The devolution debate moves on apace. This is something that local government leaders across England welcome – irrespective, it would seem of their political persuasion.
I happened to watch part of a meeting of Oldham Council on the web, at which they debated the issue at some length, and what was striking was how much consensus there was. I have noted that at our meetings of the Lancashire leaders (the specifics of which must, of course, remain private) party politics are rarely a factor when we discuss devolution, or the potential formation of a combined authority.
The Government suffered a defeat in the Lords earlier this week, on the question of elected mayors, and a deal for Cornwall has been announced which does not include a requirement for an elected mayor and contains "transport, employment and skills, EU funding, business support, energy, health and social care, public estate, heritage and culture, with a number of exciting ‘firsts’ for Cornwall.”
Depending on the point one wishes to prove, we can see similarities or differences between Lancashire and Cornwall. They are a not dissimilar size –in terms of land mass (Cornwall is just over 1,400 square miles, Lancashire a little smaller at 1,200) – but in terms of population, Lancashire is almost three times the size, with a population of nudging 1.5 million (including the Unitary councils), whereas Cornwall only just tops half a million. Cornwall has much more coastline to worry about, and a different ethnic mix to Lancashire – with almost 96% of the population identifying as White British. Rural issue will be higher up Cornwall County’s priorities than they will be in many of Lancashire’s urban district councils - but the key issue is the politics of the situation, or, to be more precise, the Governance.
Cornwall became a unitary authority in 2009 – when the county council and six district councils were abolished. Lancashire is much less straightforward – we have a county council, 12 district councils and two unitary councils. Cornwall is likely to be – partly due to having longstanding traditions around Liberalism and a bent towards Independent councillors – one of those councils which remains under No Overall Control – whereas in Lancashire (at county, district and unitary levels) control tends to pretty much swing between the two major parties.
Places like Blackpool – a usually Labour unitary, buttressed by two usually Conservative districts – with an odd sort of relationship with a county which has been Labour, Conservative and No Overall Control all in the space of the last seven years, sometimes feels a bit of a lonely place to be!
I characterise our relationship with the county council as being akin to that of a divorced couple (Blackpool and Lancashire separated on 1st April 1998, and whilst we get on fine most of the time, there are those awkward moments when it feels like we’re the target of a passionately bellowed Gloria Gaynor number, as soon as we’re out of the car park).
Therefore in both situations – albeit for different reasons - an elected mayor seems (and is) a fairly silly idea. The notion that one person could relate as well to the good people of Skelmersdale, Blackpool, Clitheroe and Dolphinholme as they could to the citizens of Lammack, Skippool, Euxton and Barnoldswick is just a bit far-fetched. We only need to look at turnout in the Police and Crime Commissioner elections to see how fired up people get about selecting such a remote sounding individual.
My embryonic solution to this, and a solution which I think is being embraced by other leaders, is the idea of a Leadership Board for Lancashire. Any combined authority (and there is much debate and discussion required to get to that point) needs to be, and do, a number of things:
· Be clear that it is NOT a step towards local government reorganisation, or creation of one unitary Lancashire Council.
· Be clear that it is NOT just a new layer of bureaucracy.
· Set out clearly what the advantages are in terms of devolved power and cash from London.
· Give each council (from the huge county to the smallest district) one seat and one vote on the Leadership Board – with an additional non-voting seat for the chair of the LEP (there might be an argument for the Police and Crime Commissioner to be a non-voting member as well).
· For the Leadership Board to elect a chair from those 15 voting members – who would be the public and accountable face of the combined authority.
· Allow member councils an opt-out (rather than a veto) on major issues.
· Allow member councils the ability to work in conjunction with a smaller number of like-minded or geographically relevant councils, if not all members of the combined authority are interested in a particular subject.
· Agree that on certain key issues there must be unanimity before moving ahead – including any decisions which saw power transfer UP from local councils to the combined authority.
The chair – who would need to be re-elected every year – would be subject to the vicissitudes of the electorate (put bluntly, whichever political party controlled more than 50% of the councils in Lancashire would take the chair), and should/would be held publicly accountable by the Government and the constituent councils for the performance of the combined authority. I don’t believe that it is palatable or practical for the county council either to fund/facilitate the combined authority, or to chair it. This is no reflection upon the incumbent – who is superb – but merely a reflection of the widely held view that successful devolution cannot be based around any one organisation. Fortunately, I believe on this occasion that the county council share my view!
The new secretary of state spoke to the LGA conference in Harrogate a couple of weeks ago. I was present, and two points stuck in my mind. Firstly, that the LEP is central to any combined authority arrangements. Our LEP needs work – it needs better PR, better relationships with key stakeholders, a more inclusive approach, and perhaps some fresh blood. Secondly, combined authorities need to involve all part of a county or city region. Any approach to Government for a Lancashire Combined Authority, which wasn’t agreed and signed up to by all 15 constituent bodies would, in my view, be destined to fall at the first hurdle.
It is now for each of those 15 leaders, once we have met again at the start of September, to be clear about what our negotiating position with Government is – what we need to make it work, what governance structures should be put in place to guarantee a fair representation across the county, and whether or not there is enough on offer for a small, but significant transfer of power to take place locally.
My deputy and I also organised and hosted a meeting for other coastal and port towns and cities at the LGA conference. The results were impressive to say the least. There was a huge amount of enthusiasm (with more than 30 different local authorities and LEPs represented, by both politicians and senior officers) for joint working around subjects as diffuse as housing benefit, sea defences, concessionary fares, houses in multiple occupancy, VAT levels and pressures on looked after children numbers, to name but a few.
With the unanimous agreement of the meeting, it was agreed to meet again at the Annual British Destinations Conference in Blackpool this October - who have very kindly agreed to us running a workshop on further potential joint working arrangements. So whilst we may tentatively look to Lancashire for our formal, geographic combined authority, that is no reason not to consider a further bid for powers to be devolved to a collection of geographically dispersed, but socially and economically united authorities early next year.
We have an opportunity to put coastal communities, tourism and the hospitality industry firmly on the Treasury's to-do list, let's take it!
Cllr Simon Blackburn is leader of Blackpool Council.
