That this House has considered local government organisation in Bromsgrove.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. The reorganisation of Worcestershire councils will be the largest local government reshuffle in more than 50 years. It represents a defining moment for our county—one that offers either the opportunity to deliver better value for money to residents or the risk that parts of the county will be pushed, involuntarily, into becoming extensions of an urban city. The stakes could not be higher.
The required aims of the new council organisation are clear: financial sustainability, good value for money, high-quality services and an ambition of continued improvement. Those are not abstract aspirations, but the practical foundations required to protect our communities and safeguard essential services. Only one of the two options before us will achieve the wants and needs of the local community: one unitary authority—a single, united structure that provides the clarity, efficiency and strategic strength necessary to meet the challenges that lie ahead.
I spoke to the hon. Gentleman beforehand to get his thoughts on what he was trying to achieve. Does he agree that local government must be efficient, accessible and accountable, and that consolidation is worth while, but not at the expense of the accessibility of services? Hailing from the rural constituency of Strangford, where constituents do not have accessible local government, I support the hon. Gentleman in his quest to ensure that it is a priority in any restructuring.
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. The disaggregation and loss of access to sustainable services is a profound risk in any case of local government reorganisation, but particularly in rural constituencies.
I acknowledge the recent survey shared around Worcestershire, and thank those who responded: local consent should always be a priority in any devolution process, including local government reorganisation. The results showed a clear split in opinions across the county, and must be considered in context. Some 48% of respondents supported two unitary councils, 29% supported one unitary authority and 19% did not support any reorganisation, yet the number of respondents—4,200—represents only 0.6% of Worcestershire’s 621,000 population, meaning the survey is questionable as a true representation of Worcestershire as a whole. In short, it is a snapshot, not a consensus.
Worcestershire is a rural county—approximately 85% is classified as such—and a picturesque one, with a seamless mix of small urban cities, semi-rural towns, rural villages and uninterrupted green space. That is no less so in my constituency, which is 79% rural and 89% green belt. Serving the needs and wants throughout the vastly different parts of the county is a delicate balancing act, but it is a balancing act that allows Worcestershire to be so wonderfully unique. It is a balancing act that allows my constituents to enjoy beautiful country walks and quaint villages on their doorsteps, alongside the convenience of more urban towns or cities not very far away. That harmony between rural tranquillity and accessible urban life is part of what makes Worcestershire a fantastic place to live.
That balancing act would be toppled by the forced use of a city template. A model designed for incomparable metropolitan areas cannot be imposed on a county defined by its largely rural character without causing catastrophic disruption. Keeping decisions local to Worcestershire is vital: it is the only way to ensure that local communities are not sidelined, that my constituents’ voices are not stripped away and that the fabric of rural life is not sacrificed. Counties shaped by their rural character are rightly proud of their identities and traditions, and any local reorganisation that happens in Worcestershire must recognise and respect our distinct needs.
My hon. Friend and Worcestershire neighbour is making a strong argument about the risks of a north-south divide, in which the north could be subsumed under a greater Birmingham. That is a very important point. Is he as surprised as I am that, of the district and city councils across Worcestershire, Wyre Forest was the only one to advocate a single Worcestershire unitary authority rather than the split model?
I am surprised but that must be seen in the context of the survey I referenced. Only a very small proportion of the Worcestershire population responded to any consultation about future options. I will refer later to the wider stakeholders that are supportive of a single unitary authority to deliver local government in the best interests of residents across Worcestershire, including Wyre Forest.
The creation of two unitary councils would do the opposite of respecting the distinct needs and rural identity of Worcestershire. It would see the north Worcestershire section become by default an extension of Birmingham and would fundamentally shift our identity. North Worcestershire is a neighbour of Birmingham, but is proud to be part of the adjacent countryside that so many Birmingham residents enjoy. Conversely, north Worcestershire enjoys a proximity to Birmingham, while maintaining its unique rural character and slower pace of life.
