Question
Like my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), I agree that merging six district councils and one county council into one unitary authority for 650,000 people is a good idea—it has a lot of efficiency. In Worcestershire, we have 630,000 people, six district councils and one county council. How on earth did the Minister come to the conclusion that it was a good idea to split the county council in two and have a north-south divide in a county smaller than Gloucestershire?
Answer
We do not align the decision on one county with the entirely separate legal decision on the county next door; all we can do is act on the basis of the proposals we receive. These are not always easy decisions, and they are always a matter of balancing competing interests. As I said, I have not yet seen a perfect proposal, but we are trying to get to the best possible solution in Gloucestershire, Worcestershire and all the other places that we have mentioned today. We are in the middle of the “minded to” process, and if the hon. Gentleman wants to make representations, I would be very happy to receive them.14% vibes
Verdict: RED (18/100)
The question asked why Worcestershire should be split on a north-south basis and why that option was preferred to alternatives. The reply does not give that reasoning. It describes how the government considers proposals, says decisions balance competing interests, and says no perfect proposal has been seen, but it never explains the case for this particular split. The answer is mostly hedged process language, so someone who asked this would likely need to ask again for the specific reasons.
How we got there
| Question item | Coverage | Specificity | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the Government's reasoning for splitting Worcestershire's county council into two unitary authorities on a north-south basis, rather than another structure. | Partially Addressed | Hedged | The reply never explains why Worcestershire should be split north-south or why that structure was preferred to alternatives; it only says the government acts on the proposals it receives, that decisions balance competing interests, and that no perfect proposal has been seen, which is process framing rather than the substantive reasoning asked for. |