Why Lancashire seems destined for a showdown over devolution

The dozen second-tier authorities in the county are divided over whether a provisional agreement struck with the previous Tory government should be implemented as it stands or renegotiated.

In correspondence seen by the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS), the leaders of the seven Labour-run districts – Preston, Chorley, South Ribble, West Lancashire, Lancaster, Rossendale and Hyndburn, along with coalition-controlled Burnley and Pendle – have written to Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner calling for “a more ambitious devolution settlement” and asking for help to devise it.

However, the Conservative leaders in Wyre, Fylde and Ribble Valley have sent their own letter to Ms. Rayner – who is also the local government secretary – rejecting any notion that a new deal could be done quickly and stressing that it would be “a disservice to the people of Lancashire” to keep them waiting for the extra powers and cash currently on the table.

The devolution agreement reached late last year did not involve Lancashire’s districts and was struck solely between Rishi Sunak’s administration and Lancashire’s three top-tier local authorities – Tory-controlled Lancashire County Council and the Labour councils in Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen. However, its implementation was derailed by the snap general election – and Lancashire’s districts could now go from being bystanders to deal-makers.

As the LDRS has previously revealed, the cross-party top-tier trio is keen to see the settlement they signed brought into effect as planned rather than the ripped up and the process restarted with the new government – putting them on the same page as the Conservative districts on the issue.

The current fissure is just the latest in a long line of divisions to have opened up in Lancashire over devolution – a subject which has defied consensus between the county’s 15 local authorities, sometimes regardless of party affiliation, at almost every turn during the eight years that efforts have been made to find it.

The most insurmountable sticking point in that time has been whether any deal should see Lancashire get an elected mayor, in the mould of Greater Manchester’s Andy Burnham.

Although the Labour-led letter does not mention the m-word, the Conservative district leaders’ correspondence with Angela Rayner reiterates the strength, as they see it, of the provisional devolution settlement not coming with that kind of figurehead.

“We are fundamentally opposed to such a mayor,” they write.   “We can see the benefit of these in metropolitan areas, but believe that Lancashire is so diverse and unique that the county and district model which has served it well since the 1970s is best placed to continue to do so.

“This is supported by the fact that, since the pandemic, growth in Lancashire has overtaken the Liverpool City Region to become the second largest economy in the North West,” the letter adds.

However, Chorley Council’s Labour leader Alistair Bradley, says that while he is ambivalent about a mayor, it would be “nonsense” to reject the concept outright – because of its bearing on the kind of deal Lancashire might be able to strike.

Lancashire’s provisional agreement is for a ‘level 2’ set-up, which would see, amongst other things, the county gain some powers to better integrate transport, along with control of the adult education budget in the area and a one-off £20m pot to fund “innovation-led growth”.

A ‘level 3’ arrangement – which would require an elected mayor under the last government’s devolution rulebook – would also offer a say over the local railway, greater brownfield regeneration powers and the establishment of a long-term investment fund, with an agreed annual allocation.

For Cllr Bradley, the question of whether or not Lancashire gets an elected mayor matters far less than the deal that could be delivered by creating such a role.

“If the deal would be one like Liverpool and Greater Manchester have got, then Lancashire would have to seriously consider having a mayor – if you are going to get [the benefits] you want for your residents.

“Our residents have missed out because certain individuals in Lancashire don’t want a mayor – and I don’t think that’s fair on those populations.

“To me, it’s about what the opportunity is for Lancashire – and what we actually want, as opposed to what we don’t want.

“I think the answer lies in Lancashire. We have to come to a working arrangement between ourselves and we can do that – the reason we haven’t done [in the past] is because the government has usually put stipulations on how that conversation takes place,” Cllr Bradley said.

To that end, the Labour and coalition-run districts have asked Angela Rayner for “guidance” on what any fresh proposal they bring forward should look like in order for it to chime with the new government’s yet-to-be published devolution framework.

