Lancashire's councils react to devolution deal

The government’s decision to press ahead with Lancashire’s devolution deal has drawn a mixed response from some of the county’s dozen district council leaders – ranging from expressions of optimism to claims of betrayal.

The so-called second-tier authorities were controversially not included in the negotiations that led to the agreement late last year between the previous Conservative government and Lancashire County Council, Blackpool Council and Blackburn with Darwen Council.

That deal – which will determine the new powers and cash coming to the county as part of its devolution settlement – has now been given the nod by the new Labour administration.

All 12 districts have broadly been in agreement about wanting a bigger role in the new combined county authority (CCA) that will be responsible for implementing the agreement. Just two of their number will have a seat at the table as ‘non-constituent members’ representing the rest – and neither will have voting rights.

However, the councils have split largely down party lines when it comes to the contents of the deal.

The seven Labour-run districts of Preston, Chorley, South Ribble, West Lancashire, Lancaster, Rossendale and Hyndburn, along with coalition-controlled Burnley and Pendle, took the opportunity of the devolution limbo caused by the snap general election to call for Lancashire’s provisional agreement to be radically redrawn and made “more ambitious”.

Meanwhile, the trio of Conservative-run districts – Wyre, Fylde and Ribble Valley – stressed their opposition to the prospect of an elected mayor being part of any strengthened devolution package and pressed for the deal to remain as it stands.

Although the latter option is the path the government has now taken, it comes with a caveat, revealed by the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS), that ministers hope to see Lancashire bring forward proposals for “deeper and wider devolution” by next autumn.

The comment was made in a letter to the three top-tier leaders from local government minister Jim McMahon – and was set against the backdrop of a public push by the government for Lancashire ultimately to pursue a “gold standard” mayoral deal.

For that reason, even those leaders whose case for implementing the current agreement found favour now feel they have cause for concern about the future.

Ribble Valley Borough Council leader Stephen Atkinson said he is alarmed not only about a mayoral role being created, but what it could mean for district authorities like his.

“A Labour MP has said to me that if they create an extra level of government with a mayor, there will be too many layers in Lancashire – and, by implication, that will mean the scrapping of the two-tier system.

“If that was to happen, we would have three standalone councils across Lancashire – or even just one in Preston. That removes democracy from the people – it makes it ever more remote.

“Mayors are also being presented as your chance to have your say with Westminster – but that’s nonsense.

“This is a centralised power grab – Keir Starmer has patronage over lots of things in the Labour Party, including having an influence over who is selected to be mayoral candidates. He also holds the purse strings as the government.

“So it’s like going back to Norman times, where one baron has all this power in conjunction with the king who sits in the centre – it’s 180 degrees away from devolution. Power in Lancashire is already devolved to the 12 districts and two unitary councils,” Cllr Atkinson said.

Wyre Council leader Michael Vincent is equally opposed to the idea of a mayor of Lancashire – but he hopes that implementation of the current deal will show that the all-powerful figurehead is not needed.

“The problem with a directly-elected Lancashire mayor for somewhere like Wyre – and other places in Lancashire – is that the money in that circumstance goes to the big towns: Preston, Blackpool, Lancaster and Blackburn. Areas like ours don’t see anything.

“I hope this deal is a stepping stone, but not towards a mayor – towards more money being devolved and the government seeing that county combined authorities can work just as well as mayoral combined authorities.

“This deal is something to build upon, not something to basically rip up the day it gets put in place, to have more upheaval and squabbling,” Cllr Vincent said.

HOPE ON THE HORIZON?

In contrast, some of the leaders who wanted to go back to the devolution drawing board, have been heartened by the government’s talk of its longer-term ambitions for Lancashire.

Chorley Council leader Alistair Bradley said there were reasons for those Lancashire politicians who want more out of the deal to be “optimistic”

“We’re pleased that the government has referenced an elected mayor with timescales as it indicates that the government does want to work toward an ambitious deal for Lancashire.

