It has been brought to our attention that the Police Service of Northern Ireland (‘PSNI’) have released a consultation paper on changing the long established “POLICE SERVICE OF NORTHERN IRELAND AND POLICE SERVICE OF NORTHERN IRELAND RESERVE (INJURY BENEFIT) REGULATIONS 2006″. We say long established because the regulations have been in their current form one way or another for 50 years.
It appear as though the consultation is driven by a paper released by the Northern Ireland Audit Office (‘NIAO’) entitled “Injury on duty schemes for officers in the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Prison Service” dated 10th March 2020.
The driving force behind this review is unequivocally money and complains that the scheme is not sustainable in its current form. The NIAO paper complains about the costs of back-dating awards without exploring the reasons why injured officers are not being paid the correct level of pension to start with.
It goes onto to complain (on three occasions) that an officer with an injury award may have a pension that is larger than an officer that has completed their service uninjured, oblivious to the fact that the pension is designed in this way as it has to take into account the future loss of earning capacity, whilst the uninjured officer can seek unfettered future employment.
The consultation ends on the 17th June 2024, and IODPA has drafted a response on behalf of our members in PSNI. We’d be pleased to hear your comments on the nine questions posed. Please put your thoughts in the comments.
Read the consultation here –
Read the NIAO paper here –
Why do the authorities continually put further stress on disabled officers.
I suffer constant pain from injuries received which limits what I can do. I did not want to be forced to retire, I loved my job and gave it my all.
Now to hear that the rules are to be changed to save money makes me sick. If I could work I would but being in my sixties who would employ me.
Who would employ anyone whose CV said “dismissed as a result of an injury on duty”? It happened to me, no one wanted to employ me even though I was capable of the work I applied for, they didn’t want to take on someone else’s responsibility. The earning capacity was well below the degree of injury. There is a massive difference in the ability to work and the ability to find work. In the end I had to become self employed, start a one man business as the only way of earning money and proving I could work without regularly calling in sick. That part of any disability is not taken into account.
I live with the consequences of my injuries daily. It is a daily source of trauma.
I have daily nightmares, the price I paid was a high one, loss of career, daily trauma, my loved ones suffered. I am not alone and this proposal is the ultimate insult to those who follow a proud tradition of running to danger when others run from it, those who work tireless to keep out communities and nation safe from those who would wish us harm
I have taken some time to digest this and prepare my comments, which I hope are read. Sadly this NIAO and Proposal are fundamentally flawed
This report was commissioned in 2019 and does not accurately reflect the current position whatsoever and so it is rather a blunt instrument that does not take account of the changing landscape and workplace today.
I note the report states that there is an increasing spend and cost associated with the number of IOD Awards from 2,580 to around 288` in 2019, however, this does not then explain that there was and is an uplift in officer numbers across this time heading from over 7,000 to a projected 8,500 police officers, so this would cite around a 13 per cent increase, when the workforce has seen an uplift of nearly 18 per cent staff. So arguably, you would expect to see an increase in overall numbers consistent with an increased number of staff
I also note the report uses figures of around 25 to around 34 million in spend across this time over five years, however, on no occasion does the author make any attempt to include revised figures accounting for inflation.
As we would expect to see an overall increase in line with inflation, so I will do their figures for them assuming the base figure of 25 million
Taken from here https://www.rateinflation.com/inflation-rate/uk-historical-inflation-rate/
2014 – 1.461 – £25,365,250
2015 – 0.040 – £25,466,711
2016 – 0.660 – £25,634,791
2017 – 2.683 – £26,322,572
2018 – 2.478 – £26,974,845
2019 – 1.791 – £27,457,964
So in part we can assume, that a portion of this rise is simply due to inflation which the report does not acknowledge at all
In addition the report cites that there is an issue with the cost of these payment. It is also noted that in 2020, the overall cost declined significantly from 34 million to around 31
We are aware that there was a court case related to an SMP not having accurately assessed a police pensioner which then led to a change in relation to back dated payments, which no doubt had a temporary effect due to legacy payments from the period 2018 to 2020 which then tapered off.
