Government rejects Reform call for binding referendum on council scrappage and mayoral plans

The message came in a letter to the Reform UK leader of Lancashire County Council, Stephen Atkinson, from local government minister Jim McMahon.

It followed a meeting between the pair late last month during which it is understood they discussed a request from County Cllr Atkinson for referendums both on the government-ordered council shake-up – which will see the number of local authorities in the area slashed – and the prospect of Lancashire getting a directly-elected mayor.

He had pledged to pursue public votes, estimated to cost a total £2.5m, on the two politically thorny issues in the run-up to the local elections in May – and says he is “disappointed” by the government’s now declared stance on the status of any poll about council reorganisation.

The correspondence – which has been circulated to other senior local authority figures in the county and seen by the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) – is silent on the possibility of holding a vote to survey public opinion on a mayor, pending submission of a formal proposal this autumn regarding an expansion of Lancashire’s devolution deal.

Late last year, the government announced its intention to scrap so-called ‘two-tier’ council set-ups like those that exist across much of Lancashire, where responsibilities are split between the county council and a dozen, more local, district authorities.

Under the radical revamp, all 15 main Lancashire councils would be wiped off the map: the county authority, the 12 districts – Preston, Chorley, South Ribble, West Lancashire, Fylde, Wyre, Lancaster, Ribble Valley, Burnley, Hyndburn, Rossendale and Pendle – and the standalone councils in Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen.

A much smaller number of new bodies will be created to replace them by merging existing local authority areas.

County Cllr Atkinson has long been vehemently opposed to that move – which has been on and off the political agenda for much of the last decade – and first made the call for a referendum on the subject during his six years as the then Conservative leader of Ribble Valley Borough Council.

In his letter, Jim McMahon states that a referendum “is not part of the statutory process which has already begun” to sweep away two-tier arrangements in the almost two dozen counties nationwide where they are in place.

Lancashire’s councils have been given a deadline of 28th November to set out their vision for what should follow in their wake – and Mr. McMahon, who will make the final decision, notes that the government expects there to be “wide engagement” on any proposal before it is submitted.

Crucially, however, he adds: “To reiterate, the context of that engagement is the view of [the] government that ending the two-tier system of local government is an essential part of the wider project to fix the foundations of local government, and create a system which is fit, legal and decent.

“It is for you to decide on whether such a [referendum] poll would be an effective form of engagement in this context.

“My decisions on the most appropriate option for each area will be judgements in the round, having regard to the statutory guidance and the available evidence.”

The overarching sentiment appears to be that as the government is committed to implementing the changes, a referendum on the principle of the project would not derail it – regardless of the outcome of any public vote.

In a statement to the LDRS in response to the government’s position, County Cllr Atkinson – whose Reform group won control of County Hall at the local elections – said: “Local government reorganisation was not part of the Labour Party manifesto, which is why we have been seeking a referendum to ensure Lancashire residents can have their say.

“I am disappointed that the government are not willing to adjust their processes to allow a legally binding referendum on this important matter.

“We will now seek advice on the most appropriate course of action to ensure our residents can share their views on the [subject].”

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) was also approached for comment.

REDESIGNING LOCAL DEMOCRACY

The LDRS understands modelling work is about to get under way to demonstrate how the costs of local government would be split across Lancashire depending on how many new authorities are ultimately created as part of the carve-up.

The districts and standalone councils will be used as building blocks for that process, which also involves county council spending being “disaggregated” – or divided – across the different parts of the patch, where it is currently absorbed to varying degrees as per the cost of delivering services like social care in each individual area.

When Lancashire’s leaders set out in March an “interim plan” – requested by the government – for how they see the local authority landscape in the county after reorganisation, they admitted that there was no “consensus” between them. Against that backdrop, they suggested anything between just one and as many as five new councils could be on the table.

In a feedback letter, revealed by the LDRS last month, the government urged the existing councils to work together to share the data that will form the “evidence” underpinning any proposals – so that if multiple suggestions are put forward, they are all based on the same premise.

Ministers want to know how any proposed configurations would ensure “financially viable councils”, including details of operational budgets, the cost of servicing any debt carried over from their predecessor authorities and what options there may be to sell off assets such as buildings that are no longer needed under the new arrangements.

The government has expressed a preference for Lancashire to submit a single proposal – but that might well be wishful thinking given the county’s history of wrangling over the subject.

The preferences that individual councils have so far made public have posited four or five new authorities, but the LDRS understands that a three-way – or even just a two-way – split might yet be put forward by others.

To date, Preston and Ribble Valley have each argued for a tie-up between themselves and Lancaster, while Chorley and South Ribble want to join forces with each other and West Lancashire – scenarios that would all necessitate the establishment of at least four new councils county-wide.

Meanwhile, Burnley has expressed a desire for five new councils, with an additional specification that the town must not end up in the same authority area as Blackburn with Darwen, while Pendle has stated that only a four or five-council arrangement would ensure “local democracy” was preserved.

PRINCIPLED STANCE – OR PIE IN THE SKY?

Azhar Ali, leader of Lancashire County Council’s Progressive Alliance official opposition group – made up of independent and Green Party members – accused County Cllr Atkinson of engaging in a “political stunt” over his referendum calls.

“We need to get on with delivering public services – and I actually want to thank the government for making a decision that saves the people of Lancashire two million quid that’s better spent on things like sorting out our roads,” County Cllr Ali said.

Meanwhile, County Hall’s Conservative group leader Aidy Riggott said he had been “amazed” by County Cllr Atkinson’s pre-election pledge to hold referendums.

“He has sat at the top table of Lancashire politics as the leader of Ribble Valley and as the deputy of [the] Lancashire Leaders [group] – there were very few people better informed on the government position, its intentions and what was expected of Lancashire than [him].

“I am left wondering what led County Cllr Atkinson to make that guarantee – was it naivety, political opportunism or a deeply-held commitment and a sincere promise to the people of Lancashire that he intends to deliver on? I guess we will have to wait and see,” County Cllr Riggott added.

Labour group leader Mark Clifford said his personal view was that a referendum was only worth holding if the outcome was legally binding. Anything else “simply becomes a huge waste of taxpayers’ money”, he told the LDRS.

“Residents demand better services from local government and more investment into the region. Spending millions of pounds of residents’ hard-earned cash – which is needed for vital front-line services – by holding a fake referendum benefits nobody and is a disservice to Lancashire,” County Cllr Clifford said.

The Conservative leader of Wyre Council, Michael Vincent, had previously supported referendum calls – but stressed that that was before publication of the government’s devolution white paper, in which the commitment to a streamlining of councils was unequivocal.

“We decided then that we weren’t going to waste public money on that. So it seems that County Cllr Atkinson’s trip to London [to see Jim McMahon] was simply to comply with the policy that he stood for election on – knowing full well that he had absolutely no chance whatsoever of getting ministers to amend legislation to comply with Reform policy,” Cllr Vincent said.

Several Labour council leaders were also approached for comment.

HAVING A MAYOR

While Jim McMahon’s letter sheds no light on the prospect of a mayoral referendum, it does offer some insight into whether the decision about adopting an Andy Burnham-style figurehead will ultimately rest with Lancashire itself – even if it is in the hands of its politicians rather than the people – or if the post will be imposed on the county by the government.

As the LDRS has charted, the ministerial position appears to have vacillated in recent months. While the government has made no secret of its desire for areas without a mayor to get one, the choice as set out in the devolution white paper last year appeared to be a genuine one.

However, at the Convention of the North in Preston in February, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said that “by May 2026, the whole of the North will have mayors” – seemingly removing the option for Lancashire to refuse.

But in its feedback letter on the initial proposals for council reorganisation, the MHCLG appeared to row back on making the mayor a formal demand when it suggested leaders might like to consider the shake-up in the context of “whether” Lancashire opted to install the powerful politician.

In his latest correspondence, Jim McMahon seems to restate the government’s stance as one of coaxing rather than coercing, stating only that it is “entirely possible that by the end of this parliament [the North] will have full coverage of regional mayors”.

He also refers to a hitherto unpublicised request from County Cllr Atkinson “to defer the date of the potential mayoral election from 2026 to 2027”.

Mr. McMahon advises that “those discussions are held locally” , with whatever is agreed upon being included as part of the submission he has previously requested by this autumn from Lancashire detailing a move towards “deeper” devolution.

That will essentially involve the county making a pitch for more powers and cash than those it received under its first devolution deal last year – a step-up which, if it is significant enough, would require acceptance of a mayor as a matter of government policy.

Whether and where a referendum will fit into that already complex and politically charged process is – theoretically, at least – still undecided.