Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire (Fire and Rescue Authority) Order 2018 — House of Lords, 2018-11-21
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, we agree with the terms of the regret Motion. I do not wish to make any specific comments about the police and crime commissioner concerned since I know nothing about the police and crime commissioner in that area. Suffice it to say that my information too, not surprisingly, is that the North Yorkshire police and crime panel has rejected proposals for the commissioner to take on responsibility for both the fire service and the police—or at least what at that time were proposals—and that the panel had urged the commissioner to reconsider what she was seeking in favour of a model that would retain the current fire authority and give the commissioner a voting place at the table. Likewise, as has already been said most eloquently, the local authorities and the fire and rescue authority expressed a clear preference for the representation model. Indeed, the information that I have received—to put it diplomatically—is that the police and crime panel has a difference of view with the police and crime commissioner over the running of her office in relation to issues of bullying and a hostile environment I make no comment on the rights or wrongs of it because I personally know nothing about it. I was told that the police and crime panel intended to write to the Home Office to highlight its concerns. I do not know whether it has done so or whether the Home Office has received any such letter. Clearly there is not a very happy relationship between the police and crime commissioner and the police and crime panel in North Yorkshire. One would have thought that, to get to the bottom of it, the Secretary of State would have wanted to know rather more than perhaps he does about working relationships between the two organisations, since that surely must be a consideration in whether you are going to extend the power and authority of the police and crime commissioner. Maybe the Minister will tell us that the Home Secretary has already done that, and that he is satisfied that the police and crime commissioner is in the right and that the police and crime panel has got the wrong end of the stick; I will wait and see what the Minister has to say on that I refer to the independent assessment on which the judgment was made that the criteria of economy, efficiency and effectiveness have been met, and indeed of public safety. On economy, in the section headed "Our Overall Assessment", the report says: "Our overall view on economy is that it has received little attention in the LBC"— the local business case— "and there is an absence of quantified benefits in relation to any reduced costs of inputs" Later in the paragraph, having referred to other issues, it goes on to say: "On that basis we are unable to reach an objective conclusion on whether the proposal will meet the specific criterion of increased economy" Then, looking at the issue of efficiency, the independent assessment says: "As we noted above nearly all of the savings in the LBC arise from efficiency savings" I am not reading out the full paragraph, but it states that: "The only savings which can be attributed directly to the Governance model are those arising from changes in the structure of the OPCC and the FRA"— the office of the police and crime commissioner and the fire and rescue authority— "i.e. those savings referred to as Direct Governance Benefit", in the local business plan As has already been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the report goes on to say that: "This leads to a net cost reduction of £36K p.a. from 2019/20 or a total of £204K, net of implementation costs, over the 10 year period of the LBC" As has already been said, the independent assessment says: "However, the savings directly attributable to the change are modest" That is probably one of the understatements of the year, if you are talking about savings as low as that; and it is based on the figures that have been put forward by the police and crime commissioner and the assumptions being made proving to be correct Turning to effectiveness, the report says: "Proving a direct link between the governance model"— which is what the police and crime commissioner wants— "and effectiveness is a subjective process" It ends—it is debatable whether you think this is an endorsement—by saying: "On balance our view is that the proposed change in governance has the potential"— I emphasise "potential"— "to have a positive impact on effectiveness" In other words, the independent assessment could not produce the evidence that the change would have a positive impact on effectiveness; it would have only the potential to have a positive impact on effectiveness In the next paragraph—I am not reading out the whole paragraph—the assessment says: "Having reached that conclusion we would add that there is no overwhelming case for change and that most of the proposed changes could be achieved under the other three options, subject to the willingness of all the stakeholders to work together" The assessors were also asked to comment, I think, on the issue of public safety, and their comment was, "this is a very subjective area to assess" They concluded by saying: "On that basis we have concluded that there is no increased risk to public safety due to the proposed change in governance"— that is a relief— "and that there may be benefits in the future" If that is a ringing endorsement of the PCC’s plan, I think the Secretary of State has got it all wrong, because, as I understand it, it is on the basis of that independent assessment that he has agreed the proposal. Subject to what the Minister may say in response, he does not seem to have taken much account of working relationships—for example, the PCC’s relationship with her police and crime panel, and perhaps with other people as well, including her own staff In concluding, I simply say that if the independent assessment is deemed sufficient to meet the criteria of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, it is very unlikely that any future proposal from a PCC to take over a fire and rescue authority will ever be anything other than approved by this Secretary of State.