At Recommendation and Point 3, it states The implementation of new Regulations will NOT impact those already in
receipt of an award unless a reassessment is requested.
However, no clarity is provided by who the request has to come from. Arguably this could be used like a blunt tool by police services to try and attack and reduce the current payments to existing IOD awards, clarity would need to be made that this would need to be the IOD recipient requesting a reassesment, or you would be seeking to fundamentally change and attack those in receipt of awards and I would argue this is discriminatory based on singling out a protected characteristic as a reason for the changes, being only to save money.
At Point 4 it states that time limits should be introduced, however, there is case law which has led to the current situation and time limits, you cannot simply choose to try and legislate around case law. Indeed, if there were better SMPs conducting the role correctly in the first instance, then arguably there would be significant less historical payments owed. As clearly getting the decision right first time, should arguably be EVERYONES over riding necessity.
However, no mention is made of fundamentally reviewing each historical case where back pay is awarded to learn any lessons and understand this, therefore the system you propose is setting itself up for failure and masking the failure of SMPs. It is not addressing the high number of appeals which are granted at PMAB and why people feel it appropriate to pursue this, nor a mechanism to deal with SMP’s who are found repeatedly to have awarded IOD’s at the wrong rate.
It is arguable that a Poor Actor as an SMP could downgrade peoples IOD and Injuries significantly and then you would seek to discriminate against Disabled officers who later apply and over turn this. Surely the appropriate response is to get it right first time, and where this is not achieved learn from this and fix this.
Point 5, removal of gratuity payments – The dept states this is no longer in keeping with the aim of the scheme. Please qualify this, as this is a blunt statement with Zero evidence. Often this gratuity payment will be used for immediate changes to the officers life, such as mobility aids, changes to their home and lifestyle and in some cases care and medical needs.
I see Zero evidence as to why “this is no longer in keeping with the aim of the scheme”, it does not qualify, what the aim was originally and now how this has changed, it is a blunt statement, designed for nothing less than to reduce one off payments to medically disabled police officers.
Point 6 – This is where the department states any award should be offset against other awards such as ESA. It does not mention PIP, however, it is believed that this is in the mindset of the author when creating this report. Currently Industrial injuries which relates to injuries sustained at work, IS deductable from any award.
It should be noted that for ESA many officers in receipt of IOD’s would not qualify for PIP, so arguably the author is then targeting PIP. However, this is not directly mentioned nor accounted for.
However, on this point PIP can be paid to both serving and medically retired police officers. So you would then if you wished to include this, be seeking to add a detriment to officers who are medically retired and disabled, as officers in their normal workplace can apply and have PIP with no proposed or actual deductions from their wages.
So this would need to be excluded fully from any proposals.
I note it also states that the purpose of these awards is to Offest earnings, so it would be appropriate to end all IOD awards at State pension age.
I take a fundamental issue with this point and this would without doubt be challenged in court.
It states there is no loss following pension age. This is not true.
Many officers due to their ill health retirement, will not be able to accrue a full state pension, for those unable to work, this would then lead to a double whammy effect at state pension age, they would lose their IOD and then not be in receipt of a full pension, so would be suffering a detriment due to their disability.
It is also notable that the injuries sustained from an injury on duty are part of the ill health pension. It is not SOLELY to replace someones income, it is to provide them with the care they need and financial security to be able to live after what they have given to the service.
Please show ONE person who on the date of their state pension age was cured off all injuries. I would very much like to meet them.
The reality of the situation is three fold,
1, officers unable to work would be affected twice, once through not receiving a full state pension, then secondly by losing their IOD at the same time, that is unforgivable and I would argue discriminatory.
2, in our current changing working climate, whilst it is true that the state pension age exists, many people can and do choose to work past this for a multitude of reasons.
The report sees to conveniently ignore this and on their state pension age, seek to reduce the earning capacity of the retired person to Zero, no questions asks. That is age discrimination right there.
