Lib Dems reveal police pension costs up 50% in five years
Share
The Liberal Democrats are calling for an independent commission on public sector pensions after research revealed that the cost of police pensions has soared by 50 per cent in the last five years.
Figures uncovered by Freedom of Information requests to British police forces show the annual cost of pensions in 2008/09 was £2bn, compared to £1.3bn in 2004/05.
The figures also reveal that the annual cost of police pensions is projected to rise by 14 per cent in the next three years.
The average retirement age of police in 2008/09 was 51.3 years, with the cost of pensions equivalent to a fifth of the total cost of police forces in England and Wales.
Liberal Democrat Work and Pensions spokesman Lord Oakeshott says: “Making public sector pension costs affordable for taxpayers who have to foot the bill will be an acid test for Britain’s credit rating in the next parliament.
“Many police officers now draw their index-linked pensions for almost as long as they serve in the police. No country can pay pensions for as long as people work, let alone Britain with its deep financial deficit.
“We must set up an independent commission, a Turner mark II, to make public sector pension costs affordable, sustainable and fair to all.”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (42)
Anonymous | 6 Apr 2010 4:28 pm
Why is the average age of retirement for police officers 51.3?
How many have been fully pensioned off on grounds of "ill health" and yet are now fully employed elsewhere?
Wake up all UK taxpayers and revolt. It's time to end this gravy train for all public sector employees!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 6 Apr 2010 8:00 pm
Public Sector pention changes will never happen, it wont be long before we will all have to work until we are 80 to pay for all these 50 year old moonlighters
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
joe craig | 10 Apr 2010 1:14 am
The reason the Police Pensions bill has rocketed recently is because the Police had a huge recruiting campaign approx.30 yrs ago and officers who joined then are now eligible to retire after 30 yrs service, which was part of the contract they were obliged to take if they wanted to join.
The terms of the Police Pension scheme were dictated by the Government and it was compulsory to join the scheme and recruits were forbidden to jon any other scheme at that time.
It is also worth mentioning that Constables & Sergeants are normally required to retire at 55 yrs.BY LAW, Inspectors and above at 60 yrs.
If an officer remains in the Force after completing his 30 yrs contract he still MUST pay his pension contributiin of 11.2% into the pension scheme but does not receive a\ny extra pensiin for thse contributiins after 30 yrs service. This is not conducive to encouraging men to stay on after completion the 30 yrs service contract they joined under.
Police Officers only receive what they were promised when they joined and had to accept if they wished to embark on a Police career.
Police pensiins are covered by the Police Pensions Act 1921 and amedning regulatiins made thereunder in succeeding years.
I believe part of the reason the pension scheme was made so attractive was to induce men into the Force as recruiting and retaining officers has often been difficult and,indeed, when I joined the Pension Scheme was dangled as a recruiting `carrot.'
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Scott Read | 29 Apr 2010 3:49 pm
Police pensions have recently been reformed. Up until four years ago officers only had to work 30 years before they could retire. This has now been upped to 35 years so your are getting more service dfor your money. Please Also don't forget that unlike other pension plans police officers have to pay 10% of there salery into their pensions each year.
Police do a very demanding and stressful job, not even accounting for the dangers they face daily. They give us a commitment that goes beyond the amount they are paid and now you want to reduce the light at the end if their tunnel!
The police do a fantastic job to which they can't be paid enough!
Not forgetting that the police have had their anual pay rise decreased to 2%.
Thank you to our boys (& girls) in blue!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 9 Jun 2010 11:19 pm
hear hear Scott Read, I totally agree. You can cut back and look at many public services but we all have to depend on the police. What about the fire service? I am not saying they do a good job when required but they do spend alot of time getting paid for sleeping. You wont find a police officer sleeping on a night shift.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rob | 13 Jun 2010 5:44 am
11 per cent of your monthly wage is alot of money for 30 years. In america the police retire after 22 years.30 years in the police force this day and age is more than enough !!
The police are the only public sector service that pays so much of their wage into their pension pot and they do a very good job that many of us would never do. So like the armed services ( whose pension is non contributary incidently !!) support the people that allow you to sleep safe at night.!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris MCEVILLY | 16 Jun 2010 1:00 pm
I joined the police 27 years ago attracted by the Pension Scheme. I had to miss out on the New Years Eve Parties and Christmas Eve nights out whilst the yuppies partied and boasted about their riches in the Private Sector. My reward was waiting for me at the end of my service be it as a middle aged man. I have paid 11% of all my income since leaving school to this scheme. Now at in the twilight of my career with a spine damaged in 2 places and damaged knees and bite scars (all gathered as a police officer), as I look forward to my retirement to a normal life, where my wife and children don't need to wonder whether I'll come home in one piece or at all, you want to have a go at my pension? I think I've earned, it. Take my advice steer well clear of the Police Pensions or you will face unprecedented resignation and indignancy and recruits that would be an embarassment to our great Nation. Leave Plod alone and he/ she'll continue to look out for you. Cherish it don't abuse it. We care, that's why we do it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mark | 16 Jun 2010 1:07 pm
Quite right, 11% contributions over a 30 year time frame goes a long way unlike some public sector pensions which are non-contributory. Regulations did indeed change in that new officers now have to contribute for 35 years!!! Don't let us lose sight of the fact that many retired Police officers are living longer and therefore the pension is paid over a longer period. I can foresee many early retirements and resignations should the issue of reducing the pension or increasing time in post as most senior officers in terms of service are in the "pension trap",
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17 Jun 2010 12:09 pm
Being a serving police officer I have a vested interest in this topic. As many have mentioned before we do pay 11% of our salary which is a fair chunk, and do not as most people seem to think are just handed our pension. I refuse to say sorry that officers are now living longer and with an ageing population its not just us.
One point that I am yet to see mentioned is that the government is stating that its ok to change the rules of the game as and when they see fit. So in the private sector the same will apply. People who plan for old age should be allowed to do just that plan life may well get in the way but if you have joined under certain terms you should serve under those terms changes have already been made to the scheme and I expect to see further changes in the future. In the private sector the term is continuation of contract are we now saying that contracts mean nothing?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
mac | 19 Jun 2010 11:05 am
I didn't realise that police officers paid so much into their pension. 11% from day one is a lot more than anyone else. I don't suppose many private sector employees pay that kind of percentage from the day they start working. I do think there is a need for a far more balanced debate. It's quite clear that you can't bandy together 'the public sector' and treat them all the same. The sector is made up of millions of people who do vastly different jobs under very different terms and conditions. You can't group together civil servants paying 1.5 % contribution, police (and fire service I think) paying 11% and soldiers in afghanistan 0%, and treat them all the same. Personally I think there is a lot that needs to be done in the public sector before we start taking away pensions from people who put their lives on the line for us and keep us safe.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment