Here we go again.

Since the introduction of elected councils by the Local Government Act of 1888, coupled with increasing provision of welfare and participation of Central Government in local affairs, Local Government reorganisation has been cited as the way in which spiralling costs can be managed.  Size has always been the perceived key determiner and so Labour’s plans to reorganise, promoting the concept of mega–unitary authorities as the panacea of creating a financially sustainable sector is nothing new.

For Rutland, the suggestion that size matters in all things municipal first reared its intrusive head in 1942, and continued until the county’s abolition in 1974, marking the end to some 750 years of independence.   Independence was regained in 1997, which saw (the irony is not missed) Rutland County Council vested, being a Holy Trinity of district and county council as well as being a unitary authority: a single, uncomplicated layer of local government with decisions being made locally in the heart of the community.

From the outset of LGR, I have maintained the financial issues facing Local Government are based in two key demand – led budgets: Adult Social Care and Special Educational Needs.

Until these are addressed at a fundamental level, no amount of deck chair rearranging will make them go away.

My point has been reinforced by the Government’s remarkable September U-turn. Four earlier decisions have now been withdrawn following updated legal advice, while the 14 decisions announced in July have been paused and placed under review.

However much those of us who campaigned against the July decisions might like to believe we have been listened to – or indeed Government might like us to believe it listened – I suspect the truth is rather less glamorous.

The financial precipice facing local government was recognised, but there was no sufficiently evidenced plan for delivering reform on this scale, nor enough appreciation of just how complex modern local government has become at a granular, operational level.

In Rutland, there has been a majority view that our Ceremonial County Status is an imperative, not just as some sentimental abstract but as a key part of our economic USP.  Our visitor economy attracted 1.49 million visitors in 2024, contributing £174.88 million to the local economy whilst providing 1,500 jobs. Being the smallest county in England matters.

During this process, assurances were made regarding our ceremonial county status but until I see that in hard and fast legislation, confident the answer to the pub quiz question ‘What is the smallest county in England?’ will remain ‘Rutland’ I will not stop fighting; after the September reversal, assurances alone are demonstrably not the same thing as certainty.

More questionable is the assumption around economies of scale. There is a belief that bigger will deliver more, better and for a cheaper cost. For Rutland, this is particularly pertinent.  The Council Tax is amongst the highest in the country due to Government funding. For 2026/27 a Rutland household receives £640.28 funding compared to the national average of £1,413.94; Rutland’s Council Tax receipts therefore make up 81 per cent of its revenue budget compared to the national average of 56 per cent.

Rutland has always taken a savvy approach to delivering services to residents: we have a long history of shared services dating from 1947.  The key though lies in ‘co – design’. As an independent entity, we have a seat at the table of design, articulating the must – haves for our residents, addressing needs specific to our locality.  As a fragment of a whole, our position merely becomes that of influence, reliant on a sympathetic ear.  There is a fundamental difference between sharing scale and surrendering agency.

Moving forwards, there must be an emphatic desire to understand how Local Government works as a single entity, the inter – connectivities between different service areas and a fundamental testing of what effective and efficient service delivery looks like on the ground.

One size will not fit all. Enabling a locality to retain its individuality must be at the heart of design if the Government’s own commitment that “decisions with purely local implications should, by default, be taken locally” is to have any conviction behind it.

There must be an evidence-based approach to testing the principle that ‘bigger equals better’. So far, this has not been proven to be the case. Rutland has consistently led the leaderboard for Adult Social Care, is the MJ 2026 award winner for financial management and is ranked fifth out of 111 local authorities for public satisfaction with our highways network.

Government also needs to have a granular understanding of what services actually cost to reform (never mind the on – going delivery costs).   It is not uncommon for a directive to arrive from Central Government with some funding; invariably it is not enough.  The latest SEND reform requirement came with a grant of £25,000 for Rutland; the real predicted cost for Rutland is £360,000.

This pause to LGR is welcome; but without an understanding of by what criteria the review will use, a demonstrable disparity between rhetoric and deliverable plans that will deliver better for residents and a determination to address the underlying causes rather than simply rearranging the deckchairs, I will continue to bang my drum for Rutland’s independence – as the Lord Lieutenant for Leicestershire Thomas Haywood wrote in ‘The Book of Rutland’ in 1987 ‘Rutland has symbolized the small man’s right to freedom and independence’.  We are multum in parvo; judge us by our content not our size.