3, No mention is made of the conditions of the affected officer. Again, I have never met someone who at the stroke of 12 when they turned into state pension age, suddenly was cured off their IOD afflictions. If anything often as time goes on, they degenerate, the conditions get worse, bone breaks, arthritis and mental health conditions can all deteriorate significantly.
However, this report seems to indicate that come the stroke of the persons 67th birthday, they will no longer require any support or treatment.
I am sorry but that is nonsense and written by a person who clearly does not have an understanding of medical conditions and their impact.
Point 8 – It is noted that Foreiture is an issue here, before this can be considered, it would be interesting to know the actual Per capita head rate of offences of this nature from retired officers vs non retired officers and also the general public.
It is also noted that the overall figures quoted and provided
In summary, this is a poorly written report, a blunt instrument designed with the sole effect of attacking police officers who have became injured during their duties.
Since the 1987 PPS there have been two further pension scheme changes both of which have addressed any legacy issues regarding IOD’s going forward.
So moving forward the schemes are already designed to be less generous and less expensive for the police service and this will as we saw in 2020, given time slowly lead to a significant decrease in costs.
The NPPS was brought out in 2006, so the remaining 1987 scheme members will have served 30 years come 2036 at the latest. For those on the 2015 scheme the costs and associated IOD awards and calculations have already been changed.
To seek to suggest to change the rules for 1987 scheme members would in my opinion be a further case discriminatory behaviour.
The report is in fact very very poor and not balanced whatsover.
Great response and as you rightly state, it is a blunt instrument designed and authored with the sole intention of financially punishing disabled police officers, people who the NIAO, PBNI and the PSNI consider nothing more than financial parasites. Hopefully it will be robustly challenged and put into a shredder where it belongs
I am not surprised at this as Gerry Kelly of Sinn Féin, a PIRA bomber/murderer and now, ridiculously, a member of the NIPB has been bleating on for years about ex RUC officers getting paid too much money by way of their IOD awards and has been actively looking for ways to reduce if not stop these payments. What he does not mention is the fact that he and many of his provo comrades are the sole cause and reason why so many police officers in Northern Ireland have been awarded IOD’s and what he has never addressed is the fact that IOD’s are an occupational necessity for officers who, through no fault of their own, are required to leave their chosen vocations, for policing IS a vocation NOT a job, due to on duty attributed disabilities.
Imagine if policing was a standard civilian occupation. Substantial compensation payments would be sought by employees who lost their jobs due to lifestyle limiting, permanent injuries sustained whilst at work, compensation payments potentially amounting to many hundreds of thousands of pounds which would have to be paid in one lump sum, so for the NIAO to suggest that the IOD scheme is not designed as a compensation scheme but a scheme to replace any loss of earning potential is ridiculous if not preposterous! Imagine how detrimental it would be to individual policing budgets if many officers each year had to claim personally against their employer rather than avail of a life long monthly IOD payment. As an example my loss of earnings upon retirement were calculated at approximately £650,000 of which I haven’t even received half of this far. Do all UK police forces want to have to pay out sums like that in one payment to many injured officers annually? I don’t think they would!!
If this NIAO review is successful you can be guaranteed without a shadow of a doubt that it will be adopted by every single Chief Constable of UK police forces, many of whom have already been conspiring for years to have the IOD awards scheme overhauled to benefit their forces financially and to restrict the amount of payments ex police officers AND potential future police officers may receive by way of IOD awards.
Yet again this is about taking money from and punishing vulnerable disabled people, people who did nothing other than serve their communities without question. Talk about morally bankrupt and corruption in high office. It’s disgusting and needs to be resisted at every level and opportunity!!!