“Reference has also been made to Lancashire’s upper-tier authorities working with others to develop the future options. District councils will continue to work to secure the best for our boroughs and Lancashire, but we’re disappointed that the role of all district councils is not clear.

“A key risk in creating a combined authority is that it will become removed from the real lives of our residents. District councils are best placed to understand our communities and our boroughs. That is why all district councils need a clear and full role in devolution,” said Cllr Bradley.

He and the other Labour district leaders have written to Jim McMahon to express that view – and to explicitly call for an elected mayor.

Amongst them is Preston City Council leader Matthew Brown, who told the LDRS that he could see the sense in using the current deal as the basis to “move towards something better”.

“We need to have more transformative policies as part of this devolution deal – more support for new affordable homes, fair work charters, public control of buses and moving towards net zero in quite a transformative way. That’s what we need to aim for.

“I will also be pushing for all 15 councils to have a seat on the combined county authority,” Cllr Brown said.

Meanwhile, South Ribble Borough Council leader Jacky Alty said her authority was “determined to secure a devolution deal which offers improved opportunities for our residents – and we are pleased that the government has referenced an elected mayor”.

She added that “clarity was needed on the role of district councils in the devolution process”.

“An inherent risk in creating a combined authority is that of distance from the communities served – and this must be guarded against.

“When provided with the means to contribute, district councils provide local relevance and context. Continued engagement between district council leaders and the government will emphasise the value of local knowledge and will drive forward ambitious plans to benefit our local communities,” Cllr Alty said.

DISMAY AND DISAPPOINTMENT

The move to implement the current Lancashire devolution deal before a deadline by which the government had invited local areas to bring forward proposals for their patches has come in for scathing criticism from Burnley Council leader Afrasiab Anwar

The independent politician told the LDRS that he was “at a loss for words” over “the sudden announcement”.

“This move undermines the very essence of local democracy and transparency. What was the point of inviting expressions of interest by the end of September if the existing deal was to be ratified regardless?

“Announcing this before the submission deadline is a betrayal. To say this is a disappointment is an understatement.

“Labelling this as a ‘transitional’ arrangement is nothing but a facade, wasting millions of taxpayers’ money at a time when pensioners and hardworking families are struggling with daily essentials.

“Despite the rhetoric, it is clear that Labour lacked a concrete plan and thus resorted to adopting the Tory proposals, which were the only option available.

“To truly unlock Lancashire’s economic potential, we need substantial investment – billions, not just £20m,” Cllr Anwar said.

He also told the LDRS that while he was willing to co-operate with any local authority interested in creating a mayoral system in Lancashire, such a move must not be used as an attempt to slash the number of councils in the county.

“While I acknowledge that many Labour leaders support this, I cannot compromise my borough’s sovereignty.

“I will be making it absolutely clear – Burnley will not merge with Blackburn under my watch,” said Cllr Anwar, who was a Labour council leader until he quit the party late last year over its stance on the war in Gaza.

Meanwhile, Pendle Council leader Asjad Mahmood – himself a former Labour councillor who left the party for the same reason as Cllr Anwar – said he was “disappointed” by the latest devolution news.

“Although, I am a supporter of devolution and the passing of powers and money from Whitehall to local areas…this is essentially the same deal with no additional funding and it is not ambitious enough.

“I want full and proper involvement of district council representatives in any combined authority arrangement, and I want one member, one vote for district councils.

“To make a real difference in the borough, we want to see much greater devolution and the delivery of what we see as ‘game changers’ for the borough, such as extending the M65 and improving connections into Yorkshire as well as the reopening of the Colne to Skipton rail line.

“I want the best possible devolution deal for Lancashire, enabling the county to play its role in economic growth and prosperity,” Cllr Mahmood said.

Fylde, Lancaster, West Lancashire, Hyndburn and Rossendale councils were also approached for comment.