AVON &SOMERSETPOLICE & CRIMECOMMISSIONER

14thAugust 2013

Rt Hon Damian Green MPMinister of State for Policing and Criminal JusticeThe House of CommonsLondonSW1AOAA

Dear Minister

I have recently been looking into the area of "injured on duty" (100) police officerpension enhancements and found that a significant part of my budget is consumedevery 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) 482pensioners in receipt of an 100 enhancement;

The annual cost of these loO's to the force is in excess of 5.5m (2% of ourannual budget). This is more than it costs us to run our fleet, nearly as muchas it costs us to run our corporate learning and development function, andrepresents 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 thereis no mitigation if the officer finds a new role;

Using our actuary's life expectancy figures(1], our liability to continue to paythose currently in receipt of loO's (excluding any new additions) runs until2066/67, and has a value (un-indexed) of166.8m;

The ratio of the enhancement to individual pensions ranges hugely, from thelowest being 0.83% of total pension, through to the highest being 97.6% oftotal pension. On average those in receipt are seeing 44% of their pensionpayments being the 100 enhancement;

The value of the enhancement to individual pensions also ranges hugely, fromthe lowest being 11.26 pcm through to 2,103.24 pcm.

The financial challenges we face are well understood, and are set to continue intothe foreseeable future. Assuming a 2% precept increase in 2014/15 we still have afunding deficit to manage in excess of 15m over the next two years even after35m of savings to date and another 10m identified. The need to make furthersavings is likely to continue after the next election.

As we look around the organisation for savings, the current legal position in relationto 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 ourbudget dedicated to supporting loO's will continue to grow. Therefore:-

We are highlighting this issue to regulators and Ministers regarding the alarmingsize of the spend over which we are unable to affect a change (therebyreinforcing 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 reviewand reduce enhancements where appropriate and therefore reduce the size ofour liability into the future. In particular we would ask for legislation to overcomecurrent legal case law precedent to address these issues:

Why can we not reduce 'oD payments if a medically retired formerofficer 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 100enhancements was Laws and Police Medical Appeal v Metropolitan Police.

This has been interpreted both here and across the Service as undoing the previousHome Office Circular (HoC 46/2004) and led to the Home Office instructing allForces to cease all standard reviews (the only reviews we're currently undertakingare 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 whensomeone in receipt of an 100 dies. However as more officers leave the force withmedical retirements this 100 annual cost continues to rise.

Hopefully this is of interest to you and I would welcome any thoughts that you mayhave as this is becoming a significant part of the budget that does not provide anyservicers to the people of Avon & Somerset.Yours sincerely

Sue MountstevensPolice and Crime Commissioner

cc: Tom Winsor, HMI

Home Office

Rt Hon Damian Green MPMINISTER OF STATE FOR POLICING AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE

2 Marsham Street, London SWIP 4DFwww.homeoffice.gov.uk

Sue MountstevensAvon and Somerset Police and Crime CommissionerPolice HeadquartersValley RoadPorlisheadB8208JJ

1 7 OCT l013

Thank you for your letter of 14 August about the financial costs associated withpolice injury benefits. I apologise for the delay in responding; t understand thatHome Office officials recently met with your team to discuss this and relatedissues.

You explained your concerns about the impact on your budget of paying policeinjury benefits. As you are aware, the relevant legislation places theresponsibility on police forces to decide on awarding injury benefits to thoseformer officers who qualify, based on appropriate medical assessment. The forceis responsible for ensuring that each injury benefit application is judged on itsmerits with scrutiny from force medical practitioners. I appreciate that theprovision of police injury benefits comes at a cost, but I believe it is right thatthere should be such provision for officers who have been injured in the line ofduty.

I would also like to explain what action the Government is taking in this area. Toassist forces in dealing with injury benefit cases the Home Office is developingnew Police Injury Benefit Regulations, which are expected to be finalised andcome into force early next year. The intention behind these regulations is toclarify areas of ambiguity in existing regulations, address certain issues that havebeen raised by recent case law and ensure that the injury benefits system reflectsmodern policing. For example the new regulations will exclude injuries sustainedduring normal journeys to and from work when an officer is not on duty, which arecovered by the current regulations. The regulations will also mean that injury

benefits will automatically reduce the amount of benefits when an individualreaches state pension age. This addresses the uncertainty you have describedaround what assumptions might be made about an individual's earning capacityin that situation.

In preparing these regulations officials have held extensive discussions withpartners in the Police Negotiating Board and with expert practitioners involved ininjury benefits for police forces. I trust that the recent discussion between myofficials and staff from your office were constructive in helping to understandsome of the broader issues you raised in your letter. I also understand that ChiefConstable Mike Cunningham, National Policing Lead for WorkforceDevelopment, has asked the College of Policing to consider further work to helpforces deal with Police Medical Appeal Boards.

You suggested the possibility of reducing injury benefit payments if a formerofficer goes on to find new employment. I should point out that forces are able toreview injury benefit payments to retired officers; indeed they have a duty to doso at appropriate intervals, to assess whether there has been any change in theindividual's earning capacity. The point that has been reinforced by recent casesis that such reviews should be objective, on a case by case basis, and should notrevisit the original cause or extent of the injury.

You also raised the generosity of levels of injury benefit awards provided bylegislation. As we have always made clear, police officers deserve to have payand workforce arrangements that recognise the vital role they play in fightingcrime and keeping the public safe. Providing an appropriate injury benefitssystem is part of those arrangements, and it is right that there is a scale ofbenefits that is designed to give most support to those with the most seriousinjuries. The new Police Injury Benefit Regulations will further modernise andclarify those arrangements, reflecting the reality of working as a police officertoday. I believe that the new regulations, once in force, coupled with fair androbust assessment of injury benefit applications by police forces, will provide theright balance of using taxpayers' money to ensure support for police officersinjured in the line of duty.

I hope that this clarifies the Government's position on these matters.

Rt Hon Damian Green MP