Local Government Pension Scheme in England and Wales - Access and Fairness

For an offence to be a “relevant offence” for the purposes of the forfeiture regulations, the member must have left employment because of the offence. This means that there have been cases where a member is convicted in connection with their employment, but the member has already left the employment before the crime was discovered, and so a forfeiture application could not be made.  

The government proposes to remove the requirement that a member must have left their employment because of the offence in order for the LGPS employer to be able to make an application for a forfeiture certificate or to recover against a monetary obligation. There would be no change to the threshold for when the Secretary of State can issue a forfeiture certificate, nor the requirement that the member is no longer in employment. The LGPS employer would still take the final decision on whether to forfeit benefits and, if so, the extent of the benefits forfeited. Benefits already paid out would not fall within scope of forfeiture. 

This proposal would allow for applications for forfeiture certificates to be made regardless of whether the individual left employment because of the offence, ensuring that historic crimes and those where the member sought to conceal their actions can be within scope of the forfeiture provisions. It would also bring the LGPS in line with other public service pension schemes on this issue, including the NHS Pension Scheme, the Police Pension Scheme, the Civil Service Pension Scheme and the Teachers' Pension Scheme.   

This proposed amendment to regulation 91 would not be retrospective. The change would not apply to any application for a forfeiture certificate in respect of a relevant offence of which a member was convicted on or before three months before the coming-into-force date of the new regulations. LGPS employers would not be able to bring an application in respect of any offence for which the current time limits had expired, i.e., a case where more than 3 months has expired from the date of conviction. 

The government has also considered if there would be any indirect retrospective adverse effect from the proposal. A member who committed an offence in relation to their employment before this amendment came into force, left their employment for a reason other than the offence, and who is subsequently convicted of said offence within three months of the coming into force date (or afterwards), could be in scope of forfeiture. For the overwhelming majority of law-abiding LGPS members, this amendment would have no effect. The amendment would potentially be relevant to a very small number of members who have committed and are subsequently convicted of an offence in connection with their employment. If an application for a forfeiture certificate is made and granted in respect of such a member, that may result in a reduction of the pension payable to that member. However, whilst the member may see this as an adverse effect, the government does not consider that this can be attributed to the broadening of the circumstances in which a forfeiture application can be brought. The government’s view is that this should be seen as an adverse effect of the member’s own criminal conduct and that such adverse effects, if they materialised, would not be significant in the context of the scheme as a whole. The government’s view is that the enhanced consultation procedure under section 23 of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 therefore does not apply.