| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Condon: Before the Minister concludes, I thank him, as ever, for his encouraging and sympathetic response to the points that have been raised. He properly discussed the addition of the word "resign" to the word "retire". To ensure that Members of the Committee do not miss the significance of that, for a relatively young chief officer, resignation rather than retirement could mean forfeiting all pension rights. Over a period of 20 to 30 years, he or she might possibly have to forfeit a six-figure sum in terms of pension rights. As the Minister said, the proposal would have grave implications for a relatively young chief officer if the powers were used in a crude way, which I am sure will not be the case.
Lord Bradshaw: So far as Amendment No. 304 is concerned, we are not really satisfied. We think that
before the issue of the removal of the chief constable appeared, the matter would have come to the notice of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and the police authority. The process is long and happens very rarely. However, we believe that any attempt to cut out the police authority from the tripartite process will in the end—we have not yet reached the regulations—involve an unnecessary further step along the road. We shall not press Amendment No. 304 but I give notice to the Minister that we feel very strongly about the matter and expect improvements on Report.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil for his amendment and in effect for supporting the principle that I advanced. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, argued along similar lines to ourselves. The noble Lord, Lord Condon, pointed out that the proposal will extend existing powers. His point about the effect on pension rights raises a fundamental issue that needs careful consideration.
Lord Rooker: I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to make the situation absolutely clear. The proposal would have an effect on pension rights but there will be no forfeiture of existing pension rights that were owned by the person. The right to future rights may—I stress that word—be affected. That would be the case in relation to any resignation. There will be no loss of existing vested rights.
Lord Condon: In a sense, what the Minister is saying is accurate but it is also slightly misleading—not intentionally, I am sure. For example, a relatively young chief officer of 41 or 42 years of age will not at that point have accrued pension rights that would automatically kick in if he or she were forced to retire at that point. He or she would have to wait until the age of 60 before any pension provision kicked in. The proposal would have a very serious financial impact on his or her life at that point.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Condon, for those interventions, which confirm that pension considerations are an important factor.
The Minister said that to the extent that the amendment and those grouped with it changed an existing power in the 1996 Act, they were not really appropriate. We were well aware of that; our approach was quite deliberate. I do not duck that matter. I do not think that the 1996 Act was a perfect piece of legislation; it could be improved by introducing this little gentle and slightly more humane aspect that we have proposed. It would involve a slight saving and it would reinstate arrangements that we happen to believe are appropriate.
The Minister's comments make it clear that we shall have to study his response with great care. The Bill is obviously amending previous legislation—it is not original legislation. As the Minister said, it is therefore somewhat difficult always to interpret what the effect
is as one goes back through previous legislation. We may well need to return to this issue. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 301 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 301A not moved.]
Clause 29 [Suspension of senior officers]:
6 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 302:
- Page 28, line 11, at end insert—
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 302 and Amendment No. 303, which is grouped with it, seek simply to add a slightly different dimension to a situation in which suspension is called for by requiring the authority to put a time limit on the suspension.
It is an unfortunate fact of life that in a number of cases—not, I hasten to say, in this but in other professions—people are suspended on full pay for interminable periods. One hears of suspensions going on and on in the medical profession. Because a suspension is in place, there seems to be no urgency to resolve the matter. Of course, the person suspended continues to draw his salary and, therefore, he is no worse off. But such a situation is slightly ridiculous, and I do not consider this to be an unreasonable request.
I believe that if a suspension proved to have been arranged for too short a period, an option could be put in place for nominating an extension to it. But the point of the amendment is to ensure that the suspension process is moved forward and that it is subject to pressure to be moved forward due to the fact that it will end if a conclusion is not reached. That may seem to be an insignificant or irrelevant point but we believe that it could be important. It could also be useful in the interests of the efficiency and effectiveness of the service. I beg to move.
Lord Condon: I support Amendments Nos. 302 and 303, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for the reasons which I outlined in debate on the amendments relating to Clause 28. The powers to suspend are proposed new powers. Members of the Committee will be aware that we are not talking about allegations of criminality or even of misconduct; we are talking about allegations of inefficiency and ineffectiveness. I accept that they can be serious, but they are not of the nature of misconduct or criminality.
A suspension could be triggered not on the grounds of a substantive finding of inefficiency or ineffectiveness but simply because it might be in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness and subsequent
Lord Rooker: I hope that the regulations will make it clear that the period of suspension should not be unreasonable. I believe that, in a way, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, made the case for me. He fairly put forward the two sides of the coin in relation to the setting of the duration of the suspension. If the period that had been set were too short, it would not be fair to the officer concerned if, following inquiries, the suspension then had to continue for a much longer period. We have no provision for setting a term for suspension under any existing powers in relation to disciplinary proceedings.
The fact that a suspension had been arranged would probably indicate that the position surrounding it was not clear. It would be clear that the suspension should have been put in place but a great deal of work would be involved; hence the reason for arranging a suspension rather than holding inquiries while the person in question was still working.
But there is also a danger in over-pitching the term of a suspension in order to be on the safe side and ensure that an officer is not disappointed when the period is extended. There have been some outrageous examples in terms of the conduct of public administration in this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, that is not necessarily the case in relation to the police, but the NHS is a prime example. It is preposterous to think that anyone would say, "You're suspended and it will last for four years", but that is how it happens in reality and it is totally and utterly unacceptable. No one would defend that. I certainly do not seek to do so; I make that absolutely clear.
There is no practical way of putting a time limit on the duration of a suspension. That is the difficulty that we face. Therefore, I hope that something may be included in the regulations—I am not writing it as I am on my feet—setting out that there is a duty to ensure that the inquiries which follow a suspension are carried out as expeditiously as possible and that there are no long delays between the various stages of the process.
We have taken advice on this matter because it forms a serious part of the Bill. It affects few individuals but they are individuals who find themselves in traumatic circumstances. We have consulted the Inspectorate of Constabulary, which does not believe that this is a viable way of proceeding. On the other hand, I fully accept that we must find a way of proceeding which is compatible with the desire
"( ) The Metropolitan Police Authority will, in exercising its power, formally advise of the likely duration of the period of suspension prior to the retirement or resignation of the Commissioner of Police, and be required to notify the Secretary of State and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary accordingly.".
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page