16 December 2021
West Midlands Police Federation chair Rich Cooke has welcomed a High Court judge’s ruling that the Government’s actions on police pension reform were unlawful.
The findings of a Judicial Review launched by the Police Superintendents’ Association (PSA) published yesterday (15 December) ruled the consultation on public services pensions schemes carried out this year was unlawful and that the Government had breached its Public Sector Equality Duty.
“I really welcome this news. The ruling is a clear shot across the bows of the Government that it cannot simply pay lip service to the very real problems, unfairnesses and arguably further discrimination, its proposed pension reforms will bring,” said Rich.
“The Government consultation was unlawful and it has failed to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty. It now has to put that right and I believe the Government can only do so by taking on board our concerns and making radical changes or, better still, abandoning its plans altogether by doing the right thing of letting all officers retire on the pension they signed up to in good faith.
“This ruling also shows the power we can bring to bear when we work in close collaboration with other representative bodies like the PSA. Members should be in no doubt that while the Federation did not front this action, it was very much at the centre of it providing financial and expert support.
“None of this will take away the very real anxiety and stress caused to many officers near to retirement and pondering their future, but we are considering new test cases all the time to make sure these affronts do no go without consequence and are actioned wherever possible.”
Officers are set to be forced into the 2015 Police (CARE) Pension Scheme on 1 April next year while many are unable to obtain their retirement settlement figures until April 2025 because the transition processes remain unclear.
The PSA claimed the Government consultation process was unlawful and unfair as it did not consider more than 3,000 responses. The High Court judge agreed and highlighted the “highly unsatisfactory” way in which the Government supplied documents and evidence.