Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I welcome, from the Department of Justice, Lynne Curran, acting deputy director of the policing policy and strategy division; Therese Murphy from the policing HR and pensions division; and Allan Crone from the police pensions and HR policy branch. Folks, I will hand over to you, and then a couple of us have some questions that are mostly about time frames and so on. I hand over to you for your briefing.

Ms Lynne Curran (Department of Justice): Thanks, Chair; I appreciate it. We welcome the opportunity to present the Department's response to its consultation on the proposed changes to the Police Service of Northern Ireland injury on duty (IOD) award scheme. As requested by the Committee, I am also happy to present analysis of correspondence that was received on the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) report and to offer an assessment of the impact that the allegations in that may have on the IOD consultation.

It will be helpful at the outset to reiterate the differences between the ill health retirement pension and an injury on duty award, as I believe that that issue still causes confusion among some people. I also want to make it clear that the focus of the consultation was the IOD scheme and was not in any way related to the ill health retirement pensions.

The rules surrounding ill health retirement are set out clearly in the 2015 police pension scheme. A serving officer may seek ill health retirement or be required to retire due to any illness or disability: multiple sclerosis, for example, cancer or anything like that. That decision is not dependent on whether an officer has been injured on duty. As you know, retirement pensions are taxable. A determination by the board to permit ill health retirement is predicated on a number of considerations that are set out in statute.

An injury on duty award is made to a person who ceases or has ceased to be a police officer. The purpose of an injury on duty award is to reflect any loss of earnings suffered due to an injury received while on duty and to make sure that the officer receives a guaranteed minimum income. It is a tax-free benefit that is paid to officers for loss of earnings incurred due to their injury on duty. PSNI officers do not contribute to that benefit, as it is wholly funded by the PSNI.

As outlined previously, an ill health retirement pension and an injury on duty award are distinct and mutually exclusive stand-alone schemes that are governed by two separate sets of regulations. The processes for them are clearly set out in the process maps that we provided to you on 19 September.

I will move on to the consultation on the proposed changes to the consultation on the Police Service of Northern Ireland injury on duty award scheme. To set it in context, as a result of the NIAO's 'Report to Those Charged with Governance' on the Northern Ireland Prison Service accounts for 2017-18 and further audit work on the Northern Ireland Civil Service scheme as it includes Prison Service officers, the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) extended his review to the PSNI IOD scheme. That resulted in the NIAO report, 'Injury on duty schemes for officers in the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Prison Service', published on 10 March 2020.

As you are aware, the NIAO report made four recommendations that were primarily about the provision of greater clarity on the aims of the schemes; checks and balances to ensure the appropriate use of public funds; greater consistency; streamlining of processes; a new case-handling system; offsetting payments; and clearer guidance to the scheme medical practitioners. When the NIAO report was published, an injury on duty steering group was established to address the recommendations. The membership of the steering group includes the Department of Justice sponsor and finance divisions, the Northern Ireland Prison Service, the Department of Finance, the Northern Ireland Policing Board and the PSNI. Two scheme-specific subgroups with scheme-appropriate membership were also established, one relating to police and one to the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) and prison officers. The steering group takes forward the overall NIO recommendations, while the scheme-specific subgroups take forward the recommendations relating to their specific work area.

You are aware that the steering group and the PSNI IOD subgroup agreed to a preliminary PSNI IOD targeted consultation, which is why we are here today. The purpose of the consultation was to open discussions on the IOD award scheme to help to inform proposals to provide a sustainable, accountable and affordable IOD scheme that provides financial support to police officers and their families, should officers be killed or injured in the line of duty. The consultation opened on 26 March 2024. It was due to close on 17 June, but, at the request of the Northern Ireland Policing Board, the consultation was extended to 17 July. Following consideration of the preliminary findings, we now need to finalise the analysis report before submission to the IOD steering group for its deliberations.

In summary, the consultation posed nine questions to facilitate responses and invited general comment. A total of 55 responses were received, four of which represented key stakeholder groups, with two further organisations submitting responses. The majority of the remaining respondents indicated that they were private individuals, the vast majority of whom identified either as serving or retired police officers. From the information that we provided in advance of this meeting, you will be aware of how each stakeholder group and the individuals responded, but I will summarise that for you. The majority of stakeholder organisations were supportive of many of the proposals that were outlined. However, a small number expressed opposition to specific individual questions. Two organisations expressed complete opposition to any changes to the existing IOD scheme. In the main, the majority of individual responses were wholly against any changes to the current IOD award scheme.

One further issue that I consider to be pertinent to the consultation relates to the roles and responsibilities of each organisation. It is a matter that has been raised with us on a number of occasions. As I have previously advised the Committee, the matter was to be considered as part of the wider review, and that position remains unchanged. However, I advise that, before any adjustments can be considered, key stakeholders must decide where responsibilities best sit. It is not just a simple matter of moving the processes from the board to the PSNI; the statutory roles are entwined with considerable complexities and interdependencies and will require extensive legal examination, if change is requested. That will not happen overnight.

