Bedfordshire’s police and crime commissioner says “nothing underhand” about new chief exec’s pay rise

Bedfordshire’s police and crime commissioner (PCC) has said there was “nothing underhand” in his new chief executive’s pay rise.

The new chief executive started his role on October 21, and the following day commissioner John Tizard published on his office’s website that he had agreed a “spot salary” of £115,000 – which is £5,000 more than the “spot salary” reported to the Bedfordshire Police and Crime Panel meeting held on the same day.

This discrepancy was brought up during last week’s Panel meeting.

Panel chair, Paul Downing, asked the PCC to explain the difference in the figures.

Bedfordshire Police and Crime Commissioner John Tizardplaceholder image
Bedfordshire Police and Crime Commissioner John Tizard

The PCC said: “The advertised salary was at the level that was reported in the papers that came to the board, subject to negotiation on appointment.

“And I negotiated a slightly different salary.

“It was unfortunate that, and I will admit that mistake, that the papers didn’t align.

“But there was nothing underhand I can assure you,” he said.

Following October’s meeting the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) asked why the salaries were different.

An Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) said the salary was “negotiated before appointment” and has now “been published on our website for full transparency”.

However, the LDRS understands that following the meeting the panel was told that the salary was negotiated in between the issuing of the report and the meeting.

With the conflicting accounts and paperwork, the LDRS asked the PCC for the definitive account.

“We advertised the salary as a 110 spot salary,” he said.

“When we talked to candidates and particularly when we drew up the short list we said that the salary was negotiable.

“We appointed Sharn and then I agreed the salary with him which was 115 rather than 110.

“The paper that went to the panel, I think it’s fair to say, was not deliberately trying to be [misleading].

“I think it was an error rather than anything else, the paper contains the 110 and not the 115, but the 115 had been agreed.”

News you can trust since 1861
Follow us
© 2026 Iconic Media Group Ltd. All rights reserved.Cookie SettingsTerms and ConditionsPrivacy notice