I considered my comments in relation to this proposed change. I decided to tell what happened to me. In 1979 I had 10 years service and was a Sergeant stationed in Belfast. I had passed the Inspector’s exam and was on the list for promotion. I had been highly recommended by my divisional authorities. I was on mobile patrol and accepted a call to a reported burglary. On arrival I dismounted from the vehicle – in this instance luckily enough an armoured landrover. I approached the house – usual terrace house with small front garden. At the time I was unaware of two small children playing in the garden to my right, I met them years later. I knew there was something amiss but I couldn’t put my finger on it. I knocked the door, no reply and I turned to face the door once again and reached for the knocker again. As I touched the knocker I received what I thought was an electric shock and at the same time I felt a blow to my head – I thought I had been hit with an axe. I knew I was falling and I thought if I hit the front gate I would really hurt myself. Everything was black, I couldn’t see, or hear. I put my hand on my head a felt a wound. I realised that I had been shot in the head. I probed the wound and because of the blindness I thought to myself that I didn’t want to be left “a cripple”. Gradually my hearing returned and I could hear the distant sound of alternating horns. I then recall seeing the light green shirt of one of my constables, I have no idea how long after the incident. I was removed to A&E and I realised that I was paralysed apart from the use of my right arm. A consultant and his team took to deal with me. I spent a week in hospital, was treated during that time and prepared for skin grafting. I was sent home in a wheel chair a week after the incident. It had been established that an IRA ASC( Active Service Unit) had prepared the ambush by kidnapping an elderly man and his care worker and having an accomplice make a fake burglary call concerning a house opposite.
I eventually learned to walk again, initially using a zimmer and then a walking stick. I had to learn to walk again, talk and learn new methods of doing what I considered everyday tasks. I spent some time in Harrogate and returned home. I was left with numbness and paralysis in my lower limbs was called for a medical by the force medical officer. The first one was very sympathetic about what had happened. I was called for a further medical – a different FMO. His attitude was very different – first question why are you limping?. One word led to another and I walked out. As he had no clinical responsibility for me I was not prepared to accept his attitude. I went to my GP. I was threatened with being medially discharge (they now call it medical retirement). In all I was off work for 53 weeks and I returned to my former station but to slightly different Sergeant’s duties. I had actually been shot twice in the head with the first bullet clearing a sizeable amount of skin, hair and bone from my scalp. The second bullet hit my right temple and caused the paralysis. I had to endure to excruciating pain of two skin grafts to help the wounds heal.
I asked about my promotion as I saw Sergeants who were junior to me on the select list, being promoted to Inspector jobs which were essentially desk jobs. I was told that I couldn’t be promoted until.my claim was settled otherwise the claim would be destroyed. My claim was settled about 2 years after the shooting, however Personnel Branch did me no favours in relation to it. I was offered promotion some 6 months later and continued to serve for a further 19 years in that rank. I did qualify for promotion to Chief Inspector but at that time they were considering removing that rank completely so I wasn’t promoted. I was moved into dead end jobs until I eventually I retired with 32 years service. I was later advised that I could claim for a retrospective IOD award. I did and I was awarded the bottom grade. Some 15 years later I was assaulted at my home. The offender was prosecuted but acquitted as there was no evidence to support my claim that he had tried to forcibly enter my home. However I was referred for a medical by the Compensation Agency and it turned out that I was examined by a psychiatrist who diagnosed me as suffering from severe PTSD which had been exacerbated by the assault. The local Feds supported me in relation to a claim for an increase in my IOD. I was referred to another psychiatrist who supported my claim and who also diagnosed severe PTSD. He advised that the trauma of the GSW had in his opinion led to my now suffering from type 2 diabetes. My claim was accepted and my IOD was increased from the date of the assault (I should have appealed the effective date but didn’t due to COVID and a few other things happening in those years. I am now told that I cannot appeal the effective date.
Such is my story and I feel very sorry for those intending to join a UK police service. Their rights are being eroded. I defy those who dreamt up this possible change to undergo what I underwent. The pain and suffering of the actual incident, the subsequent PTSD. The further operations needed over the years including lots of dental repair due to tooth grinding. The sleep disturbance over many years which still occurs. The loss of promotion and seniority as a result and the treatment by inconsiderate FMOs.