However, Wyre Council leader Michael Vincent described as “fantasy” the suggestion that a new Lancashire deal could be drawn up before the end of September – the date by which the government wants to receive devolution plans from local areas where deals are not already in place.

Speaking to the LDRS, he also warned that attempts to negotiate a new agreement before the provisional one had been implemented would serve only to create deadlock over devolution.

“We’d just go back to squabbling amongst ourselves and the government would disengage with us – and that would be a huge mistake.

“[Although] ‘m not in favour of a mayor, there is nothing at all to stop this deal being set up and then [those people that want one] continuing to push for a mayor, if that’s what they want to do – and we’ll argue about that then.

“But it makes much more sense to get the combined county authority [agreed under the provisional deal] set up and then have a referendum across Lancashire – or whatever it is that we do to determine the issue of a mayor.

“It is much better that those conversations happen with the investment in Lancashire than without it,” Cllr Vincent said.

The government has said that while it will “not force places to take on a metro mayor”, it would also “not shy away from making the case for their huge advantages

Cllr Bradley rubbished the claim that the government had “a deadline” for deals to be done by the end of September, stating that the autumn timeframe was just for proposals to be submitted. But he said it was “feasible” for a fully renegotiated Lancashire devolution agreement to be on table by April 2025.

TIME FOR A NEW-LOOK LANCASHIRE?

The Tory district leaders’ letter to Angela Rayner also expresses concern that the Labour and coalition councils see a renegotiation of the current deal as “an opportunity to push for local government reorganisation in Lancashire” – a process which would likely see the number of councils covering the county slashed from 15 to just three.

Cllr Bradley told the LDRS it was not something that was “top of my mind, nor anybody else’s agenda” – but added that any such proposals that came from the government would have to at least be given a hearing if they were “part of the deal”.

The streamlining of local government has previously been a government prerequisite for devolution – although not under the provisional deal currently on offer to Lancashire.   When the prospect was last mooted in 2020, it sparked a flurry of sometimes competing proposals from local authorities as to how the county should be carved up.

At that time, Lancashire County Council suggested its own abolition and that of the 14 other local authorities.   In their place would have come three so-called “unitary” councils covering central and southern parts of the county (Preston, South Ribble, Chorley and West Lancashire), a broad western and northern area (Blackpool, Wyre, Fylde, Lancaster and Ribble Valley) and the east (Blackburn with Darwen, Burnley, Rossendale, Hyndburn and Pendle).

DISTRICTS DEMAND A VOICE  

One aspect of the devolution debate on which the dozen Lancashire districts seem to agree is that their tier of local government would not be sufficiently involved in delivering the new powers under the currently-proposed deal.

The agreement struck with the last government would see the formation of a new combined county authority (CCA) whose principal members would be representatives of the three local authorities that did the negotiating – Lancashire County Council, Blackpool Council and Blackburn with Darwen Council.

Two district authority figures would be given non-constituent member status, but they would not have a vote on the decision-making body.  That has been a bone of contention since the provisional deal was inked during a special ceremony at Lancaster Castle last November.

The three Tory-led district leaders have now told Angela Rayner in their letter to her that they would “welcome voting rights for district councils” – adding that there was now an opportunity to “redress this anomaly whilst respecting the two-tier system of local government”.

Meanwhile, the letter sent to the Deputy Prime Minister by the nine Labour and coalition-run districts refers to the need for “more visible and more democratically accountable governance arrangements”.

It is an argument to which the new Labour administration seems likely to be receptive, with local government minister Jim McMahon last month saying he was “uncomfortable” with district authorities being “locked out of the picture” over devolution in some parts of the country.

The LDRS understands that the second-tier authorities in Lancashire are also united in requesting that they retain control over the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF), a government cash pot under which the county has so far been allocated £55.5m   The provisional deal would have seen responsibility for the money – intended to replace EU development funding lost to the regions after Brexit – transferred to the CCA.

A letter formally asking for the current arrangements to remain in place is expected to be drafted shortly.