Council leader seeks referendum on Lancashire elected mayor
The leader of Lancashire County Council is to ask the government for permission to hold a referendum on an elected mayor and the scrapping of the county's local councils.Reform UK's Stephen Atkinson, who is also chair of the county's combined authority, is scheduled to meet Local Government Minister Jim McMahon on Thursday.Atkinson is calling for a "legally binding referendum", saying the views of the people of Lancashire "need to be listened to".The government wants to scrap all 15 of Lancashire's councils and replace them with three or four larger unitary authorities, which would provide all services under an elected mayor.
The BBC has asked the department of local government and communities for a response. McMahon had previously asked Lancashire local authorities to set out a shared vision for the county after the councils they control are abolished, but so far no consensus has been reached.Last year, political leaders from Lancashire County Council, Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool councils signed a devolution deal with the government to create a Combined County Authority.It has some powers devolved to it from the government, but not as many as areas with an elected mayor.
Atkinson has been a long standing critic of the mayoral model of government, but said: "Reform's position is that people need to be consulted, so it's not about personal thoughts and beliefs on these big issues that have a profound impact on Lancashire families, they really need to have their say."He has already written to McMahon in a formal letter on this subject, but said he had not had a response so far.
'Widest consultation'
If the government was to allow a referendum to go ahead, Atkinson estimated it could cost about £2.5m to hold the poll.He said: "We can only really do that if the government is going to listen to the result of it." If the government said no to holding a referendum, Atkinson said the council would have to have the "widest consultation possible"."There's 1.5 million people and we've really got to reach into all areas of the population to make sure people's views are listened to," he said.Atkinson was made chair of the combined authority at the first meeting since Reform UK won control of Lancashire County Council from the Conservatives in May's local election.
Listen to the best of BBC Radio Lancashire on BBC Sounds and follow BBC Lancashire on Facebook, X and Instagram and watch BBC North West Tonight on BBC iPlayer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
23 minutes ago
- Telegraph
SNP rebels do not have an alternative leader to John Swinney
Even the most assiduous of Nat-watchers would struggle to hazard a guess about how many times John Swinney has launched himself into a declaration that he'd fight to his last drop – or words to that effect – to achieve independence for Scotland. Being the relatively modest chap that he is, I doubt if even Mr Swinney would get close to naming the correct number of such speeches. And after all, given the paucity of other policies in the SNP playbook, independence obviously gets a lot of mentions. As a result, we've now had old 'Say-it-Again Swinney' returning again to his favourite theme, this time at a conference that rejoiced in the title of Scotland 2050. Now, I'm assuming that even a long marcher in the cause of independence, as he is, wasn't thinking of hanging around for another 25 years or so – but why return to that boring old tale? There have been suggestions that he's doing it because there are signs of a backbench plot to unseat him as leader following the humiliating SNP defeat in the Hamilton Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election. It's true that, for a seasoned warrior, Mr Swinney's campaign was a decidedly cack-handed affair, constantly warning about the danger posed by Nigel Farage's Reform UK. Needless to say, all that did was talk up Reform's chances – and so it proved. Labour reaped the benefit, the SNP was second, with Reform third, and almost immediately the know-nothings on the Nat backbenches rushed forward with audible mutterings that Swinney had to go. However, I can't really believe that the First Minister is losing a minute's sleep over these supposed threats. Like lemmings peering over the cliff edge, these heroes seem to be threatening rebellion but without the foggiest idea about how to go about it. And, most of all, who would lead them? That's the biggest gap in their prospectus because, while there may be a few suicide merchants in their ranks, I can't think of a single overly ambitious Nat candidate who stacks up as 'possible' leader. Kate Forbes is the current Deputy First Minister and just about everybody's choice as a possible successor – everybody, that is, except perhaps the lady herself. Widely seen as a clever politician with sensible economic views, she delivered a ringing denunciation this week of the 'destructive nature' of much of the content of social media, calling it 'totally misogynistic'. She did try to become SNP leader and first minister after Nicola Sturgeon's shock resignation but was beaten by Humza Yousaf, the man Ms Sturgeon wanted as her successor and campaigned for hard. If Mr Swinney were to resign, she might well have another try for the top job but very few expect her to try to force him out any time soon. Furthermore, there's very little chance of him resigning this side of next May's Scottish Parliament election. All of this means that there won't be much scope for plotting at this weekend's gathering of the SNP's national council … always assuming that the plotters turn up.
