Police pension Regulation 36: the ill-health exclusion, and the plan to remove it

This article explains police pension Regulation 36, the rule that can shut a police officer out of ill-health benefits altogether, and the Home Office consultation on removing it. If you think you are affected, check your own position with your force’s pensions team and your staff association.

In short

• Regulation 36 lets a police force decide, before an officer joins the pension scheme, that the officer will never be able to claim ill-health benefits, on the grounds that the likely cost of providing them is too high.
• Officers excluded that way pay a lower contribution rate, exactly 2.50 percentage points below the full rate in each of the three tiers.
• In a legal challenge in 2023, the then Home Secretary conceded that the exclusion breached the Equality Act 2010.
• Forces in England and Wales were told in September 2023 to stop applying it. That instruction is three years old and was never widely publicised to members.
• Northern Ireland removed its equivalent from 1 April 2024. Scotland removed its equivalent from 1 April 2025. England and Wales are still consulting.
• The consultation closes at 11:59pm on 17 September 2026. What happens to officers already excluded is not settled by it.

What police pension Regulation 36 does

Most pension rules decide how much you get. Regulation 36 decides whether a whole category of benefit is available to you at all, and it decides it before you have served a day.

The mechanism is short. Before an officer joins the scheme, the scheme manager may require them to be examined by a selected medical practitioner. The scheme manager then takes that medical opinion, adds advice from the scheme actuary, and asks one question: is the risk that this officer will eventually retire on grounds of permanent medical unfitness high enough that the likely cost of providing them with benefits is, in the regulation’s word, disproportionate?

If the answer is yes, the regulation is blunt about the consequence. In its own words, the officer “is ineligible under this scheme for payment of ill-health benefits”.

In practice this catches officers with a pre-existing medical condition at the point of joining. The consultation describes the effect plainly: the exclusion applies where the risk of medical retirement is “assessed as disproportionately high, making the cost of providing them the benefits under the scheme excessively burdensome”, and “as a result of this exclusion, the officer pays reduced pension contribution rates as they are unable to access ill-health benefits”.

What excluded officers pay, and what they give up

An excluded officer is not simply told no. They pay less. These are the rates as at 1 April 2026.

The difference is the same in every tier: 2.50 percentage points. The consultation prints the table but does not draw that out. It matters, because it shows the discount is a flat price for the whole ill-health package, not something calculated against an individual’s circumstances.

On pay of £45,000 that is a difference of about £1,125 a year in contributions. What is given up in exchange is the entire ill-health regime: the lower-tier pension payable when you are permanently unfit for police duties, and the enhanced upper-tier pension payable when you are permanently unfit for any regular employment. Those are explained in our guide to the police pension schemes.

Two mechanical points, because they matter if you are reading the regulations yourself. Regulation 36 decides the exclusion, but the reduced contribution rate is delivered by regulations 38 and 107, which is why the consultation proposes removing the reduced rate alongside Regulation 36 rather than as part of it. And Regulation 37 is the re-test: it lets a scheme manager re-examine an already-excluded officer and, if the cost risk no longer looks disproportionate, make them eligible. Only from the date of that new determination, though. Regulation 37 does not backdate anything.

Why it is being removed

Not because of a policy rethink. Because of a court case.

The consultation puts it in one sentence: “For the purposes of a legal challenge in 2023, the then Home Secretary conceded that, in that case, the provision in Regulation 36(5) Police Pension Regulations 2015 contravened the non-discrimination rule in section 61 Equality Act 2010, by virtue of the said exclusion constituting discrimination within the meaning of sections 15 and 20 Equality Act 2010.”

Unpacking that: section 61 of the Equality Act 2010 writes a non-discrimination rule into occupational pension schemes. Section 15 covers unfavourable treatment because of something arising from a disability. Section 20 is the duty to make reasonable adjustments. The concession was that excluding an officer from ill-health benefits on cost grounds, where the cost arises from their disability, engages all three.

The Home Office document does not name the case. Northern Ireland’s Department of Justice does, in its own consultation on the equivalent Northern Irish change, identifying it as Ker v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire. The tribunal file for that claim describes a serving officer who brought “claims of disability discrimination in connection with his exclusion from entitlement to ill health retirement benefits under the police pension scheme”, having been referred to his force’s selected medical practitioner under Regulation 36.

