serve.

Question put and agreed to.

Local Government: Nolan Principles

Debate between Jim McMahon and Steve Barclay

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and to attend this debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for securing it.

A key commitment of this Government was to strengthen the standards regime and integrity in public life. Specifically, that means a very active commitment to working together to create a fit, legal and decent local government sector that is equipped to rise to the challenge and opportunity of increased devolution of power and resources from Whitehall. Our proposals to achieve that were set out in the “English Devolution” White Paper, published in December last year, which included measures to fix our broken audit system; improve oversight and accountability; give councils genuine freedoms to work for and deliver in the best interests of their communities; and, with particular reference to the theme of this debate, improve the standards and conduct regime.

We are wasting no time in getting on with the task. The day after the “English Devolution” White Paper was published, we launched a 10-week consultation on strengthening the standards and conduct framework for local authorities in England. The consultation, which closed on 26 February, sought views on reforms to the standards and conduct regime so that the public can have trust and confidence that all councils in England can be effective and well governed.

Although he did not go as far as I might, I think the hon. Member for South Leicestershire was hinting that the previous Government, in the early part of that Government—with the removal of the standards regime and the audit regime, and measures such as the removal of councillors’ pensions in England—engaged in what many of us now reflect were, in large part, acts of municipal vandalism. They took away the architecture that allowed local government to thrive. The challenge is big, but we understand that we need to take significant steps to improve the situation.

All of us here today know the seven principles of public life—honesty, integrity, objectivity, accountability, selflessness, openness and leadership—which have underpinned the ethical standards of all public office holders for the last 30 years. They are, and have been, the foundation of the code of conduct for Members of the House, the ministerial code and all who serve in local government and the wider public sector.

Doug Chalmers, the current chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, gave a speech at the Institute for Government in November last year on the 30th anniversary of the establishment of that committee. In that speech, he reflected on the three golden threads that Lord Nolan had set out that need to be delivered alongside the Nolan principles—first, the code of conduct; secondly, independent scrutiny; and thirdly, education.

As Lord Nolan acknowledged, the Nolan principles were not a code of conduct, but the values that would underpin a code. An effective code needs to clearly detail the behaviours that those in public office must observe to repay the public’s trust and confidence, as the hon. Member for South Leicestershire referred to. The principles are a foundation, but the behavioural code is not quite there. There are examples in the councils that the hon. Member mentioned, and actually in some councils right across the country, of bad behaviour being far too common. That cannot stand.

While the standards proposals that the Government have been consulting on are for whole system reform, at their foundation is the proposal for a mandatory code of conduct. We believe that a mandatory code is vital to achieving consistency across all the various types and tiers of local government. The current regime simply requires all local authorities to adopt a code that is consistent with the Nolan principles. Some take the de minimis approach of simply listing the seven principles. Others have very detailed local codes. That lack of consistency is not helpful to the system overall. It is confusing and means that we cannot have confidence that all are judged to the same standard equally across the system.

That does not happen in the devolved nations. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have mandatory codes of conduct in place, based on the Nolan principles but setting out detailed interpretation of the expected behaviours.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Where there are bad behaviours, that often results in significant legal costs to the local authority and settlement payments. The Government are giving more powers to combined authorities. Does the Minister agree that where a combined authority incurs significant legal costs and settlement payments relating to staff who have left, whether employed or interim, that information should be shared in a timely fashion with board members? If so, will he write to me to confirm that that is the Government’s position?

[Jim McMahon]

We have set out a very clear expectation about transparency and all authorities, whether they are local authorities or combined authorities, always acting in the public interest and being up front about information that they hold. That expectation is clear. I can respond in writing in more detail.

[Steve Barclay]

Can I press the Minister on that point? Does that transparency include sharing those settlement payments and legal costs with the authority’s board members? It strikes me as remarkable if those costs are not even shared with board members. He has very helpfully clarified that he expects transparency. I would like that transparency to be with the public—perhaps he can say something on public disclosure—but can he at least confirm that the information should be shared with board members?

[Jim McMahon]

I will follow up after the debate on the example that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to. I commit to finding out a bit more information through the Department and will respond in writing. As a matter of principle, it is not unreasonable to expect that board members, as opposed to the wider public, are informed about matters of financial relevance to the operation of the board. That seems fairly self-evident to me. If he provides more information on the particular case, which I am not familiar with, I will certainly come back to him on that.

I am enormously grateful for the more than 2,000 responses that we received to the Government’s standards consultation. We are working at pace to analyse the results. We will think carefully about how to take into account the views that were expressed for each of the proposals that we have set out. The Government response will be issued in due course, and after its release, we will continue to work actively with local government on developing detailed implementation.

The hon. Member for South Leicestershire mentioned reorganisation, and although I completely acknowledge the examples of poor behaviour that he identifies—I have witnessed such things in some authorities, too—I would be careful not to attach local government reorganisation as an inherent risk to the standards and behaviours of councillors. I think this is cultural, and it is about a lack of framework and, honestly, slightly a result of a standards regime that has not got teeth.

There are some members who know that what they are doing is not right, and that that is not just about free speech, but about abusing the position they hold and the freedoms. We often see that relationship, where elected members who are holding court in the council chamber attack officials on the top table who have no power to respond themselves. We see that power imbalance taking place. I suspect that most elected members who are behaving in that way know exactly that their behaviour is not okay, but they also know that the standards regime has no teeth to deal with that, so what are the consequences? I would be careful not to attach that behaviour to the reorganisation point, because we want to rebuild the system from the ground up, so that every council in England—whether they are part of the 21 counties going through reorganisation or are among the rest—is subject to the same robust standards regime that does have teeth.

Let me return to the subject under debate by dealing with some of the points about not allowing the system to be used for political ends and how it has to be held up to all scrutiny at all levels. This is about having a proportionate system that can hold up to scrutiny and be tested, but it has to be mandatory. It must have sanctions that matter, including the power of suspension, the power to withhold allowances, if that is correct, and the power for premises bans, if there is a safeguarding risk at play. We have examples where councillors can be on police bail for sexual assaults, and during police bail, they can attend council meetings and attend the premises. That clearly would not be acceptable to most members of the public, but the current regime allows that, and that cannot be allowed to stand. Perhaps more controversially, the system should include disqualification in some cases for more serious breaches.

Local Government Finance

Debate between Jim McMahon and Steve Barclay

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

I cannot commit to that today. What I can do is to commit, from a political point of view, that the Government are willing to work cross-party and through APPGs to understand the weight of the issue and the potential solutions. I will be honest, though: we need to manage expectations on whether we can get consensus in this place on a new form of council tax or local property tax, but that does not mean we are not willing to listen to arguments.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

We saw one area of consensus when the Minister responded to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) about internal drainage boards, and I welcome his recognition of the problem in areas such as Fenland in the Cambridgeshire fens. That was a pertinent point, and I thank him for his comments.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to tell us whether any council will be worse off when this settlement is netted against the additional costs of employer national insurance contributions and those of their suppliers? According to reports that we have been given, a number of councils will be worse off. Can he rule that out?

[Jim McMahon]

The £515 million of investment from the Treasury to help councils with the increase in employer national insurance contributions has been distributed on the basis of their net service expenditure costs. We thought that that was the fairest way of establishing an evidence base that could be scrutinised. There have been legitimate representations about third-party provider costs in some critical areas, such as social care. We accept the figures from the Local Government Association because we have no reason to dispute them, but our difficulty is that that in itself does not mean that the cost will be passed on directly to the local authority in question. Some parties are bound by contracts that mean that they cannot pass it on even if they wanted to. There will be negotiations about the ability of a provider to absorb that cost, but we do not underestimate the problem. No one is going to pretend that this settlement fixes the system. What we want to try to do is stabilise the system through a multi-year settlement with bigger reforms.

[Steve Barclay]

I commend the Minister for the constructive way in which he addressed my question, but I think it important to be clear. He seems to be saying that as a result of this settlement, a number of councils will be worse off. We understand the context, but I think he has just confirmed expressly that councils will be worse off as a result of the tax rises that the Chancellor has imposed and which this settlement does not fully meet.