Sky News
25 minutes ago
- Sky News
Assisted dying bill does 'not meet needs of patients', says Royal College of Psychiatrists
The Royal College of Psychiatrists' lead on assisted dying has told Sky News she is approaching Friday's vote by MPs "with professional trepidation". The medical organisation said the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in its current form did "not meet the needs of patients". It has also expressed concern over the shortage of qualified psychiatrists to take part in assisted dying panels, concerns around capacity assessment, and whether or not assisted dying will be interpreted as a treatment – because that would have a profound impact on the psychiatrist's decision-making process. Friday will be the first time the bill has been voted on in its entirety since last year's yes vote, when MPs supported the principle of assisted dying for England and Wales by a majority of 55. MPs are allowed to have a free vote on the bill, meaning they can decide based on their conscience instead of following party lines. The bill's supporters have said it is coming back to the Commons with better safeguards after more than 90 hours of parliamentary time spent on it to date. But opponents claim the process has been rushed and that changes to the bill mean it is weaker than when it was first introduced. The proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. Dr Annabel Price, the lead for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at the Royal College of Psychiatrists ( RCPsych), said: "We know that there is a strong association between a wish to hasten death and depression, and that there isn't adequate opportunity within the bill to assess somebody's needs and also to make sure that those needs are met, which might have an impact on their continued wish to want to end their life." The RCPsych was one of the first royal colleges to voice concerns about the bill in its current form. These fears have since been echoed by two more royal colleges, physicians and pathologists. It has provided written evidence to the bill's scrutiny committee, while Dr Price has provided oral evidence. She said the organisation had "actively engaged with parliamentarians throughout the process" and expressed concerns in two public statements. But despite all of this, the concerns raised have not been addressed, it is claimed. This has prompted worries because, under the bill, psychiatrists would have a leading role in assessing a patient's mental capacity when an assisted death has been requested. They would be on a panel alongside doctors, social workers, and a legal expert. The panel would not be expected to meet the patient during the process. Panel role 'doesn't map on to job of psychiatrist' Dr Price said the idea of making a clinical assessment of a patient's mental health ran contrary to everything a psychiatrist had been trained to do. She said: "The panel role doesn't really map on to the professional job and training of a psychiatrist. What psychiatrists are trained to do is the assessment and treatment of mental illness. "The panel role is really to check what the two other doctors have done and whether that patient meets the eligibility criteria. "And if they do, then they must be granted assisted dying. That doesn't really give room to identify meeting an unmet need, like depression for example, but there are lots of things that may be unmet, social difficulties, untreated pain and other physical symptoms, where that person might no longer want to die. "And it doesn't really give room for a psychiatrist to do what they're trained to do and where their expertise lies, which would be essentially a checking role." Clarification call Dr Price said other areas of the bill also needed urgent clarification. She said: "When somebody has a mental illness, our job is to see if we can treat that mental illness. The other area in the bill that hasn't really been addressed is the psychiatrist's responsibility around suicide prevention. "When we meet somebody who wants to end their life, we have a duty to that patient and that duty may involve assessing that patient under the Mental Health Act to try to manage the mental health aspects that may be making them want to die. And there really isn't enough detail as to how we do that, how we square those two roles and duties. That needs more attention." Dr Price added: "The Mental Capacity Act was designed to support people who can't make decisions for themselves to be able to have decisions made in their best interest for them. "There is nothing in the provision of the Mental Capacity Act that talks about a decision to end one's own life, so this is a new decision. "We don't currently have anything that maps on to that clinically and so the Mental Capacity Act, we have stated very clearly, is not sufficient to be a sufficient safeguard in assisted dying and that we need to rethink how capacity is assessed."
