Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I welcome Lynne Curran, head of policing strategy and engagement, and Antonia Hoskins and Allan Crone, who are from the police pensions and HR policy branch. We appreciate your attendance. There has been some confusion about the matter, and we welcome your attendance to clarify some of those items. I will hand over to you to brief us, and then, no doubt, there will be questions at the end.

Ms Lynne Curran (Department of Justice): Thanks very much, Chair. I will go through some speaking notes, which should take seven or eight minutes, and then we are happy to take questions.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is great. Thank you.

Ms Curran: I am head of the policing policy and strategy division. My colleagues are Antonia Hoskins and Allan Crone, both from the police pensions and HR policy branch in my division. We very much welcome the opportunity to assist the Justice Committee in its consideration of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve (Injury Benefit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024 and to provide clarification of the associated processes relating to police injury on duty (IOD) and ill health retirement.

It is important to say from the outset that the regulations are not related to or impacted by the recent correspondence that the Committee has received.

I will cover that later in my statement.

In recognising that issues relating to injury on duty, ill health retirement and pension schemes are highly complex and technical, we would like to provide some clarity today while acknowledging that we may have to come back to you with a written briefing if there are questions that we do not immediately have the answers to.

The first issue is the purpose of the No. 2 regulations and why the Committee is being asked to agree them. The purpose of the regulations is, first, to place the medical guidance that selected medical practitioners (SMPs) and independent medical reviewers use on a statutory footing and, secondly, to amend errors in the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve (Injury Benefit) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
Members will recall that, at its meeting on 30 May 2024, the Committee was apprised of the outcome of the Chadwick and Harvison judgement, in which two police officers successfully challenged the board's decision not to implement an independent medical referee (IMR) reassessment. The judgement found against the board, stating that it did not have the authority to reject the IMR's recommendation. The IOD medical guidance referenced in the court action was non-statutory and, as the court noted, non-binding. As a consequence, it was agreed by the board and the Department that the said IOD medical guidance should be placed on a statutory footing to prevent the use of any alternative medical guidance relating to IOD awards. The regulations were to achieve that aim. At the meeting on 30 May, the Committee agreed to the SL1 regarding the PSNI and PSNI Reserve (Injury Benefit) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 — the "No. 1 regulations".

On 9 September this year, the Department wrote to advise the Committee that, despite the No. 1 regulations passing the statutory instrument validation tool, at the time of registration, the Statutory Publications Office (SPO) rejected the version that it received due to unintentional errors that it found. Having engaged with the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO), the Statutory Publications Office, the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) and the Examiner of Statutory Rules, it was agreed that new amendment regulations had to be made, and those are the No. 2 regulations. They were required to replace and revoke the No. 1 regulations. The No. 2 regulations were made on 27 June and came into force on 2 July. Having received the twenty-second report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules, the Committee is now being asked to consider the No. 2 regulations. At this point, it is important to reassure the Committee that the errors were minor and did not impact payments to individuals either positively or negatively.

The second issue that I would like to address is the consultation on the proposed changes to the Police Service of Northern Ireland injury on duty scheme. We are scheduled to bring our findings on that consultation to the Committee on 24 October. To give a bit of context, the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) report 'Injury on duty schemes for officers in the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Prison Service' was published in March 2020 and made four recommendations. In order to assess those recommendations, the IOD steering group was established along with scheme-specific subgroups, one relating to police and one relating to prison officers. The steering group and the subgroup comprised key stakeholders that would take forward the relevant recommendations. Both the steering group and the PSNI IOD subgroup agreed to a preliminary PSNI IOD-targeted consultation that issued in March and closed in July. The consultation sought views on a number of issues in order to help inform proposals to provide a sustainable, accountable and affordable IOD scheme for the future. Responses to the consultation are being analysed, and, as I said, we hope to bring that analysis to the Committee on 24 October.

Members should be advised that further work will be required from key stakeholders, including the PSNI and the Northern Ireland Policing Board (NIPB), ahead of any recommendations for overall changes to the IOD award scheme. Consensus on any future changes to the IOD scheme and/or associated legislation will be sought between stakeholders prior to ministerial approval. The Committee will, of course, be kept informed as matters progress.

