DIB group chair and chief executive Frank McKenna reflects on a prime ministers conference speech which further highlighted Lancashire’s wrongheaded approach to devolution.
The Prime Minister could hardly have been clearer in his speech to the Labour Party conference in Liverpool.
Devolution will be at the heart of his domestic agenda. He wants to rewire Britain, drive power out of Whitehall and give local leaders the freedom and resources to grow their economies.
For Lancashire, this should be an enormous opportunity. Unfortunately, while other parts of the country are preparing to take advantage of this new era, our political leaders remain unable -or unwilling – to agree on the mayoral model that would unlock it.
I once described Lancashire as being in the slow lane of devolution. That assessment now feels generous. The county has pulled over to the hard shoulder while other places forge ahead.
Greater Manchester and Liverpool City Region already have powerful mayors, mature Combined Authorities and increasingly influential relationships with Whitehall. Cheshire and Cumbria join them next year. They are gaining greater control over transport, housing, skills, strategic planning and investment. They are building recognisable propositions, attracting private capital and speaking to government with a single, authoritative voice.
Lancashire is still discussing whether it wants to get in the game.
This failure has consequences. It is costing the county investment, influence and economic growth.
The current mayor-free settlement leaves Lancashire operating at the lowest level of the devolution framework, with fewer powers and less financial flexibility than mayoral strategic authorities. Discussions with government have suggested that a deeper deal could bring an investment fund worth around £35 million a year for 30 years – more than £1 billion.
That is before we consider the wider benefits of stronger transport powers, control over skills, strategic housing and regeneration, and the ability to develop a serious, long-term investment pipeline.
Lancashire’s politicians need to explain why they are prepared to put all of that at risk.
The familiar objections to an elected mayor no longer stand up. This is not about creating another ceremonial position or imposing an unwanted personality on the county. It is about establishing visible, accountable leadership with the authority to negotiate with government and champion Lancashire nationally and internationally.
Nobody is suggesting that Lancashire is one homogenous place. Its diversity is one of its strengths. Blackpool is different from Blackburn, Lancaster is different from Leyland, and East Lancashire has different challenges from the Fylde coast. But Greater Manchester contains ten distinct boroughs, and the Liverpool City Region brings together six very different local authorities. They have found ways to collaborate because the economic prize is more important than preserving political comfort zones.
Lancashire’s problem is not its geography. It is the inability of its political leadership to put the county’s collective interests ahead of institutional rivalries and local sensitivities.
Business has been patient, but patience should not be mistaken for indifference. Employers need better connectivity, a workforce equipped with the right skills, land unlocked for development, stronger town and city centres, and a more compelling offer to inward investors.
Those outcomes require ambition, investment and leadership. They will not be delivered by another committee, another consultation or another round of council leaders protecting their own patch.
The government has made clear where power and investment are going. The door is open, but it will not remain open indefinitely.
Lancashire’s political leaders must now agree to a mayoral model, secure the strongest possible devolution settlement and allow the county to fulfil its economic potential.
The alternative is to continue watching our neighbours move further ahead while Lancashire sits on the hard shoulder, indicators flashing, arguing about who should take the wheel.
