Minutes:
(During the following item Councillor Whitaker declared an ‘other’ interest, as defined in the Councillor Code of Conduct, as a Morecambe Town Councillor)
The following motion of which notice had been given to the Chief Executive in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15 was moved by Councillor Maddocks and seconded by Cllr Joyce Pritchard.
“Lancaster City Council notes:
1. The Government's White Paper published on 16 December sets out its intention to abolish county and district councils, including Lancaster City Council, and create unitary councils with populations of around half a million people.
2. The proposal drawn up by one of Lancashire’s MPs which was supported by a number of Lancashire MPs, is to create 3 or 4 unitary councils in Lancashire. In this proposal Lancaster City Council area would be merged with the existing Blackpool unitary and Wyre district councils, (and possibly with Fylde district council). A conflicting proposal, from the Labour leader of Preston council, would merge Lancaster district and Ribble Valley within a 3-council unitary.
3. That with regard to the above different proposals circulated by Labour MPs and councillors from elsewhere in Lancashire, Lancaster City Council leadership has not been involved in discussions or asked for its views before publication.
4. That the UK already stands out in Europe as having a very high local authority population size.
5. Lancaster City Council previously supported the creation of a Bay Unitary Authority, backed by councillors from all 5 political groups on Lancaster City Council, which would have served a smaller population of 300,000 that better reflected community identity. This was rejected by Government in July 2021.
6. That previously in November 2023, the Government announced it had negotiated a Level 2 devolution deal with Lancashire County, Blackpool, and Blackburn with Darwen Councils. This deal is set to transfer new powers and funding to the Lancashire Combined County Authority (CCA), in a deal that includes £20 million of capital funding to invest in local priorities and the devolution of the Adult Education Budget.
7. That this Level 2 Devolution deal is currently being progressed through Parliament.
Lancaster City Council believes:
1. That devolution of powers and resources from Whitehall to Lancashire is welcome in principle, but accountability to residents, working arrangements with existing councils and the protection and enhancement of existing local services and decision making all require consideration and agreement involving elected representatives in the county at all levels;
2. The new White Paper’s insistence of another level of re-organising local councils will not give time for the agreed proposals for a CCA across Lancashire to bed in;
3. That whilst the Labour manifesto pledged to create Strategic Authorities, the plans to reorganise district and borough level councils into large unitaries was not an election pledge. There is little evidence that such reorganisation will deliver better services or enhance local decision making.
4. That reorganisation ensuing from the December 2024 White Paper will have significant short- and medium-term financial costs, not savings, contrary to what government claims; and that it will be highly disruptive for the staff who deliver services;
5. That local services and facilities are best provided by truly local councils sensitive to the needs of local residents. The proposals will create a massive democratic deficit, with power being centralised further away from residents and do not reflect the identity and interests of local communities and would bring less responsiveness and less accountability;
6. That attention which would otherwise be focused on solving problems affecting our local residents will be diverted into Local Government Reorganisation discussions.
Council, therefore, resolves:
(1) To oppose the current basis of local government reorganisation in Lancashire, and its insistence on creating unitary councils required to service huge populations of around 500,000 people.
(2) To push for and plan for a ‘referendum’ or meaningful far-reaching consultation on the matter to ascertain the views of local people before any specific realignment of district councils takes place which affect Lancaster City Council’s residents. The wording and details of any such referendum or consultation shall be agreed by this council at a later date.
(3) To mandate the Leader of the Council and the executive to build on existing arrangements with Lancashire authorities where shared services deliver better value for money, and to develop a shared vision for the future.
(4) To send a letter requesting that our two MPs work alongside the City Council to achieve the best possible outcome for local people with respect to the future structure of local governance.”
Councillor Maddocks responded to questions from Councillors.
A full briefing note had been provided by the Chief Executive to provide background information to assist the debate.
An amendment to the motion had been submitted by Councillor Gawith and circulated in advance of the meeting.
