Question

Asked by Pippa Heylings to Unknown on 29 October 2026 — tabled under the Andy Burnham government

Liberal Democrats support genuine devolution and shifting power out of Westminster, but we have been shocked by the Government’s botched handling of this process. Ministers promised that MPs and local leaders would be properly involved in decisions affecting their areas, yet many have been left in the dark until announcements were effectively made for them. Will the Minister explain why MPs representing affected areas were not briefed before today’s announcement? Even now, after months of confusion over local government reorganisation, delayed elections and significant abortive costs, councils and communities are still waiting for certainty. Local authorities, many in dire financial positions following years of under-investment, have spent time and money in good faith preparing these proposals according to the Government’s criteria and timetable, only for that timetable to shift repeatedly. In my constituency of South Cambridgeshire, one of the fastest growing areas in the country, businesses need certainty to invest and plan. Councils need certainty to set budgets and deliver services, and council staff deserve clarity about their future. Yet today’s statement leaves Cambridgeshire and Peterborough yet again awaiting a decision, while other areas move ahead. When will the Minister finally provide a clear and stable timetable for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and for other areas that are still awaiting decisions? Finally, following the chaos of decisions being withdrawn, reorganisation being paused and the programme being reviewed following updated legal advice, can the Secretary of State even guarantee that what is being announced today is legally sound? Will she now publish the legal advice to demonstrate that?

Answer

Answered by Jim McMahon (Labour (Co-op))

Working backwards, the reason we carried out the review was to ensure that we, as the Ministers who were making the decisions, were satisfied that the decisions were being made in a rational way, with the evidence base secured, and that where there were outstanding questions, we tested them in the process. Obviously, we were not the Ministers who made the decisions in July, so on coming back in, we needed to be absolutely sure that what we were putting our names to was correct. That is what we are doing. That may mean that the same conclusion is reached in many areas, but importantly that conclusion will be reached as a fresh decision. We are going to go through that process, which is why it is taking time, but if we had come here and said, “Do you know what? We have completed the whole programme review and the financial review, and we have done every single outstanding county in England in a few weeks,” hon. Members would have cast doubt on just how much time we had given to each of the counties and their proposals. We are determined to make this decision robust, for it to be right and to put in the time needed to ensure that we fully go through the proposals, the consultation and the financial assessment. Where local areas have put forward an argument in support of their proposal, we are testing that line by line. For example, if a local authority is requesting a boundary change or to grow its boundaries, and that is predicated on matters like housing numbers, economic growth or travel-to-work areas, I want to see those things. I want to see the travel-to-work map, the form that the urban development takes and so on, so we are testing those proposals to ensure that we are satisfied. To return to my previous point, I have not seen a single proposal that I consider to be the perfect proposal, but our job is to ensure that we get the best possible proposal using the information that we have received, and we are undertaking that work. On the hon. Lady’s point about Cambridgeshire and Peterborough—obviously, the point applies to West Sussex as well, as they essentially go into the same pool—I would not necessarily assume that because those authorities were at the end of the decision-making process in the previous round, they will be at the end of the process in the current round. We will make a decision on which ones we are going to bring forward shortly. On the hon. Lady’s point about legal advice, which was also mentioned by the shadow Minister, it is long-standing Government policy that we do not publish that legal advice.

Verdict: RED (23/100)

The reply does not answer the question about why MPs representing affected areas were not briefed before the announcement. It explains why the review was carried out, which is a different question. On the remaining points, the answers are hedged: no timetable is given for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough or the other areas awaiting decisions, and the Government's assurance that its decisions are robust does not directly address whether they are legally sound. The refusal to publish the legal advice is stated clearly, though the reason given is only a reference to long-standing policy. A member of the public would likely need to submit a follow-up to get the specific information they asked for.

How we got there

Question itemCoverageSpecificityRationale
Why MPs representing affected areas were not briefed before today's announcement. Not Addressed Generic MISREADS QUESTION The reply explains why the review was carried out and why Ministers wanted to be satisfied, which answers a different question. Nothing addresses why MPs representing affected areas were not briefed before the announcement.
What timetable the Government has set for a decision on local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. Partially Addressed Hedged The reply gives no timetable for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, only that a decision on which areas to bring forward will be made 'shortly' and that the process 'is taking time'. This is vague and does not specify when a decision will come.
What timetable the Government has set for decisions on other areas that are still awaiting decisions on local government reorganisation. Partially Addressed Hedged The reply says that authorities at the end of the last round will not necessarily be at the end of this one, and that a decision on which to bring forward will come 'shortly'. It gives no concrete timetable for the other areas awaiting decisions.
Whether the Secretary of State can guarantee that what is being announced today is legally sound. Partially Addressed Hedged The reply says the Government is 'determined to make this decision robust' and that decisions will be fresh and carefully tested, but it never directly answers whether the Secretary of State can guarantee legal soundness.
Whether the Secretary of State will publish the legal advice on which today's announcement is based. Partially Addressed Direct The reply clearly declines to publish the legal advice, citing long-standing Government policy, but gives no real reason for the refusal beyond that policy statement.

Feedback on this grading

Think this verdict is wrong, or that the question and answer have been mismatched? Let us know.

Submitting this needs Google reCAPTCHA to block spam, which sets cookies from google.com on your device — see our Cookies policy for details. Accept these cookies to show the form.