Members also sought some clarity on two distinct areas of work: the PSNI injury on duty scheme and ill health retirement from the police. It is important to point out that, in this forum, it probably would be inappropriate for us to get involved in individual cases. Therefore, with your indulgence, Chair, I would prefer it if we did not get into that level of detail.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Of course.

Ms Curran: Members will hopefully have seen the high-level synopsis of the injury on duty scheme that we sent through. The key points to note from it are that the awards relate to those who cease or have ceased to be a police officer. The purpose of the award is to compensate for the reduction in or loss of earning capacity as a result of an injury on duty. The IOD is not a pension scheme, and the Policing Board determines eligibility for award. We are happy to guide the Committee through the process for IOD awards as set out in the process map, if that is required today.

We provided a high-level synopsis of ill health retirement. The key points are that eligibility for ill health retirement is predicated on the scheme members making full member contributions to the voluntary 2015 police pension scheme. Members are required to hold a minimum of two years' service in the police pension scheme to qualify, and the Policing Board, in its role as a police pension authority, determines whether a police officer may or may not retire under ill health. Again, we are content to guide members through the process map that we have provided.

The Committee also sought additional information regarding matters to do with police pensions, which we hope to bring to you in the next couple of months. Those issues are separate pieces of work and are not related to injury on duty awards. It is anticipated that the Committee will receive a written briefing on 26 September relating to a forthcoming consultation to amend the existing bands and rate of employee contributions that are payable by the 2015 police pension scheme members. The Minister of Justice agreed that on the recommendation of the scheme advisory board. The amendment will address a shortfall in employee contributions that was identified in the 2020 scheme valuation carried out by the Government Actuary's Department (GAD). The Committee will be asked to note the background to the matter and the commencement of a six-week targeted consultation.

Additionally, it is anticipated that, later in the year, the Committee will be asked to consider the retrospective implications relating to the ill health retirement aspects of police pension regulations. The Department has given an undertaking to review the position of active 2015 pension scheme members who, prior to 1 April 2024, were ineligible to apply for ill health retirement. Again, we are content to provide further detail today, should the Committee require it.

Finally, I will address the correspondence that the Committee received last week. It is important to reiterate that the letter received has no impact on or relevance to the police injury benefit regulations SR 2024 No. 147, which the Committee is being asked to consider today. To give some background information, the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) report was commissioned as a result of the findings of the NIAO audit of the 2017-18 Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) accounts and highlighted an issue with the increasing cost of the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) injury on duty scheme, which is the Department of Finance's responsibility. However, the work was later extended by the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) to consider the PSNI IOD scheme, resulting in the report being published by the Northern Ireland Audit Office on 10 March 2020. We have engaged already with the Northern Ireland Audit Office on the issues that raised in the correspondence that you received, but we are not yet in a position to comment on the detail.

I thank the Committee for the opportunity to come here today. Antonia, Allan and I are happy to take any questions that Members may have.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you very much, Lynne.

Mr Bradley: I have two short questions that possibly will have short answers. Are you aware of current or pending legal action around the IODs and pension awards? Just a simple yes or no.

Ms Curran: In what context?

Mr Bradley: There is a legal challenge among former officers.

Ms Curran: Are we aware?

Mr Allan Crone (Department of Justice): Yes, we are.

Ms Curran: We are, yes.

Mr Bradley: That is OK. Do not elaborate on that.

Perhaps you could furnish me with the level of detail that the selected medical practitioners went through in education on how they should perform their work in making those judgements.

Ms Curran: They are provided with some training. There is a slide pack that we go through with them. They are furnished with the guidance, and they are made aware of the rules and regulations relating to the scheme, including the legislation.

Mr Bradley: Would it be possible for the Committee to have a copy of those?

Ms Curran: I see no reason why not.

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much.

Miss Hargey: We were content with the SR and stuff — it went through Committee — but something that came up at the Policing Board was the opinion that the remit of the injury on duty scheme should not sit with the Policing Board because it does not have the expertise or anything to deal with it. It is my party's view that it is more appropriate that that sits with the police. Do you have any update?

Ms Curran: That is part of the ongoing review. It will be part of the consultation responses. Once we have analysed the consultation, we will look at what the next steps are. They tie in with the four recommendations made in the NIAO report.

Miss Hargey: Are you consulting on the proposal to move it to the police?

