Penalising pensions
Police Superintendents’ Association national secretary Dan Murphy has shared details of his correspondence with the (National Police Chiefs’ Council) NPCC and Home Office over the issue of unfair pension provisions. The Home Office has yet to respond.
Year after year, we push for fair conditions of service for our members and the wider workforce, using data, insight and evidence.
We work within the processes dictated by government, following the legal and procedural frameworks set out by those in power, to influence major issues such as police pay and pensions.
We don’t always agree with government and we don’t always achieve our aims, but when fair processes are followed, with legitimate rationale, it is something we can accept.
We cannot however accept the situation facing thousands of police officers today, resulting from a lack of willing on the part of the Home Office to rectify major problems linked to police pensions.
We have communicated widely on the complex issues caused by the remedy put in place to deal with the age discrimination resulting from changes to police pensions. Despite a High Court Judge finding the government’s consultation around these changes to be unlawful, they have progressed and the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill has been passed.
What is not widely understood however, is the massive issue affecting a large cohort of officers soon to retire. Because of nothing more than their age and the date at which they joined the service, thousands of officers set to retire this year, simply cannot access their pension calculations, and as it stands, will not be able to access them before October 2023 at the earliest. They are told by their chief officers that these details just aren’t available, and many will retire on the wrong pension because the true figures are unknown. Why? Because the government has not produced guidance to enable chief officers to provide this crucial information. They did, then it was withdrawn, and to date nothing new has been published.
The second issue relates to what is known as ‘the commutation cap’. Again, for nothing other than differences in age, officers approaching retirement are being offered completely different retirement options. All parties are in agreement that this is nonsensical and formal agreement has been reached that it should be changed, as it now has been in Scotland, but between the NPCC and the Home Office, no one will agree to pay the initial costs needed to fix the issue. Overall, it is cost neutral, there will be no negative financial impact on any organisation. However, there is no willing by politicians, Home Office officials or police leaders to deal with the unfair treatment of officers nearing two or three decades of dedicated public service.
We have exhausted every formal route available to us to get these issues addressed. I share these letters to demonstrate publicly the clear facts in front of us, and the responses we receive. The NPCC clearly shares our frustration regarding immediate detriment but simply says its hands are tied, and the Home Office does not even acknowledge receipt of our letters.
We must ask how the government has found the time and resource to change legislation to move people out of their final salary pension schemes, but do not have the time or resource to change legislation to prevent officers suffering this immediate detriment. We have asked this question and receive nothing but silence in response.
Where does this leave our police officers? What picture does this paint for those being encouraged to enter the service?