[Jim McMahon]

I think that that is true up to a point, but we need to take a couple of factors into account. First, the payment relating to employer national insurance contributions goes straight to the council. Secondly, this needs to be taken in the round. For the right hon. Gentleman’s own council, the social care grant is £48 million, the social care change grant is £6.7 million, and when it comes to third-party providers, the market sustainability and improvement fund is £10 million. We are trying to meet the demand in a very complex environment, but, as I have said, there is no pretending that this will fix a broken system in one fell swoop. The reform will take time.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill

Debate between Jim McMahon and Steve Barclay

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 4th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

The Prime Minister addressed the issue about Royal Assent during his statement yesterday and Ministers abide by the code. The hon. Gentleman says that the negotiation is a sham, yet one should look at what the Commission has said. At Strasbourg, it said that alternative arrangements had merit as an alternative to the backstop. Just last month, the Council pledged, in its official guidelines on Brexit negotiations, “flexible and imaginative solutions.” Senior European figures claim the backstop will not be required. For example, a former German MEP and member of the European Parliament Brexit steering group said there was a

“99% chance that the backstop would never be used.”

Indeed, the issue arises because of the sequencing of talks, which was at the choice of the EU itself and left insufficient time for the negotiation. In fact, this issue should be addressed as part of the future economic relationship.

In addressing issues such as the claim made by those on the Opposition Benches, it is worth reflecting on the fact that the EU position has moved, from the language of “no change” to the withdrawal agreement to now saying that changes can be made if “legally operative text” on alternative arrangements can be found. It is worth contrasting Donald Tusk’s comments in June that

“nothing has changed when it comes to our position”,

with President Macron’s comments last month that he was “very confident” that the UK and EU would be able to find a solution

“if there is a good will on both sides”.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is the truth not that Government Members just do not trust the Prime Minister any more than Opposition Members? When he went to Berlin on 21 August, the Prime Minister committed to presenting a deal within 30 days. We are now a third of the way through that timetable and the truth is that there is no deal. That is the problem.

[Stephen Barclay]

The hon. Gentleman says this is about trust in this Prime Minister, but he voted against the deal that the previous Prime Minister brought back three times. The trust is lacking in those who trusted the Labour manifesto that promised to respect the referendum result.

It is worth looking at the communiqué issued by the Commission at lunch time. I am sure Members will have read it and seen, first, very little detail on the Irish border, and, secondly, that the Commission’s objective in a no-deal situation would be

“a more stable solution for the period thereafter.”

So the Commission’s own communiqué falls short of the demand for an all-weather, all-insurance, legally operative text, which is the condition it has set the United Kingdom. The legal text by 31 October will of course set out the detail, but the test needs to be one that involves creativity and flexibility on both sides. It also needs to reflect the fact that the operational detail will be shaped by the Joint Committee during the implementation period. An illustration of that point can be seen in the response to the detail presented by the previous Government. The right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond) spoke about his concerns about the detail, but he will remember that when the previous Government simply presented detail against that all-weather test, the Commission dismissed it as purely magical thinking.

Leaving the EU: Business of the House

Debate between Jim McMahon and Steve Barclay

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

I will take one last intervention and then, conscious of strictures, I will conclude.

[Jim McMahon]

Does the Secretary of State accept that part of the public’s anger and frustration with Parliament, notwithstanding the back and forth and even individual contributions, is caused by our failure to resolve this matter? The feeling is, “a plague on all your houses”. What message does it send if a power grab means that parliamentarians, who are sent here to make decisions, are instead sent home and excluded?

[Stephen Barclay]

I have voted for the withdrawal agreement three times; the hon. Gentleman has not. That is why there is frustration. However, that is not the primary issue before the House today. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central captured the matter last time we debated the subject. I hope that he does not mind my quoting him. He said:

“If we as a House are going to be asked to hand over day after day, we should know what we will be asked to vote on during those days.”—[Official Report, 1 April 2019; Vol. 657, c. 809.]

It is the nature of what the House is being asked to support today that is the issue: the concentration of control in a motion from an individual and the Speaker together; the fact that the scope is potentially so widespread; the fact that it is at odds with the manifestos on which both main parties stood. In essence, the problem is that the motion is an attempt to circumvent some of the internal tension in the Labour party that is best played out in its next conference rather than through a decision of this House. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). We heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras what this is really about: it is to say that the Government cannot control the Order Paper. It is, therefore, a way to get rid of the Government. I ask my colleagues to be mindful of that when they cast their votes.