Hi everyone, Questions are still being asked on our behalf in the House of Commons. As you can see below ‘died on duty’ seems to have replaced ‘killed on duty’ once more, but I would suggest that we don’t read too much into that or the fact that a definition of ‘on duty’ is being discussed. Extract from Hansard: Police Pensions: Written question - 3880 Named Day 'Named day' questions only occur in the House of Commons. The MP tabling the question specifies the date on which they should receive an answer. MPs may not table more than five named day questions on a single day. Q Asked by Sue Hayman (Workington) Asked on: 23 June 2015 Home Office Police: Pensions 3880 To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if her Department will issue guidance on the definition of on duty with regard to police officers' widows and widowers pensions. A Answered by: Mike Penning Answered on: 30 June 2015 Holding answer received on 29 June 2015 In the Budget on 18 March, the Chancellor announced that widows, widowers and surviving civil partners of police officers who have died on duty in England and Wales will no longer lose their survivors’ benefits in future if they remarry, form a civil partnership or cohabit. These pensions will not be re-instated for those who have already lost them through remarriage or cohabitation, though current rules already allow re-instatement if the 'new' relationship ends. Changes will be limited to those deaths which have occurred whilst on duty. The Home Office will consult the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales (PABEW) shortly on proposals to implement this change and this will include the definition of “on duty”. As policing is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland and Scotland, the Northern Ireland Executive and Scottish Government respectively are responsible for the design and funding of police pensions in those parts of the United Kingdom. The Government has a continuous duty to ensure that public service pensions are affordable, sustainable and fair, both for the members of those schemes and for other taxpayers. Sue has offered to table further questions on our behalf following the summer recess. I have been contacted by Steve Brine regarding the pre-election article that appeared on his website in which it was declared that all police widows were now to receive lifelong pensions: ‘I’d like to……. take the opportunity to say that there was nothing wrong with my article because as far as I am concerned the principle has been established. Clearly implementation is now the battle (always is in parliamentary terms) but rest assured that even now I am in a new post, I will continue to work with my colleagues to get this set in legislation.’ It would seem that Steve stands by his pre-election article and that of course is his prerogative. Given his response and the response sent to me on behalf of the Prime Minister stating: ‘This change in policy will not apply to all survivors of those in the 1987 police pension scheme. Instead, recognising the high risk of harm that police officers face as an everyday part of their jobs, the policy applies only to deaths that have occurred on duty.’ I have asked Steve the following question: ‘Can you clarify whether your statement, or the letter written on behalf of the Prime Minister which lists the categories of police survivors that will not benefit from the changes is correct ? As I think you will agree both of them cannot be true’. I sent my email on the 1st of July and await a reply. I have also given MP Richard Graham the opportunity to reply regarding his press release in which he congratulated me and two others, as we are not amongst the survivors that will benefit from the promised changes. He does not wish his reply to appear here but feels it ‘kinder’ if I were to explain what he has to say - it would be so much easier to cut and paste his email but here goes. The main points of his email are as follows: • Mr Penning has told Richard that everyone is absolutely committed to taking this forward - there are lots of issues involved and it is quite technical. • Richard believes that the regulations will be out during this first year of the new Parliament May 2015 – April 2016, but doesn’t know exactly who will be included in the changes until the details are published. • Richard and Steve acted with good intentions and will help see things through. • The government wishes to see things resolved for us and they want it done this year. There seems to be an on-going trend for the Policing Minister and others to point out that Scotland has the devolved powers to make the changes, so supporters in Scotland can you ask your MSP to pursue the matter with vigour in the Scottish Parliament. We need to encourage them to take the initiative and grant Scottish survivors parity with those in Northern Ireland. The government in ‘recognising the high risk of harm that police officers face as an everyday part of their jobs’ but applying the policy ‘only to deaths that have occurred on duty’ is totally contradictory as this suggests that they have recognised the fact that: • serving officers face a high risk of harm each time they are on duty • retired officers faced the same high risk of harm • officers that retired due to being injured on duty or died of injuries or suffered illness attributable to their duties - also faced this high risk of harm • officers that have died and whose spouses have remarried also faced a high risk of harm It would appear that the service of the vast majority of police officers has then been ‘weighed in the balances and found wanting’ as they were not killed on duty. I don’t doubt for one moment that the government did not intend for their words to be interpreted in this manner, but they don’t appear to have given them much thought and this is my interpretation. In order for our campaign to remain dignified we need to ask one simple question: ‘Why when you have recognised the high risk of harm faced by my husband/wife as an everyday part of his/her job, am I to be penalised as his/her widow/widower/surviving civil partner because he/she did not die on duty?” As parliament begins its summer recess on the 21st July and the House does not return until September 7th this question needs to be asked of the policing minister as soon as possible. I am assured that MPs continue to work in their constituencies during the summer recess, so it would be prudent to ask your MP to forward your letter to Mr Penning in his constituency and also write to him directly at this email address mike@penning4hemel.com – type this address into your email as for some it does not work as a link. I know that as supporters you can be relied upon to communicate in polite fashion when asking the Minister to respond to this single question. As always mark all of your communications ‘Private and Confidential’ and send copies of letters sent and replies received to me at this email: CathrynHall@outlook.com If you are having a summer break and going off on your travels please be sure to take care and stay safe. Cathryn