In the Judicial Review hearing, the DCLG argued that age discrimination was not that mainreason for removing the 85 Rule and limiting protection to 2016.  They said that cost was the key factor in their decision.

In his decision, the judge ruled that:

• It was not necessary to show that age discrimination was the "dominant" factor in DCLG's decision, just that they were influenced by it .
• Even if the DCLG had interpreted the European Directive on age discrimination wrongly, they would still have made the decision to end the 85 Rule on cost grounds.
• Age discrimination did not "colour" the 2005/2006 consultation on the Government's interpretation of the Directive.
• Cost and financial viability of the scheme were "major considerations"
• The consultation process was not flawed.  It was based on extensive discussions between the Government and the unions.
• DCLG were able to rely on advice from the Government Actuary's Department (GAD) because of those discussions.
• The 85 Rule is discriminatory under Article 2 (2) of the European Directive because the distinguishing feature of the different treatment of scheme members is age, however......
• The 85 Rule was not exempt from the Directive because it is based on criteria other than age i.e. length of service
• DCLG opted for the protection provisions "which better fitted the economic considerations" and these were justified.

What next?

Since we have not been successful with the Judicial Review, it is important that we now intensify our campaign amongst employers, funds, Councillors and MP's for full use of the 50% "savings" with no decrease in the employers contribution.  GAD have already said that full protection could be afforded and we know that also applies to the Trade Union Side's proposals for improving the scheme for the future.