During my service and in particular my stay in Harrogate I met several officers from GB forces who had suffered severe injuries. Traffic accidents and the like. They were treated abysmally in comparison to me however there is a vast difference between a traffic accident and an attempted murder. Nobody has ever been made amenable for the attempt to murder me. The investigation was quickly wrapped up as impossible to solve dur to the terrorist nature. Sadly I can see matters arising in GB similar to they way matters arose in NI in distant years. I wish those officers in GB all the best and hope that they will fight these prop[osals because they will surely be applicable in GB if they come into reality in NI.
Take care politicians and civil servants you could be next on the list of those needing equality in connection with injuries on duty / at work.
Thankyou for your service and bravery, it must have been hard to share given this would have caused you to relive trauma James..
Please contact admin the backdate of IOD , I don’t know when your case was decided but the Court of appeal decision in Kelly may help.
As an officer who’s life has been dramatically affected due to an IOD I’m disgusted at the plans by those who clearly have no heart or sympathy for those who have selflessly placed they life’s at risk for the protection of others and to uphold law and order. Those who have been injured cannot put a price on regaining or reversing damage suffered. Yet some are attempting to add further suffering and pain by making their life’s harder in so many ways and unfair recommendations.
Sohail we have known each other for 30 years, one or the nicest people/cops I’ve had the pleasure of being friends with.
I remember the journey we went through with your IOD, I am sorry your selfless public survive resulted in you being injured.
A police officer interacts with people frequently at their worst, through grief, serious injury, and violent behaviour to name just a few.
A police officer is expected to engage in very dangerous/traumatic situations often without support where the public at large never would, take charge of a situation, assist and protect the public and arrest offenders as the case may be.
Anything from being a friend and consoling a lost child to engaging in violent terrorist incidents.
At times the situation requires you to engage without consideration as to your own well being. You have to act, and if you get injured you expect that your employer will likewise look after you.
Now these cowards sat in their comfy leather bound chairs in the safety of their wood panelled offices with a nice view out of the double glazed window want to rip away any financial security an injured officer may have should they get injured, all in the pursuit of saving money.
Even though you don’t deserve it police officers will protect you just the same, but trying to find those officers will become much harder. After all why take on that responsibility if you will not likewise be respected and looked after should you be in need.
I’d love to take a few of these office cowards on a few weeks of night shift patrol dealing with fatal accidents, violent offenders and yes terrorist incidents and see how they cope knowing that should they become injured they will then have to deal with the financial stress they now put injured officers through. Not satisfied with that they now wish to reduce or remove it further.
It would have been encouraging to see at least one of the questions addressing the negative aspects of the existing processes for the retiring/ retired injured officer. However, all the questions point to the thought process for all parties involved in producing these documents being that of cost cutting, saving money for the establishment. This is a great sadness and travesty. Had the police service provided better support for injured officers whilst they were operational there is every chance that some of them might have been able to keep their jobs if not in the same role then within the police service. How can you judge the future capacity of an injured officer when the ever changing support available was not there in any capacity whatsoever when we were encouraged out the door once injured. We were treated as damaged goods no longer wanted yet here we are fighting again to keep our heads above water financially. What a despicable way to treat those who suffered in their public service.
They propose to end all IOD awards at State Pension Age. We’ve been here before.
So, a young in service IOD pensioner, injured many years ago who has been unable to secure employment beyond the force, will still lose their IOD award that allows them to live. Those injured with just a small handful of years service will be in receipt of a very modest ill health pension that would barely cover utility bills, let alone normal living expenses. Their IOD award is their lifeline.
Do they expect such IOD pensioners to accept their new financial hardship just because they’re unfortunate enough to live to the state pension age?
Is the Northern Ireland Audit Office hoping that vulnerable IOD pensioner suicides will be an unintended, but useful, avenue to improve balance sheets?
The pensioner’s police injury has likely already taken their livelihood, their relationships, their self respect, their mind, and their hope. Such regulations could easily, and predictably, drive the IOD over the edge to finally be at peace.
There are sure to be many other examples showing how wrong all this is.
