Question from Mr P Styles - Received 07 February 2009

Question from Mr P Styles to Police Authority meeting 13 February 2009

Does the Police Authority consider that it has a moral case for seeking to reduce the police injury award pensions of disabled former officers to the lowest possible band when said pensioners reach the age of 65 - a time when they are likely to be most in need of their pensions?

Response from the Police Authority

Extract from minutes of Police Authority meeting 16 April 2007:

“The Authority acknowledged the emotive reactions that the Injury Awards issues had provoked. The Chairman re-iterated that the Authority should be clear that its decisions were based on determining what is morally right and acceptable for all of the individuals affected by the proposals; and to ensure that an equitable process is implemented in the Constabulary containing appropriate safeguards for all individuals concerned.”

The Injury Award Procedure follows The Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 and outlines that injury pensions are based on a system of “minimum income guarantee” designed to bring total income in retirement up to a certain level. This means that up to the Compulsory Retirement Age for the former officer's rank, a `certain level' is the equivalent salary of an officer, who is serving today, at the same rank and with the same number of years service as the former officer had attained at the date of retirement.

At Compulsory Retirement Age (CRA) the comparator used is the Annual Survey for Hours and Earnings (ASHE) as the former officer would no longer be serving. At State Retirement Age (SRA) it is the expectation that the individual would no longer be economically active and Retired Officers in receipt of an injury award are no longer entitled to the same payment once they reach age 65 as the award is to compensate for loss of earnings capacity in the form of a minimum income guarantee, rather than the actual injury itself. At age 65 it is normally expected that a former officer will become economically inactive. At the point at which an officer in receipt of an award reaches age 65, the award will be reduced to band 1 unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Question from Mrs K Jeffrey - Received 10 February 2009

Question from K Jeffrey to Police Authority meeting 13 February 2009

Has the Police Authority ever carried out a cost analysis of the potential savings of the new Police Injury Review process and, if so how much to you expect to save and was this discussed at any meetings prior to implementation and were those meetings minuted?

Response from the Police Authority:

No Cost analysis has been undertaken. The potential savings or costs that may arise are difficult to estimate. This is because the reviews may result in either increases or decreases to awards and because each injury award is based on a personal calculation dependent on average pensionable pay and the degree of disablement.

Question from Mr Gordon Smith - Received 11 February 2009

Question from Gordon W Smith to Police Authority meeting 18 February 2009

“I ask that a sub-committee be formed from Cambridgeshire Police Authority to investigate further into the Injury Award Review and the way it is being carried out.

To look at the disgraceful and dishonest way it is being carried out, in some cases using sharp practice and unlawful behaviour.

That the sub-committee include meeting with severely injured retired officers including myself, before the Injury Award Review is implemented any further.”

Response from the Police Authority:

The Human Resources and Training Panel scrutinise and review the Injury Award policy. The Human Resources and Training Panel report directly to the full Police Authority and much of the scrutiny has been undertaken at this level.

In October 2008 the Police Authority asked the Human Resources Department to commission an independent review of the Injury Award Policy and Procedure and associated practices. In response to this request in November 2008 a member of the Home Office Police Personnel Unit undertook a desktop review. Recommendations were made by the Home Office and amendments were made to the procedure and associated practices based upon feedback received. This resulted in the development of Version 7 of the Injury Award Procedure. This new procedure has been shared with the National Association of Retired Police Officers and the Police Federation.

We therefore believe it is not necessary to create another sub-committee as proposed in your question.

Question from Mrs K Jeffrey - Received 10 February 2009

Question from Kay Jeffrey to Police Authority meeting 18 February 2009

“When a IOD pensioner reaches the age of 65 years The force then has DISCRETION, to advise the SMP to place the former officer in the lowest band of disablement. When it has a CLEAR CHOICE, why is the Cambridgeshire Police Authority, except where there is a cogent reason, automatically reducing these pensions to the lowest possible level, and reducing them retrospectively to pensioners already in the system who had been guaranteed, by this Police Authority, that the level of their award would never be changed, let alone cut to the lowest possible level.”

Response from the Police Authority

The Injury Award Procedure follows The Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 and outlines that injury pensions are based on a system of “minimum income guarantee” designed to bring total income in retirement up to a certain level. This means that up to the Compulsory Retirement Age for the former officer's rank, a `certain level' is the equivalent salary of an officer, who is serving today, at the same rank and with the same number of years service as the former officer had attained at the date of retirement.

The procedures being followed are set out in the relevant regulations: The Police Pensions Regulations 1973, the Police Pensions Regulations 1987 and the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006. In all three sets of regulations there has been a requirement that a police authority should review injury awards from time to time as appropriate. The current provision is in regulation 37(1) of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006. Force policy and procedure, to apply those regulations, has been developed in line with Home Office guidance in the form of circular 46/2004 and in direct consultation with the Home Office Police Personnel Unit, the National Association of Retired Police Officers (NARPO) and the Police Federation.

At Compulsory Retirement Age (CRA) the comparator used is the Annual Survey for Hours and Earnings (ASHE) as the former officer would no longer be serving. At State Retirement Age (SRA) it is the expectation that the individual would no longer be economically active and Retired Officers in receipt of an injury award are no longer entitled to the same payment once they reach age 65 as the award is to compensate for loss of earnings capacity in the form of a minimum income guarantee, rather than the actual injury itself. At age 65 it is normally expected that a former officer will become economically inactive. At the point at which an officer in receipt of an award reaches age 65, the award will be reduced to band 1 unless there are exceptional circumstances.

The Cambridgeshire Constabulary Injury Award Policy and Procedure has been subjected to significant consultation, which was necessary because the potential impact of this procedure on former officers was likely to be significant and the intent of Cambridgeshire Constabulary and Cambridgeshire Police Authority was to ensure that the final policy and procedure was legally and morally defensible. The following extract is taken from the minutes of Police Authority meeting 16 April 2007:

“The Authority acknowledged the emotive reactions that the Injury Awards issues had provoked. The Chairman re-iterated that the Authority should be clear that its decisions were based on determining what is morally right and acceptable for all of the individuals affected by the proposals; and to ensure that an equitable process is implemented in the Constabulary containing appropriate safeguards for all individuals concerned.”