(LD):...The extension of
the mayoral model to very rural areas, when the model does not
recognise the very significant differences with urban areas,
makes this a bit of a leap in the dark. I do not know whether the
Minister has been to North Yorkshire. I live next door to it, so
I know North Yorkshire and it is a very rural area. It has a
population of 615,000, in—importantly—an area of 3,340 square
miles, of which 40% is designated as the national parks North
York Moors and the Dales. It is huge. With the City of York
Council, which deals with a population of 142,000, the mayoral
authority will be responsible for just about three quarters of a
million people in a vast rural area, from the coast of Whitby to
the border with Lancashire, and from the border with
Northumberland to the border with Leeds. It is huge. There will
be a single person directly elected to take responsibility not
just for the mayoral functions but, in this instance, for both
the role of police and crime commissioner and
fire and rescue, for this vast county and historic city.
Of course, this is too large a range of responsibilities for one
person. The arrangements in this order therefore allow for the
appointment of a deputy mayor, who will presumably be responsible
for police and fire. The upshot of that arrangement is that there
is no longer a directly elected commissioner for policing or an
elected councillor taking responsibility for the fire and rescue
service across this vast county and the city of York. The
conclusion I reach is that the Conservative experiment
of Police and Crime
Commissioners has failed; otherwise, there would
still be a directly elected police and crime
commissioner for North Yorkshire and the city of York.
At the minute, they are going to be appointed. Can the Minister
explain whether there is now a policy of gradually removing
elected PCCs?
The order states the expected allowances for the mayor, which
will be determined by an independent panel. The scale of
remuneration packages for combined authority mayors is
instructive. In West Yorkshire, the mayor receives £105,000 per
year while the appointed—I emphasise that word—deputy mayor
receives £72,000 for taking responsibility in West Yorkshire for
policing, but with no direct accountability to the people whom
they are there to serve. Do not say “scrutiny” to me because it
is ineffective.
The order also allows for the employment of a political adviser.
I would like some explanation of that. From what I know, those do
not exist in other mayoral combined authorities within the
orders, so that is an interesting addition here.
In conclusion, a strategic political and democratically elected
role is important. However, we Liberal Democrats cannot condone
this cynical approach to removing elected police and
crime commissioners—they are elected with responsibility
for the fire and rescue service—and replacing them with appointed
political people where there is no direct accountability through
the ballot box, which is the least that taxpayers can expect in a
democracy...
(Lab):...Have
the Government given any thought, for example, to local public
accounts committees to mirror their function in the other place?
This would widen the scope of the Police and
Crime Commissioners which, I agree with the noble
Baroness, Lady Pinnock, have not proved terribly effective, and
would provide joined-up accountability for the mayor...
For context, OPEN HERE
