—so much per 1,000 or 10,000 items in your database or in your structure, and that means that merging doesn't necessarily save you any money, because, if you go from 10,000 to 15,000, you don't say, 'Oh, we've merged two', you actually—. And you have to produce the same number of payslips. You're not going to pay fewer people because you've merged.

All these are up-front costs and whilst the cost of local government reorganisation was approximately 5 per cent of annual expenditure last time, we also know there are other things now that have happened in terms of the change in terms and conditions.

If you follow the simplistic conclusions of some, then, following a merger, all senior post duplication is removed and thus substantial ongoing savings are made. Economic theory predicts that an organisation may become less efficient if it becomes too large. Larger organisations often suffer from poor communication, because they find it difficult to maintain an effective flow of information between departments, divisions or between head office and outlying parts. Co-ordination problems also affect large organisations. 'X-inefficiency' is the loss of management efficiency that occurs when organisations become large and operate in uncompetitive markets. Such losses of efficiency include overpaying for resources, including senior staff—that might be something that some people might be thinking about—and excessive waste of resources.

Can I just add, if the Cabinet Secretary's got evidence—empirical evidence—that larger organisations in the public sector, and especially local government, anywhere in the world are working more efficiently and cost effectively, will he publish it? Because I'm unable to find any.