Councillor Gawith proposed his amendment, seconded by Councillor Ainscough:
“Lancaster City Council recognises the good work carried out by Council Officers and the valuable services this Council provides. As Councillors we also recognise that the majority of complaints received from residents relate to the following service areas, young peoples schooling and education, potholes and road maintenance, and adult care; none of these are the responsibility of this Council.
1. The Government's White Paper published on 16 December sets out its intention to abolish county and district councils, including Lancaster City Council, and create unitary councils with populations of around half a million people.
2. Current proposals being considered are:
I. A single unitary authority for Lancashire
II. Two unitary authorities, East and West Lancashire
III. Three unitary authorities
IV. Four Unitary authorities(such as Lancaster, Preston and Ribble Valley).
3. This Council believes that the City Council and political parties should act in best interests of residents by ensuring the outcome has the greatest financial stability combined with proper political accountability. Political parties and authorities must discuss all possible options with other partner organisations.
4. This Council recognises that across Europe strategic decisions are taken by regional authorities, far larger than our current district Councils. This enables economies of scale that UK residents are being denied.
5. Lancaster City Council previously supported the creation of a Bay Unitary Authority, backed by councillors from all 5 political groups on Lancaster City Council, which would have served a smaller population of 300,000 that better reflected community identity. This was rejected by Government in July 2021.
6. That previously in November 2023, the Government announced it had negotiated a Level 2 devolution deal with Lancashire County, Blackpool, and Blackburn with Darwen Councils. This deal is set to transfer new powers and funding to the Lancashire Combined County Authority (CCA), in a deal that includes £20 million of capital funding to invest in local priorities and the devolution of the Adult Education Budget.
7. That this Level 2 Devolution deal is currently being progressed through Parliament.
Lancaster City Council believes
1. That devolution of powers and resources from Whitehall to Lancashire is welcome in principle, and accountability to residents is paramount.
2. The new White Paper ensures that all areas of the country will have the greatest opportunity to have financially sound, all service authorities, ensuring that no communities are left behind.
3. There is clear evidence across the country that unitary authorities are growing economically and providing far better services to local residents (consider the transport solutions in Manchester, Sheffield etc)
4. Local services must be provided in a cost-effective manner alongside real accountability to our residents.
Council, therefore, resolves
1. To work with other local authorities and partner agencies to create the most effective authorities that can deliver the full range of local authority services.
2. To continue to work with existing Lancashire authorities to improve shared services.
3. To support the formation of a Lancaster Town Council and any other non parished communities are made parishes (eg Heysham) and work alongside any unitary authority to enable true localism and generate real political entrepreneurship in Lancaster.
4. To send a letter requesting that our two MPs work alongside the City Council to achieve the best possible outcome for local people with respect to the future structure of local governance.”
There was extensive debate on the amendment.
At the conclusion of the debate on the amendment a vote was taken and the amendment fell with 24 votes ‘for’ and 30 votes ‘against’. There were no abstentions.
No further amendments were proposed. Extensive debate on the original motion followed.
A vote was taken on the original motion, which was carried with 30 Councillors voting ‘for’ and 24 Councillors voting ‘against’. There were no abstentions.
Resolved:-
(1) To oppose the current basis of local government reorganisation in Lancashire, and its insistence on creating unitary councils required to service huge populations of around 500,000 people.
(2) To push for and plan for a ‘referendum’ or meaningful far-reaching consultation on the matter to ascertain the views of local people before any specific realignment of district councils takes place which affect Lancaster City Council’s residents. The wording and details of any such referendum or consultation shall be agreed by this council at a later date.
(3) To mandate the Leader of the Council and the executive to build on existing arrangements with Lancashire authorities where shared services deliver better value for money, and to develop a shared vision for the future.
(4) To send a letter requesting that our two MPs work alongside the City Council to achieve the best possible outcome for local people with respect to the future structure of local governance.