One distinction worth holding onto. The Home Office says it conceded, in that case. The Police Federation of England and Wales has told members that “Regulation 36 of the Police Pension Regulations 2015 was found to be unlawful”. A concession in a single claim is not the same thing as a general ruling of unlawfulness, and the Home Office has been careful to say only that it is acting “consistent with the implications of that concession”. The practical effect has been much the same, but if you are weighing a past case the difference may matter.

What already changed in 2023, and why you may not know

This is the part most likely to matter to an officer reading this, and it is three years old.

In September 2023, forces in England and Wales were issued instructions that took effect immediately and remain in force until further notice. Scheme managers were advised not to require applicants to undergo examinations by a selected medical practitioner. Where such examinations had already happened, eligibility for ill-health benefits “should be determined in favour of the applicants”. Previous determinations of ineligibility “should be withdrawn if they had not yet taken effect”. Appeals were to be decided in favour of applicants. New members were to pay full contributions without the reductions.

In other words, the exclusion has effectively been switched off since autumn 2023. The consultation tidies up a rule that is already not being applied.

There is a group the 2023 instruction deliberately did not reach, and the consultation is candid about it: “For applicants previously deemed ineligible and whose applications are no longer active, they continue to be treated as ineligible and pay reduced contributions until further notice.”

So an officer excluded before September 2023, whose case was closed, is still excluded and still paying the reduced rate today.

Scotland and Northern Ireland did this years ago

The police pension schemes of the three UK jurisdictions all carried the same exclusion. Two of them have already removed it, and both did so by legislation rather than by consultation.

• Northern Ireland, from 1 April 2024. The Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024 provide, at regulation 10, that “Chapter 4 (Eligibility for payment of ill-health benefits) shall cease to have effect from 1st April 2024”.
• Scotland, from 1 April 2025. The Police Pension Scheme (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2025 provide, at regulation 3, that “Chapter 4 (eligibility for payment of ill-health benefits) of Part 4 (scheme membership) ceases to have effect from 1 April 2025”. The same instrument raised the Scottish member contribution rate from 13.46% to 13.7%, a change its explanatory note describes as consequential to the removal.
• England and Wales. Still consulting, in September 2026.

Scotland is the closer parallel, because it made the same trade: remove the exclusion, and adjust contributions to pay for it. It did so sixteen months before England and Wales opened a consultation on the idea.

What the consultation proposes

Two things, together. Remove Regulation 36, so a scheme manager can no longer exclude anyone from ill-health benefits. And remove the reduced contribution rate, “effectively putting all members onto the full contribution rate”.

For an officer currently on the reduced rate, that is a trade. Contributions rise by 2.50 percentage points, and in exchange they “will start accruing rights to ill-health benefits from the date the proposed amendments come into effect”.

The word doing the work in that sentence is accruing. The entitlement is forward-looking. It starts on a future implementation date and builds from there.

Getting money back: the question it does not answer

If you were excluded for years, paid a reduced rate for those years, and are now told the exclusion should never have applied, do you get anything back?

The consultation addresses this four times and does not say the same thing twice.

In the questions section it is a commitment: “A second consultation will follow in due course to seek views on whether any changes should apply retrospectively”.

Elsewhere it is conditional, three times over. The retrospective stage “may be consulted on in due course, depending on the outcome of this consultation”. A second consultation “may be launched to focus on retrospective remedies”. And “a second consultation may be launched by the government in due course… subject to the outcome of this consultation”.

One “will” against three “may”, with the three tying it to the outcome of the current round. The Police Federation told members in January 2025 that the Home Office had committed to addressing those already denied benefits as the regulation was rewritten, and expected that rewrite in the first half of 2025. The consultation now running is dated August 2026.

The fair reading is that retrospection is expected but not promised, and that nothing in the document is a basis for counting on money coming back.

Three things the document does not say

A consultation’s gaps say as much as its text. Three stand out.