What an utterly grim, thoroughly distasteful report. Shame on you. Whoever signed this off is nothing but a stain on humanity
Ben,
You have raised some very good points especially in relation to officers who have been medically retired with limited service. I was retired with 20 years service and that part of my pension as you say barely covers my monthly bills. A medically retired officer with 10 years service would be living on the streets!
Unfortunately these proposals would seem to be very one sided.
If and when some or all of these ridiculous proposals come to fruition I hope they are widely circulated to all current police members so they can decide if putting their lives and health at risk is really worth it.
The PSNI is having trouble retaining members as it is and this will not help.
The author has failed to consider that should this appear in front of a judge they will not be able to persuade the Judge whose retirement age has increased to 75 that work capacity ends before that age.
Thankyou for your service and courage, so sorry that you have had to pay such a high personal price
None of this surprises me.
My reward for being a victim of GBH on duty, assaulted while protecting a member of the public from a kicking, and subsequently not recovering to HRs satisfaction was to be hounded and repeatedly threatened with the disciplinary process and even dismissal.
Meanwhile the civilian in charge of the Justice Department, who’s biggest daily danger is the odd papercut, receives an MBE.
Make no mistake, the moment you’re injured on duty you become scum to them. If you’re thinking of joining the police then please serious take heed of my advice – don’t!
Thankyou for your service and courage, so sorry that you have had to pay such a high personal price.
Officers face traumatic and life threatening situations on a regular basis. When they are injured doing that duty they should be adequately compensated. The claim that some are now paid more than a serving officer is disingenuous. The only reason this has happened is because officers pay has been capped to the extent that they are now 20% worse off in real terms than they were a few years ago. At the same time injury and pensions have increased by CPI as defined in the regulations. It’s not pensioners that are being overpaid it’s serving officers are being underpaid. I would also note that politicians pay has increased by at least RPI over that period and some substantially more.
ps. John Salter was a Derbyshire officer, that force tried to reduce his pension at CRA, it was deemed unlawful by the courts.
Going back to my point about context and verification bias, the author(s) has no appreciation of the law in terms or the regs or case law.
Also as a matter of law decisions cannot be retrospective, disability discrimination would also be relevant.
There are multiple such cases upheld by the courts. There was a Northants bobby, name eludes me, who also won in court when they tried to end his injury award at CRA. 2009 if my memory serves.
This looks like a test case for all injury awards for the rest of the UK.
The point of the award is to compensate for loss of earnings and the ability to plan for retirement in the normal way. You don’t just loose earning capacity up to the age of 65 but you also loose the ability to earn after that date. A lot of us would continue in some sort of paid occupation well after our 65th birthday. Just one example, people elected to District and County Councils for instance could go on into their early 80s but if your injury precludes standing for and being elected then you have not just lost money but a chance to once again serve your community. Many retirees work in supermarkets but again if your injury stops that why should the award be stopped just because you reached 65. I started my own business because I was apparently unemployable as no one wanted to take on someone else’s problem. If you are injured for life then the compensation should be for life.
Here we go again, yet another part of the UK Police management want to battle police pensioners over the cost of their police injury pensions. This time it’s the PSNI & NIAO trying their arm.
Why do they do this when it would be much simpler to fix the issues? No, they prefer to ignore them and the history of why the regs are there, instead deeming that just by cutting these pension costs, all then will be well.
Looking at some of their thoughts, we see that they ignore the reason why injury pensions are more costly than normal pensions. Uninjured officers on retirement can still go one to get other, possibly well paid jobs, whilst the injured officer probably cannot. They just seem to be saying “Why do we have to foot that bill”?
They talk about these injury pensions ceasing at the ordinary pension age, rather than continuing for life, forgetting the last time this was tried in front of High Court Judges, most of whom were in their 80’s!
They also think that if you happen to be well off, possibly from other means, that you then don’t need the injury pension, which again ignores the law and why it applies.
Finally, they seem to think that errors in the payment of these pensions, often causing long back payments, due mainly to a lack of information given to the officer re their rights, is the officers fault and not the administrators of the pension.
