Before entering Parliament, I served as a Leicestershire County Councillor for several years. That experience left me in no doubt that local government, as currently structured, is often inefficient and unnecessarily complex. In places such as Leicestershire, residents can find themselves represented simultaneously by a parish or town council, a district council and a county council. All of these authorities have over-lapping responsibilities, competing priorities and, too often, a habit of frustrating common-sense decision-making.
There is a strong case for change. Consolidation could reduce duplication and offer better value for money at a time when households are facing the highest tax burden in a generation.
However, local government reorganisation must be done with communities, not to them.
This principle is neither radical nor obstructive. It is simply democratic. Before boundaries are redrawn or councils abolished, residents should be given a direct say through a local referendum. This is simply the best way to ensure that reorganisation commands public consent.
At the heart of this debate lies a fundamental question: who best understands the intricacies of local life? Is it civil servants in Whitehall, drawing new local authority boundaries from the comfort of their desks? Or is it the people who live, work and raise families in those communities, and who must live with the consequences of these decisions every day?
In Mid Leicestershire this issue matters deeply. My constituents are concerned by proposals to extend the boundaries of Leicester City Council, pulling county villages such as Birstall, Glenfield and Anstey into a city authority against their will. To readers unfamiliar with Leicestershire local politics, this may sound like an insignificant matter and a price worth paying for efficiency, but…
… in reality many of my constituents have deliberately chosen to live outside the city. They value the character of their villages, the responsiveness of county services, and the feeling that they are closer to decision-makers. They also look at the city and see rising costs, declining services and leadership that has failed to turn things around. It is, therefore, unsurprising, they want no part in importing these problems into their communities.
This concern is not confined to Leicestershire. Across the country, suburban and county areas surrounding major cities are under increasing pressure to join city authorities led by powerful mayors. Once absorbed, residents in these communities fear they will have little realistic chance of electing a different leader, no matter how poorly the authority performs.
City expansion also frequently brings development pressures, infrastructure strain and the loss of valued green spaces. Villages on the edge of urban areas find themselves bearing the costs of growth without enjoying the benefits. Housing targets are pushed outward, services are stretched, and local identity eroded.
This is not an argument against housebuilding. Britain needs more homes, and pretending otherwise is irresponsible. But there is a clear difference between meeting housing need and allowing powerful urban authorities to offload development onto neighbouring communities that never consented to that governance model in the first place.
Then there is the issue that matter most to families: bills and tax.
Boundary changes and city expansions do lead to higher bills. City councils typically levy higher council tax than surrounding counties, often for poorer outcomes.
True localism, and genuine devolution, means trusting people to decide who governs them and how. Too many already feel decisions are made over their heads. If we want future local authorities to command trust and legitimacy, we must start by giving communities a meaningful say in how they are shaped.
Local Government re-organisation must be done with communities, not to them!