• How many officers are affected. The document contains no figure at all, for serving officers, for retired ones, or for how many exclusions were ever made. Nor has the Home Office, the Police Federation or the Scheme Advisory Board published one elsewhere that we could find.
• When it takes effect. The phrase “the implementation date” appears repeatedly. A date does not.
• What happens to Regulation 37. The 2023 instructions to forces covered “regulations 36 and 37” together. This consultation proposes removing Regulation 36 alone and never mentions 37 again. Since Regulation 37 exists only to re-test people excluded under Regulation 36, removing 36 would appear to leave it with nothing to do. The document does not say whether it goes too.

The Equality Impact Assessment is also still to come: the document says one “will be undertaken alongside any proposed changes”, which places it after this consultation rather than before it.

How to respond, and by when

The consultation runs for four weeks, from 20 August 2026 to 11:59pm on 17 September 2026. It covers England and Wales.

There are two routes. The online survey, or email to PolicePensionConsultations@homeoffice.gov.uk. The full document is on GOV.UK as Police Pension Scheme 2015: Regulation 36, including an accessible HTML version.

It asks four questions: whether Regulation 36 should be removed; whether removing it along with the reduced rates achieves the aim of letting all members accrue ill-health entitlement from the implementation date; whether doing so could cause unintended consequences; and whether it could have wider regulatory impacts across the Police Pension Regulations.

Anyone may respond. The Home Office says it is “particularly interested to hear from interested parties from the policing sector”.

Common questions

How do I know if Regulation 36 applied to me?

The clearest signal is your contribution rate. If it is 2.50 percentage points below the full rate for your pay tier, that is the reduced rate. Your force’s pensions team can confirm whether an exclusion was recorded and when.

I joined after September 2023. Does any of this affect me?

The 2023 instructions told forces that new members should pay full contributions without the reductions, and that scheme managers should not require the medical examination. If you joined after that and are paying the full rate, the exclusion has not been applied to you.

Will my contributions go up?

If you are currently on the reduced rate and the proposal goes ahead, yes, by 2.50 percentage points, and you would begin building ill-health entitlement from the implementation date. If you already pay the full rate, nothing changes.

Will I be repaid the difference for past years?

Not decided, and not decided by this consultation. Retrospection is being held over to a possible second consultation, which the document describes as conditional on the outcome of this one in three places and as a commitment in one.

Does this apply in Scotland or Northern Ireland?

No, and neither needs it to. This is a Home Office consultation covering England and Wales. Northern Ireland removed its equivalent from 1 April 2024 and Scotland from 1 April 2025, both by amending regulations rather than by consulting first.

What if I think I was wrongly excluded?

The route is your force’s internal dispute resolution procedure first, then the Pensions Ombudsman if it remains unresolved. The Ombudsman looks at how a decision was made rather than re-running a medical assessment. Your staff association will also have a view on where the 2023 instructions leave closed cases.

Pension Plain’s take

The striking thing here is not the removal. It is the calendar.

The exclusion stopped being applied in England and Wales in September 2023. Northern Ireland legislated it away from April 2024. Scotland followed from April 2025. England and Wales opened a four-week consultation on the principle in August 2026, and the rule is still on the statute book today. Three jurisdictions, the same provision, the same legal problem, and a three-year spread in the response.

The second thing is the shape of the deal. Removing the exclusion is presented as one change, but it is two: officers gain ill-health cover and pay more for it. That is defensible, and it is what equal treatment means in a contributory scheme. It is also the reason the retrospection question will not go away, because the people most affected have already paid the reduced rate for years without ever having had the choice, and a group of them are paying it still.

No figure has been published for how many officers that is. For a change prompted by a concession under the Equality Act, that absence is the most surprising thing in the document. If you are one of them, question 3, on unintended consequences, is the one with room in it.

This article is for general information and is not financial, legal or medical advice. Pension Plain is not authorised or regulated by the FCA. Scheme rules and individual circumstances vary, so check your own position with your force’s pensions team and seek regulated advice where a decision is significant. Free, impartial guidance is available from MoneyHelper.

Key sources

• Home Office, Police Pension Scheme 2015: Regulation 36, published 20 August 2026, closing 17 September 2026.
• The Police Pensions Regulations 2015, regulations 36 and 37.
• The Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024, regulation 10.
• The Police Pension Scheme (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2025, regulation 3.
• Police Federation of England and Wales, pensions newsletter, January 2025.

Fact-checked: 14 September 2026