Question
I thank the Minister for his statement, but there remains some confusion in Lancashire, so I hope he is able to clarify a few things. Moving away from the different tranches suggests that there is now no timetable for what might happen in Lancashire. Councillors are asking me for clarity on a timetable for Lancashire. I also seek reassurance that the decision means that Lancaster will not lose its city status in any part of the reorganisation, and that the building blocks with which we are making the reorganisation do not have to be strictly borough councils. For example, Wyre borough council, which was already an amalgamation of other councils, might want to look in different directions.
Answer
I thank my hon. Friend for the representations on Lancashire’s reorganisation and on devolution that she has made over a long period of time. I accept that we have not set out a list-by-list, county-by-county timetable showing exactly when reorganisation will come, but we have said that we will conclude the considerations in the new year. Wherever the counties find themselves in the programme, when it is eventually developed, they will know one way or the other in that February to March period, and we will work through them as and when. My point was that if we are in a position to announce them earlier, we should do that rather than keeping areas waiting unnecessarily—that is the idea of the approach that we are taking. My hon. Friend correctly makes a point about Lancaster’s city status, and that applies to cities across the counties that are in scope. It would be absolutely wrong if a city risked losing its status just because its city status is aligned to a local authority that is being abolished rather than to a geographical area. I can give an absolute assurance that even if we have to introduce new legislation to preserve that status, we will do whatever we have to do to ensure that no city loses its city status through reorganisation.
Verdict: AMBER (47/100)
The reply gives a clear, direct assurance that Lancaster's city status will not be lost through reorganisation, backed by a commitment to legislate if needed. It only partly answers the question on timing: the minister admits there is no county-by-county timetable and points to decisions being communicated in a February to March window, but gives nothing specific to Lancashire. The question of whether borough councils must be the building blocks for reorganisation is not answered at all. The person who asked would probably need to follow up on the Lancashire timing and the building-block question.
How we got there
| Question item | Coverage | Specificity | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the timetable for local government reorganisation in Lancashire, given that the approach has moved away from tranches? | Partially Addressed | Direct | The minister admits there is no county-by-county timetable and says decisions will be concluded in the new year and communicated in the February to March window, which is a concrete period, but it gives no Lancashire-specific timing. |
| Will the Government confirm that Lancaster will not lose its city status in any part of the reorganisation? | Addressed | Direct | The minister explicitly acknowledges Lancaster's city status and gives an 'absolute assurance' that no city will lose its status through reorganisation, backed by a commitment to legislate if needed. |
| Will the Government confirm that the building blocks for reorganisation in Lancashire do not have to be strictly borough councils? | Not Addressed | Generic | Nothing in the reply addresses whether the building blocks for reorganisation must be borough councils; statement 7's remark about city status being tied to an abolished authority is tangential and does not confirm or deny the point. |