AVON & SOMERSET

POLICE & CRIME COMMISSIONER

14thAugust 2013 Rt Hon Damian Green MP Minister of State for Policing and Criminal Justice The House of Commons London SW1AOAA

Dear Minister I have recently been looking into the area of "injured on duty" (100) police officer pension enhancements and found that a significant part of my budget is consumed every year on these payments which generate no benefit to the people of Avon & Somerset. I thought I would share with you my key findings: Avon & Somerset Constabulary currently have (as at end of May 2013) 482 pensioners in receipt of an 100 enhancement; The annual cost of these loO's to the force is in excess of 5.5m (2% of our annual budget). This is more than it costs us to run our fleet, nearly as much as it costs us to run our corporate learning and development function, and represents the equivalent of 124 PC's or 186 PCSO's; The age range of those in receipt of an 100 ranges from 36 to 90; The overall package for medical retirements is extremely generous and there is no mitigation if the officer finds a new role; Using our actuary's life expectancy figures(1], our liability to continue to pay those currently in receipt of loO's (excluding any new additions) runs until 2066/67, and has a value (un-indexed) of166.8m; The ratio of the enhancement to individual pensions ranges hugely, from the lowest being 0.83% of total pension, through to the highest being 97.6% of total pension. On average those in receipt are seeing 44% of their pension payments being the 100 enhancement; The value of the enhancement to individual pensions also ranges hugely, from the lowest being 11.26 pcm through to 2,103.24 pcm.

The financial challenges we face are well understood, and are set to continue into the foreseeable future. Assuming a 2% precept increase in 2014/15 we still have a funding deficit to manage in excess of 15m over the next two years even after 35m of savings to date and another 10m identified. The need to make further savings is likely to continue after the next election. As we look around the organisation for savings, the current legal position in relation to loO's means that we are not able to affect any changes from this part of our
[1]

Police Officers - male life expectancy of 87, and female life expectancy of 89.

budget. As we continue to cut other parts of the organisation, the percentage of our budget dedicated to supporting loO's will continue to grow. Therefore: We are highlighting this issue to regulators and Ministers regarding the alarming size of the spend over which we are unable to affect a change (thereby reinforcing pressure for increases to our council tax precept); and We would like consideration given to this issue and possible legislative change (superseding the current case law) which will enable us to meaningfully review and reduce enhancements where appropriate and therefore reduce the size of our liability into the future. In particular we would ask for legislation to overcome current legal case law precedent to address these issues: Why can we not reduce 'oD payments if a medically retired former officer then finds new employment? Why should 'oD be paid after the normal retirement age? Should the levels of 'oD be so generous? The case which has caused the problems in relation to the review of 100 enhancements was Laws and Police Medical Appeal v Metropolitan Police. This has been interpreted both here and across the Service as undoing the previous Home Office Circular (HoC 46/2004) and led to the Home Office instructing all Forces to cease all standard reviews (the only reviews we're currently undertaking are any new assessments and those requested by individuals in receipt of an 100) pending the issue of further guidance. The Home Office Police Pensions Unit are working on this revised guidance, although this has been some time coming now. Therefore, at the moment the only reduction in annual 100 payments is when someone in receipt of an 100 dies. However as more officers leave the force with medical retirements this 100 annual cost continues to rise. Hopefully this is of interest to you and I would welcome any thoughts that you may have as this is becoming a significant part of the budget that does not provide any servicers to the people of Avon & Somerset. Yours sincerely

Sue Mountstevens Police and Crime Commissioner

cc:

Tom Winsor, HMI

Home Office
MINISTER Rt Hon Damian Green MP OF STATE FOR POLICING AND CRIMINAL 2 Marsham Street, London SWIP 4DF www.homeoffice.gov.uk JUSTICE

Sue Mountstevens Avon and Somerset Police and Crime Commissioner Police Headquarters Valley Road Porlishead

B8208JJ

1 7 OCT l013

Thank you for your letter of 14 August about the financial costs associated with police injury benefits. I apologise for the delay in responding; t understand that Home Office officials recently met with your team to discuss this and related issues. You explained your concerns about the impact on your budget of paying police injury benefits. As you are aware, the relevant legislation places the responsibility on police forces to decide on awarding injury benefits to those former officers who qualify, based on appropriate medical assessment. The force is responsible for ensuring that each injury benefit application is judged on its merits with scrutiny from force medical practitioners. I appreciate that the provision of police injury benefits comes at a cost, but I believe it is right that there should be such provision for officers who have been injured in the line of duty. I would also like to explain what action the Government is taking in this area. To assist forces in dealing with injury benefit cases the Home Office is developing new Police Injury Benefit Regulations, which are expected to be finalised and come into force early next year. The intention behind these regulations is to clarify areas of ambiguity in existing regulations, address certain issues that have been raised by recent case law and ensure that the injury benefits system reflects modern policing. For example the new regulations will exclude injuries sustained during normal journeys to and from work when an officer is not on duty, which are covered by the current regulations. The regulations will also mean that injury

benefits will automatically reduce the amount of benefits when an individual reaches state pension age. This addresses the uncertainty you have described around what assumptions might be made about an individual's earning capacity in that situation. In preparing these regulations officials have held extensive discussions with partners in the Police Negotiating Board and with expert practitioners involved in injury benefits for police forces. I trust that the recent discussion between my officials and staff from your office were constructive in helping to understand some of the broader issues you raised in your letter. I also understand that Chief Constable Mike Cunningham, National Policing Lead for Workforce Development, has asked the College of Policing to consider further work to help forces deal with Police Medical Appeal Boards. You suggested the possibility of reducing injury benefit payments if a former officer goes on to find new employment. I should point out that forces are able to review injury benefit payments to retired officers; indeed they have a duty to do so at appropriate intervals, to assess whether there has been any change in the individual's earning capacity. The point that has been reinforced by recent cases is that such reviews should be objective, on a case by case basis, and should not revisit the original cause or extent of the injury. You also raised the generosity of levels of injury benefit awards provided by legislation. As we have always made clear, police officers deserve to have pay and workforce arrangements that recognise the vital role they play in fighting crime and keeping the public safe. Providing an appropriate injury benefits system is part of those arrangements, and it is right that there is a scale of benefits that is designed to give most support to those with the most serious injuries. The new Police Injury Benefit Regulations will further modernise and clarify those arrangements, reflecting the reality of working as a police officer today. I believe that the new regulations, once in force, coupled with fair and robust assessment of injury benefit applications by police forces, will provide the right balance of using taxpayers' money to ensure support for police officers injured in the line of duty. I hope that this clarifies the Government's position on these matters.

Rt Hon Damian Green MP