A divided structure would only weaken our voice, dilute our identity and place our future in the hands of those who do not understand us. One unitary authority is the only option that protects Worcestershire’s integrity, strengthens its governance and secures its long-term ambition for prosperity. Many residents across Bromsgrove and the villages have chosen to live there because they value the way of life. That valued identity must be protected from being merged into an urban extension, or even treated as a subset of an identity that has existed for generations and delivered a footprint for successful local government service delivery until now.
We are already at risk of urbanisation and our local democracy is already being eroded by the unprecedented housing targets being forced upon us, despite consistent local objection. As a 79% rural constituency composed of 89% green belt and approximately 8% brownfield land, our housing targets have increased by 85%. Meanwhile, our neighbouring city of Birmingham with at least 140 hectares of brownfield land and extensively established infrastructure, has seen targets cut by more than 30%.
My hon. Friend has been very indulgent of me. I suspect one interesting point was not taken into account by the survey. That would be the fantastic cost of splitting up all the county-wide services, which range from adult and children’s social care to waste disposal. To divide that into two and then merge the district authorities would in itself be an unnecessary cost if we have two authorities rather than one.
I agree with my hon. Friend and neighbour. He makes a very relevant point that the cost of organising two councils will be profound, and in the long term will prove to be a false economy. The figures that I will quote shortly will demonstrate that further.
Reorganising local government will not resolve all the financial challenges facing our communities, because even with structural change, there will continue to be rising demand on adult social care, persistent pressures in homelessness and temporary accommodation, a growing resource need for schools and increasing demand for children’s services. That is why financial sustainability must be by design and not chance. Anything less will fail to meet the increasing needs of local communities and will ultimately result in deficits that must be paid for by hard-working residents. Financial sustainability cannot be an afterthought; it must be the foundation.
One council will have the ability to follow six key principles to achieve genuine and lasting financial sustainability. First, it could reduce the cost of leadership and governance by redesigning leadership from the ground up to reflect the needs of a new, modern unitary authority. Secondly, it could become prevention focused by embedding a long-term independence-based approach across all services, enabling people to get back on their feet and easing the burden on local provision. Thirdly, it could ensure that all commissions are intelligent and that services provided are appropriate and necessary, supported by the unparallelled buying power and market access afforded to one council, enabling strategic investment in better value services. Fourthly, it could nurture an accountable and high-performing workforce by bringing together the strengths of seven predecessor authorities and building on their collective skills. Fifthly, it could deliver responsible custodianship of public assets to maintain a balanced budget, safeguard the continued delivery of local services and preserve our historic culture. Finally, it could make decisions that are fully informed and grounded firmly in evidence.
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing this important debate on local government reorganisation in Bromsgrove and Worcestershire. I know that he has a keen interest in this issue, and we all heard the detailed argument that he made. I acknowledge the arguments, facts and point of view that he explained to us, which are on the record. He will understand that there is a limit to what I can say, given the process that we are undergoing, but I assure him that colleagues in the Department and elsewhere will read and understand what he has said. I thank him for putting forward his point of view.
For background, I will run through the reasons why we are reorganising local government and why we think that will benefit communities, although the hon. Member will know them already and he raised some of the issues. We want to streamline local government and replace the two-tier system with single unitary councils, precisely in order to create councils that can reform public services, drive economic growth and empower their communities. The hon. Member mentioned the criteria that we set out for doing that. As he said, this is not some bureaucratic exercise or tinkering with lines on a map; these are the biggest reforms to local government for a very long time—the biggest in 50 years, as he pointed out—and we need to make the most of this opportunity. We want people to have preventive public services, and we want to give economies the chance to thrive. With single councils in charge over sensible geographies, we will see quicker decisions to build homes, grow our towns and cities, and connect people to jobs.
Strong local government is central to tackling deprivation and poverty. People living in neighbourhoods that are high on the index of multiple deprivation deserve responsive and joined-up services that help them reach their full potential. Unfortunately, in too many areas across England, we have multiple levels of confusing and inefficient structures, whereas one council can take responsibility for the places it serves. The Government will deliver unitary local government in all areas of England within this Parliament, and I am really encouraged by the progress we have made so far. We have already announced two new unitary authorities for Surrey, and our consultations on the final proposals for a further six areas are due to close on 11 January.
