Lancashire risks local developments going to pot and public confusion about who represents them if smaller councils are axed for the sake of devolution – it has been claimed.
Pendle councillors across all groups have backed a call for new talks between local councils and MPs on the best future for local democracy, council services and voter-accountability. following Westminster proposals to merge or abolish some English councils.
In December, the new Labour government published its English Devolution White Paper. That sets-out intentions to change current ‘two-tier’ areas with county and district councils, such as Lancashire. Separately, new Burnley and Brierfield MP Oliver Ryan has put forward other ideas for three or four possible new Lancashire unitary councils. There is also ongoing debate about a possible Lancashire combined county authority and devolution deal, which began under the previous Conservative government.
Pendle councillors debated these at their latest full meeting. Lib-Dem Coun David Whipp, the borough’s deputy leader, put forward a motion calling for talks. He suggested MP Oliver Ryan had proposed a ‘monster council’ for all east Lancashire including Blackburn with Darwen. But no discussions were held with Pendle councillors beforehand, Coun Whipp said.
He called on Pendle to reaffirm its view that local services and facilities should be provided by ‘truly local’ councils, sensitive to local needs and accountable to residents. He feared any reforms from the new white paper would bring significant short and medium-term financial costs, not savings, harm services and divert attention away from serving residents.
‘Orwellian vision’
He claimed: “The white paper proposes an Orwellian world with a centrist, state-ist system which is tantamount to the destruction of local democracy. We oppose the creation of monster councils. We want local councils to be accountable through the ballot box to local residents. The white paper would create a massive democratic deficit with power further away and in fewer hands.
“Pendle should work with Burnley, Rossendale and Ribble Valley councils to get the best outcome. And we want our two MPs to work with us. This is about residents’ keeping local control and keeping decision-making as close as possible to the people.
“There would be nothing local about a monster authority for east Lancashire or a mega-monster authority for the whole of Lancashire. I know some people at County Hall want that. But that is not devolution or decentralisation. That would would centralise and concentrate power.”
‘Why are the people not given a vote?’
David Hartley of Pendle Council
(Image: Pendle Council)
Lib-Dem David Hartley said: “Originally, I thought devolution would be good to get money up-north. But if we get one big council, we will get nothing done. As a funeral director, I hear local people’s views. Since the devolution plan, a number of people have asking what is this about? Why are we, the people, not being given a vote on this?”
Fellow Lib-Dem Tom Whipp said there was still time to get a ‘least-worst’ option on council reforms. He said: “The government will still consider creating new unitary authorities with populations less than 500,000. Rural areas around Pendle need to be considered. But we need to make the case quickly and seriously. That’s the only way we can avoid what has happened in North Yorkshire.
“The change in North Yorkshire has been anything but efficient. Developments in Skipton have gone to pot. Nobody knows who their councillors are. Meetings are so far away that nobody attends.”
Independent Coun Asjad Mahmood, Pendle Council leader, said: “I support this motion. There are all sorts of issues with changing councils including low democratic representation, costs and loss of local identities. A unitary council serving 500,000 people would be massive. We don’t want to be Blackburn-centred. We need conversations with neighbouring authorities to see how we can move forward.”
‘Carve-up for political gain’
Conservative Coun Ash Sutcliffe, both a borough and county councillor, said: “I agree with many comments but people are confusing devolution with local government reform. I want devolution, with more powers, but that does not necessarily need to be about local government reform.
“We could have the Lancashire combined authority idea with Lancashire, Blackburn and Blackpool councils, without local government reform. That would keep the council systems we currently have.”
Conservative Martyn Stone said: “Devolution is a fairly easy concept. It means devolving powers and decision-making from higher to lower authorities. The government white paper does not talk about devolution. It says let’s scrap district councils and create super-authorities with 500,000 populations. It’s a perversion of ‘devolution’. It’s shameless political gerrymandering where politicians draw boundaries across Lancashire for political purposes.
Martyn Stone of Pendle Council
(Image: Robbie MacDonald LDRS)
“Ribble Valley Council is talking about a public referendum. I agree we should talk to neighbouring authorities. This is about democracy.”
He added: “Westminster is founded on a wafer-thin veneer of democracy, based on a low share of a low election turnout . This unrepresentative government is on borrowed time. We know there are disenfranchised and disengaged people out there. Local democracy can be a corrective. The government should tear-up this disgraceful local government reform plan.”
But David Whipp replied: “It was Conservatives at Westminster who tied local government changes to devolution. Keir Starmer and his colleagues are following that through. “
Pendle Conservative group leader Coun Nadeem Ahmed supported the motion and said: “This calls on us to be pro-active. Let’s have those discussions.”
Subscribe to our daily newsletter LANCS LIVE NEWS and get all the biggest stories from across Lancashire direct to your inbox