Demand for referendum on Lancashire devolution deal

Paul Foster led a chorus of criticism from several district authorities as they digested the details of an agreement that they had played no part in drawing up.

He told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) that Lancashire residents should be asked if they would instead accept the creation of an elected mayor in return for what he said would be a far better deal than the one put on the table by the government as part of this week’s autumn statement.

Meanwhile, Preston City Council leader Matthew Brown likened the blueprint brought forward by ministers to a Christmas present that did not live up to its expensive packaging.

The leader of Wyre Council Michael Vincent is so far the only district representative to have said anything positive about the proposal, describing the devolution of some decision-making from Whitehall to Lancashire as “a positive step forward for the county.”

The suggested deal was delivered after six months of intensive negotiations between the government and the leaders of the county’s three top-tier authorities – Lancashire County Council and Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen councils.

The trio were earlier this year set a turbocharged timetable by ministers to conclude an agreement to secure extra powers and cash from Whitehall, in the wake of seven years of false hopes and failed attempts.

However, Cllr Foster claimed that the resultant proposal – which is due to be ratified by County Hall and also in Blackpool and Blackburn this week, before being put out to public consultation – was a “futile effort” that had “nothing in it at all for the county”.

It represents the second of three “levels” of devolution deal on offer from the government, which was opted for by Lancashire’s top-tier councils because, unlike a level 3 agreement, it did not require an elected mayor.

The prospect of an Andy Burnham-style figurehead was one of the perennial sticking points over devolution that has for so long divided Lancashire’s 15 local authorities and prevented them from coming to an agreement amongst themselves, let alone with the government. But Cllr Foster says that the issue should now be put to a public vote.

“This is the crumbs of devolution – so why aren’t we asking our communities what they want?

“We have never had that debate, so let’s ask them if they want an elected mayor and a combined authority overseeing [devolution] – and let’s be honest with people about what that would bring us,” the Labour leader added.

He also criticised the top-tier authorities for “bypassing” the dozen district councils in Lancashire by pursuing discussions with the government alone. “I read the deal at the same time as it was published – how can that be right?” Cllr Foster asked.

The proposed deal would see the creation of a new combined county authority (CCA) to administer the devolved powers. The core constituent membership of that body would be the three top-tier councils.

Two district representatives would sit only as non-constituent members and, while government rules permit those with that status to be given voting powers if agreed by the constituent authorities, the LDRS understands that there are no plans for that to happen in Lancashire.

It is also understood that the districts may consider lobbying the government for more direct involvement.

Preston leader Matthew Brown said that the district authorities were disappointed not to have been given “a bigger voice”. He also described the deal as “completely unambitious”.

“In terms of what’s been delivered, it’s dreadful – it’s £20m [in extra funding during the current spending review period] across a population of 1.5 million people.

“It’s like when you’ve got a really dreadful product that has been advertised in a way to make it look as attractive as possible. Anyone who [gets it] for Christmas is disappointed when they find out it’s not that good.

“We could have had fair employment charters and a transformative ask for housing – looking at how we can build tens of thousands of social houses within the county,” Cllr Brown said.

Under the level 2 proposal, Lancashire will take charge of the county’s adult education budget, along with getting some joined-up transport powers – including the chance to request a move to bus franchising, yielding control over routes and fares – plus additional compulsory purchase order powers for housing projects.

Additional features of a level 3 deal could have included a say over local rail, greater control over brownfield regeneration and the setting up of a long-term investment fund, with an agreed annual allocation.

SO CLOSE…

All 15 Lancashire councils appeared briefly to have been on the same page over devolution at the start of 2022 in the wake of a suggestion by then Prime Minister Boris Johnson the previous year that entirely bespoke devolution agreements would be put on the table for complex areas like Lancashire, in order to get a deal done.

That prompted the county to draft its own wishlist in January 2022 for an extensive £5.6bn transfer of powers and cash, along with proposed governance arrangements that appeared to suit everybody – a joint committee, operating on the basis of a two-thirds majority and on which each authority had a vote and even a veto in some circumstances.

However, that dream lasted little more than a month when the government’s Levelling Up White Paper later put on the table its three-option menu for devolution under which an area operating under a joint committee would be entitled only to the most basic level 1 deal.

Level 3, meanwhile, required an elected mayor and, when the three top-tier councils decided to avoid reopening old divisions on that front, Lancashire was left with the level 2 agreement as its best option, which is what the county has now been offered.

However, the resultant absence of the districts from the negotiating process – and, as they see it, from the proposed see CCA – has left leaders of many of those authorities furious. And they have not been afraid to say so

Lancaster City Council leader Phillip Black told the LDRS: “The announced devolution deal is, frankly, underwhelming and I believe shows a lack of ambition for Lancashire.

“Devolution should be a process which draws new powers and larger budgets down from Westminster, but all this deal does is rearrange the furniture within the county and mostly reallocates powers, budgets and projects that already exist up to the CCA.

“There is precious little in this deal which is new, and even that which has such modest scope that it is hard to imagine people in Lancashire will feel any benefit.

“This is a devolution deal that fails to deliver anything more than a newspaper headline that says a deal has been done,” Cllr Black said.