The consultation has received positive and negative responses from stakeholders and individuals to each of the questions that were asked. The subgroup will consider those responses and their potential outcomes to maintain the IOD scheme for existing and future applicants. Until the analysis has been completed and the outcomes understood, it is difficult to determine an expected timescale for proposed changes at this stage. In addition, any proposals for changes to roles and responsibilities will need further consideration. Fully understanding how any changes may impact on various areas will likely need further engagement with key stakeholders.

What are the next steps? The IOD subgroup will examine the responses to each question. Further work may be required from key stakeholders, including the PSNI and the Policing Board, ahead of any recommendations for overall changes to the IOD award scheme. At this stage, all options remain open for any proposed changes to the IOD scheme. Responses and preliminary findings will be scrutinised prior to the finalisation of the consultation response document. Proposals on any future changes to the IOD scheme and/or associated legislation will be brought to the IOD steering group but will likely require further consultation and, ultimately, ministerial approval.

At its meeting on 19 September, the Committee asked for an update on correspondence that it had received relating to allegations concerning the use of flawed information in the NIAO report. The Department, along with colleagues from NIAO and the Northern Ireland Policing Board, has analysed the correspondence and considered it against source information that is already in the public domain. I am also aware that the NIAO replied to the Committee's queries in relation to that matter. On the basis of our analysis, the Department is satisfied that the information contained in the individual's correspondence has no impact on the PSNI injury on duty consultation. The Department has provided the Committee with a full response to the allegations that were made.

Thank you for the opportunity to come before the Committee today. My colleagues and I are now willing to take questions from members.

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

Maurice, I know that you have something on this.

Mr Bradley: Yes. I wanted to ask about a time frame for implementation. Have you engaged with some of the correspondents who made allegations of false information in order to explain to them that perhaps they may be wrong or perhaps you may be wrong, just to finalise that?

Ms Curran: All of the individual responses are anonymised. We have no idea who they came from, so we can engage only with the stakeholder groups that came forward. We have regular engagement with the likes of the Police Federation, the Policing Board and all of those other bodies. At this stage, it is not possible to give you a timeline for when changes may be effected. There is still a lot of work to be done. The consultation is only one small part of a wider review of the whole scheme, and that will take some time to work through.

Mr Bradley: Yes, but you are working on it.

Ms Curran: Yes, absolutely. There is a dedicated team working on it.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): There is not even a ballpark time frame.

Ms Curran: At this stage, Chair, unfortunately not. I do not want to labour the point, but we are under-resourced and there are a huge number of demands on the branch at the moment. We deal with all issues relating to policing, including the Policing Board and the Police Ombudsman and about eight or nine other arm's-length bodies. We are trying our best to progress the matter, but other demands sometimes have to take precedence.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Also, a lot of subjects in it were not clear-cut.

Does anyone else have anything on this, before I come in? No.

I have a few things to work through. In our papers, under the heading "Scope of the Consultation", you say:

Then you provide a list of recipients: the PSNI, the Policing Board, the Policing Federation, the Retired Police Officers Association, Injury on Duty Pensioners Association and Sinn Féin. Can I just clarify whether that is a typo? Was Sinn Féin targeted, or did Sinn Féin just respond?

Ms Curran: Sinn Féin responded.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Right, OK. That was not entirely clear.

Ms Curran: My apologies: Sinn Féin was not the only one that was targeted. Maybe that is the wrong word to use.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is fine. It is important to clarify that from the papers in front of us.

Turn to page 168 and the issue of whether the changes would apply going forward rather than retrospectively. There has been mention in the consultation responses about legal challenge, if changes were to be made retrospectively. Is there a risk at all of legal challenge for people who are admitted into a new scheme that they will be treated differently from people who were previously admitted into the scheme?

Ms Curran: That is part of our deliberations and considerations at the moment. Legal advice will be taken on all that. At the moment, I am not in a position to give you a definitive answer.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is OK. I just wanted to establish whether it was on your radar.

Ms Curran: It is, absolutely, yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is fair enough. In terms of commentary, it is somewhat disappointing that you have come this far and considered all the issues and the one question that was not put was with whom the scheme should lie. It does not give a complete picture. It is disappointing from our point of view and, doubtless, from that of the Policing Board, not to mention members of the scheme, that that was not included. It is just a point to note.

Ms Curran: In response to that, I will say that the Policing Board sits on both the steering group and the IOD subgroup, so, if that was an issue for the Policing Board, it could have and should have been raised at those meetings.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is the one thing that I want to clarify with you. In your presentation to us, you said, "if change were to be requested".

Ms Curran: That is in relation to the roles and responsibilities.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Yes, and the legislative change that would be required were the scheme to be removed from the board, but the issue is that those conversations are happening. There are requests that it be taken away from the board. That is from the board and from people who are involved in the scheme, so it is difficult to imagine. You said, "if change were requested", but it is being requested.