I’m sure Iodpa will respond with a clear explanation of why these old ideas are so wrong, but my advice to the NIAO, is to stop penny pinching and work with the PSNI to resolve the issues around injury pensions.
Currently, I don’t think there is any duty of care to ensure that injured police officers are aware of their rights, meaning that an ignorance of the regs, allows them to (hopefully), get away without paying.
Let’s start, by the NAIO ensuring that every police officer is aware of the regulations and what to do about claiming an injury pension, that in itself will reduce the number of large back payments over time.
In response, the PSNI could actually enlighten the NAIO re the reasons these regs exist and that there is a legal duty to support injured officers who put themselves and their future earning capacity in danger whilst protecting the community.
The costs of doing these two exercises will be far cheaper than the legal costs to the PSNI in any future legal cases against them, but will they listen? Oh look a full squadron of pigs has just flown past!
In my humble opinion, this is a repeat of the attempt made by the HO with the HO46/2004 and the 2006 and 2015(?) Pensions Regulations to make BIG changes in the amounts of IOD Pensions being paid out! REDUCTIONS! THE LAW declared the HO 46/2004 to be ILLEGAL, but here they go again, in Northern Ireland! And if it works there it will become the same here in England and Wales.
The whole report lacks independance and is based on verification bias, it also fails to apprecaite the context of the regulations or the impalications of potential reform. This report is predicated on saving money.
The Injury award is premised on a minimum income guarantee. Policing skills post retirement are sought after especially the unique skills acquired in the RUC/PSNI, CT, routinely armed, polarised operating environment etc.
Injured officers are often lose skills, are unable to develop further skills. In contrast no injured officers can obtain further employment. The difference is choice, the injury often in selfless public.duty deprived the injured officer of choice. I have witnessed the daily physical and psychological pain, often both serving as reminders for putting oneself in harms way. There families also suffer making sacrifices to care for their lived ones.
I suspect a great proportion of the IOD awards relate to the troubles and failing to recognise these sacrifices is a betrayal.
I also suspect that the figures will decrease as older members especially those involved in the troubles pass away.
Any alteration in the injury award may prevent cops putting themself in harms way. Why would you if a career loss injury means not only loss of career but destitution. Recruitment and retention issues will increase costs, revolving doors, increase training and recruitment costs,. Operational effectiveness is compromised through lack of experience as well as efficiency. Overtime becomes more necessary. So costs will increase as a direct consequence.
There is also the argument for the moral obligation we as a society we owe to our brave boys and girls in blue/green. The Policing covenant.
I have just become aware of this proposed IOD procedure change. I haven’t yet managed to read it all but will do so over the next few days. I was shot and wounded in 1979(attempted murder), and was left with life changing injuries, my promotion prospects were greatly diminished as a result of the shooting. I retired in 2001 and later applied for and received an IOD pension at the lowest rate. In 2016 I was assaulted at my home as a result I was referred for a medical examination. This was conducted by a psychiatrist on behalf of the Min of Justice. The psychiatrist diagnosed me as having severe PTSD,which was exacerbated by the assault. A second psychiatrist – Professor Miller carried out further consultations with me and agreed with the diagnosis. He linked one of my current ailments- type 2 diabetes – to the trauma of the shooting..
As a result I applied for an increase in my IOD pension and this was eventually agrred to but the upgraded award was only back dated to the date of the assault in 2016. I will / can provide further info once I have read the papers.
Reaching State Pension age doesn’t mean you have to give up work. You can continue working and still receive your State Pension. Therefore this would be disability discrimination to take an Injury on Duty away at state pension age . There is no legal retirement age, and employers can no longer force their employees to retire at a particular age. It’s up to you when you decide to stop working.
Stopping IOD payments at pension age is in my opinion ageist in that an individual can work beyond 67 years of age including in the police. Should this be implemented can an officer retired on ill health grounds get their job back in the police as it would seem the statutory bodies are assuming you no longer need additional financial help and therefore are ‘fit to work’