Met police firearms

[Fedster + 1,307]

Home Office says decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis.

Regulations allowing medically-unfit officers to be dismissed if they don't qualify for ill health retirement have been drafted.

The Home Office has highlighted its work on so-called "capability dismissal" in its submission to the police remuneration review body.

This says: “We have drafted a set of new regulations to allow the dismissal of officers who are medically unfit for officer roles, but who do not meet the strict permanent disablement criteria for ill health retirement.

"We have invited partners to engage with this process via a Police Advisory Board Working Group prior to producing a final draft set of regulations for formal consultation.”

It is understood that the new power would be used where there is no other role the officer can undertake and if he or she does not qualify for departure through the existing process.

Individuals need to be assessed as having a permanent disability following a sometimes lengthy process to qualify for ill health retirement.

A Home Office spokesman said: "Capability dismissal on medical grounds will only apply in a small number of circumstances where it may become clear, after all other options have been explored and exhausted, that it is not possible or is no longer possible to identify a role where the adjustments required by an individual officer can reasonably be accommodated by the force.

"This will be managed on a case-by-case basis."

A version of this concept was suggested in the Winsor Review of pay and conditions in 2011. It said that those who could not continue in their roles after two years should be given a police staff job "if one is available".

View On Police Oracle

[bensonby + 3,503]

I don’t get this. If the person is medically unable to perform the role then surely they should be medically retired? I don’t understand why there should be a middle ground.

[MerseyLLB 8,426]

This boils down to what medical fitness you require to be a police officer.

Pre-cuts at the height of civilianisation there was a case to be had for 'you don't need police officers in roles which don't use warranted powers'.

Now the cuts have set in we have reverted back and police officers are found in all kind of civilian roles - pretty much because we are redeployable at the forces whims in a way staff are not.

So I would argue for the time being these powers are not needed. Due to austerity there are many police officer roles suitable for officers not medically fit to perform the full role of say a response officer.

 

[Reasonable Man + 1,231]

I don’t get this. If the person is medically unable to perform the role then surely they should be medically retired? I don’t understand why there should be a middle ground.

I believe it's because since the tightening up of the employment laws from the days of high levels of medical retirements it must be shown that a person is medically unfit to work until their state retirement age. That means unable to work in any job. So for example an officer is suffering from PTSD and so cannot work in confrontational situations that doesn't mean that he can't go and work in an office somewhere. So for medical reasons he cannot be an officer but he can leave and get another job.
Medical pensions are for people who cannot work so have to leave and without the pension would have no income.

[Zulu 22 + 4,576]

2 hours ago, Reasonable Man said:

I believe it's because since the tightening up of the employment laws from the days of high levels of medical retirements it must be shown that a person is medically unfit to work until their state retirement age. That means unable to work in any job. So for example an officer is suffering from PTSD and so cannot work in confrontational situations that doesn't mean that he can't go and work in an office somewhere. So for medical reasons he cannot be an officer but he can leave and get another job.
Medical pensions are for people who cannot work so have to leave and without the pension would have no income.

I believe that you are wrong in that assessment. So much would depend on the illness and causes of that illness. I believe that it is aimed at the few officers who try and obtain medical retirement for very questionable reasons, and they do exist. I can only quote one who did not like the job and had not got the nerve just to resign and tried to misuse a so called medical condition, which would not have stopped him from serving. However, that being said, in the present climate it is the Chief Constable's who are abusing the medical retirement by denying officers the lawful right to do that. Full pay for 6 months, half pay for 6 months, and then SSP putting undue pressure on genuinely ill officers.

[MerseyLLB 8,426]

On 17/02/2018 at 12:37, Zulu 22 said:

I believe that you are wrong in that assessment. So much would depend on the illness and causes of that illness. I believe that it is aimed at the few officers who try and obtain medical retirement for very questionable reasons, and they do exist. I can only quote one who did not like the job and had not got the nerve just to resign and tried to misuse a so called medical condition, which would not have stopped him from serving. However, that being said, in the present climate it is the Chief Constable's who are abusing the medical retirement by denying officers the lawful right to do that. Full pay for 6 months, half pay for 6 months, and then SSP putting undue pressure on genuinely ill officers.

I may be outdated but I was of the view that medical retirement was two-tiered: medical retirement due to being unable to perform the duties of a constable (partial pension) and full I'll health pension whereby a person is unable to work again (full pension)?