11:24 am
Sitting suspended.
If we were involuntarily to risk becoming an extension of Birmingham, it is highly likely that our precious green belt would be sacrificed even further. The character of our county, its landscape, identity and rural heritage would be placed at real risk. Despite that loss, it would still be the urban areas that would continue to receive the largest proportion of infrastructure investment, leaving my constituency questioning how it can be expected to absorb the growth when infrastructure is already at capacity.
Urban areas have the highest demand for housing precisely because they are urban. That is why urban densification remains the housing policy most genuinely representative of the public’s needs and wants. When providing a common-sense counter to central Government decisions, such as unreasonable housing targets, one unified voice is essential. A single coherent authority can speak for the whole county, representing all our views and standing the strongest chance of securing greater funding for transport, housing and economic development. Multiple voices drown each other out; a united voice is harder to ignore.
Alongside ensuring that decision making is kept local to Worcestershire and that my constituents are not stripped of their voice—an action that would run counter to the principle of devolution—a single unitary council is also the most sensible financial decision. It would protect local democracy while strengthening our ability to shape our own future. Financial sustainability is vital for any council. Across the country, we have seen many councils struggle with rising costs; costs that inevitably become the burden of the British taxpayer. Without a sustainable model, residents pay the price through higher taxes, reduced services or both.
My constituents have already experienced a 4.9% increase in council tax this year, due to increasing financial pressures, and are set to face a staggering 9.9% increase from Reform’s county council in the next financial year. A single financially resilient authority is the most responsible way to safeguard public money and ensure that essential services remain secure for the long term.
The outcome of that approach is simple—£32 million saved by 2031 and a more balanced, less impactful increase to council tax. In comparison, the imbalance between service need and income from council tax would be significant under two unitary councils. A new North Worcestershire unitary council would face substantial challenges, with higher levels of need but a smaller share of the tax base, while a South Worcestershire unitary authority would experience significant council tax rises over the same period. It is simple to understand that improved financial results lead directly to improved services for the community.
With the stronger position created by one council, services could be delivered through a more community-centred approach, with simpler, more accessible pathways. Residents will no longer need to navigate multiple tiers of local government to resolve their issues. That is particularly beneficial for individuals who require access to multiple services at once. This model will not only increase transparency and improve local access, which are distinct components of British politics, but will also ensure that policies truly reflect what people actually want to see and expect their council tax to support.
Streamlining service delivery under one council removes the risk of a postcode lottery where access, cost, sufficiency and quality vary depending on where residents live. That is especially vital for young people, as many schools are reaching capacity, so students are being required to travel further, and for rural communities, which are already facing limited infrastructure compared with more urbanised areas. Key people services, including housing, family support and social care, are currently delivered across two tiers of local government, creating unnecessary complexities and inefficiencies. That is particularly important in Worcestershire, where demographic shifts are significant—an ageing population exceeding the national average, with 22% of people aged 66 to 84, alongside a growing younger population of more than 117,000 children. Those trends place profound pressure on essential services such as GPs, hospitals, schools, nurseries and social care.
One council could integrate those services so that they work cohesively to achieve better outcomes for the community. A prime example, given the demographics that I mentioned, is the ability to align health priorities with housing and leisure, enabling preventive policies that improve quality of life and reduce pressure on health services later on. Removing duplication across services would also increase efficiency in the council’s overall offering. It would allow organisations, including local NHS trusts and schools, to build stronger, more consistent relationships as they would be working with a single unified authority rather than navigating multiple structures. It is evident that one council would be able to deliver the improved and simplified services that my constituents called for.
The risk of disaggregation also cannot be ignored. The need for high-cost social care, the service that 42% of survey respondents cited as the one that they care about most, is concentrated in one half of Worcestershire, while the greatest proportion of the tax base is in the other half. The current degree of balance that results in residents paying relatively low tax would be disrupted, creating long-term instability for both households and essential services.
