Lancaster councillors call for public referendum on government’s push for merger

Lancaster City Council might call a public referendum on the government’s desire to create new, big councils serving populations of 500,000 people.

Council merger ideas are part of the government’s new English Devolution White Paper, but critics have accused the government of a lack of public consultation.

Some fear mergers will make politics more distant from communities and see council assets used to prop up adult social care services and the NHS.

Lancaster City Council debated the issues at its latest full meeting, with councillors voting to form a working group on the issues and look at a referendum.

Coun Sally Maddocks put forward a motion against the government’s ‘insistence’ on creating unitary councils with ‘huge’ populations of 500,000, calling for a local referendum or meaningful, far-reaching public consultation.

She said one MP had suggested the Lancaster district merge with Blackpool, Wyre and possibly Fylde, while Preston’s Labour leader had suggested merging with Lancaster and the Ribble Valley.

In the past, she said Lancaster City Council had backed the idea of a Morecambe Bay unitary council with a population of 300,000, but that was rejected by a previous Conservative government.

The motion asked the city council to work with others to get the best outcome. Ideas could include creating a new Lancaster Town Council or other parish councils such as for Heysham.

Coun Maddocks said: “I’m a representative for Ellel, which has about 3,000 people. I’d never dream of deciding what is best for them without asking and getting their views for guidance.

“Suggestions that we merge with Blackpool or Preston fill me with horror because of the loss of identity. Also different authorities would have different powers. One single council for all Lancashire would have 1.5m people and be more expensive. And the 500,000 population ambition has already lost credibility. Government plans are full of vagueness and gaps.

“We have to show we are leaders. We’re being asked to make a decision without asking residents first. We must ask for a referendum. If not, we will be merged with another area without public consent.

“Our assets would be merged too. We’ve gone to great lengths to preserve them and get a balanced budget. But reserves could go to adult social care. There could be nothing left for work in this district such as culture, arts and heritage.”

Labour councillor Phillip Black, who resigned as council leader in November, claimed: “The new council leader has not discussed things with other councils. Why not? If I was leader, I’d be having discussions. Why has the leader sat on her hands and not engaged?”

Coun Maddocks replied: “We have not sat on our hands. Other authorities mentioned in possible mergers have not approached us.”

Labour’s David Whittaker asked: “Would parish or town councils or community bodies have more of a role? Could that be positive? I’m on Morecambe Town Council, as are some other councillors. We’d be looking at things like community centres. We need to be realistic and work around this.”

Conservative Andrew Gardiner said Coun Maddocks had got some facts wrong.

He said: “People’s tax money is already going to adult social care in the county. To quote that is, I think, misleading. Also the motion says five political groups supported a Morecambe Bay unitary council, but we did not because it went against government rules against crossing county boundaries.”

Coun Maddocks said she had no intention to mislead but was describing what residents said.

Labour’s Jason Wood also said talk of local council staff job uncertainty was inaccurate because their situations would be handled under national rules.

Labour’s Joanne Ainscough said: “This is a serious issue but this motion does not solve the issues. Refusing to engage regardless of our views makes a mockery of forming a cross-party working group. It means our views are not being represented. It’s either poor leadership or politically motivated.”

Labour’s Martin Gawith said: “If we asked the question another way, about passing on our city council’s financial deficit to Preston or wherever, we might get a different answer?

“We have to take this opportunity to get the best possible result for everyone. We recognise the benefits of all service councils which don’t distinguish between the county and district. The public don’t understand details and a referendum won’t get around that.

“Manchester is the fastest-growing economy and the core of that is a unitary authority and elected mayor.”

Later, Coun Gardiner added: “If change happened, why would Lancaster lose its identity? My ward includes Heysham, the most profitable ward. We could get links with neighbouring authorities and could be kingpin.

“We have an energy hub, a growing port, a university and a seaside town. We are better than Preston. Lancaster is real city. If we can’t get a good deal for the district then we will let ourselves down. Blackpool and Blackburn are in a mess because they are too small.”

Morecambe Bay Independent Roger Dennison said: “I lived through the 1974 changes and there’s been a long time to consider them. But with these new proposals there is potential for double taxation and a democratic deficit. We should tell the government these plans have just been foisted on us.”

Peter Jackson added: “Regional decision making is allowed in Scotland and Wales. If Labour councillors wanted to campaign for regional assemblies in England, I would campaign for that. But Labour is not offering that. Also the government talks about creating ‘sensible economic geography’ but combining with Blackpool or Preston won’t do that.”

He claimed Morecambe was “sold down the river in 1974”.

Green councillor Caroline Jackson, city council leader, said: ” We have engaged on these topics. We should not assume the government knows best. I think we know a lot about local government.

“I’ve been to many meetings. But we are not being consulted. At one meeting, we were told two powers had been found for us – our council can restrict vaping outlets and do some selective landlord matters. Two powers!

“The idea of a new authority may be attractive. But the new Westmorland & Furness Council says it is taking four years to put the council back together and it’ll take another four years to become a functioning authority. The cost was about £30m for unitarisation and splitting councils. It cost £6m to £7m from reserves. That’s how much. That’s the evidence. So its worth slowing down the process here.”

Green Gina Dowding added: “We are not against council unification. Our argument is about size. Consultation needs to happen and will cost. Reform will be expensive. It’s been decades since the last major council reforms. Labour is just tinkering around. Adult social care and the NHS need to be properly addressed.”