West Lancashire Borough Council leader Yvonne Gagen said that she “fully supports” a devolution deal for Lancashire as “a great opportunity to secure economic growth, prosperity and [improve] services”.

However, she added: “This deal will fall very short of any such improvements, unlike our neighbours, Manchester and Merseyside. We wanted the very best for West Lancashire and the county [but], unfortunately, we have been unable to see the detail throughout the process and the current deal does not articulate our concerns or any benefits whatsoever for West Lancashire.

“This deal risks creating disunity, division and breaking up the Red Rose County. The people of Lancashire deserve an ambitious devolution deal where every district benefits. This deal inspires no confidence that Lancashire will be able to grow, inspire, compete, and ultimately affect our future viability, Cllr Gagen added.

Over in East Lancashire, meanwhile, Afrasiab Anwar, the leader of Burnley Council, said: “This deal is not devolution. If anything, it takes away powers from local districts and gives them to the upper tiers.

“There is very little if any new money and definitely nothing for Burnley. We look at the deals for Manchester and Merseyside and in comparison, Lancashire is getting crumbs. Districts have not been consulted except [for] a half-an-hour meeting with the minister which was nothing but a tick box exercise.”

Pendle Council leader Asjad Mahmood said that he was “disappointed with the devolution deal for Lancashire” – even though he is a supporter of the principle of bringing more powers and funding to local areas.

“With this being a level 2 deal, it is not ambitious enough, there’s no new funding and there’s nothing in there for Pendle.

“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.

“This is the level of investment we need to secure step-change improvements for our people and for the economy for generations to come,” Cllr Mahmood added.

The leaders of Chorley, Fylde, Hyndburn, Ribble Valley and Rossendale councils were also approached for comment.

‘WE HAD TO GET ON THE BUS’

The leaders of the three top-tier councils who will sit on the new Lancashire combined county authority (CCA), if it is ultimately approved, say that the devolution proposal that they have secured will bring benefits to the county.

Lancashire County Council leader Phillippa Williamson said that it marked “a moment where we reset our relationship with government”.

She also reiterated a previous pledge to ensure that district councils would have a voice within any new devolved arrangements.

The proposed deal states that there will be “appropriate district council input to the CCA”, not only via the two non-constituent members drawn from the districts, but also potentially by having representation on its scrutiny and audit committees.

County Cllr Williamson said that the CCA constituent members would want to be “building good relationships with the districts…anyway”.

She added that the deal was an opportunity “to support and grow and grow businesses and drive regeneration in some of our towns and city centre centres”.

Meanwhile, Blackpool Council leader Lynn Williams said that Lancashire could “wait around and sit on our hands…for something else [to be proposed]”, but that it was actually more important to “get going”.

“The only certainty in this is if we hadn’t done [it], then we would not be in a position for anything – we would have been getting absolutely nothing.”

Cllr Williams said that it allowed Lancashire to have “a whole different conversation” with the government now that it would be speaking with a single voice, rather than individual local authorities”.

Phil Riley, Blackburn with Darwen Council’s leader, added that Lancashire would be likely to benefit in cash terms far beyond the £20m initial extra “growth” funding that forms part of the deal – simply by having acquired devolved status.

“If you think cast your mind back over various budgets over the last few years, [there has] always been a very significant reference to combined authorities,” he said.

Devolved areas have increasingly found themselves at the front of the queue – and often with a bigger bowl – when it comes to government funding decisions.

Back in 2021, neighbouring areas like Greater Manchester and the Liverpool City Region were given access to a £7bn transport improvement fund from the Treasury, but Lancashire was locked out of the largesse entirely.

Cllr Riley said the fact that Lancashire was now “in the hat” for that kind of financial support made the proposed deal worth doing – and he echoed comments by Cllr Williams that there was the possibility of deepening any initial deal in future, a prospect explicitly referred to in the proposed agreement.

“We just had to make a start. We could not go on on behalf of Lancashire…saying like that we couldn’t [agree to] do this. It just sent a terribly poor signal really, particularly as we are now surrounded by [other] combined authorities.

“So within the context of level two, then I think the next pieces of work are…to explore what else is on offer

“It’s not just about the handout – it’s about the powers and what we then collectively choose to do with those powers. The principle is that we know better than [Whitehall mandarins] do.”

‘WE’RE LOSING THE LITTLE WE’VE ALREADY GOT’

The Preston and South Ribble council leaders bemoaned the transfer of responsibility for Lancashire’s £55.5m share of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund – a pot intended to soften the loss of EU funding – from the districts and the standalone councils in Blackpool and Blackburn to the new CCA.

The currently responsible authorities have been establishing a raft of projects to be funded with the cash – including, in Preston, a proposal to bring low-cost broadband and second-hand devices to digitally disadvantaged communities. But, from 2025/26, delivery of the schemes will shift to the CCA.

Although the devolution deal states that the CCA will work closely with the Lancashire District Leaders Forum “in an advisory capacity” Cllr Foster said it removed from district councils’ control funding that they knew best how to spend for local benefit. He said he feared that it could now be diverted into “pet projects”.

‘“They’re taking our funding,” he said.