Not only is the disaggregation of social care a dangerous risk, but it would set back the progress on bringing its functions to the high standard that they are. Adults would be at risk of not receiving seamless community care. Service deliveries and assessments would be delayed. Children’s services would be restricted by boundary lines, causing disruption for those not on the correct side to continue their current care; it would be a postcode lottery. Maintaining two recording systems for social care would be costly and take a long time to implement, diverting resources from frontline support.
Similarly, fragmenting the network of partnerships in Worcestershire would only complicate funding arrangements, commissioning plans, service eligibility and the ability to install an action plan. Those partnerships have taken years to build; dismantling them would undermine the very foundations of effective care. Instead, relationships should be preserved and built upon, and closer collaboration would be far more possible with a single service provider rather than numerous tiers. That is a key benefit that only one unitary council can provide; it would ensure continuity, coherence and a system that works for every resident across Worcestershire.
A proposal for a single Worcestershire unitary authority has been backed by local partner stakeholders, including the police and crime commissioner, the local NHS integrated care board, Worcestershire acute hospitals NHS trust, the Worcestershire local visitor economy partnership, and commercial stakeholders, including Worcester Bosch.
It is evident that the proposal for a single unitary council meets the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s criteria for devolution arrangements. The case is clear and compelling. A single council for Worcestershire would offer not only operational simplicity, but a renewed sense of purpose for local government in our area. The one council would prioritise the delivery of high quality and sustainable public services to residents.
This would not simply be an organisational reshuffle; it would be a commitment to ensuring that every community, from the most rural parish to the most urban centre, receives services that are consistent, efficient and good value for money. Councils in the area have sought to work together in coming to a view that meets local needs and is informed by local views. This collaborative approach demonstrates a proactive start and an ambition to adapt and build a structure that is reflective of residents’ realities.
Having one council would enable stronger community engagement and deliver genuine opportunity for neighbourhood empowerment. Removing unnecessary layers of bureaucracy would give residents a stronger voice and a more direct relationship with those making decisions on their behalf. There would be a single tier of local government for the whole area, simplifying it and making it more accessible. The new structure would resize in order to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks. In an era when public finances are increasingly overwhelmed, the ability to operate with greater resilience and strategic oversight is essential. It cannot be doubted that one unitary council would significantly meet the criteria outlined by the Government, while being in the best interest of Worcestershire as a whole.
Keeping decisions local is vital, as is achieving long-term financial sustainability, offering consistent, high-quality services, and protecting our green belt and our county’s identity. That is why I strongly support the creation of one unitary council that would streamline services, improve value for money for residents and work towards a strong future for Worcestershire. This is an opportunity to shape an efficient and community-centred system for our local government—one that respects our current identity while preparing us for the challenges and opportunities ahead. A single unitary council is not merely an administrative preference; it is a strategic choice for a more secure, more coherent and more prosperous Worcestershire.
As the hon. Member will know, we received proposals for unitary local government from councils in Worcestershire on 28 November. Let me place on record my thanks to local leaders and officers in the Worcestershire councils for their positive approach to collaboration and data sharing to enable the proposals we have received. That collaborative approach will stand the area in good stead in the unitary implementation phase, which is very important for all the reasons that the hon. Member set out. There is shared commitment in the area to get the best possible outcome for the residents, communities and businesses of Worcestershire.
I expect to launch a consultation in early February on the final proposals I received on 28 November, including those from Worcestershire, that seek to meet the terms of the 5 February statutory invitation. That consultation will run for seven weeks. Decisions on the most appropriate option for each area will be judgments made in the round, having regard to the criteria in the statutory guidance, the consultation responses and any other relevant information. We have heard much more relevant information today and, as I mentioned, that will be taken into account as we proceed.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this debate. I know that he has spoken in the House on previous occasions to share his views, and we have heard them. I cannot comment further, but we are grateful that he has put those matters on the record. I know that there will be many opinions locally, and he has done an excellent job of representing his constituents this morning. When the time comes to launch the consultation, I know that he will engage with it to make sure that the views of his constituents are fed in. I am grateful to him and keen to hear those opinions.