Ms Curran: It has not been officially requested to us yet by the board. It is the owner of the scheme, so it needs to make a formal representation to the Department to change the roles and responsibilities. It is not just about lifting a process and moving it from the board to the PSNI, for instance; it is about looking at the Policing Board's role as the scheme manager and the principal pension authority — I think that that is the title. While we are aware that there is a desire for it to move and I accept that the discussions have been ongoing for a long time, until a formal request comes in to us from the board asking us to do that, we are not in a position to take it further.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Presumably, there have been informal conversations. In those conversations, has it been made clear to the board that, for this to be taken forward, it must indicate formally that there is a request to do so?

Ms Curran: I believe that it has been made clear to the board, and —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Certainly, this Hansard will make it clear.

Ms Curran: Absolutely.

Miss Hargey: My understanding is that the board had requested it. It is clear that the board does not have the capacity or the skill set to do it, and that it would be better placed, for example, within the PSNI, which does. I wonder whether we could get something in writing to confirm what you have said about what the process would need to be and to clarify whether a formal request meeting that process has happened or not. If we could get that in writing, I would appreciate that.

Ms Curran: Of course. One of the other things that it is important to say at this stage is that the complexities around this should not be underestimated. It is not just touching on the legislation relating to IOD or ill health retirement or anything like that; we will have to do a lot of engagement with the likes of the Pensions Authority. There are massive ramifications here that must be considered. That is not to say that we have not already begun that thought process. The board has been involved in that, but we need something formal. I am happy to provide that.

Miss Hargey: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is fair enough. In the course of this, I declare that I was a member of the Policing Board for a considerable period, but at no point in my time on the Policing Board did I sit on the committee that considered injury on duty awards. It is important to —.

Mr Bradley: I declare that as well, Chair.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thanks, Maurice.

I have a couple of other points to make, if I may, and then I will turn to the issue of the individual correspondent with whom we have been dealing.

One of the issues that arise in the course of the consultation is the forwarding of officers' data. You will appreciate that. It is something that is raised with us regularly with serving and retired police officers and prison officers. In the course of this and in all of the conversations around pensions, it would be helpful for you to outline the considerations that you take into account. They are people who operate under considerable risk and threat. What precautions do you take before any such information about police and prison officers is forwarded beyond your Department and your area of work?

Ms Curran: First of all, I cannot comment on the prison officer side of it. That has nothing to do with our team. We take precautions, and I defer to my two colleagues, who can take you through that process. We absolutely ensure that we comply with GDPR and all the required legislation.

I will pass you over to Therese and Alan, who can take you through the processes that we use.

Ms Therese Murphy (Department of Justice): I came new to the role and looked at the data handling of this recently. We worked with the board to revise our information-sharing agreement. All of the information is handled on a secure system within DOJ. If the information is to go out to the appellants, I believe, it is via recorded delivery, or we use software called "Box", as recommended by our security officer. It gets uploaded with a timeline and is deleted automatically, if it is not accessed. Only the recipient gets an email on how to access it.

As for storing the information, we have a privacy notice and a retention schedule in place, so, once we deal with and finish our appeals, there is a retention policy of six months — am I right? — and then we automatically delete it from our systems.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): OK. That is fair enough.

Ms Murphy: We have taken good precautions around that, because we want to be sure.

Ms Curran: We are very conscious of the sensitivity of the information that we deal with, so we take every precaution that we can.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): It is still a really sore point and a difficult issue for people who have left the service and for their families.

Ms Curran: Absolutely. I understand that completely. Of course.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you for that. If we have anything further on that, I will follow up with you, if that is OK.

Ms Curran: No problem.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I turn to the issues that the correspondent has raised. First of all, Lynne, at the start of your remarks, you made a distinction between injury on duty and pensions. Can I clarify, while Hansard is here with us, that the previous statutory rule (SR) that was passed regarding pensions and injury on duty has nothing whatever to do with this consultation and is entirely separate?

Ms Curran: Absolutely.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): You are confirming that. That is great. Thank you very much.

In your paper to us, you have dealt with each issue raised specifically. Are you clear beyond any doubt that everything that you have is factual and not erroneous and that the consultation is based entirely on factual information?

Ms Curran: On the basis of the information that we have, the answer to that is yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): OK. I have another thing to check with you. I think that it is important for the person who raised serious concerns with us to have sight of your responses. If the Committee is in agreement — I will put the question to the Committee later — do we have your agreement that we can share your response to those issues with the correspondent?

Ms Curran: I do not think that there is anything in our responses that precludes that from happening, and, if the Committee feels that that would be helpful, I am more than happy for you to do that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I think that it would be helpful. Bearing in mind the gravity of the issues raised, it is important that we are transparent in that and that the Department is transparent in that. Thank you very much.

I have nothing else. Does anybody else have anything? No.

Ms Curran: Sorry, before we finish, Chair, I have a point on that issue of sharing the information with the individual. When the individual sees what we have said, if they have any more queries or questions, by all means tell them to come directly to me, and I will be more than happy to address those. Obviously, we will copy any responses to the Committee.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): OK. That is helpful. Thank you very much, Lynne. That is great.