Blackburn and District Trades Union Council has responded to the Lancashire “devolution” proposals by raising several issues around economic development and public engagement.
The Trades Council’s approach to the linked issues of devolution, regional economic development, the legacy of de-industrialisation, “left-behind” communities, and regaining economic growth, is that:
A) British governments consistently underestimate the scale of resources needed, and have failed to give sufficient weight, in particular, to the level of investment required to turn things around;
B) The practice of allocating money from a piecemeal confusion of different funding pots works against the implementation of stable medium-term strategies and creates a sort of “squawking chick” model, in which a lot of time, energy and focus is lost as areas “compete” for attention; and
C) The one most important thing we need is a strong central government with the political will to raise and deploy the resources required and be much more actively involved in meaningful investments along, say, the French model.
We are generally, therefore. quite underwhelmed by the recent mix of devolution arrangements – involving combined authorities and mayors – which claim to be amplifying local voices and control, but which practically do little but reorganise the “squawking chick” nest and reflect a belief that bigger more centralised organisations can do better, even if they don’t really represent much in terms of additional resources (mirroring the ICBs in healthcare).
Whilst the Combined County Authority (CCA) model does involve some “devolution” it also, from the local point of view, involves a new level of concentration in decision making, with the new “Authority” being a very small group of people (with the introduction of non-elected, albeit also non-voting <but how many votes will there be?>, members). It is difficult to see this unequivocally as “decision making brought closer to communities, increasing the visibility of those decisions” (p28 of Draft Proposal).
The current Government, it seems to us, puffs up the “achievements” of local advocates to deflect attention from the threadbare nature of delivery across the piece. The “Shared Prosperity Fund”, for instance, was presented as replacing the money that British regions used to access from the EU for purposes such as economic development and regeneration, and every grant was accompanied with hullaballoo. But for the first two of the three years spending announced the amount handed out only equated to EU funding if it was added to the amount of EU money that still being spent on Britain up to the end of year 2023-24.
We do have some sympathy for those who are anxious to give a slightly louder voice, under circumstances as they are, to Lancashire’s particular “squawking chick”, and so we have not, in our response to the Draft Proposal, roundly opposed it. Rather we have chosen to highlight issues we hope the relevant authorities will address on the way forward.
The “Draft Proposal” says (p6) that Lancashire is a “coherent economic area”. This is a point of view we expressed some reservations about in our response to the “call for evidence” made by the Independent Economic Review in 2021. We argue that East Lancashire, at least, has some distinct forward requirements for which we believe already struggle to gain recognition, whether in the context of “Lancashire” or, more widely, “the North”.
The Draft Proposal answers the question of who will be involved in developing regional industrial and economic strategy once the Lancashire Enterprise Partnership (LEP) reaches the end of the road.
The LEP itself had represented a narrowing of the range of interests involved in this area, being particularly notable for lacking any Trade Union involvement whatsoever. We had hoped that subsequent arrangements might lead to a review and a widening of engagement, but we read the Draft Proposal as indicating a move in the opposite direction – setting up a Business Board as an adjunct to the CCA that will have the right to place a non-voting member on it. No anticipated composition for this Business Board is given, but the name is sufficient to imply that it will represent exclusively employer interests.
We ask if the CCA will be prepared to consider either widening the composition of the Business Board, or having a Social Well-being Board, of equivalent status to the Business Board, with a responsibility for providing input on issues such as living standards and workforce representation.
The only real “extra money” to come with the “devolution deal” is a one-off £20m “reward” for agreeing it. This is to be spent as follows:
£6m capital investment to create an Innovation Hub of international excellence at Samlesbury Enterprise Zone;
£6m for the Blackburn Technology Innovation Quarter;
£2m for the Cosy Homes in Lancashire domestic retrofit scheme; and
£6m capital investment for a Low Carbon Data Demonstrator Centre at Blackpool Enterprise Zone.
So far as we can tell, these are projects that existing constituent Councils have been working to realise and take forward.
We query, therefore, what will be the scope for Councils to have and promote such ideas in future? Will everything be drawn into the CCA orbit, or will local Councils still be expected to pursue plans which might then look to the CCA for support as well as to other sources of investment?
Other than this £20m, the “devolution” aspect of the proposal boils down to the new CCA being the body that distributes money across Lancashire that the Government would previously have been responsible for spreading across the various Councils. We ask if it is envisaged that the Districts will still be encouraged to submit applications and proposals for their areas, or will the new framework mean that allocation will be much more a matter of what the CCA sees as being the priorities?
You can find a full copy of our Response here, where there is more detail, in particular, on the specific needs of East Lancashire: