Clause 28 - Resignation in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness
Police Reform Bill [Lords]
4:30 pm
Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Griffiths. In answer to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), there is a material difference between resign and retire and that centres on the financial provision that would be made
for the officer who resigns, as opposed to the officer who retires.
I shall explain briefly why the provision is necessary. When a chief officer is called on to step down—to introduce a new phrase into the debate—in the interests of efficiency or effectiveness, it can be only by retirement. Historically, when the legislation was originally drafted, it was probably a reasonable presumption that most officers would reach the rank of chief constable at some point in their 50s when, if they were likely to cease being a chief constable, they would be likely to retire from the police service. It is much more the case now that officers reach the rank of chief constable well before the usual retirement age. The new chief constable of Thames Valley is in his early 40s, and that position is becoming increasingly common. That means that there would be officers for whom the requirement to resign would be more appropriate than the requirement to retire.
Certainly, if an officer were to resign rather than retire, different financial arrangements would have to be made. In particular, there would be a need to make appropriate arrangements for severance pay, as it would not necessarily be appropriate to kick into full pension provision at the age of 42 or 43, for example. We have made a commitment to the Chief Police Officers Staff Association that we will set out clear arrangements and regulations for the type of severance pay and provision that should be made. Obviously, that will need to be discussed with CPOSA as it is the appropriate representative of chief constables.