Question
When I am out listening to residents in Kidsgrove and its surrounds, they tell me that they want good public services delivered efficiently and to a high quality, but a two-tier system causes constant confusion. If a resident wants to raise issues about their local park, they can go and speak to the borough council. If they have a question about their local library, they can go and speak to the county council. If they need a pothole fixed, they can go and speak to their county council, not their borough council. The list goes on. At the same time, we are paying for managers and directors at two councils, rather than one, which is a waste of taxpayers’ money. Does the Minister agree that what matters most to the residents of Kidsgrove and its surrounds is having good, high-quality services that work for them? That also offers greater accountability; at the moment, my residents are passed from pillar to post. Equally, residents in Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove want clarity from the Government, so can I please press them to offer that clarity?33% vibes
Answer
My hon. Friend makes the case for reorganisation well. It is less important how we perceive the structures of government in this place; in my view, it is more important that local people know who to hold to account for decisions made in their name and with their taxes. The truth is that in two-tier areas, there is confusion about which council to hold to account for the delivery of services, and there is a duplication of services. The fact that we have multiple chief executives, multiple finance directors, multiples HR directors and so on means that—in a period with there are all the pressures on adult social care, children’s services and temporary accommodation, and when we desire to start rebuilding neighbourhood services so that people can see improvement in their area—we have to do absolutely everything that we can to direct money to the frontline and to the local services that people can see.25% vibes
Verdict: AMBER (48/100)
The reply gives a clear, direct case for reorganisation, explaining that accountability matters most and that two-tier arrangements cause confusion and duplication, with cost examples. It only partly addresses the question of what matters most to Kidsgrove residents, using aspirational language about frontline services without firm commitments. On the request for clarity about the future of local government arrangements for Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove, it offers only general support, with no decision, timetable or specifics, so a follow-up question on that point would be likely.
How we got there
| Question item | Coverage | Specificity | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Minister agree that what matters most to residents of Kidsgrove and its surrounds is having good, high-quality public services that work for them? | Partially Addressed | Hedged | The reply pivots to rebuilding neighbourhood services and directing money to frontline services people can see, which gestures at the item's focus on good public services. It never explicitly agrees that this is what matters most to Kidsgrove residents, and the emphasis is on aspirational language rather than concrete commitments. |
| Does the Minister agree that a single-tier system of local government would offer residents greater accountability than the current two-tier arrangement? | Addressed | Direct | The reply directly supports the premise: it argues that accountability (knowing who to hold to account) matters most, says two-tier areas cause confusion about which council is responsible, and cites duplication and multiple chief executives and finance directors as evidence for reorganisation. |
| Will the Government provide clarity to residents of Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove on the future of local government arrangements in the area? | Partially Addressed | Hedged | The reply only signals general government support for reorganisation and gives no decision, timetable, or specific information about the future of local government arrangements for Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove, so the request for clarity is largely unanswered. |