Oral Answers to Questions — Justice – in the Northern Ireland Assembly at 2:15 pm on 17 June 2024.
Until the four recommendations outlined in the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) report relating to the police injury-on-duty scheme are addressed, I have no plans to remove either the injury-on-duty or ill-health retirement responsibilities from the Northern Ireland Policing Board at this stage. The matter is out for a targeted consultation until 17 July 2024. However, the roles and responsibilities of the Department, the PSNI and the Policing Board will be considered as part of future deliberations.
Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for her response. Based on the responses to that consultation, might you revisit it and consider bringing forward legislation on ill-health retirement and injury on duty? We do not want a system where we have two separate processes, because you could have one officer going through two separate processes.
I understand the point that is being made, but given that the roles and responsibilities of the Policing Board were established by the Patten report, any change is likely to be a cross-cutting matter involving the Executive Office and the Department of Finance and, potentially, requiring amendment to primary and secondary legislation. Before making any commitment to change, it would be important to do proper consideration on it.
In March 2020, the Northern Ireland Audit Office concluded its report on injury-on-duty schemes for officers and looked at injury-on-duty awards made to former police and prison officers for injuries sustained while they were on duty. One recommendation of the report was to set up a steering group comprised of key representatives from DOJ, DOF, the Police Service, the Policing Board, the Northern Ireland Prison Service and the Departmental Solicitor's Office to manage the implementation of the recommendations. The two subgroups that now report to the steering group were established to allow us to take that forward. The steering group is considering the roles and responsibilities associated with the PSNI injury-on-duty scheme to determine where they would be best placed. However, it is important that we do not cut across other important work that is also strictly time-bound and needs to be taken forward in shorter measure when we come to look at this issue.
The IMR issue is significant. We have now engaged the service of an external supplier. That allowed the independent medical referee assessment process to commence on 4 March this year. Officials have instructed the supplier to procure additional resources, with a view to resolving the backlog as soon as possible. That backlog is the result of medical appointments being paused due to several factors. They include the COVID pandemic, by removing the ability for cases to be actioned; the McCloud remedy, requiring the reassessment of some police pensions; the exploration of the Department's previous IMR contract; and the difficulty in procuring a new supplier who could provide the services. Thankfully, on the last score, we now have that arrangement in place.
Does the Minister accept that the current process for ill-health retirement and injury on duty is clunky and not fit for purpose? Does she also accept that, given the high numbers of people involved in it and the low numbers of police officers on the front line, we need a robust system fast to resolve the issues for many of those officers who will never be able to return to work or who are off for in excess of 12 months? Does she accept that we need to do something more swiftly, rather than have some form of consultation?
There is, of course, nothing to stop the board doing whatever it wishes to speed up delivery by the injury-on-duty scheme. That is the responsibility of the board, and it is not for me to direct the board on how to implement that scheme or what resources to attach to it. The question that has been asked of me is whether I would relocate that injury-on-duty responsibility either in the Department or, more likely, with the Chief Constable. We need to approach that question with due care and attention. We are waiting on a consultation outcome in July. When we have the consultation outcome and have been able to see the feedback on that, we can look at whether that is the way to proceed. We need to make sure that do not simply move a failing scheme, potentially, around different organisations. We need to get to the bottom of why the delays have happened and how we can eliminate those delays, rather than doing things that, I guarantee, make life easier for the board but may not help the officers about whom you speak.