Ms Curran: We are consulting on specific issues. A series of questions was asked. We can certainly furnish the Committee with that consultation again if need be. They all tie into the roles and responsibilities, including who should do what, because who is responsible for doing what in the scheme is set and embedded in legislation.

Miss Hargey: Did you say that it is coming on 26 October?

Ms Curran: No, 24 October.

Miss Hargey: OK. Will that be a written briefing?

Ms Curran: It will be an oral briefing, I think.

Mr Beattie: May I ask a quick question? It is on the retrospective injury on duty awards. I am looking at the questions that the selected medical practitioner is asked to look at. They include one about a start date for those who receive a retrospective IOD, which I do not think will be a statutory question. At the moment, officers are given different start dates for their retrospective IOD. For some, it is when they saw the SMP; for some, it is backdated to when it was identified that they might be sick; and, for some, it is the date of their retirement. They all have in common the fact that it was proven that their injury occurred while they were on duty. If a retrospective IOD has been awarded, is it not sensible that it should be backdated to the person's date of retirement, if the injury was found to have occurred during their service?

Ms Curran: I have just been told that that is part of the legal case that is under consideration at the moment, so I am not sure that it is appropriate for us to answer that right here, right now.

Mr Beattie: That is fair, so I will not press you on it, but may I ask whether the start date that the SMP is asked to give will be one of the statutory questions? When the legislation passes, the SMP will be asked a number of questions, but the start date will not be one of them, will it?

Ms Curran: I will defer to one of my colleagues to answer that.

Mr Crone: The start date is —.

Mr Beattie: I am sorry. I am talking only about retrospective IODs, not other IODs. Normally, injured on duty awards happen at the moment that a person stops being a police officer. I get that. I am asking about the retrospective ones.

Mr Crone: The retrospective ones depend on the medical evidence that the SMP has reviewed. It is for the SMP to provide that date at their judgement.

Ms Curran: It is based on the evidence provided to the SMP.

Mr Crone: It is based on the case presented to them on the individual concerned.

Mr Beattie: If the case that is presented to the SMP means that they say that the injury is due to service, that implies that the person received the injury during service, which means, surely —.

Ms Curran: Not always necessarily. The person may have received the injury during service, but it may not have manifested itself until further down the line.

Mr Beattie: However, with psychological injuries, for example, somebody could leave the Police Service and not realise that they have a psychological injury. They might never do a day of work for 10 years after the day that they left the police, and the psychological injury might then manifest itself.

Ms Curran: Apologies if anybody in the room is a medical expert, but we are not. The board has to rely on the advice that the medical practitioner gives to it on the basis of the evidence presented to them. I hear and understand what you say. The Committee may like to feed that in as part of the consultation.

Mr Beattie: That is fair as well. You are absolutely right. It is exactly the same for Policing Board members. They do not even get a paragraph; they get a line. They make a decision based on a line from the doctor. They do not get even a paragraph outlining any of the information. You are saying what the Policing Board says, and we are also of the opinion that the decision should not sit with the Policing Board. Again, that is for the review.

Ms Curran: I think that you asked a similar question when we were here in April. The issue is that the roles and responsibilities have been identified as perhaps not necessarily sitting in the right places. That will form part of the bigger ongoing review that the consultation will feed into.

Mr Beattie: You make a valid point — it is the same for all of us — which is this: if a doctor says something, who are we to say otherwise? That does not necessarily mean that it is right, if you know what I mean.

Ms Curran: I accept that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): To recap, our issue was not with the statutory rule (SR) in front of us per se; it resulted from the correspondence that we had received. We thought that the correspondence pertained to the statutory rule, so it is helpful to have clarification.

As I work my way through it, I want to make a couple of points.

I am looking at our papers. If the board's role is purely affirmatory, what options are open to it other than to rubber-stamp a recommendation?

Ms Curran: I cannot answer that, because the board owns the process. It makes that decision and takes the call.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): The issue is that, when it took a call, it was anything but a rubber stamp. There was a pursuant legal case, was there not?

Ms Curran: I absolutely understand what you say.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Our party agrees that this should not rest with the Policing Board, because, essentially, it has no option. That is what I was trying to get to.

I note that the guidance has yet to be finalised. We have been furnished with the guidance from 2016, which makes it clear that it is not on a statutory footing, and, obviously, that is what you seek to remedy. I wonder about the value of sending us guidance from 2016 as opposed to the guidance that is being looked at. I understand that this was implemented on 1 July, yet the Department is still looking over the guidance. That seems strange and impractical.

Ms Curran: If I recall correctly — again, I am relying on my colleagues to keep me right here — placing the guidance on a statutory footing is not specifying which guidance; it is just saying "guidance", so the review of the guidance is ongoing.

Mr Crone: That is correct.

Ms Curran: Where are we with that?

Mr Crone: The Policing Board and the Department have asked for legal advice on the draft guidance. Once we get that back, we will examine it and prepare new guidance or reissue guidance, as the case may be.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): At that point, is there the potential that there would need to be another statutory rule update, saying that it will be fine?

Ms Curran: No, because the SR talks about "guidance". It does not particularly specify the 2016 guidance or, hopefully, the 2024 guidance.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That takes us to the correspondence that we received. I understand that it relates to the Audit Office, but, for clarity, exactly which of your consultations is pertinent?

Ms Curran: We do not believe that any of the consultations are pertinent to the information that the individual has sent in. We believe that it relates to the statistics quoted in the NIAO report.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Yes, but I understand from the correspondence that the statistics quoted there are likely to have a bearing on whatever review and consultation you are conducting. I read the Department's response. It states that that is, essentially, a matter for the Northern Ireland Audit Office, and it is. Where the accuracy of the report is concerned, those questions will need to be put to the Audit Office, and it will need to answer. However, we seek , first of all, clarification about which consultation is pertinent to the Northern Ireland Audit Office statistics referred to in the correspondence that we received —

Ms Curran: I am with you now.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): — and reassurance that you looked into the issues that were raised. Fundamentally, the allegation is that, if the Northern Ireland Audit Office got its statistics wrong and you based a consultation on those statistics, the conclusion is erroneous, so the whole premise is potentially flawed. That is the query. We want to make sure that, having been alerted to this, all necessary steps have been taken to ensure that the statistics are accurate or otherwise and that, where there is an impact on a consultation that you would run, it is not fundamentally flawed and is based on accurate facts and, therefore, the outcome is accurate and right.

Ms Curran: I understand what you say, and, to go back to my opening comments, we are engaging with the NIAO and the Policing Board to work through the detail of what the individual put in the letter so that we can satisfy ourselves, the Minister and you. At this moment, I am not in a position to comment on what that individual has done, because we have not done a thorough analysis yet, but we will engage with the NIAO and the Policing Board about the information in the letter.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): When you come to the Committee on 24 October, is the consultation that you will discuss the one to which the correspondence refers?

Ms Curran: It will be related to it, yes. The consultation that closed in July was one of the outworkings of the NIAO review. I totally understand the point that you are trying to make.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): OK.

Ms Curran: Yes, on 24 October, we are happy to give the Committee an update and as much assurance as we can at that time.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Right. By that stage, will your discussions with the Northern Ireland Audit Office have been finalised, and will you have everything that you need?

Ms Curran: I hope so, yes. We have already started to engage with the NIAO, and, after this Committee meeting, we will engage with the NIAO and the NIPB.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): From the Committee's point of view, this is an issue of due diligence. We have just seen the Horizon scandal, and, if the matter is raised with us and we are alerted to it, do nothing and take no action, we are being remiss. We want to be sure that everything is based on the proper premise.

Ms Curran: That is an extremely fair point, and we will not argue with it, because we are in a similar position. We want to make sure that the work that we do is based on fact, because it is not in our interests, the members of the schemes or anybody in the room to put something into the public domain that is fundamentally flawed. At this stage, I will not be able to say whether it is fundamentally flawed until we do further analysis.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is fair. We were not clear about what that related to. We wanted to assure ourselves, you clarified that point for us, and we will follow up when the time comes. We note that, at the end of the correspondence, there is reference to issues in the Policing Board, but that is not relevant to the issues that we had concerns about or our queries.

Does anyone have anything further on this item? No.

On that basis, members, we made a decision last week, but it was almost as though a parallel process was going on. We indicated that we were still content with the statutory rule. Now that we have had clarification that the correspondence issues do not pertain to the statutory rule and we will have a further opportunity for reassurance, are we content to proceed with statutory rule 147 as we had agreed?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is great. Thank you very much.

Folks, thank you very much for taking the time. That was helpful for us. We appreciate it, so thank you.