Photo by Greg Macvean

Photo by Ian Georgeson

Removing cops’ sick pay could lead to devastating consequences

The Scottish Police Federation is urging the force to reconsider removing discretionary sick pay from some officers

By Gemma Fraser
Head of content

Removing cops’ sick pay could lead to devastating consequences

The Scottish Police Federation is urging the force to reconsider removing discretionary sick pay from some officers

Photo by Ian Georgeson

Removing pay for police officers off sick could push them to “suicidal thoughts or actions that may be irreversible”, it has been claimed.

David Kennedy (pictured), general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation (SPF), is urging Police Scotland to reconsider its recent move to axe some discretionary sick pay arrangements – a decision driven by financial pressures facing the force.

He said the removal of pay from those absent due to terminal illness or injury is a “matter of significant seriousness and cannot be viewed purely through the lens of organisational budget pressures”.

Under the current rules, officers are entitled to six months of full pay when signed off work, followed by a further six months on half pay – but Chief Constable Jo Farrell has the discretion to allow officers to continue to receive full or half pay.

It is understood that at least 19 officers so far have been told they will not have their sick pay extended beyond the regulations.

A letter from Police Scotland’s head of human resources stated: “Due the organisation’s current financial position, the governance and scrutiny arrangements for the exercise of particular case discretion have been enhanced.”

Kennedy has written to Farrell highlighting his concerns over the potential impact that removing sick pay agreements could have on officers, as well as the lack of consultation with the SPF, which represents 98 per cent of the rank-and-file.

In his letter, seen by 1919, he wrote: “The absence of any meaningful consultation on an issue with such significant implications for officers risks undermining both the established partnership arrangements and the confidence officers have that their welfare is being properly considered.

“For officers who are already dealing with illness or injury, the sudden removal of pay can have a profound financial and personal impact. It is therefore essential that decisions of this nature are taken transparently, consistently and we would ask with appropriate engagement with the SPF.

“It is obvious that financial pressures may make some officers get back to work, but it will also push people with mental health issues to suicidal thoughts or actions that may be irreversible.

“That is why we ask that this is done appropriately and with our engagement, so that officers can be properly supported.”

“For officers who are already dealing with illness or injury, the sudden removal of pay can have a profound financial and personal impact”
David Kennedy, SPF general secretary

Figures published last year following a freedom of information request revealed that 513 officers were on long-term sick leave, having been off work for 28 days or more.

The same figures also showed that 2,253 officers were on reduced office-based roles – known as restricted or modified duties – a rise of eight per cent on 2023.

Police Scotland has been open about its financial challenges in light of a disappointing budget allocation.

The force was looking for an uplift of at least £105 million in order to “stand still”, but received only £90 million.

“This represents a challenging position that will have operational consequences and work is ongoing to establish a balanced budget,” the force letter stated.

“As a result, the organisation must reduce operating costs to meet its statutory obligation to set a balanced budget and live within its budget.”

Outlining his concerns to Farrell, Kennedy said her ability to extend sick pay on a discretionary basis “exists specifically to ensure that cases can be considered on their individual merits, taking into account the circumstances of the officer and the wider issues of welfare and fairness”.

He added: “The Federation is therefore extremely concerned by indications that financial considerations may now be influencing the exercise of that discretion, or that a de facto change in practice has occurred which effectively removes the availability of discretionary extensions.”