of Ullock (Lab):...The
noble Baroness mentioned the National Fire Chiefs Council. This
is an opportunity to put on record the National Fire Chiefs
Council’s response to the Government’s recent review
of Police and Crime
Commissioners as that puts it in the context of
these clauses and our discussions about how the Bill relates to
fire services and PCCs. The Government’s review
looked at fire services, policing, governance and voluntary and
community organisations. There were certain specifics relating to
fire. The Government said that they would further look at:
“Consulting on whether to mandate the transfer of fire and rescue
functions to the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner model across
England where boundaries are coterminous, unless there is an
option to transfer fire governance directly to an elected Mayor …
Legislating to create operational independence for Chief Fire
Officers and to clearly separate and delineate strategic and
operational planning for fire and rescue … Considering options to
clarify the legal entities within the PFCC model.”..
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Levelling Up, Housing & Communities () (Con):...My
Lords, this group of amendments relates to the ability of
combined county authority mayors to take on fire and rescue
functions. On issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of
Richmond—it is very nice to see her; we miss her in the
House—Clause 32 enables the mayor of a combined county authority
to exercise fire and rescue functions in the same way that a
mayor of a combined authority can. We have seen this already in
Greater Manchester, where the mayor has taken on the
police and crime commissioner role and fire and
rescue functions...
...The Secretary of State has power under this clause, as we have
heard from the noble Lord, , to apply legislation relating
to Police and Crime
Commissioners in relation to combined county
authority mayors where the single-employer model—that is, the
ability to make the chief constable the single operational head
of both the police force and the fire and rescue service—has been
engaged. Clause 38(4) provides a power to amend, revoke or repeal
legislation consequential on that power. This is important
because of exactly what the noble Lord opposite said: this is the
power that could be used if any area has implemented the
single-employer model but the chief constable is failing to
manage the F&RS effectively. The Secretary of State may wish
to revoke the implementation of the single-employer model and use
this provision to do so. I think this is the power we have put in
to ensure that exactly what the noble Lord opposite says need not
happen...
...The amendment seeks to remove the power of the Secretary of
State to make consequential amendments to such legislation. The
effect would be that the Secretary of State could still apply
police and crime commissioner legislation in
relation to a combined county authority mayor or chief constable
but could not make any necessary consequential amendments to
reflect a change of circumstances. This limitation is undesirable
and would result in flawed and inconsistent legislation in this
area.
Finally, I will address the issues raised by the noble Baroness
on Clause 38. This clause allows the Secretary of State to make
regulations applying legislation that relates to a police
and crime commissioner to a combined county authority
mayor or a chief constable where the combined county authority
mayor has adopted the single-employer model. Removing the clause
would hinder the effective full implementation of the
single-employer model because it would mean that the Secretary of
State could not make further regulations applying local policing
enactments or new corresponding provisions in relation to mayors
of combined county authorities who have implemented the model...
(LD):...The next system
that could be adopted is the supplementary vote. Prior to its
recent abolition, it was used to elect Mayors of London, the
directly elected mayors in combined authorities,
and Police and Crime
Commissioners Very simply, it gives you two votes
and two columns, and you can just stick your cross in one of
each...
(Con):...First,
we are clear on the merits of first past the post as a robust and
secure way of electing representatives. It is well understood by
voters and provides for strong, clear local accountability. It
ensures a clear link between elected representatives and those
who vote for them, in a manner that other voting systems may not.
For those reasons, we have provided that, from this May’s
elections, first past the post will also apply in voting for
local authority and combined authority elected mayors, and
for Police and Crime
Commissioners...
For context, CLICK HERE
