".

,,
Home Office
50 Queen Anne's Gate, London SW1H 9AT
SW:i.tchboard 0870 0001585 E'ax 0207 273 2501 DJ.J:'ect Line 020 1273 3101
E"mai1 co11n.phil1ips@homeoffiee.g6J.'9ov.uk www.homeoffl~~·9ov.uk

Our Ref
John Giffard Esq CBE QPM YOlJr. Ref
ACPO Date 12 May 2004
Chief Constable
Staffordshire "Police
Cannock Road
Stafford
ST170QG

Deat Mr Giffard

DEGREE OF DISABLEMENT GUIDANCE REvIEW

Following yout letter to John Denham of zx JOOOC,X; • I writing to inform you of some
proposed changes that we are considering making to the guid$llce to police medical appeal
bows. These amendments will be on the issue of calculating Degree of Disablement for
former officers who have reached the age at which they would have been liable to
compulsory retirement from their force. I enclose a copy of relevant excerpts from the
draft guidance to boards and a draft of the accompanying guidance for forces is also
attached.

A snapshot of force practice last yeat revealed d:i:ffering practices in this area and we
consider that with medical appeal boards stuting to operate, the guidance to them can
no longer remain silent. We have tbeeefoee had extensive discussions 'Withpractitioners
in forces around the country in order to detem:Une the best way to proceed fO! all
parties. As you know, it is import\l1t to strike the right balance between safeguanling
the public purse and safeguuding the interests of pensioners and ensure that the
correct band of disablement is identified.

Out pte1imiruu:yc01lsultation has led us to the opinion that the National A-vettge
Earnings comparator should also be used for former officers who are under
compulsory retirement age and who apply for an injury award after leaving the fo1:Ce
m
for reasons other than ill-health retirement. This point is included the attached
draft.

One issue which is not covered in the guidance to medical appeal bows but which we
think. we need to COVet m guidance to forces is how to judge what intervals ate
suitable. It seems to us thatwhereas it is reasonable fox most cases to be reviewed at
the compulsoty retirement age stage .•not all such cases need to be reviewed again at
age 65.· The approach we are proposing is that a police authority would, aftet

c: \'RJn"\c. LClbJ:I.Jllctfla. 'DIItn\ACPDOaD.

BUILDING A SAFE, JUST AND TOLERANT SOCIETY "D.

concluding the review at compulsory retirement age, be entitled to judge it reasonable
not to review a.case further where the injury award is already small. This will notmally
be the case with foanee officers who were retired injured early in their career. We do
not think We can create a sPecific ttminimum" minimum income guarantee under the
Police Pensions Regulations in their present form. Each case will have to be
considered on the basis of its individtW circumstances.

Now that the guidance has taken shape we are consulting on it before issWng the
respective versions to the medical appeal boards and to fotces. Please write to me if
you have any views on the proposed guidance or phone me on 0207 273 3107 1£you.
would like to discuss them in greater detail. I am also copying this letter to Andrew
Honeyman of the Association of Police Authorities and writing sepa'Catelyto the Staff
side and to NARPO.

Yours sincerely

Colin Phillips
Police Pensions and III Health Retirement Officer

CI\'RKI'\e_l.atUI!I_~t4D.Do.t&\~D.
BUILDING A SAFE, JUSt AND TOLERAm' SOCIETY doe