The Police Pensions (Remediable Service) Regulations 2023
Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.
Change 1
51 Deciding whether a 1987 IHR member is entitled to an upper tier award
(1) This regulation applies where— (a) M is a 1987 IHR member, and (b) the question of whether M is permanently medically unfit for engaging in any regular employment within the meaning of Part 6 of the 2015 Regulations has not been referred to a selected medical practitioner. (2) The police pension authority must refer the following questions to a selected medical practitioner— (a) whether M was, at time of the original decision or at any time during the relevant period, medically unfit for engaging in any regular employment, and (b) whether that medical unfitness was likely to be permanent. (3) The selected medical practitioner must— (a) examine or interview M if the selected medical practitioner thinks it is necessary to do so to decide either of the questions referred under paragraph (2), (b) decide the questions referred under paragraph (2), and (c) give the police pension authority and M a report containing a decision on those questions. (4) Regulation 81(3) of, and Schedule 1 to, the 2015 Regulations applies to the report mentioned in paragraph (3)(c) as they apply in relation to the report mentioned in regulation 81(2)(c) of those Regulations. (5) For the purpose of deciding the questions in paragraph (2)— (a) the selected medical practitioner may only have regard to information that was available or could have been produced during the relevant period; (b) the following provisions of the 2015 Regulations apply as they apply for the purpose of deciding a question under Part 6 of those Regulations— (i) regulation 75(2) to (4) (receipt of appropriate medical treatment); (ii) regulation 76(3)(c) and (d) (criteria for deciding whether a member is permanently medically unfit for engaging in any regular employment). (6) Where the selected medical practitioner decides both of the questions referred under paragraph (2) in the affirmative, M is to be treated for the purposes of PSPJOA 2022 and of these Regulations as meeting the requirements for an upper tier award in the reformed scheme (as defined in regulation 50(3) of these Regulations). (7) Schedule 1 of the 2015 Regulations applies in relation to a report containing a decision of the selected medical practitioner in accordance with this regulation as it applies in relation to a report by the selected practitioner containing a medical decision in accordance with those Regulations. (8) In this regulation— “medical unfitness” has the meaning given in regulation 74(1) of the 2015 Regulations; “original decision” means the decision under Part H of the 1987 Regulations by virtue of which M was deemed permanently disabled; “progressive medical condition” means a medical condition which— of its nature, could have been expected, as at the time of M’s retirement, to affect M with increasing severity, and is a progressive medical condition within the meaning given by regulation 112(6) of the 2015 Regulations. “relevant period” means the period— beginning with the time of the original decision, and ending on the earlier of— except where the original decision attributed M’s permanent disablement a progressive medical condition, five years after the time of the original decision; the beginning of the day on which M reaches 60 years of age; the time when an immediate choice decision or a deferred choice decision is made, or deemed to be made, in relation to M’s remediable police service.
51 Deciding whether a 1987 IHR member is entitled to an upper tier award
(1) This regulation applies where— (a) M is a 1987 IHR member, and (b) the question of whether M is permanently medically unfit for engaging in any regular employment within the meaning of Part 6 of the 2015 Regulations has not been referred to a selected medical practitioner. (2) The police pension authority must refer the following questions to a selected medical practitioner— (a) whether M was, at time of the original decision or at any time during the relevant period, medically unfit for engaging in any regular employment, and (b) whether that medical unfitness was likely to be permanent. (3) The selected medical practitioner must— (a) examine or interview M if the selected medical practitioner thinks it is necessary to do so to decide either of the questions referred under paragraph (2), (b) decide the questions referred under paragraph (2), and (c) give the police pension authority and M a report containing a decision on those questions. (4) Regulation 81(3) of, and Schedule 1 to, the 2015 Regulations applies to the report mentioned in paragraph (3)(c) as they apply in relation to the report mentioned in regulation 81(2)(c) of those Regulations. (5) For the purpose of deciding the questions in paragraph (2)— (a) the selected medical practitioner may only have regard to information that was available or could have been produced during the relevant period; (b) the following provisions of the 2015 Regulations apply as they apply for the purpose of deciding a question under Part 6 of those Regulations— (i) regulation 75(2) to (4) (receipt of appropriate medical treatment); (ii) regulation 76(3)(c) and (d) (criteria for deciding whether a member is permanently medically unfit for engaging in any regular employment). (6) Where the selected medical practitioner decides both of the questions referred under paragraph (2) in the affirmative, M is to be treated for the purposes of PSPJOA 2022 and of these Regulations as meeting the requirements for an upper tier award in the reformed scheme (as defined in regulation 50(3) of these Regulations). (7) Schedule 1 of the 2015 Regulations applies in relation to a report containing a decision of the selected medical practitioner in accordance with this regulation as it applies in relation to a report by the selected practitioner containing a medical decision in accordance with those Regulations. (8) In this regulation— “medical unfitness” has the meaning given in regulation 74(1) of the 2015 Regulations; “original decision” means the decision under Part H of the 1987 Regulations by virtue of which M was deemed permanently disabled; “progressive medical condition” means a medical condition which— of its nature, could have been expected, as at the time of M’s retirement, to affect M with increasing severity, and is a progressive medical condition within the meaning given by regulation 112(6) of the 2015 Regulations. “relevant period” means the period— beginning with the time of the original decision, and ending on the earlier of— except where the original decision attributed M’s permanent disablement a progressive medical condition, five years after the time of the original decision; the beginning of the day on which M reaches 60 years of age; the time when an immediate choice decision or a deferred choice decision is made, or deemed to be made, in relation to M’s remediable police service.
One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".
Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.
How this law is officially changed
Solon does not know this law's official route yet. The proposal is recorded all the same, and the route appears here once its source is added.
A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.
Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.
Sign in to file itThink it through
Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.