The Independent
32 minutes ago
- The Independent
Welfare reform marks moment of compassion, says Kendall amid backbench anger
The introduction of proposed legislation to reform the welfare system 'marks the moment we take the road of compassion, opportunity and dignity', the Work and Pensions Secretary has said. Liz Kendall's words come amid a backlash from some Labour MPs who have criticised the 'awful' cuts to welfare – which the Government hopes can save up to £5 billion a year. The reforms – aimed at encouraging more people off sickness benefits and into work – are set to include the tightening of criteria for personal independence payment (Pip), which is the main disability benefit, as well as a cut to the sickness-related element of universal credit (UC) and delayed access to only those aged 22 and over. Ministers are likely to face a Commons stand-off with backbench Labour MPs over their plans, with dozens of them last month saying the proposals were 'impossible to support'. In what could be seen as an attempt to head off some opposition, the legislation – known as the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill – will give existing claimants a 13-week period of financial support. The Department for Work and Pensions said this will apply to those affected by changes to the Pip daily living component, including those who lose their eligibility to Carers Allowance and the carer's element of UC. But campaigners, including disability equality charity Scope, said the longer transition period, up from an originally expected four weeks, 'will only temporarily delay a cut and disabled people will continue to be living with extra costs when it comes to an end'. Food bank network Trussell said: 'The last-minute details on protections offer something for a small proportion of people, but even they will still see a real-terms cut. 'The reality of this Bill is still record cuts in support for disabled people, and the biggest cuts to social security since 2015.' Contrary to Ms Kendall's words, learning disability charity Mencap accused the Government of having 'confirmed the choice to turn its back on thousands of disabled people and by pushing ahead with these welfare reforms, they are causing a huge amount of anxiety'. Ms Kendall said: 'Our social security system is at a crossroads. Unless we reform it, more people will be denied opportunities, and it may not be there for those who need it. 'This legislation represents a new social contract and marks the moment we take the road of compassion, opportunity and dignity. 'This will give people peace of mind, while also fixing our broken social security system so it supports those who can work to do so while protecting those who cannot – putting welfare spending on a more sustainable path to unlock growth as part of our Plan for Change.' As the Bill was formally introduced to the Commons on Wednesday, and the question asked as to what the next date for debate will be, Labour backbencher and former shadow chancellor John McDonnell could be heard to say 'Never'. A date has not yet been confirmed. Louise Murphy, senior economist at the Resolution Foundation think tank said the longer period of protection for those affected by Pip cuts is 'a sensible tweak that should ease the blow for those who are no longer eligible for support'. But she criticised extra funding for employment support not coming fully into effect until 2029 at the earliest, saying: 'While ministers have softened the stick of welfare cuts, they have not strengthened the carrot of greater employment support.' Sir Keir Starmer said he was 'determined' to ensure the reforms go through because he feels the welfare system 'doesn't work for anyone'. 'It doesn't work for those that want to get back to work, and it certainly doesn't work for the taxpayer,' the Prime Minister told Good Morning Britain, saying 'those that need to be protected should be protected'. 'If you need help in support to get into work, the Government should be providing that support and help to get into work,' he said. 'If you do have conditions, disabilities that mean it is impossible for you to work, then you need to be properly protected and supported.' The latest data, published on Tuesday, showed that more than 3.7 million people in England and Wales are claiming Pip, with teenagers and young adults making up a growing proportion. The figures, published by the Department for Work and Pensions, showed there were a record 3.74 million people in England and Wales claiming Pip as of April this year. The figure is up from 3.69 million in January and a jump of 200,000 from 3.54 million a year earlier. Data for Pip claimants begins in January 2019, when the number stood at 2.05 million. Pip is a benefit aimed at helping with extra living costs if someone has a long-term physical or mental health condition or disability and difficulty doing certain everyday tasks or getting around because of their condition. An impact assessment published alongside Wednesday's Bill introduction, confirmed previously published estimates that changes to Pip entitlement rules could see about 800,000 people lose out, with an average loss of £4,500 per year. Ms Kendall previously said there are 1,000 new Pip awards every day – 'the equivalent of adding a city the size of Leicester every single year'. The impact assessment also confirmed a previous estimate that some250,000 more people, including 50,000 children, are likely to fall into relative poverty after housing costs in 2029/2030, although the Government repeated that this does not take into account the potentially positive impact of £1 billion annual funding by then for measures to support people into work. Changes to UC are expected to see an estimated 2.25 million current recipients of the health element impacted, with an average loss of £500 per year. But the Government said around 3.9 million households not on the UC health element are expected to have an average annual gain of £265 from the increase in the standard UC allowance. While all of the Bill applies to England and Wales, only the UC changes apply to Scotland. The Government said there are equivalent provisions to legislate for Northern Ireland included in the Bill.
